more about giving
luckily this is post-midnight :).
i have a question on the subject of giving... and hopefully someone can help me here. giving of oneself, while it may be good for us, may not be good for another - correct? therefore, even if i give of myself selflessly and detachedly, what if that giving is not constructive for the receiver? what if the receiver is at greater comfort not receiving? then is the giver "wrong" or the receiver "wrong"? and yes, there is no right nor wrong really, hence the quotes :).
e.g. 1: when student x shows his answers to student y in an exam, x "gives" to y. is this the best action for x? clearly not. how does this contradict this theory of giving?
e.g. 2: when person x gives alms to beggar y, does x do the right thing? why or why not?
e.g. 3: when person x chooses to give of himself to person y in love but y wishes not to receive. how does this contradict/align with the theory?
further, if doing one's duty involves not being concerned with the result of our actions, then how does one even begin to factor the receiver into the situation?
i will go to bed now, with the hope that the answers shall come to me in the morning :).
good night, world!
i have a question on the subject of giving... and hopefully someone can help me here. giving of oneself, while it may be good for us, may not be good for another - correct? therefore, even if i give of myself selflessly and detachedly, what if that giving is not constructive for the receiver? what if the receiver is at greater comfort not receiving? then is the giver "wrong" or the receiver "wrong"? and yes, there is no right nor wrong really, hence the quotes :).
e.g. 1: when student x shows his answers to student y in an exam, x "gives" to y. is this the best action for x? clearly not. how does this contradict this theory of giving?
e.g. 2: when person x gives alms to beggar y, does x do the right thing? why or why not?
e.g. 3: when person x chooses to give of himself to person y in love but y wishes not to receive. how does this contradict/align with the theory?
further, if doing one's duty involves not being concerned with the result of our actions, then how does one even begin to factor the receiver into the situation?
i will go to bed now, with the hope that the answers shall come to me in the morning :).
good night, world!
7 comments:
Here is my understanding of 'giving of oneself', and 'not being attached tor esults'. (I think there are some subtleteies to what each means.)
Firstly, when we are asked to give of ourselves, it means to invest all our lving energy in that act and not just do it half-heartedly or nonchalantly. But it also means to give what is best in a situationl. So, in that sense, it has to factor the receiver into the giving. So, that would mean X 'giving' his answers to Y in a test, would actually be to the detriment of Y in the long run and therefore does not constitute giving, rather, crippling.
Secondly, by not obesseing with the results, what it means is to rid ourselves of an 'expectation' certain outcome. For instance, if x chose to be kind Y with an expectation of having a favor returned at a future date, that would not consititute selfless giving or of detached service. However, if X helped Y purely because Y needed the help at the time and X waa present at that time place with Y and wholly capable of solving the problem, and helped for that reason, with no expectation to be treated later for it, that would cosntitute a detachment from a 'result'. Now, what does it mean to not expect results? It does not mean that since the results are immaterial, hence no thought need be applied to the action. The idea is, rather, to enable us to always act in utmost sincerity, weighing all information we may have at that time point, without vested interests and being completely present in that moment. So, yes, the action at that time attempts to favour the result towards a positive outcome. However, it also done knowing that in the end, the outcome may be entirely different, but one can rest in peace, that they did his/her job in the best fashion possible. For a more enlivening discussion on how spiritual reality and Decision analysis are one and the same, I would suggest a chat with SR! ;) ok ok very naughty of me, but its is true, there are some good elssons to be learnt from the DA.
Just another quick note on th 2nd isnatnce you've cited (with fewer typos this time, I hope :) ). At every instant, we can only make decision on our actions. In other words, we may decide to offer our help and love and make that abundantly clear. And that is a form of giving too. However, to receive it or not, is the decision of the receiver. We cannot hold ourselves accountable for that outcome, nor begrudge the other for choosing one way or the other. Okies, done! Happy Friday! :)
ps: Your blog is addictive. And a much needed Jamba boost for my day!
HA makes some really useful distinctions here:
1) that we should give whole-heartedly when we give
2) that we should give what is best in a situation, which I think is really useful in analyzing the e.g.s you give 8&20. With respect to e.g. #!: Clearly giving away one's answers on a test is not what is best in a situation. How do we measure what is best? We have spiritual teachings to guide our actions about what is best. (you've already contributed some really useful thinking and conversations about "what is best" on this blog). With respect to e.g. #2: is giving alms really the best way to address begging? Does it get to the root of the problem of poverty or of addressing that person's longer term needs? Does it help solve inequality in the world? It may make the giver feel better, and may seem to help the beggar in the short run, but does it actually help the beggar in the long run? Is there not a more strategic way to use those dollars for greater impact? (e.g., donating them to a nonprofit that provides comprehensive and integrated services to the homeless and mentally ill). With respect to e.g. #3: Ideally, we should all strive to always give our love freely to others for the sake of God and without any expectation that it be returned. Considering what is "best" in the situation will help guide us in being sensitive as to how best to express that love. Sometimes we do this silently, with distance and by sending people our loving compassionate energy.
So in terms of factoring the receiver into the question of the giving, considering what is "best" for the greatest good seems really important. This is sometimes easier to discern than others... prayer, meditation, introspection, sometimes distancing ourselves from a situation can all help bring clarity about what is "best".
3) It's again important to stress the ideal of detaching from any expectation of how the gift may be received or returned. This is truly selfless giving.
Excerpts from Kahlil Gibran's "On Giving" (from The Prophet)
"You give but little when you give of your possessions.
It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.
For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?
...
And what is fear of need but need itself?
...
There are those who give little
of the much which they have-
and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome.
And there are those who have little and give it all.
These are the believers in life and the bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty.
There are those who give with joy, and their joy is their reward.
And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.
And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue:
They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.
Through the hands of such as these God speaks, and from behind their eyes He smiles upon the earth.
It is well to give when asked, but it is better to give unasked, through understanding:
And to the open-handed the search for one who shall receive is joy greater than giving.
...
All you have shall some day be given:
Therefore give now, that the season of giving may be yours and not your inheritors'.
You often say,"I would give, but only to the deserving."
The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.
They give that they may live,
for to with-hold is to perish.
Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and nights, is worthy of all else from you.
And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream.
...
See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver,and an instrument of giving.
For in truth it is life that gives unto life--while you, who deem yourself a giver are but a witness.
And you receivers-- and you are all
receivers-- assume no weight of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon
yourself and upon he who gives.
Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings:
For to be overmindful of your debt,is to doubt his generosity who has the free-hearted earth for mother,and God for father.
aa/bb: thank you for your comments. aa - you raised some very pertinent points, and i think they put my heart to rest on this topic. of course, when in doubt turn to gibran, because he has (almost) all the answers :).
when inspiration strikes again, i shall come and ask you more questions :).
I think a key understanding, which both ha and bb have hinted at, is that giving as a spiritual value exists not in isolation but within a context that involves other spiritual values too. Understanding that is enough to resolve all these conflicts, I think - so though one should be giving, it should not be at the cost of other values. In an exam, giving a friend the answers to the problems violates other spiritual values, such as honesty, justice etc. Giving money to a beggar might violate other values of what the "best" thing in the long term is - and this is an issue that can be argued in many ways, and I dont want to get into the complexities of whether or not its a good thing to give money to beggars. But assuming you have an opinion on that, you should follow that and not be swayed by emotions of the moment when you are in front of the beggar.
Finally when it comes to giving your love to someone who doesn't want it, you should be giving in the sense that your love should always be available to them should they need it. But forcing it on them would violate the fundamental rights of the other person in terms of their personal space - and so one cannot justify that forcing by saying that one is being giving, because another spiritual value is being violated.
Giving should be active in a situation where the other person is open to receiving. When he/she is not, the giving attitude should be relegated to a potential form - so one would be willing to give, but one does not force it on someone. One must respect that fundamental right - and so if we try to give our love to someone and they come back to us and tell us that they do not want that love because it is detrimental to their growth, then one must withdraw the active love.
Detachment from the results of our actions is a wholly different thing, which I think HA has explained well enough below.
succinct and perfect.
Post a Comment