user-1: What might be more or real "cool"? 
For example (in practice), seeing a spelling error or a typo:

Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

In summary, is equanimity more sublime that an excellent/skillful and beneficial act? 
Side question: if beneficial help is more sublime, to what extend would a seemingly beneficial help be actually unskillful, lower than equanimity?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

user12005: 
Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

My two cents:
It is not easy to come to a conclusion from the behaviour alone.
Consider:
A1. Ignoring the error due to indifference/apathy, not caring for whatever the outcome or result.
A2. Not interfering with it, because there is good in everything and allowing the natural process to evolve - not siding with push or pull to change the outcome one way or the other, but staying with it, observing one's reactions as well as accepting things as they are.
And:
B1. Correction being done because one cannot accept the presence of an error, a reaction to correct things based on one's view of how things should be.
B2. Correcting because of compassion, in-order to benefit all the beings that may chance upon this.
To me, both A2 and B2 are equally good, as they are a display of true equanimity and compassion, respectively. A1 and B1 are not actions without demerit, but B1 is slightly better in a sense because there is a greater chance to learn from it than A1 (going ahead and committing even a mistake is better than totally ignoring it, in my opinion).
Of course, in a community managed site like this B1/B2 are the better options, but in regards to right action for mindfulness practice/self development both A2 and B2 should rank equally.

user8157: 'Equanimity' is the last of the four brahmavihara (metta, karuna, mudita & upekkha) & is practised together with the other brahmavihara. For example, if there is good-will (metta) & the wish to help (karuna) but no possibility to help then equanimity (upekkha) is practised. 
Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as practising equanimity as an alternative to performing a beneficial act. Equanimity is only practised when a beneficial action cannot be performed due to another person not capable or not willing to change or benefit. 
For example, AN 4.100 says speaking praise &/or blame in the right situation is more advanced & exalted than equanimity. However, as said, the situation must be the right appropriate situation. For example, preaching & proselytizing dhamma when not asked & to people who don't want to listen is not a "right situation" to perform unwanted "beneficial acts". AN 9.5 says Dhamma, as a gift of benevolence, is only taught to those who wish for it and who listen attentively. 

-1: <p>What might be more or real "cool"? </p>

<p>For example (in practice), seeing a spelling error or a typo:</p>

<ul>
<li>Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?</li>
<li>Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?</li>
</ul>

<p>In summary, <strong>is equanimity more sublime that an excellent/skillful and beneficial act?</strong> </p>

<p>Side question: if beneficial help is more sublime, to what extend would a seemingly beneficial help be actually unskillful, lower than equanimity?</p>

<hr>

<p><em>[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]</em></p>
 12005: <blockquote>
<p>Would the one &quot;not touched&quot;, ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?</p>
<p>Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My two cents:
It is not easy to come to a conclusion from the behaviour alone.</p>
<p>Consider:</p>
<p>A1. Ignoring the error due to indifference/apathy, not caring for whatever the outcome or result.</p>
<p>A2. Not interfering with it, because there is good in everything and allowing the natural process to evolve - not siding with push or pull to change the outcome one way or the other, but staying with it, observing one's reactions as well as accepting things as they are.</p>
<p>And:</p>
<p>B1. Correction being done because one cannot accept the presence of an error, a reaction to correct things based on one's view of how things should be.</p>
<p>B2. Correcting because of compassion, in-order to benefit all the beings that may chance upon this.</p>
<p>To me, both A2 and B2 are equally good, as they are a display of true equanimity and compassion, respectively. A1 and B1 are not actions without demerit, but B1 is slightly better in a sense because there is a greater chance to learn from it than A1 (going ahead and committing even a mistake is better than totally ignoring it, in my opinion).</p>
<p>Of course, in a community managed site like this B1/B2 are the better options, but in regards to right action for mindfulness practice/self development both A2 and B2 should rank equally.</p>
 8157: <p>'Equanimity' is the last of the four brahmavihara (<em>metta</em>, <em>karuna</em>, <em>mudita</em> &amp; <em>upekkha</em>) &amp; is practised together with the other brahmavihara. For example, if there is good-will (<em>metta</em>) &amp; the wish to help (<em>karuna</em>) but no possibility to help then equanimity (<em>upekkha</em>) is practised. </p>

<p>Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as practising equanimity as an alternative to performing a beneficial act. Equanimity is only practised when a beneficial action cannot be performed due to another person not capable or not willing to change or benefit. </p>

<p>For example, <a href="https://suttacentral.net/de/an4.100" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.100</a> says speaking praise &amp;/or blame <em>in the right situation</em> is more advanced &amp; exalted than equanimity. However, as said, the situation must be the right appropriate situation. For example, preaching &amp; proselytizing dhamma when not asked &amp; to people who don't want to listen is not a "<em>right situation</em>" to perform unwanted "<em>beneficial acts</em>". AN 9.5 says Dhamma, as a gift of benevolence, is only taught to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel238.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">those who wish for it and who listen attentively</a>. </p>
