survival at what cost?
in order for you to have independence, you need something other than what you have when you have nothing? Isn't independence a frame of mind?
Personal growth? How does having money as opposed to having no money (for the sake of argument) make you grow more as a person? How is it that every spiritual leader that I can think of has come out of (or experienced) the poorest of the poor? Buddha had the most personal growth when he got rid of the riches of his parent's kingdom and went to live as an ascetic (for example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
That seems suicidal..
|
Not in the least:
A rabbi was talking with God about Heaven and Hell.
"Come," said God. "Walk with me, and I will show you Hell."
And together they walked into a room of cold, rough stone. In the center of the room, atop a low fire, sat a huge pot of quietly simmering stew. The stew smelled delicious, and made the rabbi's mouth water. A group of people sat in a circle around the pot, and each of them held a curiously long-handled spoon. The spoons were long enough to reach the pot; but the handles were so ungainly that every time someone dipped the bowl of their spoon into the pot and tried to maneuver the bowl to their mouth, the stew would spill. The rabbi could hear the grumblings of their bellies. They were cold, hungry, and miserable.
"And now," God said, "I will show you Heaven."
Together they walked into another room, almost identical to the first. A second pot of stew simmered in the center; another ring of people sat around it; each person was outfitted with one of the frustratingly long spoons. But this time, the people sat with the spoons across their laps or laid on the stone beside them. They talked, quietly and cheerfully with one another. They were warm, well-fed, and happy.
"Lord, I don't understand," said the rabbi. "How was the first room Hell; and this, Heaven?"
God smiled. "It's simple," he said. "You see, they have learned to feed each other."
If anything, the belief that it's every man for himself is the suicidal act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
Cool.
The thing that occurs with money, I think, is the same thing that occurs when people say communism is bad. It's not the money, it's not the capitalism, it's always the violent means used to control people through such a medium. It seems to me whenever people are talking about the evils money, capitalism, communism, religion, etc., etc., they are ALWAYS, underlying their argument, talking about violence. I just don't think they necessarily realize it..
|
I believe I mentioned in another thread regarding your insistance that government is violence that it is a necessary evil. I believe I also mentioned that transcending the need for a government on a personal level is quite easy, as it simply requires the spiritual awareness to embrace compassion for all beings.
I believe the same philosophy should be applied here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapshot
What do you think? Do you think there are people who actually don't like money? Do you disagree with me that continually giving is, in a sense, suicidal? To me, I could understand that if everyone gave, you wouldn't need to work to take, but it seems as though you'd be able to give a lot more if you took a lot more, since there's that (ol') incentive (again) to compete, do your best, and produce the best comes in.
|
I disagree completely that continually giving is suicidal, any more than wanting a new car is wanting to murder someone else. But as much as those two are alike, I do agree. Part of giving is also giving others the ability to experience the act of giving to you.
There is no competition...no need to produce.... my "best" has nothing to do with how much I give in comparison to the next person. What matters is my own personal understanding and comfortability in my (or whomever's) skin. And that awareness does not lie. We suppress it, because we think we need to hoard money, or things, or whatever the case may be....but underneath everything, I truly believe people recognize the injustice and inequality money (and, by association, their own actions) creates.
I used a classroom metaphor in a thread a while ago, and I want to bring it up again.
If there are 20 kids in a class, and 18 of them are acting in a way contrary to what the core of your being says is acceptable (for me, breaking the golden rule), do you join them because "well, everyone else is!" or do you do what you think is right?
Taking is the inverse of giving. Accepting, however, relinquishes the need for taking and still allows the act of giving.