The act of giving is much talked about in practically every part of world. It transcends religions and shatters geographical and other visible and invisible boundaries. The person who gives unconditionally is considered noble and benevolent at heart. All that is great. But does the act of giving alone fulfills the intention with which something is given? I am not too sure about it. I am reminded of Newton's law - For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Rephrasing it a bit, for every action to be fulfilled there needs to be an equal and opposite reaction. The act of giving can only be complete if it accepted with the spirit it is made.

For instance, how can love and affection be complete if one is not capable of receiving the love. Yes, love can be bestowed unconditionally but is that complete? How can one be complete freedom when the person being given the independence is not capable of receiving it. This list could go on and on - advice, mentoring, coaching, any opportunity and so on and so forth.

Should we judge every thing before giving or should we just give and can only hope that it will be taken in the right spirit? This comes back to the question of expectations of the giver. Should the giver be unconditional? Of course, it is situational and decision depends on the receiver. But what if life does not always give you the opportunity to gauge the receiver? Should we or should we not give is a question?

As an aside, what is special about few people who are able to give anything without hesitation, consistently and unconditionally? What drives them? Or are there hidden expectations that are not apparent to the eyes of lesser mortals?

For a change I am going to retell a story - The story of six blind man and an elephant.

There were six blind men and they embarked on a quest of finding how the elephant would be. Since they were blind, to get a picture of how the elephant would be like, they have to start feeling the animal. The elephant being huge, the 5 of them feeling around the animal at different places.

The first blind man walked over to see how this thing would be. He bumped himself into the side of the elephant. He put out his arms to either side, but all he could feel was the big body of the elephant. So he claimed that the elephant is like a wall.

The second blind man walked over to the front and grabbed the trunk of the elephant. He started screaming and wailing. "Elephant is like a wall! That is ridiculous. This is like a snake. Step back! Step back! Just in case that this thing is poisonous".

The third blind man who perched himself at the back of the elephant, felt its tail. He says, "Hey you two. There is no wall or snake. You both are wrong and please don't fear. Elephant is like a rope and seems very harmless".

The fourth man started feeling the legs and of course, he had pass a judgment too. He declared, "The elephant is but four tree trunks. No wall, no snake and of course, no rope either. Lets move on now."

The fifth man went over to the front and started feeling its tusks. "I feel two sword like things. Strong and smooth. Is this animal like a sword?". Finally a question, instead of a declaration!!

Are any of them wrong? How can all of be so incorrect and yet so correct!

Wonder what happened to the sixth man? He was quietly listening to all this. He heard and realized that the 5 of them walked off in different directions and felt the animal. He was triggered by the question the fifth man threw out open and started wondering aloud and threw a question of his own.

"Guys, what if you are all true. What if the elephant is all that you said?".

There were objections and chaos, the primary reason being, the elephant could not be all of this since the animal would have to be really huge if it has to be all of what was described.

The sixth man, apparently the wiser and more creative of the lot, asked, "Well, why cant it be huge? Why are we curtailing our thoughts with the invisible restrictions? There is no rule that an animal could be only this big. What if we are all in front of the biggest animal on earth?".

The other 5 had to agree. It takes a some listening, some observation and some thinking to put all of the different pieces together.

You see, difference of opinion always helps if we take it constructively. The difference, really makes a huge difference in getting the complete picture. Multiple perspectives allow us to attack the issue from various fronts and dig out the strengths and complement the weakness. That is the power of having multiple perspectives. But do we as one single individual generate as many perspectives? In my opinion that is not possible. And here is where the wisdom of crowd pitches in. Precisely the reason why there is a jury of 12 men (or rather people) - with different backgrounds, education profile and ethnicity. In recent years, women are a part of jury. Now, corporations find that having such differences is important. They find that it is more effective to have at least a woman on board or in a team. The pull and push between the basic nature of men and women compensate so beautifully in a team. The woman in the team pulls the reins on the aggressive schedules which is typical of a man. The over-meticulous attitude of woman is complemented by get-it-done-fast-and-neat attitude of men.

But jury and corporations bring in differences by choice, not by chance. There is a process around working with differences. Even if the differences get bigger and unworkable, there is a process of iron-hand-sorting - basically remove people who have too rigid opinions. The loss is not very high for the institutions and could afford the luxury having differences with a certain risk factor.

How do we react when it happens by chance in a personal environment? Do we cope with it well? I am afraid the answer would have to be a no. We do not do too well on that front. We feel threatened and we are afraid of losing our "face" since our opinions are what we are when we come to our personal front. While having different opinions is encouraged in an controlled , professional environment, we shy away from that in an intimate relationship. We feel the risk is too high to cope with. We ignore that there are differences and try to work around it. The best path to solution of a problem is through it and not around it. We fail to realize.

All this happens because we feel we are the set of opinions we have. We are more than our opinions. We should be having opinions yes, but weakly held - not weak enough to accept things we don't believe but not strong enough to be blind to other facets.

The coach pats the back of the player saying, "Well that throw was good, but not good enough".

The teacher tells the student, "Your score in Math is awesome, but your history sucks". (The student wonders, "What the heck, isn't 75% in history good enough?". As if anyone cares!)

The teacher shares his opinion of the ward to the parent, "Your son is a brilliant student, but he needs to behave in class".

The boss says to his sub-ordinate, "You are the most hard working person I have ever run into, but you know what? That is not enough, you need to work smarter.". (The guy scratches his head pondering, 'Whatever that means! I finish everything he says and more before the deadline committed. Should I be smart enough not to complete it before the deadline? Hmm, may be thats the smarter way')

The mother comforts the son who demands a toy, "Yes baby, you behaved as you promised, but the toy has to wait for a while for you are still not old enough". (The child wonders, 'How old should I be to be 'old enough' and why didn't she say that I was not old enough when she made the promise')

The husband wonders aloud to his wife, "Honey, you are look great, but can you also wear this high healed sandals and put on the white t-shirt instead of the one you are wearing. I think you would look out-of-world if you do that". (The wife thinks, 'Oh, isn't it enough to be looking great and I very much want to be in-the-world.')

The wife complains to the husband, "The vacation was great but we should simply have stayed there for couple of days more, for I didn't get to shop to my heart's content!" (The husband blinks stupefied, 'Good lord, we are returning with three times the luggage we went with and she thinks we haven't shopped enough. Whom does she think I am, a goose laying golden eggs?')

A girl confesses to her friend, "You were right, I acted stupid but I cant help it and I don't think I would be able to change my ways. I know it would be difficult for you but I think you would be able to accommodate or adjust or just simply ignore if at at all you think our friendship means anything at all you". (The friend finds it cheap of herself to say, 'And sweety, you can demand a little when you have given a little, what can you give to demand this of me. Do I mean something to you?')

A guy in his early 30's muses, "Hmm, we will be going the family way shortly and I should stop being such a spend thrift but may be after I spent my heart's content for the next couple o' months.".

Oh the medicine is bitter, you know, but it is sugar-coated. By the way there are some nice but's in life too. Something like,

"The old lady in the corner apartment was asked to vacate".
"Oh! But she was such a nice lady"

"The film was short but it was so sweet that I wish it were longer".

But there is always a but.