The work of CharityFocus in encouraging the Gift Economy has been nothing short of phenomenal. People read about it and get deeply moved to do something for someone without any expectations, thus turning the wheel of "dharma" in their own heart. However, there is also a great danger of misunderstanding these ideas. At a 10-day meditation retreat earlier this year, as time slowed by orders of magnitude, it became clear to me how this misunderstanding happens.
Why is it so difficult to see?
My first example is from the 10-day retreat itself. The retreat operates on a gift economy principle, where the material needs of participants are taken care of so the entire focus may be on the task at hand. After the retreat ends, participants are given the opportunity to pay for the next group of participants, whatever they wish, if they are so moved. This principle, when experienced, makes one delighted and wonder why we don't see more of this.
At a lunch on the last day, a co-meditator shared, "I've been to another place to learn meditation, and they charged $400! I wish they'd follow this model." The moment I heard this, I knew we had moved away from the spirit of the offering. I shared, "I am sure the people who run that place are doing their best and don't have experience with this. Perhaps you can pay $400 here, so they may gift a spot to someone and start on their own journey of giving." The co-meditator agreed with this.
I remembered many times when I've lectured others on going gift-economy, but the only time the wheels of kindness have started turning is when I've been the change and done an act of kindness myself. The only decision in a gift-economy that we can make in a wholesome way is whether we want to be the change or not. Others respond to our decisions, but we must recognize the central role we play.
A Fundamental Disconnect
In a car conversation, a friend told me that he had read about Nipun Mehta a couple of years back, and he told the folks who used to work for him that they ought to learn from Nipun and not be greedy about making more and more money. Something struck me as odd about this, and took me a year to figure out what that was. It became clearer in a conversation with another friend in a non-profit, whose employer was very impressed with the gift economy, and decided to halve the salary of my friend to be consistent with his understanding of the gift economy.
Both stories have a common thread -- a fundamental misunderstanding of the gift economy. The first story manifested this misunderstanding in thought, and the second one in action, with damaging consequences. Both show a disconnect with one's own heart, for where is the heart in cutting an employee's salary because I think that employee should be charitable? When someone else does this, I feel depressed and tempted to classify such an action as vulgar.
The Root of the Problem
In each of the three stories shared, there was a pure volition -- when hearing about the gift economy, something clicked, the heart swelled with joy on hearing stories of unconditional kindness. However, because most of us have not inculcated such a habit of unconditional kindness, the first involuntary reaction is -- I wish that person over there can do this, because that person is so selfish (or a jerk, or whatever other negative label we want to apply). When we act on this reaction, we solidify the bad habit-pattern and get trapped even more. We philosophize, sermonize and even harm others in the name of kindness.
What we don't realize is that we cannot transfer our volition to others. What started out as the recognition of a great truth needs to be carried out with individual action by the realizer. In the case of the employer, how about doing something kind for the employee without any expectation that the employee will pay it back? What if the employer says to the employee: "I know you've been working so hard. Since we can't afford to give you a raise, I am going to take a pay-cut myself to make this happen." Or even better, take the pay-cut, don't tell the employee and give the raise. It is a great test of unconditional kindness. A simpler way of remembering the transfer of volition problem is the old adage - don't curse the darkness, light a candle.
The Vacation Quota Problem
The darkness-cursing problem arises not just in employer-employee relations, or in situations with monetary implications, it also arises in common everyday situations.
Imagine a couple living in a foreign country, with their parents and in-laws in their home country. The wife plans a vacation, which the husband cannot join due to various commitments. The wife then announces, "I am going to spend most of my trip with my parents because that's why I am going. I will however spend two days with your parents." The husband's monkey mind kicks in. He thinks, "Since I could not go visit my parents, it is my wife's duty to be my representative and spend equal time with both families." He then acts on this thought by insisting that his wife increase the time spent with his parents. And of course, the wife refuses - that is not why she is going. And then we get into the familiar quarrel situation. Lets back up a bit. When the husband first heard the wife's plan, before she announced the time quotas, there was a volition that sprang - that of kindness and service for his own parents. This is a pure volition. However, upon hearing about the inequitable quota, he reacted by trying to transfer his intentions onto his wife by insisting on her duties. That cannot and does not work.
As an alternative scenario, the husband could bless his wife and wish her a happy trip. There will be a day when he can make his own trip. It is then that he can carry out his volition of service, and develop the volition to a level where he sees both sets of parents as his own, and devotes equal time to both. Maybe his wife will be inspired and maybe she won't. But this is the only decision he really has in front of him. And if the law of nature is indeed a law, then his wife is bound to be touched by his action, provided it arises out of a pure volition and not out of a desire to manipulate.
The Angry Activist
I've had many dear activist friends who've been bothered about legitimate causes. Some are angry about the socialism of the left, while others are angry about the fundamentalism of the right. Both fall prey to the cursing-darkness trap, arising out of a failed transfer of volition. One of the consequences of cursing darkness is that we expend a lot of useful energy on matters that can only cause more grief.
A friend was visiting from India, and in a conversation, he lashed out against a particular political party in India, saying, "Political parties may be bad, but this one is surely evil. They have otherized the community of purple people. I have no sympathy for this party - they are pure evil." The irony was not lost on me that a staunch critic of otherizers had just committed the sin he opposed. When I asked what concrete idea he had to help the situation, he had none - it was all despair and criticism, arising from a frustration of being unable to transfer his love volition to others.
An angry activist has to expend so much energy on hate, however legitimate the reason may be. Unfortunately, that hate only begets hate - nothing good has ever come of it.
Implications on Government
If the problem of transfer-of-volition is evident from observing our own lives, then how do we explain our decision to transfer the volition to serve to government or to politicians? In fact, this is perhaps the key reason that most government initiatives fail to do any good. The ones who wanted to make the difference are not being the change anymore and have outsourced their work to the government. If we acknowledge the simple truth that "I can be the change" and "I cannot transfer my volition to others," our upside-down government thinking (that almost completely relies on transfer of volition) will have to be abandoned in favor of voluntary approaches that shun coercion.
We have to stop demanding change, and start being the change.
The simplest way to be the change is to be. That will be the biggest change of all, because we are all so used to being something we are not. The message of "be the change" can then be shortened to "be."
In summary, we seriously misunderstand the gift economy principle when we try to transfer our volition to others. This happens due to confusion about the decisions that are available to us when we feel a volition to serve. Developing the wisdom to identify what we can decide and what is outside our influence will lead to equanimity (or vice-versa). From equanimity comes the strength to light a candle, and that light is enjoyed not just by the lighter but by all those who are willing to keep their eyes open. Even those who live with their eyes shut will be touched by the warmth of the light when they come near its source. Therefore, why not be a source of light on this planet? Better still, why not just be?
Posted by Somik Raha
|
comments (4)
|
permalink
| more '
New Ideas' |
Feb 05: Jennifer on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 28: Paula Tomsett on Paul Hawken's Commencement Address in Portland
Jan 27: Madhu on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 26: Nitul on One Straw Revolution of Masanobu Fukuoka
Jan 25: Ramanand Kowta on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 24: sheela on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 24: Jill on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 24: Maureen Sheridan on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 23: Allie on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy
Jan 23: Rational on Mother Teresa on Gift Economy