CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Giving and receiving

Giving and receiving

Started by swiftcobra15 · · 👁 6 views · 45 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants swiftcobra15Jonathan Brooks8Harold James9Amistyfox812Elizabeth Ruiz65mistybisonurbangardener7Harold Adams5rustymaker5Lawrence Robinson5Keith Lee2Jessica Scott5Sandra Wilson68Kenneth Peterson5Edward Flores4analogsurfer15Jerry Green59steelridge58
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#21 ·
Quincy:
Louis I can't believe I'm even sitting here typing this out, but someone said...
There’s no such thing as a fair exchange anymore, no real give and take... it’s just one endless, greedy grab for everything they can get...
So, that’s basically why I’m calling you with all this disappointment and pure pessimism... 🙂

We always start by fixating on these massive, sweeping global crises and systemic disasters instead of just looking at our own lives, which honestly just makes everything feel so much bleaker than it actually is...
It’s one of those questions that really makes you stop and think for a second, isn't it... like, do you actually get more satisfaction out of being the one pulling out the credit card and finding that perfect thing for someone else, or is there just something about that specific rush you get when you're the one unwrapping something meant just for you... I guess if I had to lean one way, I'd say I prefer giving, though I can't deny there's a certain warmth in receiving, but giving feels more intentional, more purposeful, whereas receiving can sometimes feel a bit overwhelming if you aren't prepared for it... anyway, what about you?

I know some folks who just... they really don't get it, you know? They just can't seem to wrap their heads around how things actually work out here in America... I don't know, I was just sitting here thinking about how things used to be... back when everything felt a bit more grounded, you know? It’s like we’re all just drifting through this constant noise without any real sense of direction... and sometimes I wonder if anyone else feels that weight, that strange, heavy pull of everything changing too fast... it’s hard to stay centered when the ground keeps shifting under your feet... anyway, I guess I’m just rambling now... People love to play this part where they claim giving is way more fulfilling than receiving, acting all high and mighty about their generosity, but if you look closely, it’s usually just a front... because deep down, they’re actually miserable when they don't get something back, feeling like total victims of everyone else's perceived indifference or neglect...

I know another breed of people entirely, you know, the kind who find it perfectly natural to just sit there and take, constantly receiving, even though the idea of actually giving anything back seems to be an impossible struggle for them... I honestly get the feeling they were raised by those folks I mentioned earlier. 😁

I guess I fall into that category of people who actually enjoy both giving and receiving... it’s just how I operate. I never end up feeling like some sort of victim because I don't view taking anything as if it were some kind of sin, nor do I look at giving as if it were some heavy, crushing obligation... For me, it’s really just a simple exchange of energy, you know? Like, I give something out just so that, maybe, something else entirely can flow back my way... 🙂
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#22 ·
A newborn’s cry is basically just the sound of total helplessness—they can't take anything, they can only receive.
If they don't get what they need, they die.
I feel like a whole lifetime is just an attempt to fix that helplessness (that deep-seated fear of death)
by grabbing onto power.
There isn't a single person who doesn't hit that wall of raw vulnerability at some point—when all their
strength, their status, or their attempts to force the world to bend to them just fail.
That’s when the crying turns into a scream, screams turn to aggression, aggression becomes rage, rage leads to madness,
and madness ends in destruction, yet they still haven't gotten what they wanted.
The thing is, what they want can't be seized—it can only be given.
So they turn to prayer and beg to receive; just like a baby crying out
for its mother, driving her to respond, now they project that maternal image onto Quincy
expecting Him to fulfill those prayers unconditionally, just like a mother would.
Basically, receiving is what keeps life going.
But the problem is, people expect to just keep taking forever.
Giving has to be hardwired into us beneath the surface (subconsciously, instinctively),
kind of like a mother's instinct, altruism, or love.
Once someone realizes that receiving and giving are actually what cures that
fear of death, maybe they'll stop trying to grab, snatch, or force things.

P.S. Anyone posting here thinking it's "intrusive" is just mistaken.
We're just like shoes in a storefront window—people look, try them on, and then leave
if they don't fit or if they start rubbing the wrong way.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#23 ·
Keith Lee2 said:A newborn’s cry is basically just the sound of total helplessness—they can't take anything, they can only receive.
If they don't get what they need, they die.
I feel like a whole lifetime is just an attempt to fix that helplessness (that deep-seated fear of death)
by grabbing onto power.
There isn't a single person who doesn't hit that wall of raw vulnerability at some point—when all their
strength, their status, or their attempts to force the world to bend to them just fail.
That’s when the crying turns into a scream, screams turn to aggression, aggression becomes rage, rage leads to madness,
and madness ends in destruction, yet they still haven't gotten what they wanted.
The thing is, what they want can't be seized—it can only be given.
So they turn to prayer and beg to receive; just like a baby crying out
for its mother, driving her to respond, now they project that maternal image onto Quincy
expecting Him to fulfill those prayers unconditionally, just like a mother would.
Basically, receiving is what keeps life going.
But the problem is, people expect to just keep taking forever.
Giving has to be hardwired into us beneath the surface (subconsciously, instinctively),
kind of like a mother's instinct, altruism, or love.
Once someone realizes that receiving and giving are actually what cures that
fear of death, maybe they'll stop trying to grab, snatch, or force things.

P.S. Anyone posting here thinking it's "intrusive" is just mistaken.
We're just like shoes in a storefront window—people look, try them on, and then leave
if they don't fit or if they start rubbing the wrong way.

I’d say (to be optimistic 😁 ) that there are some of us (though we're definitely a small minority)
who have grown beyond that infant stage.

At the end of the day, every human being needs attention from others—we are social creatures by nature
—but that exchange of attention has to be mutual, otherwise it becomes pathological.

It never bothers me when a shoe store puts out its latest collection,
but it really bothers me if they're displaying dead cats or live rats
or perhaps "perfect" shoes designed specifically for centipedes.😁
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#24 ·
Keith Lee2 said:A newborn’s cry is basically just the sound of total helplessness—they can't take anything, they can only receive.
If they don't get what they need, they die.
I feel like a whole lifetime is just an attempt to fix that helplessness (that deep-seated fear of death)
by grabbing onto power.
There isn't a single person who doesn't hit that wall of raw vulnerability at some point—when all their
strength, their status, or their attempts to force the world to bend to them just fail.
That’s when the crying turns into a scream, screams turn to aggression, aggression becomes rage, rage leads to madness,
and madness ends in destruction, yet they still haven't gotten what they wanted.
The thing is, what they want can't be seized—it can only be given.
So they turn to prayer and beg to receive; just like a baby crying out
for its mother, driving her to respond, now they project that maternal image onto Quincy
expecting Him to fulfill those prayers unconditionally, just like a mother would.
Basically, receiving is what keeps life going.
But the problem is, people expect to just keep taking forever.
Giving has to be hardwired into us beneath the surface (subconsciously, instinctively),
kind of like a mother's instinct, altruism, or love.
Once someone realizes that receiving and giving are actually what cures that
fear of death, maybe they'll stop trying to grab, snatch, or force things.

P.S. Anyone posting here thinking it's "intrusive" is just mistaken.
We're just like shoes in a storefront window—people look, try them on, and then leave
if they don't fit or if they start rubbing the wrong way.

👍
Crystal clear.
Anyone claiming they had something shoved down their throat here clearly has some deep-seated personal issues to work through...😎 Even if they refuse to admit it to themselves. In this space, the basic laws of supply and demand might catch your interest, make you feel depressed, leave you totally indifferent, or spark a desire to argue back. If someone takes everything personally in a negative way, that's entirely on them as the consumer. 🙂
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#25 ·
swiftcobra15 said:I’d say (to be optimistic 😁 ) that there are some of us (though we're definitely a small minority)
who have grown beyond that infant stage.

It never bothers me when a shoe store puts out its latest collection,
but it really bothers me if they're displaying dead cats or live rats
or perhaps "perfect" shoes designed specifically for centipedes.😁

Have you ever actually stopped to wonder if the flow of your own thoughts is clear to anyone else, or if it's mostly just a coherent mess inside your own head? 😎
Jessica Scott5 Jessica Scott5 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Apr 2007
#26 ·
swiftcobra15 said:Quincy:

"Developed" nations (meaning the wealthy ones that exploit the rest of the globe) very often—and quite ostentatiously—gift "benefits" to "developing" nations (the poor ones that have been exploited). These "gifts" include dirty industries, hazardous waste (a perfect modern example being when we were sent tons of expired medications during the war, where the cost of disposal far outweighed any actual value), advanced weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction (provided they maintain their monopoly on production *), and using "humanitarian aid" as a convenient cover for espionage and meddling in sovereign affairs
along with the cultural "perks" of the "free world," such as consumerism, greed, a predatory relationship with nature, and various other hallmarks of "junk culture."


I was actually watching a documentary recently on Google Docs where they illustrated how massive quantities of refuse—including hazardous materials, electronic waste, aluminum scrap, and similar debris—are shipped off to developing countries. I can't recall exactly which nation was featured at the moment (though I should be receiving a DVD copy soon, so I will be able to verify the details 😁), but the imagery was truly harrowing. There was this landfill situated right in the middle of a forest, and the local residents seemed to have no objections whatsoever. They acted as if saying, "Well, we have the space here," was a valid justification. ?!?! 😲 😲
I wonder why they don't ask themselves why America doesn't want that waste on its own soil??
This concept of humanitarian aid—and please understand, I truly admire the individuals who dedicate themselves to this work, and I would personally love to participate if I could manage to scrape together roughly $3333 to cover all the travel and living expenses required for international volunteering—still possesses its darker dimensions. I am not suggesting there are no altruistic motives or genuine people involved, but there is a shadow side.
A prime example of this is found in the medical field.
There are countless pharmaceutical giants from Europe and the US that, when faced with strict regulations preventing them from testing new drugs domestically, simply move their operations to India to exploit various legal loopholes. I watched a documentary regarding people who were promised cures for various ailments, when in reality, they were being used as test subjects for experimental medications without any informed consent. The consequences for those individuals were devastating. And yet, according to the narrative, they should be grateful to Westerners for such "generous" assistance?
Yeah, right...
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#27 ·
swiftcobra15 said:I’d say (to be optimistic 😁 ) that there are some of us (though we're definitely a small minority)
who have grown beyond that infant stage.

It never bothers me when a shoe store puts out its latest collection,
but it really bothers me if they're displaying dead cats or live rats
or perhaps "perfect" shoes designed specifically for centipedes.😁

😁 It doesn't bother me when the curb is just actual trash.
But it really gets to me when people toss stuff that’s actually still good.
Because even that stone the builders rejected (and yeah, they're a "tiny minority") ends up
becoming the cornerstone.
Sandra Wilson68 Sandra Wilson68 Active Member
75 messages
joined Mar 2004
#28 ·
rustymaker5:

Quinn:
We always start by staring at massive global crises instead of looking in the mirror, so everything looks way bleaker than it actually is.
When you look at the whole "give and take" dynamic, you can't just look at the individual; you have to look at society as a whole. Humans are social animals. Most of the time, we can't act exactly how we want because we're stuck following social norms, laws, moral codes, and traditions. This matters because if the way people interact in society regarding this "giving and receiving" isn't up to par, you can't just nag the individual to change their attitude toward society. You have to fix the entire system—change the laws, the norms, and the customs. It’s way more efficient to change the rules of the game so society shifts naturally, rather than demanding an individual fight against the grain of every law and social standard out there.

We've seen plenty of examples where trying to appeal to individuals to "be better" in hopes that society will eventually follow suit is a total waste of time. Take Christianity, for instance. They've been pushing the "love thy neighbor as thyself" mantra for two thousand years, and it hasn't done squat for individuals or for society. Why? Because for those two millennia, the legal systems and moral structures remained fundamentally opposed to Christ's command to love. We live in a world carved up by religion, nationality, ideology, borders, political parties, and class warfare—groups fighting to the death for territory and wealth. This struggle is forced upon us from the TOP DOWN by religious, state, political, and class power centers. These elites dictate the rules and punish anyone who doesn't play along. Essentially, Christ's command to "love your neighbor" is just a MASK used by the very people sowing division, hatred, and war to make themselves look righteous and honest while they prevent actual human connection.

So, my take is this: stop begging individuals to change. It's useless. Instead, aim your fire at the global political, national, religious, and class power centers. Demand they change their laws and moral systems—or better yet, let them die off. They are nothing but dangerous, useless baggage that has threatened the human race throughout all of history. We need to work on a global positive shift in how society functions. Once the system itself changes, the individuals within it will fall into line naturally without anyone having to lecture or force them.
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#29 ·
Sandra Wilson68 said:rustymaker5:

Quinn:
We always start by staring at massive global crises instead of looking in the mirror, so everything looks way bleaker than it actually is.
When you look at the whole "give and take" dynamic, you can't just look at the individual; you have to look at society as a whole. Humans are social animals. Most of the time, we can't act exactly how we want because we're stuck following social norms, laws, moral codes, and traditions. This matters because if the way people interact in society regarding this "giving and receiving" isn't up to par, you can't just nag the individual to change their attitude toward society. You have to fix the entire system—change the laws, the norms, and the customs. It’s way more efficient to change the rules of the game so society shifts naturally, rather than demanding an individual fight against the grain of every law and social standard out there.

We've seen plenty of examples where trying to appeal to individuals to "be better" in hopes that society will eventually follow suit is a total waste of time. Take Christianity, for instance. They've been pushing the "love thy neighbor as thyself" mantra for two thousand years, and it hasn't done squat for individuals or for society. Why? Because for those two millennia, the legal systems and moral structures remained fundamentally opposed to Christ's command to love. We live in a world carved up by religion, nationality, ideology, borders, political parties, and class warfare—groups fighting to the death for territory and wealth. This struggle is forced upon us from the TOP DOWN by religious, state, political, and class power centers. These elites dictate the rules and punish anyone who doesn't play along. Essentially, Christ's command to "love your neighbor" is just a MASK used by the very people sowing division, hatred, and war to make themselves look righteous and honest while they prevent actual human connection.

So, my take is this: stop begging individuals to change. It's useless. Instead, aim your fire at the global political, national, religious, and class power centers. Demand they change their laws and moral systems—or better yet, let them die off. They are nothing but dangerous, useless baggage that has threatened the human race throughout all of history. We need to work on a global positive shift in how society functions. Once the system itself changes, the individuals within it will fall into line naturally without anyone having to lecture or force them.

But how on earth do you plan to flip the script on global society if you don't start by changing the very individuals who actually make up that society? To me, that sounds like trying to slap a roof on a house while expecting the foundation to just magically manifest itself underneath you...😕
Sandra Wilson68 Sandra Wilson68 Active Member
75 messages
joined Mar 2004
#30 ·
rustymaker5:

Quinn:
How do you even think you can change society on a global scale if you aren't willing to change the individuals that actually make up that society? To me, it looks like trying to build a roof while expecting the foundation to just pop into existence on its own.
Now that’s a damn good question!

First, you’ve gotta nail down what the core essence of any given situation actually is. Once you have that, then—and only then—can you start looking at the core essence of how to change it.

At its core, everything boils down to one thing: EXPERIENCE. It’s all about that accumulated knowledge—knowing how things ought to work and how people should behave. Our entire history of human interaction is shaped by what we’ve learned through experience. That collective understanding is exactly why we bake certain principles into our social norms, our civic duties, our laws, and our moral codes. We follow them because we know they’re the standard. And let's be real: if you try to play outside those rules, society isn't going to give you a pass. You'll get called out, and you'll pay the price.

Look, the whole point of change is simple: you take what we’ve learned, build on it, and make it better. We take old knowledge, use it to fix broken laws and outdated morals, and move forward. That’s just how evolution works—it’s baked into nature and it’s how human society evolves, too. Think about it. We moved past slavery, leveled up to feudalism, then hit capitalism, then pushed toward socialism. It’s all a ladder. And eventually, we’ll reach the peak: a perfect, Humanist society.

What’s actually the difference between all the social orders we've seen so far—you know, those old-school ways people have tried to balance "give and take"—and that Humanist social order that's supposed to show up at the end of everything?

Here’s the deal: all our past tax systems were built on this toxic idea that the only way to survive in a society is for everyone to go at each other's throats. It’s based on the "knowledge" that life is just a zero-sum game where you fight dirty to stay afloat. As long as a society is run by that mindset—where those laws and principles dictate how we live—you don't get giving or receiving. You only get grabbing and snatching. It becomes a pure survival of the fittest, where the strong take what they want and the weak just die off. Any society built on that kind of constant struggle and theft is fundamentally rigged and unjust.

Maybe one day, when human consciousness—or let’s call it actual experience—finally hits a breaking point, we'll get it. People will finally realize that fighting and grabbing whatever they can from each other isn't how you actually survive as a society. The real way to win is by helping each other out and actually cooperating. We need to move toward Humanist social structures built on equality and justice. Once everyone finally catches on, our entire moral compass and legal system will have to shift. That's when the principle of cooperation and the whole "give-and-take" thing actually starts working.

If you want to see what happens when a society follows one principle versus another, go back and re-read that "Paradise Lost" piece I posted earlier. Think about the human body for a second. It’s basically the ultimate example of a perfect, Humanist social order. You’ve got tens of thousands of cells and organs all working together in total sync. In the body, the whole "give-and-take" principle is dialed up to eleven. Every single tiny part serves the entire organism, and in return, the organism sustains that part. It's simple math. Your legs carry your whole weight around all day, and in exchange, they get fed and moved. Your brain does the thinking for the whole system while relying on every other part to function. Your lungs breathe for the entire body, just like your heart pumps for everyone else. This goes for everything—your hands, your stomach, your eyes, your ears—every little piece. The human body operates exactly like that story of Paradise Lost. It’s pure give-and-take. There’s no fighting for scraps, no injustice, no power struggles. When a group of cells decides to rebel against that order and starts attacking the rest of the body? That’s called cancer. Modern society, where everyone is constantly clawing at each other to get ahead, isn't just flawed—it's sick. It's cancerous.
_____________________________________

So, none of that actually answers your question about how we can trigger a global societal shift if the individuals making up that society haven't changed first. Here’s my take:

I’ve already touched on this, but we’re currently living by "experience" and a survival-of-the-fittest mindset that we mistakenly think is the best way to stay alive. That's a total delusion. It's the dogma that built every moral code and legal system in America—systems that force us to live in a constant state of friction. If we want to break that, we have to dismantle those dogmas using actual knowledge and experience centered on cooperation and reciprocity (the give-and-take principle). Basically, we need to build a scientific and philosophical foundation for this "give-and-take" model to prove it's actually the natural order. Nature isn't built on conflict; it's built on exchange. Everything from subatomic particles acting as tiny societies to celestial bodies, all the way up to cells forming plants, animals, and humans, operates on this principle of reciprocity. If it didn't, nature would just fall apart.

I've actually tried to ground this "give-and-take" principle in hard science. I put my research on a website and called it the "Law of Existence" or the "Science of Self-Preservation." http://home.iprimus.com.au/jljubo. I am convinced this work can hold its own against any global scientific or philosophical audience and earn legitimate recognition. Once established, this science could tear down the ideological, political, and religious dogmas currently ruling the world. These outdated systems dictate a culture of "fight and grab" among individuals and organized groups—whether they're split by religion, nationality, politics, or class—all fighting mercilessly for dominance or survival.

To give you the shortest possible answer to your question: We use new insights into what matter, life, and nature actually are—and the laws they follow—to overthrow the current religious, political, and state-mandated moral systems. We replace them with ones that are more perfect, more natural, and better. As Keith Lee2 puts it, we need to "change the fish from the head so it stops smelling." Once the head changes, fixing the body—the individual people—will be easy. They'll adapt naturally to a moral system that is far more intuitive and beneficial. Those new systems will be rooted in knowledge and high consciousness, unlike the current ones, which are driven by ignorance, delusions, and low-level consciousness.

Later.
Sandra Wilson68 Sandra Wilson68 Active Member
75 messages
joined Mar 2004
#31 ·
rustymaker5;

You're right, it sounds like a paradox, but that's just how it works. It’s all connected. People can't act with humanity toward one another if the laws governing society force them to be inhumane. And people won't change those inhumane laws until they actually grasp what humanity is and start acting like it themselves. It's a total chicken-and-egg situation. You can't have the chicken without the egg, and you don't get an egg without the chicken.

But hey, that doesn't mean social change is impossible. It doesn't mean we're stuck being inhumane just because our laws are trash, and it doesn't mean the world is doomed to follow cruel laws just because people are flawed. There's always this factor of new experience—new knowledge about what true humanity looks like. We pick this up through history by living under the rules we create based on our current understanding. Or through scientific breakthroughs regarding life and nature that align with natural laws we haven't even realized exist yet. We gradually uncover these truths through practice, which changes us as individuals and, eventually, our laws. Think about it: we went from slavery to feudalism, then to capitalism and socialism, all to eventually move toward something more perfect and natural—Humanist principles. Maybe my work on the science of self-preservation—which is basically a science of consciousness we've been missing—can help bridge that gap. We can transition from the imperfect "give-and-take" of capitalist production and distribution to a truly Humanist system. As individuals, using this science to understand the natural principle of "giving and receiving," we can elevate our consciousness. Once enough of us level up, we can collectively agree that our current laws are garbage and demand they change to match our new understanding. That way, new generations can grow up being inherently humane because the social rules they're raised under actually support that. For the generation alive right now? That's much harder. We demand individuals be "good," while our actual societal laws demand we be monsters. They force us to divide ourselves by religion, nationality, political parties, class, borders, and more. They tell us to arm ourselves to the teeth and fight life-or-death battles just to survive. It’s all driven by the intent to GRAB, with absolutely zero GIVING.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#32 ·
Quinn:


It seems to me that so many people are far too eager to hand out things they shouldn't:
like clutter, unsolicited advice, or unwanted condescension.


On the flip side, there's often this intense resistance to actually receiving:

whether it's friendly guidance, or crucial information that challenges my own biases and misconceptions.



Giving and receiving are two sides of the same coin; you can't truly have one without the other.
The opposite of giving is imposing, just as the opposite of receiving is snatching.



In my experience, being able to receive is actually a much bigger hurdle than being willing to give,
because if the other person isn't open to it,
my attempt at "giving" becomes nothing more than an imposition—an act of aggression.




Right here on this forum, we see it all the time: these self-proclaimed "prophets" or "sages" who generously offer their "Truths" to anyone listening (and even more so to those who aren't 😁), only to end up deeply disappointed when we, the ungrateful ones, refuse to take them in.

Rather than constantly preaching about how much we "should give,"
we ought to consider whether what we’re offering is actually beneficial for the recipient.
We also need to look inward at why we are often so unwilling (for all sorts of reasons) to accept what is genuinely good for us.
Kenneth Peterson5 Kenneth Peterson5 Active Member
124 messages
joined Nov 2007
#33 ·
swiftcobra15 said:whether it's friendly guidance or valuable insights that challenge my own biases and misconceptions.

[/B]

[/B]

[/B]

Look, giving is the flip side of getting, not "receiving."
The guy's out here claiming you can't get anything unless you give something up, but let's be real—you can totally give without getting a single damn thing back. 😉
mistybison mistybison Regular
495 messages
joined Aug 2008
#34 ·
swiftcobra15 said:Quinn:

whether it's friendly guidance, or crucial information that challenges my own biases and misconceptions.

[/B]

[/B]

[/B]

Since we can never truly know if our contributions are helpful to the receiver—especially in an online forum setting where everything said is public knowledge—perhaps silence would be the wisest choice. 🤔

And how unprepared we often are (for many different reasons) to receive what is genuinely good.

That is certainly true, though we often struggle to recognize even when something is beneficial to us.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#35 ·
image

The Happy Buddha is only as plump and jolly as his...
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 RegularOP
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#36 ·
Jonathan Brooks8 said:image

The Happy Buddha is only as plump and jolly as his...

😕

He is cheerful only because he takes on
the worries, anxieties, and suffering of others.
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#37 ·
swiftcobra15 said:😕

The story regarding the Happy Buddha—which is known internationally as the Happy Buddha—is quite endearing to me, and I find myself happily retelling it just as I first heard it. Essentially, when a Buddhist monk arrived in China (originating from India, one can tell by his elongated earlobes), he lived much like any other beggar, subsisting on what he could gather through alms. Yet, in the process of giving, he offered the very spiritual nourishment that those who "consumed" it so desperately craved...
He was widely recognized for his cheerfulness—his sunny disposition—and his stout physique, which stood in stark contrast to the typical Buddhist mendicants, who were often gaunt, somber, and rather "lifeless."

It was precisely that difference in weight compared to the other beggars that reflected his capacity for giving; people would feed him just enough to match what they received in return (an unlikely feat, considering how hungry and impoverished most people were), and his size was a direct testament to both his intake and his output... furthermore, his buoyancy of spirit remains one of his most profound gifts.

Consequently, he has been immortalized as one of the iconic images of the Buddha—the Happy Buddha of China.👍
(Is the image gone? I can't seem to see it anymore)
Edward Flores4 Edward Flores4 Regular
428 messages
joined Mar 2008
#38 ·
rustymaker5 said:Quote:


swiftcobra15 says:


I honestly can't get behind that logic, because if we're being real, the true opposite of giving is actually receiving... and let's face it, it’s perfectly normal for one to exist without the other, or at least for one side to be way more dominant than the other in any given situation...

Imposing is just a violent form of giving—it's forcing something onto someone who didn't ask for it in the first place.
And taking by force? That's just a violent way of receiving, or rather, grabbing something that isn't being offered voluntarily...🙂

That’s not it at all... they're both part of the same thing!

Giving and receiving are really just "heads" and "tails" on the exact same coin. Just like any other transaction you'll run into, this one is mutual. You can't have a sale without a buyer, and you can't have a gift without someone to accept it.

The truth is, giving and receiving don't actually have opposites... the act of giving and the act of receiving are essentially ONE single thing. Sure, you can negate them—by not giving or not receiving—but true opposites don't exist in the action itself. Opposites are just things we create when we start categorizing stuff; they come from our labels, not the actions themselves. Actions don't have opposites—an action triggers a reaction, which brings us right back to those two sides of the same coin. We only see "opposites" once we start grouping behaviors into abstract categories or statistics.
analogsurfer15 analogsurfer15 Member
10 messages
joined Mar 2008
#39 ·
Edward Flores4 said:That’s not it at all... they're both part of the same thing!

Giving and receiving are really just "heads" and "tails" on the exact same coin. Just like any other transaction you'll run into, this one is mutual. You can't have a sale without a buyer, and you can't have a gift without someone to accept it.

The truth is, giving and receiving don't actually have opposites... the act of giving and the act of receiving are essentially ONE single thing. Sure, you can negate them—by not giving or not receiving—but true opposites don't exist in the action itself. Opposites are just things we create when we start categorizing stuff; they come from our labels, not the actions themselves. Actions don't have opposites—an action triggers a reaction, which brings us right back to those two sides of the same coin. We only see "opposites" once we start grouping behaviors into abstract categories or statistics.

Exactly. Without reciprocity, you don't actually have a giver—you just have someone making an offer. There’s no receiver until they actually step up and take what's being offered.

A mugger isn't a "giver," and someone forcing something on you—like dumping trash in your yard—isn't a giver either. And if you actually pick up that trash? You aren't a receiver... you're just a fool.🙂

Little Bud starts out as an offerer, then becomes a giver once people show up to take, and eventually becomes a receiver once those takers start giving back. So, are we offering to give, or are we offering (and giving) just so we can receive?

Can you even truly be a giver without also being a receiver? Or do people who are *only* givers and *only* receivers actually exist in the real world? I'm thinking about it, really thinking... but I can't quite wrap my head around a real example...🙂
Harold Adams5 Harold Adams5 Active Member
102 messages
joined Feb 2008
#40 ·
Jonathan Brooks8 said:

The story regarding the Happy Buddha—which is known internationally as the Happy Buddha—is quite endearing to me, and I find myself happily retelling it just as I first heard it. Essentially, when a Buddhist monk arrived in China (originating from India, one can tell by his elongated earlobes), he lived much like any other beggar, subsisting on what he could gather through alms. Yet, in the process of giving, he offered the very spiritual nourishment that those who "consumed" it so desperately craved...
He was widely recognized for his cheerfulness—his sunny disposition—and his stout physique, which stood in stark contrast to the typical Buddhist mendicants, who were often gaunt, somber, and rather "lifeless."

It was precisely that difference in weight compared to the other beggars that reflected his capacity for giving; people would feed him just enough to match what they received in return (an unlikely feat, considering how hungry and impoverished most people were), and his size was a direct testament to both his intake and his output... furthermore, his buoyancy of spirit remains one of his most profound gifts.

Consequently, he has been immortalized as one of the iconic images of the Buddha—the Happy Buddha of China.👍
(Is the image gone? I can't seem to see it anymore)
The story regarding the Happy Buddha—which is known internationally as the Happy Buddha—is quite endearing to me, and I find myself happily retelling it just as I first heard it. Essentially, when a Buddhist monk arrived in China (originating from India, one can tell by his elongated earlobes), he lived much like any other beggar, subsisting on what he could gather through alms. Yet, in the process of giving, he offered the very spiritual nourishment that those who "consumed" it so desperately craved...
He was widely recognized for his cheerfulness—his sunny disposition—and his stout physique, which stood in stark contrast to the typical Buddhist mendicants, who were often gaunt, somber, and rather "lifeless."

It was precisely that difference in weight compared to the other beggars that reflected his capacity for giving; people would feed him just enough to match what they received in return (an unlikely feat, considering how hungry and impoverished most people were), and his size was a direct testament to both his intake and his output... furthermore, his buoyancy of spirit remains one of his most profound gifts.

Consequently, he has been immortalized as one of the iconic images of the Buddha—the Happy Buddha of China.👍
(Is the image gone? I can't seem to see it anymore)
The story regarding the Happy Buddha—which is known internationally as the Happy Buddha—is quite endearing to me, and I find myself happily retelling it just as I first heard it. Essentially, when a Buddhist monk arrived in China (originating from India, one can tell by his elongated earlobes), he lived much like any other beggar, subsisting on what he could gather through alms. Yet, in the process of giving, he offered the very spiritual nourishment that those who "consumed" it so desperately craved...
He was widely recognized for his cheerfulness—his sunny disposition—and his stout physique, which stood in stark contrast to the typical Buddhist mendicants, who were often gaunt, somber, and rather "lifeless."

It was precisely that difference in weight compared to the other beggars that reflected his capacity for giving; people would feed him just enough to match what they received in return (an unlikely feat, considering how hungry and impoverished most people were), and his size was a direct testament to both his intake and his output... furthermore, his buoyancy of spirit remains one of his most profound gifts.

Consequently, he has been immortalized as one of the iconic images of the Buddha—the Happy Buddha of China.👍
(Is the image gone? I can't seem to see it anymore)
An exchange of love, in a metaphorical sense.🙂

We all love to feed those we care about.😉

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads