The Shaman comes from a monied family that demonstrated little affection. For years, he shied away from human touch, but he got to a point in his own life when he became a hugger. People would tell him that they couldn't afford to visit him, so he'd buy their air tickets. He gave freely. When it was time that someone would offer him a gift of a Rolex, he'd refuse.
The two discussed this and it got me thinking. The Shaman had a dual edged view of material things. When he was the giver, he gave freely. When he was on the receiving end, he refused. No one has to be rich to see the contradiction in terms. Either things can have loving intention and meaning both when we give and when we receive or they have no meaning at all. Why can't material things represent loving intention both ways, as giver and as receiver?
I think it's important to strive at balance between self-love and outward love, between being self-centered and giver. I don't want to refuse to receive love. A hug is just as nice as a crystal vase. Why can't it be so? Demonstrations of love like hugs and kisses are wonderful, so why can't love that is represented by a gift in a box also be wonderful?
When a gift shows up in a box, it's got a price tag on it. That price tag represents how much labor had to be expended in order to purchase the gift, and now it's being given. There are large, inexpensive but showy gifts, and tiny, steeply priced gifts like diamond cuff links.
It just seems to me that people aren't happy with what they've got. A kid with a loving family wants the prosperous family. A kid with every toy still craves affection. We can't have it all. Or can we? Is there anyone out there who had a satisfactory balance?
#LoveAndMoney
#AncientWisdomToday
#MaterialThings
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hello and thank you for leaving your thoughts.