|
Post by Reefs on Sept 9, 2020 21:50:47 GMT -5
The money thing is fascinating because of how most people think about money. Warren Buffett has accumulated hundreds of millions, but it's just a game to him. He plans on giving something like 99% of it to the Gates Foundation. He could have given away tons of money to charitable causes over the years, but why do that when he can compound the money at 19.5% (his average rate of compounding over the last 50 years), and end up giving away a lot more money to charitable causes after his death? As for Tolle, the last I heard his net worth was about $12 million, not $70 million, but even if it's $70 million, the guy doesn't drive a Ferrari, and from what I've heard he lives pretty simply. He's probably waiting to find out what Source is going to do with the money, which is what most sages do who have more money than they need. A good book that gives some insight into this matter is "Everyday Enlightenment" because it highlights the lives of seven different sages who vary in financial wealth from having no money at all to having a lot. One individual was a social worker and one individual was a businessperson who ran a large company. People have lots of ideas about this topic, but sages don't think about it in the same way. Agreed. Poor people often think that having a lot of money will solve their problems. And that's mostly not the case because increasing levels of abundance also give new vantage points which create new desires and so the goal post keeps moving as before. So if they don't evolve along with their increasing abundance, it will most likely only amplify their already existing problems and they may actually be worse off than before. Being poor has its pros and cons. Being rich also has its pros and cons. What I find strange though is people believing that being filthy reach is necessarily unspiritual. That's ridiculous! This probably goes back to people having strange ideas about what the purpose of life is. And besides, what in this world is not spirit?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 9, 2020 22:10:31 GMT -5
To all who have replied to this subject. I agree in principle with inavalan (but not all of his comments, IOW, couldn't like any of his replies, in full). Why bank $70 million? Set up a trust for yourself and whoever else you want to take care of. Set the business/teaching up to perpetuate itself (Tolle is not going to live forever, but what he had/has to say is very beneficial, and can be for hundreds and thousands of years. I don't think it would take $70 million to do that). Anything left over (say just a ballpark $50 million), figure out the most need and support NEEDS, not wants. Bill Gates is a good model, giving away most of his fortune. I think it's a tricky one. Although Gates is (sort of) giving away his fortune, he's not without influence, and aside from whether I agree or not with the nature OF his influence (I consider it likely that he is a trans-humanist, in which case I don't resonate with his influence), it raises interesting spiritual questions about where the boundaries are between interfering and helping. Certainly I don''t resonate with Tolle accumulating a bank balance of $70 million (if that's true). That doesn't mean I know what he should do with it. I'm sure he could do something that's very meaningful to him, and would be pretty cool. Can you explain to me what doesn't resonate with you about Tolle's bank balance? What's wrong with people thriving financially from their work? And his message is still the same, isn't it? He still teaches what he taught when he sat on that park bench with no money. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2020 1:53:25 GMT -5
The money thing is fascinating because of how most people think about money. Warren Buffett has accumulated hundreds of millions, but it's just a game to him. He plans on giving something like 99% of it to the Gates Foundation. He could have given away tons of money to charitable causes over the years, but why do that when he can compound the money at 19.5% (his average rate of compounding over the last 50 years), and end up giving away a lot more money to charitable causes after his death? As for Tolle, the last I heard his net worth was about $12 million, not $70 million, but even if it's $70 million, the guy doesn't drive a Ferrari, and from what I've heard he lives pretty simply. He's probably waiting to find out what Source is going to do with the money, which is what most sages do who have more money than they need. A good book that gives some insight into this matter is "Everyday Enlightenment" because it highlights the lives of seven different sages who vary in financial wealth from having no money at all to having a lot. One individual was a social worker and one individual was a businessperson who ran a large company. People have lots of ideas about this topic, but sages don't think about it in the same way. Not to object to any of this, but I'd say it doesn't even take a very deep existential realization or experience to put the nature of wealth into perspective. Most people seem to resolve themselves to whatever position they find themselves in to one degree or another, and, of course "you can't take it with you", and many parents teach their children that there's much more to life than material success. Conversely - and I know you didn't suggest this, but - I don't think existential realization necessarily precludes someone from being concerned and interested in the relative suffering that can be associated with amassing wealth. Economics isn't a zero-sum game, but, that's only the general case. It can often be played as one, in localized or specialized terms. Businesses or even entire industries often get crushed by various forms of top-down, calculated competition that sometimes includes the manipulation of various state or big-finance actors, and this can devastate the livelihoods of communities on scales ranging anywhere from neighborhood to nation. Of course, even when there is the appearance of ruthlessness or callousness in the pursuit of wealth, we can always compare that with what happens in nature. I don't think most people ever take the time to consider just how much they take for granted about their material circumstances. Even when those circumstances are sub-opitimal, they're usually better than being left alone in the woods, barring war or natural disaster. All of this, though, is quite far afield from invalan's original objection, and while I agree with you that this whole affair can be put into cosmic perspective, it's also true that there are spiritual charlatan's that would exploit people's existential longing. I don't necessarily agree with him about Tolle, specifically, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes a thing. I wouldn't disagree that - even in the extreme, like, say with Andrew Cohen - it's just THIS THISSING, but, there's still a qualitative observation about how that happens that can and does get made.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2020 2:01:01 GMT -5
To all who have replied to this subject. I agree in principle with inavalan (but not all of his comments, IOW, couldn't like any of his replies, in full). Why bank $70 million? Set up a trust for yourself and whoever else you want to take care of. Set the business/teaching up to perpetuate itself (Tolle is not going to live forever, but what he had/has to say is very beneficial, and can be for hundreds and thousands of years. I don't think it would take $70 million to do that). Anything left over (say just a ballpark $50 million), figure out the most need and support NEEDS, not wants. Bill Gates is a good model, giving away most of his fortune. I think it's a tricky one. Although Gates is (sort of) giving away his fortune, he's not without influence, and aside from whether I agree or not with the nature OF his influence (I consider it likely that he is a trans-humanist, in which case I don't resonate with his influence), it raises interesting spiritual questions about where the boundaries are between interfering and helping. Certainly I don''t resonate with Tolle accumulating a bank balance of $70 million (if that's true). That doesn't mean I know what he should do with it. I'm sure he could do something that's very meaningful to him, and would be pretty cool. One way to view the Gates Foundation is as a tax dodge. "It's the IRS for thee, but not for me!" Certainly, the timing on his funding it after Windows was declared a monopoly was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2020 2:13:33 GMT -5
The money thing is fascinating because of how most people think about money. Warren Buffett has accumulated hundreds of millions, but it's just a game to him. He plans on giving something like 99% of it to the Gates Foundation. He could have given away tons of money to charitable causes over the years, but why do that when he can compound the money at 19.5% (his average rate of compounding over the last 50 years), and end up giving away a lot more money to charitable causes after his death? As for Tolle, the last I heard his net worth was about $12 million, not $70 million, but even if it's $70 million, the guy doesn't drive a Ferrari, and from what I've heard he lives pretty simply. He's probably waiting to find out what Source is going to do with the money, which is what most sages do who have more money than they need. A good book that gives some insight into this matter is "Everyday Enlightenment" because it highlights the lives of seven different sages who vary in financial wealth from having no money at all to having a lot. One individual was a social worker and one individual was a businessperson who ran a large company. People have lots of ideas about this topic, but sages don't think about it in the same way. Agreed. Poor people often think that having a lot of money will solve their problems. And that's mostly not the case because increasing levels of abundance also give new vantage points which create new desires and so the goal post keeps moving as before. So if they don't evolve along with their increasing abundance, it will most likely only amplify their already existing problems and they may actually be worse off than before. Being poor has its pros and cons. Being rich also has its pros and cons. What I find strange though is people believing that being filthy reach is necessarily unspiritual. That's ridiculous! This probably goes back to people having strange ideas about what the purpose of life is. And besides, what in this world is not spirit? Yes, wealth is an interesting manifestation, generally speaking, in energetic terms. I'd guess that most people eventually associate it with suffering (from the lack of it), to one degree or another, at some point in their lives. And, as the Buddha pointed out, suffering is a succinct bottom-line to the existential question. In spiritual terms, I'd opine that it's the moral judgements centered on wealth that would create the most noise in terms of potentially obscuring or distracting from any conscious process of existential questioning. And this cuts both ways, as it's just as natural to have contempt for the poor as it is to hate the rich. The insight that wealth is ultimately neither good nor evil, any more than a tornado or the Sun are either good or evil, is a point of potential relative clarity on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 10, 2020 3:47:39 GMT -5
I forget the exact statement about money made by Dave Ramsey, but it's something like, "Money can only be used in four ways; it can be spent, saved, invested, or given away." In eastern cultures people who were considered "holy" were people who gave away everything, and in the monastic traditions, monks owned nothing and often had to beg for food. One of the reasons that many Hindu seekers supposedly shunned Ramesh Balsekar was because he had been a bank president and didn't fit people's idea of a holy person because he had been a businessperson, had handled money, and was not a penniless sanayasin. In western cultures people often note that Jesus said the ATTACHMENT to money is the real problem. There is also the idea of "giving back" if one has been financially successful. IOW, you can't help people who need financial help if you haven't first put yourself into a position where you can offer such help. There's also the mystery aspect that applies to money as well as everything else. When Source is known to be the only actor on the stage, who knows what it will do? And finally, there is the "not-knowing" aspect of sageness. This is probably why, when Tolle was asked about what he planned to do with the money that had been generated by his book sales during an interview, he replied by saying something like, "I don't know because I haven't made any plans at this point."
Taking all of these issues into consideration, perhaps the best question one might ask is, "If a wealthy sage lost everything through some quirk of fate, would it matter to the sage?" Would there be any concern over the loss? If not, then that would certainly show that there was no attachment to the money, and it would be clear that the sage sees money or wealth in a significantly different way than most people. I don't know Tolle personally, but if I had to guess, I'd say that sooner or later he'll set up a foundation to propagate his basic message about the importance of getting free from ideas and waking up to one's True Self.
Most of the major well-known ND teachers have set up foundations that support prison ministries and a wide variety of charitable activities as well as activities that support their main message.
Don Oakley, for example, was a successful engineer and contractor, and after he awakened, he sold his business and took all of his money and used it to build a large retreat center that he now makes available to different spiritual groups as well as for his own teachings. His only interest is in helping other people find what he found. I'm guessing that that is a rather common result in western cultures, and I would be surprised if Tolle doesn't do something similar in the future.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2020 4:36:47 GMT -5
I think it's a tricky one. Although Gates is (sort of) giving away his fortune, he's not without influence, and aside from whether I agree or not with the nature OF his influence (I consider it likely that he is a trans-humanist, in which case I don't resonate with his influence), it raises interesting spiritual questions about where the boundaries are between interfering and helping. Certainly I don''t resonate with Tolle accumulating a bank balance of $70 million (if that's true). That doesn't mean I know what he should do with it. I'm sure he could do something that's very meaningful to him, and would be pretty cool. Can you explain to me what doesn't resonate with you about Tolle's bank balance? What's wrong with people thriving financially from their work? And his message is still the same, isn't it? He still teaches what he taught when he sat on that park bench with no money. I don't get it. It's to do with 'flow'. If Tolle has huge sums of money continuously flowing to him, I think it would be good for him if it was also flowing out of him ( I'm not concerned about him hoarding money from an altrustic sense, I just think it's probably not serving him to hoard it away). I don't buy the idea of these 'sages' being beyond growth, whether it's Tolle, Niz, Ramana etc...I think the universe always provides new opportunities for spiritual growth. I've always liked Tolle's message and find him a very sweet guy, but I also don't put him beyond having spiritual lessons to learn from.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2020 6:18:44 GMT -5
Agreed. Poor people often think that having a lot of money will solve their problems. And that's mostly not the case because increasing levels of abundance also give new vantage points which create new desires and so the goal post keeps moving as before. So if they don't evolve along with their increasing abundance, it will most likely only amplify their already existing problems and they may actually be worse off than before. Being poor has its pros and cons. Being rich also has its pros and cons. What I find strange though is people believing that being filthy reach is necessarily unspiritual. That's ridiculous! This probably goes back to people having strange ideas about what the purpose of life is. And besides, what in this world is not spirit? Yes, wealth is an interesting manifestation, generally speaking, in energetic terms. I'd guess that most people eventually associate it with suffering (from the lack of it), to one degree or another, at some point in their lives. And, as the Buddha pointed out, suffering is a succinct bottom-line to the existential question. In spiritual terms, I'd opine that it's the moral judgements centered on wealth that would create the most noise in terms of potentially obscuring or distracting from any conscious process of existential questioning. And this cuts both ways, as it's just as natural to have contempt for the poor as it is to hate the rich. The insight that wealth is ultimately neither good nor evil, any more than a tornado or the Sun are either good or evil, is a point of potential relative clarity on the issue. Moral values is a very complex topic. I'd say at its basis, universal moral principles that can be found in all cultures all over the world, do (or at least attempt to) reflect some kind of natural universal principle. When it comes to morality and material wealth though, I do see some other factors at play here, like politics and economics.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2020 6:23:55 GMT -5
Can you explain to me what doesn't resonate with you about Tolle's bank balance? What's wrong with people thriving financially from their work? And his message is still the same, isn't it? He still teaches what he taught when he sat on that park bench with no money. I don't get it. It's to do with 'flow'. If Tolle has huge sums of money continuously flowing to him, I think it would be good for him if it was also flowing out of him ( I'm not concerned about him hoarding money from an altrustic sense, I just think it's probably not serving him to hoard it away). I don't buy the idea of these 'sages' being beyond growth, whether it's Tolle, Niz, Ramana etc...I think the universe always provides new opportunities for spiritual growth. I've always liked Tolle's message and find him a very sweet guy, but I also don't put him beyond having spiritual lessons to learn from. Okay, I see. But since we are just speculating here, what if he is just saving money for a bigger house or a bigger boat? Would that be okay again? Yes, sages can be out of alignment, too, and annoy their fellow humans. I remember one passage in in Yogananda's autobiography about his guru Sri Yukteswar still taking orders from his mom and doing his best not to complain.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 10, 2020 6:45:29 GMT -5
Yes, wealth is an interesting manifestation, generally speaking, in energetic terms. I'd guess that most people eventually associate it with suffering (from the lack of it), to one degree or another, at some point in their lives. And, as the Buddha pointed out, suffering is a succinct bottom-line to the existential question. In spiritual terms, I'd opine that it's the moral judgements centered on wealth that would create the most noise in terms of potentially obscuring or distracting from any conscious process of existential questioning. And this cuts both ways, as it's just as natural to have contempt for the poor as it is to hate the rich. The insight that wealth is ultimately neither good nor evil, any more than a tornado or the Sun are either good or evil, is a point of potential relative clarity on the issue. Moral values is a very complex topic. I'd say at its basis, universal moral principles that can be found in all cultures all over the world, do (or at least attempt to) reflect some kind of natural universal principle. When it comes to morality and material wealth though, I do see some other factors at play here, like politics and economics. Sure, and there are even other factors that haven't yet been mentioned, such as other major interests. Sages are not all one-dimensional. Although their primary interest may lie in pointing people to the truth, many sages in western cultures have other interests as well. As a child, I had many wonderful experiences via a children's museum in my city and also through science fairs. Remembering those experiences as an adult led me to donate money every year to science fairs and children' museums. Later, as a result of a financial enlightenment type of realization, I saw the benefit in educating people financially, and I hope in the future to set up some sort of educational foundation with that purpose in mind (that idea based on the old adage of "give a man a fish, he eats for one day, but teach him to fish and he can feed himself forever"). I know for a fact that there are contemporary ND teachers who similarly have more than one major interest. Another factor might also be the family situation a sage is part of. In the past sages tended to be single monks with no families, but today we have hundreds of sages who have extended families that may need financial help, etc. These things wouldn't be a significant factor for someone with 70 million bucks, but it might be a factor for someone with 2 to 5 million bucks. In short, any snap judgment involving the words "should" or "ought" usually indicates a superficial understanding of the complexity and mysteriousness of THIS. The manifestation of THIS is beyond the grasp of intellection.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Sept 10, 2020 6:55:16 GMT -5
Can you explain why? If, in the context of relative truths, we already believe that we come here for a reason, why shouldn't that include money and glory? Your perspective seems unnecessarily restrictive and shortsighted. I'm curious what 'truth' he hasn't realized yet. I tried to find a way to reply without feeding the pendulum. I didn't find it. Hi Inavalan, Our recent contact didnt end well and I apologise if it was upsetting. Our group here meets in different houses, there is no charge though people sometimes bring cake to share. We talk about many different things, not just nonduality, and hope we can now draw a line under that discussion about our motivation. I dont know which part of the world you are in, but you would be welcome anytime. Do you have a practise or path that you follow and if so how is it going?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2020 6:58:36 GMT -5
It's to do with 'flow'. If Tolle has huge sums of money continuously flowing to him, I think it would be good for him if it was also flowing out of him ( I'm not concerned about him hoarding money from an altrustic sense, I just think it's probably not serving him to hoard it away). I don't buy the idea of these 'sages' being beyond growth, whether it's Tolle, Niz, Ramana etc...I think the universe always provides new opportunities for spiritual growth. I've always liked Tolle's message and find him a very sweet guy, but I also don't put him beyond having spiritual lessons to learn from. Okay, I see. But since we are just speculating here, what if he is just saving money for a bigger house or a bigger boat? Would that be okay again? Yes, sages can be out of alignment, too, and annoy their fellow humans. I remember one passage in in Yogananda's autobiography about his guru Sri Yukteswar still taking orders from his mom and doing his best not to complain. an example that can probably speak to a lot of us! If Tolle bought a huge mansion/yacht with the money I would raise my eyebrows because intuitively it seems incongruent with who he is (as an individual). In contrast, I didn't have a problem with Osho having a dozen rolls royces, because I felt it was congruent with a key part of his spiritual message (at least at one point). Same with Esther....if she bought a lovely boat that she was going to enjoy using, I wouldn't think anything of it. In the case of Tolle, I would more likely resonate with a huge foundation of some kind, or buy huge land in Canada and create something very cool with it....something more along those lines. Or just give it to people that ask for it. I read a great Byron Katie story once, but have struggled to find it again....if I remember it vaguely, a stranger wanted a property she had, and she just gave it to them lol.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 10, 2020 8:28:34 GMT -5
Attachment to fortune, power, fame, or any other distraction is a dead end. The pursuit of these is usually driven by dysfunction. It doesn't make these things or those who acquire them necessarily unconscious.
I don't know about Tolle. I got to hear him speak in person. He seemed quite pleasant.
Gates. I don't have a positive view of him merely because I was a unix programmer for many decades and recognize that he's basically a rip-off artist. DOS was a cheap imitation of unix, windows of the Apple front end.
But folks can change. I don't believe the nonsense about his vaccination efforts or that he wants to implant chips in people's heads.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2020 11:35:56 GMT -5
Okay, I see. But since we are just speculating here, what if he is just saving money for a bigger house or a bigger boat? Would that be okay again? Yes, sages can be out of alignment, too, and annoy their fellow humans. I remember one passage in in Yogananda's autobiography about his guru Sri Yukteswar still taking orders from his mom and doing his best not to complain. an example that can probably speak to a lot of us! If Tolle bought a huge mansion/yacht with the money I would raise my eyebrows because intuitively it seems incongruent with who he is (as an individual). In contrast, I didn't have a problem with Osho having a dozen rolls royces, because I felt it was congruent with a key part of his spiritual message (at least at one point). Same with Esther....if she bought a lovely boat that she was going to enjoy using, I wouldn't think anything of it. In the case of Tolle, I would more likely resonate with a huge foundation of some kind, or buy huge land in Canada and create something very cool with it....something more along those lines. Or just give it to people that ask for it. I read a great Byron Katie story once, but have struggled to find it again....if I remember it vaguely, a stranger wanted a property she had, and she just gave it to them lol. Okay, thanks for clarifying. That actually makes some sense. But keep in mind that there is a great deal of speculation involved here. Appearances can be deceiving, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 10, 2020 11:41:51 GMT -5
Moral values is a very complex topic. I'd say at its basis, universal moral principles that can be found in all cultures all over the world, do (or at least attempt to) reflect some kind of natural universal principle. When it comes to morality and material wealth though, I do see some other factors at play here, like politics and economics. Sure, and there are even other factors that haven't yet been mentioned, such as other major interests. Sages are not all one-dimensional. Although their primary interest may lie in pointing people to the truth, many sages in western cultures have other interests as well. As a child, I had many wonderful experiences via a children's museum in my city and also through science fairs. Remembering those experiences as an adult led me to donate money every year to science fairs and children' museums. Later, as a result of a financial enlightenment type of realization, I saw the benefit in educating people financially, and I hope in the future to set up some sort of educational foundation with that purpose in mind (that idea based on the old adage of "give a man a fish, he eats for one day, but teach him to fish and he can feed himself forever"). I know for a fact that there are contemporary ND teachers who similarly have more than one major interest. Another factor might also be the family situation a sage is part of. In the past sages tended to be single monks with no families, but today we have hundreds of sages who have extended families that may need financial help, etc. These things wouldn't be a significant factor for someone with 70 million bucks, but it might be a factor for someone with 2 to 5 million bucks. In short, any snap judgment involving the words "should" or "ought" usually indicates a superficial understanding of the complexity and mysteriousness of THIS. The manifestation of THIS is beyond the grasp of intellection. Those different interests and how they play out and manifest before and after awakening is basically what I think SDP was getting at with his three gunas theory. There's no right or wrong or should and should nots involved either.
|
|