quote:
Just thinking a bit..
Financial freedom.
I wonder who feels ‘more’ free.
The person who has nothing and sleeps on the streets but worries not and enjoys the days (remember Buddha was to be a prince and left financial freedom for poverty!!!)
I am not well versed on the life of Buddha, but I have known about many examples of people that just didn't regard wealth as something desirable.
quote:
Or the person who has lots of money tied up in shares and property and has a flash car parked outside but was scared to park the car next to a "bomb of a car" in case it got scratched.
In other words, who is more free, the one that doesn't have anything and doesn't worry about it or the one that has riches and has all his/her heart attached to them. Of course, the one who has nothing is freer. Yet it is possible to have wealth and be free at the same time. Who could be more happy than the one who love his neighbor and do something to aleviate his/her suffering? The one who helps the poor? The one who attends the sick so s/he receives the medical attention s/he needs? The one who gives without looking to receive it back? Those that have nothing could maybe support them emotionally and spiritually, but their hands are tied in other respects. The one that has riches can help much more.
My bottom line is; it is better to be free and be able to help the needy than just be free for oneself and nobody else.
I have known about this philosophy before as the ultimate ego-free state, but I cannot see it that way. I see the one that seeks to be free for himself and no one else as egotistical as the one that wants all his riches for himself. You may agree or not.
