"Better to Give?" Part I

"It is better to give than to receive." I'll just start without any pretense and state that, as many a character in Jane Austen's novels would say: "I have an objection!" Actually, more than a single one.

As experience tells me, it feels better to give than to receive. And, as numerous other authors have pointed out, giving cannot take place unless there is a receiver on the other end. Feeling better about giving does not equate with it being "better" than receiving. In fact, the ability to receive, gracefully and gratefully, is a much more difficult task.

Just in case there is any confusion of terms and definitions, I will clarify that receiving is not taking. The former being a passive state and the latter, an aggressive one. Passive also does not mean submissive. It means being open and being ready. A passive state is like a bowl: an empty space ready to be filled and hold the newly placed contents. It serves a purpose. An important one at that.

And so it seems to this eye that either the original phrase is not really "the" original and it was modified to fit someone else's idea of morality and control, or whoever wrote it down has missed half of the reality. Either way, I hope to decipher the myth of good vs. evil and give credit to all that exists, to both sides of the coin, to all duality that is this existence.