Service without request?

[Monica]

I'm not sure I really even want to mention it to him however, because in doing so I very likely would cause him some embarrassment. If he intentionally "forgot" or if he genuinely forgot, I could see awkwardness resulting from even raising the topic. And furthermore, that I would take the time to mention it might communicate erroneously to him that I am actually still expecting to receive something, given that I would otherwise not have mentioned it.

Good point! I would just drop it. I only suggested mentioning it if you felt the air needed to be cleared. But if he seems to have moved on and all is well, then I see no reason to mention it.

But in not mentioning it to him, am I not more or less putting myself in the same place as the original poster of this thread, Blargg, was in? If I understood correctly- it was the covert nature of his service that turned it in to a disservice in the eyes of some. Although the circumstances and arrangement of the situations are different, they are the same in that someone is receiving a service in the form of financial aid in a "secret" fashion, or at least an unspoken / indirect one.

I don't think the 2 situations are the same at all. In the other example, the service was covert because the other person didn't know at all. Your case is different, because the compensation was mentioned and even offered. And, you didn't spend any money. You didn't even spend any time. And it wasn't done in secret at all.

The whole area of charitable organizations are essentially ones that operate under the motto of service without request. Where is the line drawn there? Can we apply Ra's response to Don's question concerning the feeding of starving people in Africa? Ra said the appropriate response was the feed first, and then teach second (love, and then wisdom). Can we apply this to people who are not starving, but who are still in need of service? I suspect so, but will reserve judgment, it may be a large topic. I think this line of thought has great potential our philosophical scalpels.

We have, from Ra, the idea of not teaching others unless they have indicated that they want the teaching. Ra offers teaching only when there is a call for it. But Ra is in a different situation since most humans don't know about Ra.

This subject was discussed on another thread - not sure which one - the question was raised regarding whether we have to follow the same guidelines that Ra follows. I don't think this is necessarily true, since we have different circumstances.

I find the idea of waiting for a starving person to ask for food to be absurd and the twisting of Ra's philosophy. If we see a starving person, why in the world would we wait for them to ask for food?

That is entirely different from meeting a fundamentalist religious person, and telling them about reincarnation, and shaking their foundation of faith, when they were perfectly happy in their little world.

My personal approach is, when in doubt, OFFER the help. They can always refuse it if they don't want it.