Mistake of the Take

#8
Hi Lisa, you have actually highlighted another problem with the word "take". There is a great intelligence in knowing how to receive well. As a story about Buddha once described if the gift is denied who owns the gift and in this case what was being given to the Buddha were insults. Give and take is a relationship , we automatically place a positive sign on giving and a negative sign on taking - but that comes down to how we frame giving and taking. If the frame of taking is linked to the worst of humanity we side with giving but what that does is create a them and us scenario and give AND take should be the essence of "WE". Together not separate. If I give agape love but the other does not take that love - then what is that "Take"? Surely that would be a mistake of the take because here that mistake becomes one that is all to common, we don't know how to receive. Reply

#11
Dear Deb, I have been meaning to write such a buzz - the title I have had for weeks "IMAGE & BEING" but for some reason something or another has come up just as I have even begun to compose it. Reply

#7
The key is creating a new tomorrow and that is the growing pain. Reply

#5
The worst politicians give promises and take power, but that pales in comparison to when we take our soul and give it away for the price of fear and the drinking of emotional poison. The most precious thing we give away is not money, it is our very being - and today in the hollow center that remains, we fill it with image and we call that authentic. Giving which should be a collective power becomes an authenticity of the few and we don't know that giving until we have experienced agape. This type of giving is what makes humanity great in the small spaces we find humanity. The inhumanity of the system we give in is altogether different experience - and people do not have to have a political career to be negatively political, and here I do not separate the terrible politician from the people who sanctioned and allowed the rise of the terrible politicians - and this ignorance is killing us most because this ignorance are people giving generously without realizing what their giving is taking away. GIVE AND TAKE should be an integral and integrated experience but it is reduced to the status of trading whether that trade be with politicians, corporations, professional bodies, special interest or men of religion. If our soul is taken, then what is given is our continual attempts to plaster an ever-bleeding global wound. Instead of creating a new tomorrow we repeat our yesterday. Reply

#2
Dear Fatima, we do not take a look at the word "take" in its full context and one context is the bitter, the bad and the sad but that is only one context. The idea of giving our opinion is our "take" on things. We all have a take - and if we are only giving partial view of that take, it is merely a take. That is the primary mistake of the take, not the actual taking. The taking is a consequence of the take. Once we get to that point then the disruption in giving is that, because then it is not a marketing point of view, it is a human integrated view. Even when we give we are involved in point and not the whole. The agreement that giving is good is the easiest part of giving. The difficult part is how it comes back as renaissance, as a world that is better when we leave it than when we entered it - and that is the possibility, so the mistake of take is not understanding the full context of take - for a take is not simply money or resource or profit or opinion - it is the relationship between give AND take. That is where the paradox wisdom is. Reply

Dear Ali Anani as promised in your buzz "A Give on a Give" - I present "Mistake of the Take". Reply