Prabhupada’s Money Analogy and the Politics of Doing the Right Thing
By a Dasa (Steven J. Rosen)
According to Srila Prabhupada, one can gauge a person’s spiritual status by how they react to finding money on the street: Do they keep it for themselves? Do they leave it lying there? Or do they look for the original owner? What would you do?
In Sanskrit, there are three terms that cover the gamut of possible reactions to finding money in the street: bhoga, (enjoyment); tyaga (renunciation); and seva (a service attitude). In Prabhupada’s “money analogy,” a bhogi is one who finds money in the street and uses it for his own purposes. This is the enjoying spirit to which most people are slaves. Their senses dictate what they do. The world is meant for their pleasure. If they find something that doesn’t belong to them, no matter, they will use it as they see fit.
A step beyond this is the tyagi. Here is someone who realizes the value of renunciation. Such a person has risen beyond the usual pleasures of the world and is now rejoicing in more subtle forms of material enjoyment. At best, they know that nothing in this world truly belongs to them, and they are thus willing to relinquish the enjoying spirit. In Prabhupada’s analogy, this person leaves the money in the street: “It’s not mine, and I have nothing to do with it.”
As laudable as this approach might at first seem, a superior mode of behavior quickly reveals itself to a thoughtful person. The money left in the street obviously belongs to someone. Why not pick it up and give it back to its original owner? If it is at all possible to discern who left the money there in the first place, wouldn’t the best course of action involve returning it to that person? This is called seva, or service.
But this is all to illustrate an analogy.
If we take the accouterments of this world and use it in God’s service — for it all obviously belongs to Him — we are then properly reacting to the phenomena we see around us. Otherwise, we are merely thieves.
Sometimes Prabhupada would use this same analogy to highlight three other Sanskrit words: karma, jnana, and bhakti, which are closely related to the other three words mentioned above. Prabhupada’s use of the analogy is always enlightening:
There is another example. Just like somebody drops his money bag, unconsciously drops. So somebody picks up and he thinks, “Oh, here is so much money. Put it in my pocket.” [laughter] He’s a thief. He’s a thief. That is karmi. Karmi is trying to simply take from God’s property and put it in his own pocket. That is karmi. “Bring me more. Bring me more. Bring me more.” And the jnani, he sees that one purse is there, somebody has left, so “Why shall I touch it? Let it remain there.” He doesn’t touch
anyone’s property. Jnani: “Why shall I be criminal? Let it remain.” He’s jnani. But a bhakta, he finds a purse, so what his duty? He does not put it into his back pocket; neither does he throw it away — “let it stay there.” He finds out, “Who is the proprietor? Who is the proprietor?” So he can ask somebody if anyone has lost anything. So somebody says, “Yes, yes. I have lost my purse.” So you can examine whether it belongs to him: “I will now examine it. Sir, here is the purse.” “Yes, it is mine.” So these three men, who is best? Hmm? The man who takes the purse and puts it in his pocket — is he the best? Or is it the man who neglects it? This second one says, brahma satyam jagan mithya, “Why shall I touch it? It is mithya. It is false.” Eh? He is good?Or the one who finds out and gives to the proprietor? Who is good?(Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.31 — Honolulu, May 30, 1976)
What would you do?
In life, we are often confronted with this choice, or choices that reflect similar truths. Let’s face it: the world is not ours for the taking. It belongs to God. We are simply here as visitors, and we’ll be leaving all-too-quickly. While here, we should use whatever is given to us in the service of the Lord. How can we pretend that anything really belongs to us? The natural elements come from God. Everything we see, taste, touch, smell or hold dear are His and only His. Are we not thieves — bhogis or karmis — if we just take it for our own enjoyment, without recognize to whom it really belongs? Are we not thieves, too — call it tyagis or jnanis — if we renounce the world, which was given us by our Maker? Are we not obviously put here for a reason — not to enjoy or renounce but to serve? Clearly, the virtuous person is the sevaite or the bhakta — the person who sees that nothing really belongs to him but that everything belongs to God. Such vision necessitates using all things of this world in God’s service. This is the realization that the Krsna Consciousness movement hopes to share with the world.
I remember as a smaal boy, I was waiting to get served at a nearby fish’n’chip shop. standing behind a man in front of me. The man purchased the goods by putting his hand inside his back trouser pocket to get out the money. As his hand came out, so did lots of five and ten pound notes, which fell to the floor.
I picked up the notes and alerted the stranger by showing him his money. When he saw my innocent demeanor he was so overcome that his gladly gave me a handsome reward, which was a hefty amount for me.
Since that time I always associated doing good with getting a nice reward, which of course doesn’t always work in this world. However, having come to Krsna consciousness, I cannot claim to have given my whole life for krsihna. If I did I would probably be in samadhi, not wanting to recall such a trivial incident in my life. This shows that I have a lot more giving to do, to engage what rightly belongs to Him, in His divine service.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
The thing is living beings only have got one choice; live in the eternal lala land of illusions or serve Krishna, Parabrahman, consciously.
And if you can't find the owner, use the money exclusively for Krishna–give it to the Deities in the temple.
This is about the most pervasive material element, false ego.We find ourselves in a material body. We believe we own it, and have the right to enjoy it. We extend this to material resources. Our values are thereby twisted.
The philosopher John Locke asserted, when we labor to cultivate the Earth, we own the produce- it is created by our perspiration.
But the ability to use our bodies to cultivate the Earth, the Earth herself, the Sun, the rain, the process of photosynthesis, etc., are not produced by us. We owe a debt to Krishna, who supplies ALL ingredients, and processes.
Mother Earth told Maharaja Prithu, she was burdened because grain, meant for sacrifice to please Krishna, was being used for sense gratification. This is theft.
Currently, the people on this planet steal natural resources and use them for Billions of heinous activities everyday. The quest to develop technology to reduce climate change is considered almost sacred. But there is no plan to stop stealing resources for sense gratification. Therefore we will remain a.great burden to the Earth.
Similarly, various mundane causes are promoted as lofty goals, but if we look at them closely we see they all contain the fallacy of false ownership, and theft of God's energy for material enjoyment.
Our ability to see this goes back to the primary lesson, we are not these bodies. Our duty is to teach this fact to the world. If instead we give credit to thievery in the name of lofty ideals, we fail to distinguish ourselves as a spiritual organization.