Riffs On Resentment & Risk....
>>I personally find resentment one of the most destructive emotions there is (to the individual experiencing it, not to the object of it), just one tiny notch above the worst of all - envy.>>
>>NOTE:Can someone please start playing the guitar in the background. Some piano and a soft track of drums would help. Some background harmony would help. Someone, Rambi, X, Joe & Charlie, help out please....>>
jbe:
Agree.
Resentment results from the simple failure to connect with the unlimited vertical/spiritual energy of love and light within us.
Someone/something/somewhere/sometime may be feeling/sharing joy/light/hope or happiness but we feel resentful only IF our relative perception of their joy/happiness/energy is viewed against a dark backdrop - ie. "there's limited energy/light/love in the universe and what others have I must NOT have or have less of therefor I feel resentful, etc."
You get the idea....
Simply put, imagine/visualize the picture of somebody else's magnificent fireworks display against the dark sky. Others outside of you are sharing in this display of light, energy and sound while you and yours are still in the dark.
The negativity of this world - ie. these black holes - feed off resentment, envy, jealosy, hate, frustration and anger.
These black holes are nothing more than a "crying out" for love, attention and energy. To call them evil misses the point. For a black hole can only exist in an environment where there is little hope, faith, light, energy and love. Like a little child that doesn't get the love/attention he/she needs, the individual who starts a black hole is pleading/calling for others to give him/her energy/light in the form of attention - positive or negative. If the attention is negative it only fuels and accelerates the power of the black hole. If the attention is positive and loving then the black hole is arrested and perhaps this can be a catalyst to ignite and start a reversal of fortunes which grows into a fission reaction of light, energy and love.
Now to Neocon's scheme.....which you questioned:
YOU
>>I also question the logic of the following:
Neocon
>>In my scheme, a deed which improves the lot of someone else and happens to do one [oneself]some good is even better than a purely selfless act, so there is no problem with charity that is supposed to benefit one spiritually, as long as the principle that the other person counts too is honored.>>
I see no problem with this statement. True giving is giving for the sheer joy of giving without expecting anything back. It's what other perceive or define as the expectational quid pro quo that breaks this down. If there is an expectation it will eventually come out in the wash, but only the receiver of the "gift" can really tell if this is the case.
Did you ever "feel" the resentment or expectation of friends or family members who have shared time or given gifts but who want or expect the quid pro quo thankyou or whatever. This basic feeling of resentment is a part of this drawing/clutching need for definition and control immediately following an act of sharing/risking/giving.
It's as if we are fearful of our natural gifts and do not want to be taken advantage of or taken for granted, etc.
Unconditional giving and risking should be a courageous act which is simply there - no bells, hooks, limitations, expectations, restrictions or conditions.
Unfortunately mankind has this knee-jerk fearful nature to want to avoid, nullify or neutralize risk by "wanting to have our cake and eat it, too." We want to be able to claim we are selfless givers, but we also want to be able to extract conditional rents - ie. control/definition/power - from those gifts.
The problem is we can't have it both ways. And the more we demand both ways the more we separate ourselves from those we are seeking to connect with and love, etc.
YOU
>>1) Your antithesis is not entirely valid, in my view. For example, in most religious "schemes," a "purely selfless act" does do the doer of the act "some good." He gets some brownie points with The Man Up Above, or improves his Karma, or whatever. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely selfless act. And as I tried to point out, religions actually encourage a certain form of self-centeredness.>>
I agree. You have a point here. Most religios communities want to keep track of some kind of earthly brownie point system for our acts of "doing good" - ie. "he volunteered at the homeless shelter so he's Ok this week, etc." Religions become the like the IRS of our community service actions - watching, collecting, tracking, documenting, etc. Protective social self-centeredness becomes the norm when we write checks for this or that at various functions, etc.
I'm not saying a gun was/is put to our head, but something more than protective social self-centerness empowered me to keep raising the bidding at our church's number one fund raiser for a "Dinner With Phil" - this student which I've been a BIG fan of - from $25 to $4000 where I lost out to a gentleman who turned out to be the CFO for one of Wall Street's largest brokerage firms.
We lost out in the bidding for Dinner With Phil only after this gentleman and his wife agreed to invite us over. By this time our priest and the Chicago dee-jay where all invited to come along.
What did my wife and I get out of this? We bought our fair share of auction items and our older son is going to Sunday school and we volunteer for this and that - singing in the XMAS and Easter choir and playing John on Palm Sunday, etc. - but now she was asked to co-chair this next year's annual largest fundraiser.
I guess the answer is "you get what you truly risk giving away." We could care less about the envy, resentment and brownie points. You just have to plow into life with vigor and a kind of reckless abandon. We need more people who can evangelize the value of embracing and taking RISKS in this world.
And I will close there.
Peace.
. |
