If someone’s child has cancer should we not offer charity to avoid interfering with karma?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
other things will fall in place in due course. So, if someone wants to donate organs, what should we tell them? See, there are many considerations over here.
From a point, one perspective is from the point of view of karma. We could say that if a dying person gives one’s eyes to someone, and then that person uses the eyes for sinful purposes, then that itself can, you’ll get the karma for that. So, this is one perspective, but the karmic perspective can often seem very hard-hearted.
Because where do you stop that? It is that, so should we not do anything to help anyone else? Should a doctor not give medicine to a patient because the patient may get healthy and may again do something wrong? Should a mother not feed the child because the child may grow up and do something wrong? So, the point is that karmic considerations are a consideration that that person may do something wrong, so we shouldn’t do it. But they are not a very important consideration. As devotees, we may have higher considerations than karmic.
When a spiritual master takes disciples, at that time, if purely karmic considerations were deciding, then the spiritual master would think, why should I take the karma of my disciples? So, a devotee is motivated by often cultures other than karmic also. Then there is another consideration is about consideration of nature. What is natural and what is not natural? So, some forms of intervention may be seen as unnatural and that’s why some devotees may not want to do it.
So, I am giving all these perspectives because as of now, our movement has not come up with a unified stand on this issue. So, different devotees have raised different concerns about it and I’ll tell some of those and then I’ll give a summary of what I would recommend in this situation. So, with some devotees, it’s unnatural in the sense that, you know, if a person has a particular particular set of things given by nature, he shouldn’t try to change that.
But even, like in Ayodhya Gopinath Temple, there is Bhaktivant Hospital and there now skin harvesting, I don’t know whether harvesting is the right word, but the skin is often preserved and used when people are burnt. When somebody is burnt badly, you can save that person if you have some grafting, I think, something like grafting, I don’t know the exact word. That is a very widely done practice in the medical field and Bhaktivant Hospital also does that.
So, that is something which is widely done and when they ask Bhakti Samaj Maharaj, they ask Suta Karama Prabhu, they actually ask me to ask them also in many places. So, this is something which is a widespread medical practice and it does help people, especially people who have got severe burns or severe skin damage, they can be helped through this. Now, so, what was considered unnatural earlier, what was considered unnatural in one age may become very commonplace and considered natural even later.
So, we see that there is something which is in the Vedic tradition called as deference to local tradition. Deference means respect. Respect for local tradition.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came to give the highest level of Bhakti, but He came in an India that was very caste conscious 500 years ago. Although the Bhakti culture was slowly breaking caste barriers, but still caste barriers were there. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, although He elevated Haridas Thakur as an Amacharya, but still He respected that caste structure to some extent.
That’s why He did not have Haridas Thakur coming into the temple directly. That’s why He also, whenever He would travel, He would take Prasad only at the house of Brahmins. When He was in Varanasi, He had two disciples.
One was Tapal Mishra and the other was Chandrashekhar Acharya. Tapal Mishra was a Brahmin, Chandrashekhar Acharya was not a Brahmin. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would stay at the house of Chandrashekhar Acharya, but go every day for Prasad to the house of Tapal Mishra.
Why? Because otherwise the caste conscious Brahmins there would criticize Him. So, the point is that now, Chaitanya, it’s not that in every single action that we do, we have to necessarily establish the highest Bhakti Siddhant. Sometimes, tactically, for doing certain things, a devotee may have to defer to some lower principle at some times.
So, even if for argument’s sake we say that organ donation is is unnatural or can be karmically having consequences, still even in such a condition, today we live in an environment where organ donation is very highly encouraged, appreciated and it is naturally, it is almost naturally expected. If you are a thoughtful person, if you are a caring person, you should be doing this. So, anybody who goes against that and that can be very alienating for people and if we go against that on the basis of some abstract philosophical principles which people can’t even understand, then it becomes even more damaging.
So, I would say that Loka Vichar, what people think is also important. So, if some new people who are not even serious Bhakti practitioners, if they want to do organ donation, in general, devotees should not interfere. You can tell them that it’s up to you.
If serious devotees want to do it, then it’s best that they consult their local spiritual guides and see if the local spiritual guide has some mood. Some devotees may say that just we should not interfere with nature, let nature take its own course. Then that’s what you can follow.
The GDC is planning to make a committee for devotee scholars to deal with its contemporary issues. But till now that has not yet been formed. So, there are many cases, even if there were a committee left for this, still every devotee has his own nature and which will make their own inspiration.
So, rather than taking an absolute stand on this, you can say that you should be aware of the factors involved, of the possible karmic consequences of going against nature. These are considerations which are there. They are not necessarily defining considerations.
Definitely there is the consideration of, on the other side if you want to go, you can say, what to speak of giving up one’s organ, some organ. We have the example of K.R.T. asking his son for youth and he gave it back. Now, that was purely for sense gratification.
Nothing mitigating in it, but just for sense gratification. And he is not condemned for that. It is disapproved in the sense that he was so attached.
But nobody gets karma. If you do this, you will get karma and things like that. Nobody talks about that.
You are going against nature. So, those examples can be given for the idea of supporting organ transplant. And overall, it is, in today’s culture, considered a noble activity to do.
Certainly, I would say there is no need to go on a campaign against it. No need to go on a campaign condemning it or banning it. It is up to individual to do that.
And if we don’t feel inspired to do it, we respect it. We do what, let nature take its course. So, it will vary.
If our movement comes up with a, I have been asked this question many times on my website. And if our movement has still not come up with a one position. As in scripture, we can have different sections of scripture used to draw different inferences.
So, when Srila Prabhupada was asked about, he was never asked about organ transplant directly. He was asked about if somebody is in coma, living for a long time, then should that person be, should that person be kept on for a long time through artificial respiration and things like that. So, no, that’s different.
See, there is a person is nearly dead. And it’s only because of artificial respiration and artificial systems, the person is kept alive. Should we do that? Yeah, that is different.
That is a different issue. See, there is artificial shortening of life which is euthanasia. Prabhupada asked the question about artificial lengthening of life.
There is no chance of recovery, but still through instrument, the person can be kept on alive. So, Prabhupada said, what is the sense in that? The soul is eternal. Let the soul go to next body and do something constructive.
The person is just living in coma, doing nothing. The soul is suffering, others are suffering. Why do that? So, Prabhupada was quite practical about that.
So, when I asked Dushakarma Prabhu, He said that in future, nowadays most people and devotees should also write in their will what they want to do, if such a thing happens to them. Now, how long should one be kept on alive like that? This is something which is individual decision. We cannot impose, but then we have Prabhupada saying that there is no need to artificially lengthen life.
So, that could be said that Prabhupada didn’t want to artificially interfere with nature. But with respect to organ transplant, we don’t have any singular position from Guru Sadhu Shastra. And our current ISKCON leaders often, at different places, express different concerns.
So, I feel there is no need to take a strong position against it. Just give a perspective and leave it at that.