Giving charity without considering whether the place and time are good or bad, to unworthy recipients, without respect or with contempt, is called Tamas charity. Tamas charity is given disrespectfully and contemptuously. That means when giving charity, all these factors may not be present together. The recipient may be unworthy, they may show contempt, and they may not consider the place and time. Even if one or two of these occur, it becomes Tamas. Either the recipient is not proper. Or they give without considering the place and time. Or if they give, it is with disrespect. There is no respect in it. Or they give with disregard and insult. "These people just keep coming, how many should I give to?" saying this, they give and then tell them to leave. Farmers have such a habit. When farmers are harvesting, many beggars come to ask, many beggars come to take charity. Millet, peanuts. So they do just this. That "so many of them keep coming." They give, their hand is generous, but their tongue is like an axe. [blank] Tamas charity is given disrespectfully and contemptuously. "These people just keep coming, there is no end to it, the human race itself is bad." The race of beggars is bad. Not humans. The race of beggars itself is bad. They vent their anger with two or three such remarks and still give. So the other person hardens their ears and takes it, and then feels happy that, "Well, no problem, our trip was successful." Tamas charity is given disrespectfully and contemptuously. [blank] What does the recipient know? It makes no difference at all. For the recipient, they have received charity, so they have benefited; it only depends on how much is given. [blank] If it is taken by causing distress, it does not bring much happiness. And if it is given happily, then it brings happiness to them, it brings happiness when using it. Otherwise, since they are taking it, they become a debtor. Anyone who takes charity, perhaps it is said to be the right of a Brahmin. And that is if they live with such an attitude. Even if they live by the charity of performing sacrifices, after performing sacrifices, this begging attitude of Brahmins is called the lowest attitude. Even if it is their right, it is still the lowest attitude; if nothing else works out, then do this. If livelihood is maintained by performing sacrifices, then there is no need to take charity. And if charity is taken by causing distress to someone. Then if their heart is hurt, they say that sometimes they have to give out of shame or embarrassment. And it is the duty of a householder, as religious householders believe, that once someone has come, they should not be sent away completely empty-handed. So now that he has come, we will have to tolerate him somehow, they say. Therefore, it does not bring much happiness to them. If given happily, saying, "Brother, why haven't you been seen lately? Come to our house," and then they give, then it brings much happiness to them. If it is ill-gotten wealth and someone donates it, is it considered Rajas charity or Tamas for them? It is said in the scriptures that if one donates ill-gotten wealth, it does not bear fruit. For example, if someone steals or snatches from another, snatches unjustly and dishonestly, and then donates it. Then the fruit goes to the rightful owner, and this person incurs the sin of dishonesty. This is also said in the Shikshapatri, in the large Shikshapatri. [blank] Maharaj said, do not steal even for religious purposes. That means, it is said not to steal even for religious activities. It means that stealing, or theft, is not just taking something when someone is absent. That is why Maharaj said not to perform the act of stealing. All this is considered the act of stealing, when someone does not wish to give, and there is a high official and people under him, or a boss and people under him, and then that official comes to our house and says, "Yes, where did you get this furniture from?" [blank] "We also want to get it." "We also want to get it for the office." So this person feels that since they need to get work done from him, they must give it to him. He praised it for that reason, as if asking for it. So he is said to have performed an act of stealing. It is not like taking it in their absence, but it is said to be an act of stealing. The other person did not wish to give, it was taken by force, and taken through clever tricks, hence it is theft. So they do not get its fruit. Then suppose he thinks that he should also give charity, so he takes it and gives it to another. Then it does not bear fruit. The one who gave it, the original owner, ethically the rightful owner, gets its fruit. And this person incurs the sin of performing the act of stealing. And if it comes well to the other person, it brings happiness, otherwise if it came with distress, and everyone's attachment was in it, they call it attachment, right? If there was distress like, "Oh, why did I take this and where did it go?" if distress went with it. Then no one becomes happy by using that object. The one who takes the charity does not become happy, the giver also does not become happy, and the fruit goes to the other person, but even that poor person is left with distress. Giving charity without considering whether the place and time are good or bad, to unworthy recipients, without respect or with contempt. [blank] It is said in the Harililamrut, right? That if given happily, it is like milk. And if taken somewhat by force, it is like blood, like water, and if snatched completely. If taken in any way they like, then it is said to be like blood. That means, if a mango falls from the tree on its own when ripe, it is very sweet. If the mango is harvested after ripening, it remains somewhat good, normal. If brought down by throwing a stone, it becomes very sour. If plucked forcefully, it becomes very sour, so it affects the fruit in that way, for both the recipient and the giver of charity. Here, only the giver is mentioned, the recipient is not mentioned. Tamas charity is given disrespectfully and contemptuously. "These people just keep coming, there is no end to it, the race of beggars itself is bad," saying such contemptuous and insulting words, they then give whatever they have to give. Moreover, in improper place and time, they do not consider holy time or holy place at all. In their minds, there is no mahima for the words of the scriptures. For them, only the mahima of what they themselves give keeps echoing. Moreover, to unworthy recipients, they do not consider the worthiness of the recipient. [blank] That Ramnarayanji Kedia, right? He had taken them to his village. Huh? Jhunjhunu is a district. Binjusar, Binjusar was his village. Jhunjhunu is the district, then we stayed there, I and Muktavallabh Swami had gone. So he wanted to establish a gurukul there, saying, "It is my ancestors' land. You establish a gurukul there, I will give the land and one crore rupees." [blank] "You establish a gurukul." "And then, however much you bring from others or put from the institution, I alone will match that amount." "But you establish a gurukul there. These are my sons, this is our ancestors' land," because he had attachment to his own land. So he had built a college there. He had built other schools, and he was very well-off. So he said, "I will give you." So you do it, but it was very far for us. Now we said, "If you do it in Jhunjhunu, it would be good." Jhunjhunu is a district. And from there, Jhunjhunu is 20-25 kilometers from his village. Now, teachers would not be available there, and in Rajasthan villages there are no facilities, nothing. This village was good. Then he was saying that his son's name is Ratanlal. When our Ratan goes, he donates one lakh rupees every day there. If he stays for a week, it becomes seven lakhs. Anyone comes and says, "I want a camel," camels are more common in Rajasthan. "I want this, I want this," no questions asked, just give it. So if he stays for a day, he donates one lakh rupees every day. And if he stays for seven days, 15 days, then that many lakhs are donated. So there are such people. Now, how can that be called distressful? If someone came, he would actually feel happy. This old man man Mind. One of the four antah-karans, with the function of (pronounced mun) generating thoughts and desires, and governing all of the indriyas. Tap to open in glossary → "This is our land." So he asked his daughter, his son, and everyone, and everyone was happy, saying, "No, no, just give it." But it was awkward for us, so we did not take it. Moreover, there are givers of charity who give charity happily, with a happy heart. And such charity bears fruit for them. The user becomes happy, otherwise if the recipients took it by causing much distress, or if many people's attachment was in it, then it does not turn out well. It was mentioned in the Dhiraj Akhyan, right? That mongoose, in that sage's charity, the sage fed others and washed his hands. And where it became wet, the mongoose rolled. The mongoose is long and the water was a bit less, so he became half wet, so he turned into gold and the other half did not. Then the half mongoose, to make himself completely golden, rolled wherever there was such a place where hands were washed on the ground. AI translation of the Gujarati transcript above, produced in the same pass that transcribed the audio, one English segment per Gujarati segment. Devotional and technical terms with no precise English equivalent (kirtan, satsang, vasana, samskara, and similar) are kept as their plain transliteration rather than force-translated. Not human-proofread., AI-translated, unverified · Source details