Comment by nsomaru | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsomaru | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The way my guru would respond to question like “how do I avoid giving too much” type questions was to retort with a question…

“If you’re a giver, what are you looking for?”

…

“Takers!”

That is, if you’re giving with an expectation of something in return, you’re not looking to give, you’re looking for a transaction. True giving, then, does not carry with it the weight of any expectation or fruit. The joy is in the act of giving itself, the sacrifice, as a candle sacrifices itself to give light.

He elaborated further to say that if one person is giving oriented in a relationship, it would be stable. If both, it would be heaven. To come back to the point of the OP, it’s the focus on “me, me, me” that’s the issue.

Abraham Lincoln said (paraphrase) “there is one way to bring up your children, and that is to walk that way yourself.” I feel in relationships it’s similar. Less sermons, more leading by example without expectations.

I don't disagree, because there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. But...

1. If kids see the example of a marital power dynamic of taking and giving, it's not that they will necessarily learn to be selfless givers!

2. I like the F Scott Peck definition of love, which is to extend ones self to support the spiritual growth of another. And, often the growth that a taker needs is to learn to be giving. Often, takers take because they view themselves as a victim.

For a giver, it can be really difficult to go outside of one's normal giving mode without being sucked into a mode of anger or resentment.

3."Being married" is not an ultimate value—it can hurt all the people involved. Complicated! Sometimes I feel I could be a much better, more giving person in a healthier relationship because I could be helping many more people. If i take your example of the candle—it may be great to sacrifice yourself to create light, but is it worth the sacrifice if you aren't producing light?

The way I interpret what he said is, “if the sacrifice is genuine, light is the necessary result”

I like it because it puts the ball back in my court and forces me to take responsibility without judging the other.

>you’re looking for a transaction

And what is wrong with that? I help you with your shit and you help me with mine.

It's not at the level of transactional quid pro quos. But at a basic level you can't have one giver and one taker. Eventually that breaks down into resentment.

There is such a thing as one sided relationship where one person gives and other don't. And the giver is not happy in the long term.

There is value in being able to ask for what you need and being able to realize when giving is not reciprocated.

That's because the giver secretly expected something in return.

And that's okay and expected - it would be unrealistic to expect people to be 100% ideal givers.

In the parent post's quote "If you’re a giver, what are you looking for?" the "If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

No. Prior expectations are not the only way how one gets resentful. Being tired is another. Realizing you have not done something you like for long time is yet another.

And all of it is healthy. Being submissive doormat and not having boundaries is not healthy.

You might be a giver looking for another giver to build something bigger together. It isn’t correct that givers only want takers. Think of it like cofounders.

Who is your guru?

A Parthasarathy — www.vedantaworld.org

Reply on news.ycombinator.com