Who is giving? Who is receiving?
That “I” is the separation between 2 things which cannot be separated. When there is BEING, there is no giving nor receiving… but giving and receiving are already there, like the 7 colors of the rainbow are there, already in the sky.
Does it make sense? No?? That is because there is no EXPERIENCE but only thinking.
At which point the “I” who is busy giving, could think: “I am giving too much”?
At the point where the “I” is not receiving.
When the “I” gives with the expectation to receive, then that giving is not truly giving, but exchanging: “I scratch your back, if you scratch mine.”
To “give is good…” We may have learned. Isn’t to receive “good” as well? 🙂
When our minds are full of duality, the act of giving will be praised. The act of receiving will be played down.
The religious teaching of “giving yourself,” is not accurate. Who wants another “self”?
It is more accurate to say “ Give no-self for everyone to receive.”
The thoughtful desire to give will bring ego to the surface, and so the thoughtful desire to receive.
Thus, when the “I” is not in between giving and receiving; then giving and receiving are the same thing. Synonyms, equals.
Does it make sense? Could we see things from an “out the box” perspective? 🙂
When giving becomes receiving, then receiving will be giving. 🙂
“How is that possible?”
When there is no “I” in between.
Many times I speak about the “I” but a month ago “I” was surprised when someone said to me, from an honest place: “What is the “I”?
The “I” my friend is not something to define. Do you have beliefs? That is “I.” Do you have an idea of “righteousness,” how things “should be”? That is “I.” Do you have values, traditions, taboos, hangups… That is the “I.” Do you enforce your “I-ness” upon others?
That is a bigger “I.”
Do you look at the mirror and do you see “You”? That is the “I.” Do you think that you are “someone” or “no one”? That is the “I.” Thinking creates the “I.”
But the “I” is not “bad.” It is just a bit overweight, heavy. By eating too many ideas, beliefs and moral standards on a regular basis, the “I” has grown in size. That is why, the “I” cannot understand BEING without “being” the separation between 2 things: Up and down, low and high, right and left, good and bad, right and wrong… giving and receiving. 🙂
Why “giving” became “better” than receiving?
Because the “I” needed to become altruist, elevated, better, someone.
But “No-I” is the opposite of “I”?
No! “No-I” is the idea to express what is not “I.” But “No-I” is not an idea.
Does it make sense?
Perhaps some other time…
“In Brahmin life, receiving is in giving.”
Avyakt Murli April 28, 2013
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
The Bible- New Testament: Luke 6:38
The Master has no possessions.
The more he does for others,
the happier he is.
The more he gives to others,
the wealthier he is.
Tao te ching verse 81
He who gives liberally goes straight to the gods;
on the high ridge of heaven he stands exalted.
Rig Veda 1.125.5
The above quotes mention one of the universal spiritual “truths,” that is: If you give, you receive.
That line has been used by many spiritual teachers without further explanation.
How does it work?
In the last writing about “We do what we are,” it was mentioned that there is an inner being (soul) who is part of the “whole,” that universal “spirit” is known as the Drama, the Tao, or the Creation. (depending on your religious beliefs) That is life in itself.
That “soul” by itself has no awareness of duality. Has no awareness of separation from anything.
When that “soul” has a role to perform in life; then the awareness of individuality arises as the soul identifies with the uniqueness of a body. Then, a personality is developed. From One, many appear.
Note how the primal absence of knowing the concepts of “you and Me,” change and develop into that separation as we know it.
A role in life, goes through the awareness of a soul as “me.” Then automatically, “you” arises.
Many religious and spiritual teachings have taught, “giving is receiving,” with the assumption that we are “separate.” Then, a selfish motive of acquiring for the self is corrected when the “moral standard” of being “good” is taught.
That is “share with others.” “Give to others.”
Nothing wrong with those teachings, but in a deeper view we can see that there is no “self” neither the “other” unless we identify with the body and the role in life.
That identification is an illusion, which separates, something that is One from the beginning. But it could be experienced as “many” as “you and me,” only if our consciousness does not allow us to see that both “One,” and “many” are valid perspectives.
Thus, whatever “I” do, will come back to “me,” for there is no “other.”
A “soul” performing a role in life accomplishes that through a thought, which will materialize in the physical world as an “action.”
That is what we know as “karma.” That activity could be colored by egoless-ness, which is lack of expectation and desires; that is “without individuality” or it could be full of ego.
The return of ego is further separation. That means, suffering.
Once we understand that egoless “doing” is truly harmony with the original oneness; then the “other” merely is a “mirror” for lack of a better name.
The actions we perform, are the seed transforming into a flower. We will eat that fruit sooner or later. The fruit is already latent in the seed.
That is why, according to how we ARE, would be the quality of our activities.
We cannot “do” good actions, if we are not “good.”
Activities by itself do not have a moral standard. Moral standards are made up by a society engulfed in duality.
Someone in harmony with the whole, with that Drama of life; works as an ego-less agent of “doing.” He could only do “good,” for as he is; so are his activities.
Let us say that a dentist “falls in love” with one of his patients.
Dr. Drill likes Rose so much, that he gave her a “huge” break for the cost of his dental services.
Dr. Drill would go to the extremes of showing his care for Rose.
Obviously, Dr, Drill had an expectation. He wanted Rose to return his “love.”
Because Dr. Drill’s activities are not “self-less,” Dr. Drill opened himself for the experience of duality.
If Rose responds positively to Dr. Drill’s approach; then Dr. Drill will be “happy.” At the same time, Dr. Drill would learn a new “proven” way to manipulate people, which will have a 50-50 chance of working with “most people.” Those activities will bring their own consequence for manipulation is not a “good deed.”
If Dr. Drill is rejected. Then, Dr. Drill will be “unhappy” and disappointed and with that his “love,” could turn around into “hate.” Note that duality.
On the other hand, a “self-less” approach has no consequence other than enhancing that sense of Selfless-ness, which will come back to Dr. Drill; enhancing his well being beyond duality. That is spiritual happiness.
The seed was there, it produced a flower and the fruit will be eaten by the one who let that seed appear.