I was watching some videos on Daniel Goleman and he inspired me with this thought.
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
A week ago, at approximately 11.30pm, I was making my way to City Hall via that stretch along Capitol and there was an Indian man sitting on one of the stone benches there. I was just minding my own business but he signalled for me to go over to him. He was at least 30 metres away from where I was.
I could tell he needed some help, but didn’t know what he wanted. I could have just brushed him aside because he looked fit and healthy to me, but because I wasn’t in a rush, I thought I could spare him some of my time, so I walked over to him.
Turns out that he needed some money because he was broke.
I don’t know how many people have passed by the indian man before I finally went over, but I think that:
In the story of The Good Samaritan, there were 2 others (the priest and the Levite) who passed by the wounded man before a third person (the Samaritan) offered some help.
I can conclude that the Samaritan was the one who wasn’t in a rush, whereas the priest and the Levite probably had to rush off to attend a seminary or some other important function.
In our society today, the yardstick for offering help is not how compassionate you are, or how needy the victim is, but rather, the degree of your hurry and how much time you can afford to spare.
If I was in a rush, I probably would not have walked the 30 metres to get to the indian man.