Why do people in the east have this "i have no material possessions i'm enlightened" attitude?
 

Let me get something straight for a lot of you idiots:

you not having house
you not having a car
those things you never bought with your not having a credit card

you are not more enlightened then everyone else. in fact you are LESS ENLIGHTENED than other people because YOU LIVE IN CONFLICT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD.

the east needs to drop this i have no material possessions i am enlightened mentality. because 99% of you chumps are in for a massive wakeup call.

I think it is important to live life comfortably. This means you must feel comfortable at all times. Essential goods such as beds, pillows, carpets, couches and chairs will provide the comfort. Remember, even cars have carpets and soft seats inside. Whether you are inside a house or inside a car, you just have to feel soft. It's possible that you can sit on soft grass in the forest, if the climate is good enough.

our lives are not that long compared to eternity, maybe they are onto something that there is much more importance than material possessions or the things we do to others in our quest for those material possessions :2 cents:

I talked to my 16 year old son today who is kind of a hippy wannabe and he told me that he doesn't call me much because I am always talking about work and money.

He says he lives comfortably with almost no material possessions and 50 bucks a week that his mom gives him for food, and is happier than "he has ever been". (He has such a long life to reflect back on)

What bothers me the most about it is that I used to say things just like that. The thing about being proud of having nothing is that its a crock because there is no competition for that. It's like being a dude and proud of your virginity.

In other words, losers proud of being lazy. I do love him though and I salute him for his ability to be content, and I am sure he will wake up one day and realize that being broke is not actually as cool as being not broke.

money = debt
without debt, money would not exist.


and we all know, debt = slavery

For a 16 year old kid to say that is easy to question because, like you say, he has never earned money or bought himself anything so he has nothing to compare it to and may very well change his mind later in life.

That said there is a difference between being someone who is broke so they have very few things and have decided they are better off for it (which often is most likely a reaction to their situation) and someone who can afford to buy themselves things and chooses not to. I do okay for myself, yet I own very little. I personally find that many people I know who have a lot of possessions find themselves absorbed with them. It becomes a situation where they identify themselves through their possessions. For example, I'm over a friend's house and a bunch of us are watching some show on TLC where people are buying houses. At one point the woman looking at the house says, "I really don't think those counters and cupboards are me." I started laughing. When one of my friends asked me what was so funny I said, "If I ever find a time in my life where who I am is defined by why kind of counters and cupboards I have in my kitchen I hope you guys will have the common courtesy to punch me in the face until I change my point of view."

The idea that a person's personality could be defined by some kind of object that they own really troubles the hell out of me. For me, I guess I just have other things I want in life. I aspire to own little or nothing, but see and do everything. Maybe that make me just as bad as someone who is materialistic, but I feel that if I have the $5,000 to spend on something I would rather travel and see somewhere new and do something I have never done instead of buying some object that ultimately I probably won't get much use out of.

Just my 2 cents

It's about attachment to material possessions my friend

I love this bot. :1orglaugh

You are not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

His opinions might change once mommy stops giving him that $50.

we come to this life bare naked and when we part we take nothing with us. for some people there may be greater things in life than collecting material possessions.
you can't take everything with you when you travel.

Are you talking shit about the Buddha? You don't want to go there! :disgust

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Fatfoo for president.

money = a means to facilitate trade.
trade = the free market = human cooperation = creation of wealth.

fiat money = debt.
fiat money = the destruction of wealth.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[buddha mode] Imagine having no desire at all for unnecessary material possessions. Imagine if every person was driven by love and not greed. Would the world not be a much better place? I think so. When it all comes down to it, all most people care about is themselves and the people in their immediate vicinity.

What is the purpose of having lot's of items and a large house if your mind is narrow. There has to be some reason for our creativity and intelligence other then destruction.

[/buddha mode]

debt makes this world go round.
if money = "a means to facilitate trade" , "free market" , & "human cooperation" , then what of the lowest tier? Is he not still in debt? Are you not living off the slavery of another? One cannot attain monetary wealth without another suffering for it.

money = debt
no debt, no money.

and what of the humans that opt out of the money system? Who will control them? How will they be controlled? They must be plugged into the system, or the system will fail.

therefore, all money = a false system. a system of control. a system of debt. a system.... of enslavement.

whether strictly "money" or "fiat money", suffering is inherent. we don't need money to achieve human cooperation. the money system must be burned to the ground, and out of its ashes will rise the next level of humankind..... or the end of humankind.

the choice..... is ours.





but wait,...... "enslavement?" you say? How can that be?

try go walking for an hour with nothing but what nature gave you at birth. see how long it takes to get arrested. why? because you must be plugged into the system. walking around nude with nothing more than what you came into this world with is illegal. you must wear clothing. you must pay for clothing. you must work to earn money to buy clothing.

in our current system, work = payment = money = debt = slavery.

Smash capitalism...

Part of enlightenment is not taking other peoples views personally. The western world could stand to work on that a bit.:2 cents:

At times I feel owned by my possessions. The other day I was wondering why should I stay in Canada with the winter coming? My possessions are the only thing keeping me from going.

arg, those peeps bother me too. they are just as bad as those who dont dress nicely because they are too much of an intelectual to care. barf.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.


There is no spoon.

i need my matrix medicine asap

A man who wants nothing is invincible... This is as true as it gets.

The problem is that man will always want something, and that is silly to think that will ever go away. We can't move forward if we are conflicted and can't embrace what we are. People have become obsessed with their material possessions now though, that is also unnatural.

We need balance between the two I would say.

And think of those who can't just go because they need fucking visas all the time.

+1

balance, and a motivational shift. :thumbsup

i'm rich bitch!!!!!!!!

that's why you look like a creepy serial killer out of central casting and stupid as fuck?

go back to selling bird seed boy.

A voluntary transaction benefits both parties. Otherwise they wouldn't voluntarily agree to the transaction.


again, fiat money = debt.

Fiat money = money created out of thin air with nothing backing it.


fuck the system.

incorrect.
fiat money => only benefit those who control the supply of (fiat) money.
money => benefits the entire community because it makes trading goods and services easier.

all money is fiat money.

let's try use gold as the standard for a moment.
if every human has an equal amount of gold, and no one owes anything to anyone (zero debt), then gold becomes as worthless as a paper dollar. Value created out of thin air.

that's where greed comes into play. one person decides he wants more of the gold for himself, and begins to devise plans to acquire it, while someone else will be standing in line to willingly become a slave (enter into debt) and give it to them. failing that, we only need remove the "willing" part.... create a few "laws", and bang, you have our current system.

if we eliminate greed, why must "money" exist in the first place?


it is not a question of (what you percieve to be debt free money) "money" versus fiat money. All money is fiat money.
it is a question of abundance versus scarcity. If the things you need are abundant, there is no need for debt.

the system already has a price on drinking water, just wait until you have to purchase air.

Your kid's mom is an enabler. :2 cents:

i am what i am, i've never claimed otherwise. i've never portrayed myself as good looking, smart, or whatever the opposite of creepy serial killer is.
:)

hipsters?

Ha ha ha. I am the President of my online company. The company is growing. Thanks, selena. :thumbsup

Thank you, Boozer. :thumbsup

Saying thank you is a social courtesy. Some people forget to say thank you and are often considered to be rude, although sometimes a thank you is not necessary.

thanks everybody!

from http://mises.org/daily/1333:

"Menger on the Origin of Money

The Austrian school has offered the most comprehensive explanation of the historical origin of money. Everyone recognizes the benefits of a universally accepted medium of exchange. But how could such a money come into existence? After all, self-interested individuals would be very reluctant to surrender real goods and services in exchange for intrinsically worthless pieces of paper or even relatively useless metal discs. It's true, once everyone else accepts money in exchange, then any individual is also willing to do so. But how could human beings reach such a position in the first place?

One possible explanation is that a powerful ruler realized, either on his own or through wise counselors, that instituting money would benefit his people. So he then ordered everyone to accept some particular thing as money.

There are several problems with this theory. First, as Menger pointed out, we have no historical record of such an important event, even though money was used in all ancient civilizations. Second, there's the unlikelihood that someone could have invented the idea of money without ever experiencing it. And third, even if we did stipulate that a ruler could have discovered the idea of money while living in a state of barter, it would not be sufficient for him to simply designate the money good. He would also have to specify the precise exchange ratios between the newly defined money and all other goods. Otherwise, the people under his rule could evade his order to use the newfangled "money" by charging ridiculously high prices in terms of that good.

Menger's theory avoids all of these difficulties. According to Menger, money emerged spontaneously through the self-interested actions of individuals. No single person sat back and conceived of a universal medium of exchange, and no government compulsion was necessary to effect the transition from a condition of barter to a money economy.

In order to understand how this could have occurred, Menger pointed out that even in a state of barter, goods would have different degrees of saleableness or saleability. (Closely related terms would be marketability or liquidity.) The more saleable a good, the more easily its owner could exchange it for other goods at an "economic price." For example, someone selling wheat is in a much stronger position than someone selling astronomical instruments. The former commodity is more saleable than the latter.

Notice that Menger is not claiming that the owner of a telescope will be unable to sell it. If the seller sets his asking price (in terms of other goods) low enough, someone will buy it. The point is that the seller of a telescope will only be able to receive its true "economic price" if he devotes a long time to searching for buyers. The seller of wheat, in contrast, would not have to look very hard to find the best deal that he is likely to get for his wares.

Already we have left the world of standard microeconomics. In typical models, we can determine the equilibrium relative prices for various real goods. For example, we might find that one telescope trades against 1,000 units of wheat. But Menger's insight is that this fact does not really mean that someone going to market with a telescope can instantly walk away with 1,000 units of wheat.

Moreover, it is simply not the case that the owner of a telescope is in the same position as the owner of 1,000 units of wheat when each enters the market. Because the telescope is much less saleable, its owner will be at a disadvantage when trying to acquire his desired goods from other sellers.

Because of this, owners of relatively less saleable goods will exchange their products not only for those goods that they directly wish to consume, but also for goods that they do not directly value, so long as the goods received are more saleable than the goods given up. In short, astute traders will begin to engage in indirect exchange. For example, the owner of a telescope who desires fish does not need to wait until he finds a fisherman who wants to look at the stars. Instead, the owner of the telescope can sell it to any person who wants to stargaze, so long as the goods offered for it would be more likely to tempt fishermen than the telescope.

Over time, Menger argued, the most saleable goods were desired by more and more traders because of this advantage. But as more people accepted these goods in exchange, the more saleable they became. Eventually, certain goods outstripped all others in this respect, and became universally accepted in exchange by the sellers of all other goods. At this point, money had emerged on the market."

Short answer is : Some people don't believe in greed and gluttony.

</end>

Some American's pride themselves in it however.


The "enlightenment" these people experience is :

"Wow, I don't need all that shit to be happy".

Finally they feel free and no longer tied to tasks they hate
simply to compete with thy neighbor for the biggest home and nicest car.

I like to be in the middle because I like having certain things but don't
see the need to have a H2 Hummer just because it's the new status symbol.

you could not be more wrong.
have you considered the DNA which gave you life and the DNA from you which lives on after your earthly frame is expired?
DNA is the one most important factor in ones life to make success, those with success not only pass on succesful DNA but also a nice earthly pile of green or gold.