How much is enough?

Next topic

You need to be logged in to get access to the forums. You can do so here

How much is enough?
Forum Admin	Posted on: Tuesday 27 February 2007 10:32:07 am
	Every year, as we approach Christmas, our TV screens obligingly begin to inform us of all of the interesting purchases that we haven't yet made, but which will, so we are promised, increase our sense of well-being at this festival of mutual giving and receiving. This is simply a seasonal variation in the cycle of consumerism, yet it is sufficiently distinct that it throws into relief the whole pattern. If, as the Dalai Lama suggests, our central desire is to be happy and to avoid suffering, then the producers of the goods and services we see on the TV want us to think that they can help us in achieving this, by satisfying our desire for their products. Without entering into a metaphysical debate, it is enough to say that the desires the advertisers want us to satisfy, and the desire that the Dalai Lama highlights, are evidently of two different types; it might be more correct to label the Dalai Lama's "desire" as something like "life purpose". Now no matter how inflated the claims for all those potential Christmas presents, their producers are not seriously expecting us to believe that our life purpose will be fulfilled if only we can obtain one or another item. Their message is more limited, but perhaps because of this, more insidious. They are "merely" claiming that the purchase of their goods will bring us nearer to being happy, as if buying first one, then another, are milestones of a sort on the way to full happiness. If that's so, we might justifiably ask them how far the journey is - just how many of their goods will we have to buy to reach the promised land? In other words, how much is enough?
Enough
Debbi Perkins	Posted on: Saturday 21 April 2007 8:00:04 pm
	Enough “occurring in such quantity, quality, or scope as to fully meet demands, needs, or expectations” . . . “SUFFICIENT” . . . “in or to a degree or quantity that satisfies or that is sufficient or necessary for satisfaction” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary – 10th Ed. From this brief and ambiguous description, it may be surmised that “enough” is a subjective concept used to describe a perception of adequacy or completeness. Since it is subjective, perspective is everything, and it may be difficult to arrive at a quantity or quality that everyone agrees on. At this point, only a general discussion is possible. Teachings tell us that humanity already has enough – that the resources of the earth will sustain the life in all of us. And when taken as a whole, human life is being sustained. However, knowing this doesn’t lessen human desire to ease the suffering of others, and loving humans feel this as an unmet need. Yet, the meeting of this need may be difficult to measure in material terms. If the end of suffering lies in at-one-ment with our creator, then material well-being becomes meaningless. And if giving up worldly possessions is part of walking a spiritual path, then quite possibly – consciously or unconsciously – the vast majority of humanity is doing their part. They are giving to their fullest so the remaining few can finish experiencing their need for material well-being. When taken from the perspective of already having enough, and given that material goods do not end suffering, what may actually be at issue is a desire to redistribute wealth and resources so that all have the opportunity to experience the physical well-being and comfort that only a few enjoy now. So, the question may be asked, “How can this redistribution be effected?” Reasonable answers may be found in all the areas of human endeavor previously discussed in other forums. Fingers may point in all directions, yet none of the answers begin to solve the problem when viewed as a whole. At this point, a look within may be more meaningful. If money is attracted by need, love and power, why hasn’t a redistribution of wealth already begun? There is need. There is love. What must be lacking is power. And in this case, it may be felt as a lack of power by charitable organizations to attract wealth for humanitarian work and to effect change in people who hold wealth and buy luxuries for strictly personal use. The path of discipleship itself may have helped create this lack of power. As disciples withdraw from material attachments and forget themselves in service, they lose all desire for material gain. Is it possible that by losing all desire for money and material goods that the power to attract them for any reason may be difficult? Further, disciples are asked to practice harmlessness and right speech. As the practice is embraced, one finds it undesirable to speak for or against a thing. And the practice of indifference may bring one to no judgment of his fellow men. This may be felt as a lack of power to effect change. And what of motive? If for-profit endeavors and wealth-building methods are rejected as too “material,” then the intellectual tools necessary to offset one-sided wealth may be ignored. If a real estate market collapsed, charitable investors might find opportunities to buy luxurious homes on large parcels of land at very low prices. The properties could be held in perpetual trust and house small, self-sustaining communities in comfort. For-profit endeavors could be founded that provide financial security and meaningful work for employees while profits are channeled into other charitable activities. These businesses might set examples for others to follow. Is it possible that the destructive methods of materialism can be transformed by right motive into methods used in service to humanity? To view “enough” in another light, have any charitable organizations told their donors that they have enough? The impression is given that no matter how much is donated, it will never be enough. One may come to feel that it’s futile to keep giving. What charity has set a budget and refused donations exceeding that budget – asking that they be sent to some other worthy cause? Instead it seems that the need expands and consumes all that is given and asks for more. With this in mind, can receivers exclude themselves from the question, “How much is enough?” Seasoned entrepreneurs will agree that money in itself is never enough. A vision of the goal, creative intelligence, and adequate planning are necessary before defining “enough” in material terms is possible. If “consumerism” is defined as the promotion of the consumer’s interests, then “enough” will be arrived at when consumers lose interest in buying unnecessary luxuries. When they lose interest in the products being offered, those products will no longer be made. The laws of economics prevail in this situation. When placed in the context of consumerism as a life purpose, and if the definition of dialectical materialism holds true as America’s spiritual path, “enough” may indicate the point at which the tide turns in favor of evolution for the entire group. This point will be arrived at when the group as a whole begins to feel that it has enough. They have enough whether they live at the top or bottom of the heap. If “life purpose” as the Dalai Lama defines it enters the discussion, then “enough” becomes the point at which America no longer feels suffering from lack of material possessions and is happy. This may be felt as appreciation and gratitude for what has already been received. But what of the responsibility of advertisers? Why can’t they see the damage they’re doing and stop the wheels of destruction? The unfortunate truth may be that unless a viable alternative to cutthroat competition and maximizing profit is found, they will continue on their path of destruction. And once again, if the idea of dialectical materialism holds true, they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do. They are creating an experience of what God is not and leaving it up to America as a whole to choose its collective path. For those committed to world goodwill and right human relations, the starting point for change may be found by creating a feeling of “enough” within the group itself.
Reply to "Enough"
Fidel Asante	Posted on: Tuesday 01 May 2007 7:00:03 am
	Thanks for your thoughts. and I agree, with much if not all of what you have written. I have often wondered during my Sunday meditations “why hasn’t a distribution of wealth already begun?” These days I’m certain it has begun and is going on all the time, and being redistributed into ventures as creative as your real estate suggestion, its just that major media outlets generally don’t give any or enough coverage to such ventures, I’m sure you know why that is!. And yes, I do think that as the 1st ray continues to reach humanity direct from Shamballa the “destructive methods of materialism” will themselves be transformed by it or swept away, for its more constructive aspect. This is important as the structures created by such methods, however worn out, are the platform upon, or starting point from which, the new structures and society must be built. On arriving at what is “enough” I would add that knowing this is coincident with having a good sense or knowledge of what one or the group is building within some wider context or creative process. That is, without the sense of fitness or purpose that comes with carrying out a particular and unambiguous goal the line between excess consumption and right consumption can be blurred. Most plans or aims we have are definite and the outlines of which we are usually certain about, and can define, at least to ourselves if not the group. Not being aware of “what is enough” can indicate either too diffuse an aim or indeed no aim, potentially leading to an undefined and unsustainable pattern of consumption. Here in the UK, the ensuing environmental crisis is generating a public debate which, unusually enough, no pun intended!, is being promoted if not lead by our news media, forcing us to begin to envision the shape of some new lifestyle changes, that may be necessary for us each to live with, or limit our consumption to, what’s “enough”. I’m not one to view suffering as an ‘evolutionary lever’ but my short life experience and reflecting on DKs statement “The race learns through suffering, and only dire need drives man to seek solution and relief.”(p106, Esoteric Healing) lead me to think that the gravity of the global situation as a whole will eventually focus our minds on what our needs are and aims should or must be. This realisation may come in the light of the Christ at the reappearance or perhaps it will precipitate it. Nonetheless I think that coincident with the continuing “rehabilitation of the world” that we are asked to participate in, humanity will realise that if the future is to mean anything other than an abstract idea, it must mean the creation and maintenance of those political, economic and social structures “sufficient” for the expression of the divinity that we collectively share. Fidel Asante
Enough to choke on.
Paul Dereume	Posted on: Tuesday 31 July 2007 6:00:05 am
	A recent documentary by Adam Curtis examines the intentional use of materialism as a means of social control run wild. "The Trap",a four part series by BBC2, suggests psychologists such as Freud and mathematicians such as John Nash (who won the Nobel prize for game theory) are at the root of systems designed to never have enough. If psychology and mathematics built the machine,perhaps it could be reverse engineered and salvaged for parts. You can find it on google video.Its worth a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)
In addition to "Enough to choke on"
Fidel Asante	Posted on: Wednesday 15 August 2007 6:00:12 am
Moderated by: Forum Admin	I saw 'The Trap' series a few months ago, and thought it was brilliantly done, as it highlighted the seeming eternal duality between the individual and the group, (personal liberties-collective protection). I'm confident that the resolution or harmony between these two equally significant ideas will emerge prior to the Reappearance of the Christ when they will be focussed more readily before humanity and precipitate a 'ceasefire' befitting the emergence of a Prince of Peace. Its seems the cold war tensions (East-Social Justice/West-Individual Freedom) were not enough to do this. There is a middle path between them but its free of ideology and more creative and empowering then any 'left' or 'right' government policy. Students of esotericism will be familiar with this when working with the 4th ray in their own lives. At the moment in the UK the show 'Heroes' is being aired, it was made in and shown earlier this year in the US. I assume all on this forum will see or have seen it as it is apparently a global hit. For me 'Heroes' is a welcome sign that humanity's' subtle but innate desire to express divinity in group form is realising itself, albeit on the small screen medium. The main plot revolves around the writing of a book called 'Activating Evolution'. The book suggests the existence of a group of humans expressing superhuman powers that will ultimately 'save the world'. This narrative suggests a collective shift that may result in a group demonstration of superhuman powers, for the good of the whole and not simply for fame, money or the good of oneself. On three levels this struck me. 1) Humanity has lived among the Masters of Wisdom before and its likely we resonate to the 'ideas' promoted by the Theosophical Society and Lucis Trust on a deep level, such that unconsciously we accept, and perhaps expect, the possibility of the future emergence of such a group. 2) In passages from Esoteric Astrology DK states that one of the secrets of the first initiation "which are today in the process of externalisation",p326 relates to us seeing the "existent synthesis of : ... the developing effects (of the plan-F.A.) as they demonstrate in groups",p325. 3) DK also states that "Groups of souls come into incarnation cyclically and together in order to further the Plan (activate evolution...? F.A.) and permit that interplay to proceed between spirit and matter which makes manifestation possible and which extends the working out of divine ideas as they exist in the Mind of God",p325. I trust that the plural nature of the 'Heroes' plot goes someway towards addressing the quite individualistic idea that has governed western civilisation and may qualify it with a balancing 'group' component in the form of a 'Team' effort. 'Heroes' points to the idea that faced with the present challenge of survival which at present humanity is, the individual can strengthen the groups' power and the group can nourish the emergence of the individuals powers, for nothing less than our survival. Surely as aspirants or average human beings, we are all faced with this challenge today. I'm also struck by how inventive the idea for 'Heroes' was and see it as a concrete example of DKs statements regarding the ability of the US nation to demonstrate a marked response to hierarchical ideas. More of it! Fidel Asante