One of the traditions that creates most disappointment, bitterness, melancholy and delusions of martyrdom in daily life is that which is known by the concept of "giving gifts". Here one will no doubt ask in surprise if giving gifts is not something good, something that one should try hard to train oneself to do. And it cannot be denied that the absolutely unshakable answer to this is that the ability to give is the main cornerstone on which all absolute happiness rests. Indeed, it is even so all-important that the road to owning one's life goes solely through giving it, through sacrificing it for others, which means living it in the unselfish service of others. This is expressed in the words of Jesus: "He who gives his life for others shall own it; but he who does not give his life shall lose it."
      "Giving" is thus the watchword of life. But when "giving" can have such consequences as those mentioned above, where can such a manifestation be so necessary or imperative? One must here understand what "giving" really means, and what a "gift" really is. In daily life there is hardly anything more misused than the term "gifts". What one in everyday speech calls "gifts" or "giving" are not really "gifts" at all and cannot rightly belong to the principle of "giving", but, on the contrary, constitute merely camouflage for the buying and selling of the satisfaction of egoistic desires. Indeed, this camouflage can even be so effective and habitually organised by its originator's own subconscious that this originator sometimes has no day-conscious inkling of the true analysis of the situation in which he, in one case or another, is in the process of "bestowing" something on someone or something and thus, in the first instance and in good faith, believes he is "giving". This in turn means that this situation appears to the giver's awake day-consciousness to be the "giving of a gift", but the truth of the matter is in fact that the "gift" is merely a means by which the giver seeks to satisfy some egoistic desire; it is, in brief, merely a kind of "prepayment" for an expected gain in the form of a desired future advantage.
      The veiling of this motive for the giver's "contribution" has long since become such a consummate, habitual part of his consciousness that, in the majority of cases, it is "C-knowledge", which means that it has become an automatic function that works independently, beyond the conscious control of the individual. The consequence of this is that the giver, even if he cherishes certain pleasant expectations, is in such cases not conscious of this egoistic motive, and therefore, in his awake day-consciousness and in good faith, believes he is giving for entirely unselfish reasons. That he neither believes nor fully realises that his motive for giving could be connected with these pleasant expectations is due to his subconscious making this attitude a habit for him, precisely because it is in the giver's nature in the case in question to prefer to believe in his own loftiness. And the true motive for his giving is therefore revealed only when the expected advantages are not forthcoming. He then begins to feel slighted, misunderstood, indeed, unjustly treated by the recipient of his "giving" or gift. He feels that he is suffering from a kind of martyrdom, which in the worst case expresses itself as bitterness, indeed, as downright persecution of the recipient of the gift, quite without the recipient being necessarily guilty of any offence against the giver. And from this it follows that the giver's indignation is due to his hopes being dashed, that is, the non-appearance of the expected advantages that were the hidden motive for his giving of the gift.