A lot of people write or state -- I want to "give back to society".
One should want to "give to society".
By saying giving 'back', it tends to imply that if society would not have given them something, they would not be inclined to give to society.
So it's a quid pro quo type of statement.
e.g. "I have benefited so much that I want to give back".
Also implying that it's not expected to be done by the poor.
etc.
vinay
Hi and Namaste,
Yes, Vinayji, you have hit the nail on the head ! In our culture of 'A-tithee ( without tithee-appointment) Devo Bhava 'ensured that you 'simply' shared your food, drink and lodging with the unexpected 'guest' , after greeting him / her with a NAMASTEY - which translates to mean Na ( not) Mamaha ( me) Tey ( you) ! - the ' yajmaan - host' elevated the status of the guest by humbling oneself - the very essence of 'Seva -service ' and hospitality. Have we not tried to rule over or master Nature instead of serving it thus? Food and water were only to be shared and never to be traded as commodities - was the Vedic prescription. This is still prevalent in Bhaarat (rural) but becoming less in India (urban).
Also, after finishing cooking, the householder, traditionally, first gave the freshly-cooked food as 'alms' to a beggar and then sat down to eat. - i.e. you ate the leftover after doing charity ! He is the giver! He gives you the opportunity to 'give'! A middle-story in the TOI ran thus. A beggar came to the threshold of a busy town -home(in south India) after dusk to collect left-over food .The lady explained that she was busy assisting her husband who had to rush off to his village by the last bus. So, the beggar offers to come back after collecting from the other houses. He returns and sees the bewildered look on the face of the lady. She explains that her husband had to return because he missed the last bus. The beggar resolves her dilemma by saying ' I am used to eating less, but your husband cannot. Please keep the food ' The story ends with the line
He was the giver!
The law of Life is 'Give and Receive - not Take'. If you have to ' Take' then you have to ' Give ' much more! Today, man asks' What can I get out of him and give him some money?'. Instead the question should be (and was) ' What will he give me IF I co-operate with/help him?' Moreover the transaction ( of give and take / receive) alters / affects the transacted object and the either parties ! So, can we truly ' Give back ' what we took in the first place? - something like saying ' I take back my words '. Can we really ' take back ' any thought, word or deed. A saint described DEV (GOD in Marathi) as ' Denaraa evam ' - the only giver. His simple advice was- just turn your palm around - from one of receiving to giving. So you will also be DEV, he said! Moreover, when it comes to 'taking' we pass the buck to the ' feeling Heart’ (Dil hai ki maanta nahin etc.!), but when it's time to ' give ' we allow the ' thinking Head ' to call the shots ! The Palms ( willing -action) come together in a NAMASTEY, as a Balance / Meeting between the Head ( thinking ) and the Heart ( feeling). A balance in thinking and feeling ensured balanced actions! What is more important - Output OR Input' of a machine / system? The sight of beggars at traffic junctions compels my foreign tourist ' guests' to wonder aloud ' should we or should we not give?' and look at me for an answer! It is a tricky situation - by giving one you invite a swarm! Giving only encourages them –is the oft-touted advice. So, we must be ready to get involved in ameliorating their economic status and wean them away? How many of us are?
So, TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE seems to be the perturbing question for a lot of ' thinking ' citizens, humans of a nation still riddled with poverty - even as the ' Globalization Juggernaut ' trundles along ruthlessly !
Giving ( Action - every thought, word, deed ) and Receiving ( Reaction) always happens -every moment ! Every action has a reaction- is an inviolable Law of Nature and is more simply stated as ' as you sow, so you reap' - KARMA? Nobody can avoid/escape the consequence of Action - said Gautama and the other Buddhas.
SO, the only choice we have is to be 'AWARE ' of every action- urgently needed and yes, difficult!
Giving, slowly but surely, makes one more humble –especially when one serves food to those seated on the floor. You have to bend down – physically and also mentally ! Giving-especially to the ‘lesser-haves’ –can dissolve the EGO faster. Only when one is humbled thus, can LOVE begin to flow freely. This is a journey / transition from ‘exclusivity’ to ‘inclusivity’-the very basis of Vasudha Eva Kutumbakam! On the return journey from Elephanta, with some Australian Aboriginal dance artistes, we discussed cultures and lifestyles. It struck me then that ‘I own nothing and nothing owns me ! ‘ . So, I felt ‘I belong to all and all belong to me !‘. Some wise man said’ The hands that give are more pious / sacred than the lips that pray “. So, where should we give – to places of worship or directly to the poor and needy? Only after you give away something, can you truly say that you owned it! Who is a rich person? –One who has nothing / is not afraid – to lose! True giving happens only when there is no feeling - of loss and a sense of expectation of return. Can we ( India) give / live ‘simply’ that others ( Bhaarat) may , at least , ‘simply‘ live ?- is how I would modify Gandhiji’s quote.
Tum Ek Paisa Dogey, To Woh Dus laakh Degaa - was a famous old song!
On Jan 25, 2010 Ramanand Kowta wrote:
A lot of people write or state -- I want to "give back to society".
One should want to "give to society".
By saying giving 'back', it tends to imply that if society would not have given them something, they would not be inclined to give to society.
So it's a quid pro quo type of statement.
e.g. "I have benefited so much that I want to give back".
Also implying that it's not expected to be done by the poor.
etc.
vinay
Yours Nature - Ally,
Ramanand Kowta Mumbai
ph 022 25637996, 9892910023.
ram.hey.anand@gmail.com