Tag Archives: western society

Money: Buddha with TMichael

Money, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/money/ ‎
Money

Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Money

TM: I’ve received quite a few inquiries about money and requests to talk about it.  There has been a great body of writing on this from a spiritual perspective.  What do you say to someone who asks, “What is the proper relationship to money, how much to have, how to use it, how to get it, etc.?”

Master Buddha:  First of all, there isn’t just one way to view this because each person has his or her particular orientation to money given his or her life path.  Anything I say must be understood as general statements and then I can offer examples of individual circumstances to show how some principles may apply.

As viewed from the spiritual perspective, meaning from a non-material realm, money is as worthless as a bicycle would be for travel across an ocean.  It is purely a human creation.  So your question presumes a spiritual oversight that doesn’t exist except in the form of advice and counsel that may be offered from time to time.  That is the spirit in which I present these ideas today.

Let me attempt to simplify the concept of money in relation to a person.  Humans have decided that money shall represent a value of some thing.   Those things may include the physically inanimate object (house, car, etc.), a personal action (one’s labor), a promise for future delivery of value (speculation), restitution for past value (grievances resolved), a gift of love or social obligation, so on and so forth.  The second premise is that the value of money shall equal approximately the value of that thing in the exchange.  Sometimes the values are not equal, and if they are too unequal, then one or the other person feels either elated or cheated.

The third premise created by humans is a system of ethics regarding transactions between one another using money or the thing valued as the currency.  This is a point of departure between the diverse cultures of the world.  The one dominant force has been the Western philosophy governing the use of money.  The ethics of the Western system have varied over the past two hundred years, but for the most part they have represented an idealism that while noble in its aim has not achieved its goal.

TM: So is it possible to answer my questions?

Master Buddha: I’m getting there, but needed to frame my response for clarity.  The proper relationship to money must take on a general perspective representing larger society (we’ll call general ethics) and the particular relationship of an individual to money.  From the general ethics, the idea of freedom to choose one’s occupation and one’s level of income and expense, is I think the best arrangement.  As we have discussed in these conversations there is a point that one must consider that individual freedom intersects with group harmony.  This means that it is necessary for individuals to contribute to the whole in a way that brings harmony to the whole and doesn’t disturb the peace of the many.  This is the greatest insurance for all.  The current system in Western society doesn’t achieve this goal, but with modification it could.

TM: I’m not clear on what you mean.  Are you saying that there needs to be a balance in interest between the range of individual freedom and the needs of the whole population?

Master Buddha: Yes.  For example, in Western society a person is permitted to amass unlimited wealth.  On the other end of the scale a person is permitted to starve to death or die due to exposure to the elements because he cannot afford shelter.  What is preventing Western society from implementing safeguards at the bottom end of the scale?

TM: We don’t allocate budget for it because we’ve determined other things are more important.

Master Buddha: And the contradiction is that your idealism states that you cherish life above all.  Your military runs to all ends of the earth to rescue those in peril.  Your governments send aid to foreign countries in an attempt to prevent starvation and lethal diseases from spreading.  Yet in your own domestic domain you have families living in such poverty that their lives are at risk daily.

TM: It isn’t a perfect system for sure and most Westerners will agree that we can do more to clean up our domestic programs.

Master Buddha: What do you think is stopping you from doing this?

TM: We have an overly complicated and increasingly corrupt political system that can’t philosophically agree on just how much we are our brother’s keeper.

Master Buddha: It is first and foremost the obligation of your governments, using the general treasury, to prevent starvation and health-related problems derived from poverty.  This cannot be left to the generosity and goodwill of individuals.  It must begin with your domestic sphere first.  It is there that you work out the ethics of being your brother’s keeper as you phrased it.  Once you have mastered that step then sharing that wisdom with other cultures is a natural extension.

TM: We have the resources to do what you suggest, but not the collective resolve to do it.

Master Buddha: This is true, but you asked for a perspective on the proper relationship to money.  You will have to work out the politics in order to deliver a just relationship.

TM: Okay then, maybe you can state what a person should be required to do in order to receive assistance that raises his status above poverty.  That’s where we fail; we can’t agree on that.  Some people say we should be self-reliant and others want to give to others with little or no requirements for self-responsibility.  So, what is the answer?

Master Buddha: Ah you see, now you are into the business of designing a society that grapples with such ethical obligations yet stumbles at the final step failing to complete the mission.  If the US government felt the collective will of its citizens favored a system whereby no citizen would be permitted to fall into poverty, could they achieve that?

TM: Yes.

Master Buddha: Then it must be that the collective will of its citizens do not favor such a system.

TM: How many citizens create a collective will?

Master Buddha: Enough that under your political system you could legislate and implement the system.

TM: Then you must be correct.  Sadly it must be true.  But you still haven’t answered my question of self-responsibility.

Master Buddha: Unfortunately, there is no easy answer.  Your society has through its own design created an array of citizens from the genius to the infantile.  Your society is responsible on a par level with the individuals that make up society.  It will take many generations of enlightened governance to correct the mistakes and injustices created by past policies and practices.  It will likewise take time for individuals to climb out of their ignorance or unfortunate circumstances due to conditions beyond their control.

Wandering your streets are the insane and the helpless.  They cannot take responsibility for themselves in any way.

You have many people who are indolent and averse to responsibility through personal predilection and familial training.  They will have to be educated on a new understanding of their responsibility.

You have a growing number who have turned to crime and are either incarcerated or among the general population.  They will have to be educated, and until they are they will remain incarcerated because you have no other way to assimilate them.

There are those who through no fault of their own have fallen upon hard times due to major shifts in the economy.  They will need to be retrained in new occupations and helped along the way.

When there are enough enlightened citizens there will be a more enlightened government and they will realize the long-term commitment required to correct your system.  It is a race against the clock.

If you do nothing to correct this situation, because as a society you think it isn’t your responsibility, then you will suffer the consequences of doing nothing.  The consequences will include a greater divide between the economic classes, thus more poverty; less efficacy in minimum education achievement among the lower classes; increased criminal activity; reduction of individual freedoms due to crime prevention measures; compartmentalization of community along class lines further reducing the efficacy of government and the erosion of community infrastructure.  You can probably project from there what will transpire next.

If however, you find the collective will to make a long-term commitment to correction, then you will begin to see minor changes for the good.  It will take patience beyond one, two or three generations.  That is perhaps the greatest challenge for a society that has come to expect immediate gratifications of its goals (even though this hasn’t really been the case).

TM: What can you say to the questions regarding individuals and their relationship to money?  What are some guidelines to follow is really what I’m asking.

Master Buddha: As individuals you must graduate through levels of ethical refinement regarding the role of money in your life.  What is good for one person may not be good or right for another.  For that reason do not be hasty in judging others for their view in earning or handling their money.

As Master Jesus and I have maintained throughout these conversations, release judgment from your view.  Find your relationship to money based upon your path and your understanding and allow others to do the same without inveighing their choices.  When you have come to peace with your relationship to money then you may offer a helping hand to others who may wish to hear from you.

© Zoe 2015

Sexuality in Western Society (Part 1): Jesus with TMichael

Sexuality Part 1, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/sexuality-in-w…society-part-1/
Sexuality part 1

Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Sexuality in Western Society (Part 1)

TM: I realize that we may not be able to cover this topic in one conversation, but at least we can start.  Please talk about the role of sex in Western society.  Specifically, what do you observe as the general state of sexual health among our population?

Master Jesus: This is sure to provoke more than a few people who stand in judgment of sexuality when it deviates from their spectrum of acceptable behavior.  Likewise, those who feel that anything goes will likely rise in defense of their personal honor if Master Buddha or I speak disapprovingly of their behavior.  You’re right in that it will require several conversations in order to present a full picture of the state of sexuality in Western society.  It is not our intent to approve or disapprove of human sexual behavior, but we can speak to what we observe from a perspective of what is serving humankind positively and what isn’t.

TM: Okay, that’s fair enough.  I didn’t expect either of you speak from a judgmental perspective, but certainly some folks hope that you will.  So, back to my question, do you want to begin with an overview?

Master Jesus: Ask a more specific question and let it lead us into what you really want to know.

TM: It seems that over the past century we’ve come through some dynamic changes from a moralistic and conservative view of sexuality to a liberal, more open view.  Even though I know that doesn’t represent everyone, I’m referring to the norm.  Has that shift been beneficial to our society?

Master Jesus: Yes, Western society has made a dramatic turn, more so than you are implying in your question.  Observing from our perspective it is quite astounding.  Most people will agree that there have been some benefits as a result of the shift, while others believe it has planted the seeds of ruination for your society.  As with most subjects, there is a little bit of truth found in all points of view.  But let’s see if we can shed some light on the various parts to indicate what has been beneficial and what needs to be adjusted to provide future benefits.

First of all, it’s difficult to speak about human sexuality without carefully painting a context for each part.  For this part, let us talk about heterosexual conditions within the institution of marriage and romantic relationships in which there isn’t a marriage.

It’s clear from our perspective that many benefits have accrued to married and unmarried men and women from the shift in attitudes about sex over the past fifty years.  However, with the relaxing of judgment and guilt around sexual behavior there has sprung up a great deal of confusion.  This confusion has contributed to a lot of stress and tension between men and women over their respective roles.  Over time this will work out and the major benefit will be a sense of equality.  This was missing before the shift and has been slowly coming after a sudden lunge forward.  The natural reaction has been two-fold.  One is an opening of the floodgates to celebrate the release of age-old restrictions and the second is a recoiling of restriction to maintain the old ways.  There is a growing middle that represents the balance between the two extremes.

TM: I agree with your observation.  But there still seems to be a guilt-shame axis running through sexuality.

Master Jesus: Yes, this is true.  But keep in mind that it is less than it was only fifty years ago.  And fifty years from now you will observe even greater erosion in the role shame, judgment and guilt play in the enforcement of restrictions in sexual relations.

TM:  But there are some folks who will argue that shame, judgment and guilt are sturdy enforcers and that we shouldn’t allow them to erode.  If anything, we should reinforce their power to keep good people in line and get bad ones back in line.

Master Jesus: Shame, judgment and guilt have been the faithful servants of a philosophy that people are inherently bad and need the threat of punishment in order to deter them from wrongdoing. The problem in that philosophy arises in that it forces a belief contrary to the true nature of humankind, which then conditions you to perceive yourselves in constant need of redemption.  The fatigue that comes from such an exercise is understandable.  But the greatest harm is that it stunts your growth because you are constantly vigilant for wrongdoing and judging one another in an effort to correct or prevent wrongdoing.  Add to that you have identified things as wrong that are social conventions created out of ignorance in some cases, and then perpetuated through superstition.

TM: But some things that have become social conventions regarding marriage have served to build families and then community, haven’t they?

Master Jesus: Shall we keep the context to sexuality so that what I am saying does not get confused with statements about marriage in and of itself?

TM:Yes, that’s what I meant.

Master Jesus: Let’s take the social convention of sexual monogamy, or partner exclusivity within a relationship.  This is for the purpose of forming a family unit comprised of a husband and wife with one or more offspring.  It provides a tight unity and strength to weather challenges on many fronts, economic, health, etc.  It does that while at the same time connecting to families once removed from the immediate family.  This forms a larger family unit that again provides reinforcement to the core family unit.  Containment of sexual partners to the husband and wife ensure this family unity by restricting the likelihood of offspring from various sexual relations.

What protects this arrangement is fidelity to one sexual partner during the lifetime of the family.  What has disrupted this pattern is a loosening of the shame grip on divorce and the subsequent remarriage and combining of families from more than a single pair of parents.  In some cases this new family unit shares the connection with as much grace as a family unit from single parentage.  In other cases, this is not true.  Infidelity is the chief cause of hostility between marriage partners and can last a lifetime.  Fidelity is considered a sacred trust and when one partner betrays that trust, the sense of betrayal is felt by the extended family and in some instances by the community at large.

TM: I think wounded pride, loss of self-esteem, shame, embarrassment and ego also play a part in this.

Master Jesus: Without question this is true.  However, those personal components are activated because of the larger context of social convention that defines what causes shame for an individual or disgrace upon the family.

TM: So, you’re saying what some folks argue is that shame of getting a divorce kept the family together through tough times and in turn preserved the family values of unity and strength.

Master Jesus: You keep leaping over the sexual issues and grasp for the marriage issues beyond sexuality.  We can have that conversation if you like.

TM: Thanks for keeping me on topic. Let’s stay focused on sexuality because it’s expansive enough as it is.  So, you were saying that infidelity, that is, marriage or romantic partners who don’t honor sexually monogamous agreements, create discord within their relationship and the family and is likely the eventual cause for divorce.  Most people would agree.  What’s the point?

Master Jesus: The point is that if you take the social convention of sexual monogamy as a sacred trust and then violate it, you begin the breakdown of that institution.  If it becomes widespread, then more rapidly does it breakdown.  Once shame is removed as a barrier to divorce the offending mate, then you compound the acceleration of breakdown.  Shame and guilt once prevented the infidelity, but in most societies males were often excused from this public humiliation.  Although, this isn’t entirely the case.  Witness the standard that your politicians must withstand in this regard.  The general public still holds the sacred trust of fidelity as an accepted standard for your leaders, while lessening its application to your peers.  And divorce is still considered a shameful failure in some circles.

To summarize, you began with the question of what is the health of your general population in regards to sexuality.  We have taken a part of that in order to avoid generalizing across all relationships.  Now we are only talking about heterosexual relations; specifically long-term monogamous relations.  We are discussing the role of fidelity to a monogamous agreement and the results of infidelity.  Are you ready to continue?

TM: As usual I want to know where this is going.

Master Jesus: I ask for your patience.  In order to have some understanding you must go through the exercise of discovering what your beliefs are around sexuality in marriage.  There must be some context in order to gain that understanding and to draw out your beliefs.

TM: Okay.  Let’s continue.

© TM 2015

For Sexuality and Western Society Part 2 click here.