Are You Afraid to Be Rich? (Blog)

[dream23]

no offence steve i have definately recieved some some spiritual value from your articles, but on your current perspective of this ''social value'' made of truth love and power you are placing yourself higher than both jesus, Buddha and any other ascended master for that matter, as they were not aligned with power.

[dream23]

Originally Posted by Apollia

So, should Jesus have manifested love and compassion _instead_ of fish and bread to feed people?

yes but this is manifesting basic needs. I never heard about him manifesting A house in Beverly Hills, A Ferrari, income of millions of dollars.

I guess it comes down to what world you have more faith in the physical or spiritual??

To me the physical is just an illusion, and I am able to get more satisafaction from my posessions than a millionaire why? because i dont care what anyone says a millionaire will have more attachment to there material worth, they can help it it the devil inside wanting more.

You talk about using money as a tool, yes i do i use it as a tool for my basic needs, food, shelter, education, etc the problem is when you use it to fulfil your 'desires' thinking you will become fulfilled, when the physical world alone will never fulfill you. Remember Alexander the world was not enough for him.

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by dream23

yes but this is manifesting basic needs. I never heard about him manifesting A house in Beverly Hills, A Ferrari, income of millions of dollars.

If God thinks Ferraris, houses in Beverly Hills, and millionaire incomes are so bad, why did he create them, or why does he permit them to keep existing?

I guess it comes down to what world you have more faith in the physical or spiritual??

If God exists, isn't God responsible for creating both? By the way, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or a theist. But, I suspect God might exist in everything everywhere.

To me the physical is just an illusion,

Created by God, right? Why would God want to trick us?

and I am able to get more satisafaction from my posessions than a millionaire why? because i dont care what anyone says a millionaire will have more attachment to there material worth, they can help it it the devil inside wanting more.

Why did God create us to have desires?

You talk about using money as a tool, yes i do i use it as a tool for my basic needs, food, shelter, education, etc the problem is when you use it to fulfil your 'desires' thinking you will become fulfilled, when the physical world alone will never fulfill you. Remember Alexander the world was not enough for him.

Well, I do think there is some truth in that. It takes more than creature comforts to have a truly satisfying, fulfilling life.

But, perhaps one of the best ways for some people to find out that the material isn't enough to fulfill them is to actually become wealthy, and then find that it leaves them feeling empty just the same. Then, perhaps, they'll start looking more earnestly for a higher, spiritual meaning?

Best wishes,
Apollia

[dream23]

Originally Posted by Apollia

But, perhaps one of the best ways for some people to find out that the material isn't enough to fulfill them is to actually become wealthy, and then find that it leaves them feeling empty just the same. Then, perhaps, they'll start looking more earnestly for a higher, spiritual meaning?

Ahh maybe that is what steve is doing

[daj]

Originally Posted by dream23

no offence steve i have definately recieved some some spiritual value from your articles, but on your current perspective of this ''social value'' made of truth love and power you are placing yourself higher than both jesus, Buddha and any other ascended master for that matter, as they were not aligned with power.

It's hard to say how much of an impact Jesus & Buddha had! History isn't always accurate, is full of perceptions by the writers/translators, and propaganda by each government that governs it. I feel most of thier impact only happened hundreds of years after their existence when Kings, and dictators decided to use various found teachings to enslave & create fear of hell in people for the "commonwealth" of society.

Originally Posted by Apollia
So, should Jesus have manifested love and compassion _instead_ of fish and bread to feed people?

Originally Posted by dream23
yes but this is manifesting basic needs. I never heard about him manifesting A house in Beverly Hills, A Ferrari, income of millions of dollars.

.

I don't consider fish & bread a basic need maybe because I've been eating more raw food these days and realize how bread & fish aren't as healthy as I use to think. Pretty sad that Jesus would give people fish & bread, when greens & fruit have much more nutrition in them, you'd think Jesus, someone so connected with "source" would know that? Makes you wonder...

Beverly Hills, a ferrari, millions of dollars wern't in anyone's imagination back then. That's why Jesus didn't manifest it. I'm sure if Jesus lived in society today he'd have his own empire of wealth that various religions have made for themselves. Maybe he'd actually straighten things out with how corrupt religion is. Were only left to wonder...

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by dream23

Ahh maybe that is what steve is doing

Seems possible. Maybe he'll tell us.

Originally Posted by daj

I don't consider fish & bread a basic need maybe because I've been eating more raw food these days and realize how bread & fish aren't as healthy as I use to think. Pretty sad that Jesus would give people fish & bread, when greens & fruit have much more nutrition in them, you'd think Jesus, someone so connected with "source" would know that? Makes you wonder...

Hmm, yes, it does. I never thought of that.

Maybe he'd actually straighten things out with how corrupt religion is. Were only left to wonder...

Yes...

Best wishes,
Apollia

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Now imagine what Bill Gates could do if he retained his alignment with power but also gained the monk's alignment with truth and love.

Well, there _is_ the Gates Foundation. That's quite a step into that direction, I guess.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by dream23

by ''social value'' i take it you mean material value, then yes Bill Gates definately contributes more on the physical plane.

But i see ''social value'' falling into the category of spiritual value. Therefore placing jesus and Buddha offering more social value than Bill Gates would you agree?

You seem to me as you are trying to master the material world and the spiritual world- good luck with that. I see them as opposing forces.

Spiritually I also value Bill Gates' contribution. I find the explosion of the software market to be very empowering, at least as much as what I learned from the teachings of Jesus and Buddha. I started using Microsoft products from age 10. MS-DOS, Windows, and Word helped me grow a lot more than reading the Bible did.

To me the material world is merely a projection of the spiritual world. The two are inseparable.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by dream23

no offence steve i have definately recieved some some spiritual value from your articles, but on your current perspective of this ''social value'' made of truth love and power you are placing yourself higher than both jesus, Buddha and any other ascended master for that matter, as they were not aligned with power.

My consciousness is my own highest authority. I honor what I believe is best regardless of what other teachers say. I do not agree with Jesus and Buddha on all subjects; I think they offered some great ideas but in some ways their thinking was off. Either that or their original message has been corrupted into something that isn't as empowering and practical as it could be.

You may disagree with me, and that's your right to do so, since you're the authority of your own life, not me or anyone else.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by dream23

interesting, so does that mean jesus and Buddha would not be aligned with power as they were only aligned with truth and love? does this therefore mean they didnt offer much of this ''social value'' you speak about.

Quite the contrary. I'd say that both were well aligned with power.

Power doesn't mean power over other people. It means power over oneself, which includes focus and discipline. I'd say Jesus and Buddha were both quite powerful in that regard.

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by Apollia

Seems possible. Maybe he'll tell us. .

Oops, I just realized what I wrote here could be misinterpreted.

I definitely didn't mean the above in any kind of nasty way like "ha, maybe Steve is getting rich and is finding he still feels unfulfilled". I hope it didn't come across that way.

What I was thinking when I said that was, maybe one way Steve is trying to help humanity is by helping them become wealthy so they can see that there's more to life than wealth. Or something like that...

I definitely don't hope that people will feel disappointed and empty once they become wealthy. I actually think it's rather mean to hope such a thing, and possibly indicative of a problem with envy of other people's good fortune.

Well, I do think there is some truth in that. It takes more than creature comforts to have a truly satisfying, fulfilling life.

But, perhaps one of the best ways for some people to find out that the material isn't enough to fulfill them is to actually become wealthy, and then find that it leaves them feeling empty just the same. Then, perhaps, they'll start looking more earnestly for a higher, spiritual meaning?

I guess the main reason I wrote the above is because I thought maybe it would cause some people to lighten up on the supposed evils of wealth and getting wealthy, since, conceivably, having wealth _could_ lead to an increased understanding that there's more to life than just material luxury, etc., so, looking at it the above way might make even people who think wealth is evil think maybe it's not so bad.

Anyhow... sorry for any confusion. I sometimes write too hastily and certain ways my writing could be interpreted just don't even occur to me until later.

[dream23]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Quite the contrary. I'd say that both were well aligned with power.

Power doesn't mean power over other people. It means power over oneself, which includes focus and discipline. I'd say Jesus and Buddha were both quite powerful in that regard.

Correct me if i'm wrong but in another post you said and i quote

''The Dalai Lama is more aligned with power than most monks, but he could still learn a lot from Bill Gates in this area''.

Now if your saying you mean power over oneself, then surely the Dalai Lama has more focus and discipline over himself and his materialistic urges than Bill Gates?

This may come down to us placing higher values on different things. I enjoy the use of my laptop, by i value the Dalai Lamas message more.

I dont

[Mizan]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Society rewards value with money.

So the poor are of no value??
In fact they are of a very high value to the rich.
You would not be able to feel rich, if there were no poor. The only reason why there are poor people is because there are rich people as well.
If everybody had the same share of everything that the earth provides, the words "poor" and "rich" would not even exist.
If you say something feels cold, it is because you can compare it to something that feels less cold so something that feels warmer.
If you name yourself rich it is because you can compare how much you possess to that what other people possess.
So if you strive to be rich...it means that there will always be poor.
If there are no more poor....you will be not rich anymore neither. So strive to become rich is a fine, but don't pretend that it is to help the poor. As to be and feel rich( have more than others have) implies that some have to stay poor.....if not you won't feel rich anymore....and you get the feeling that you can't help them if there is no difference in wealth between you and the poor.
So the only reason why most want to be rich, is to extend the existence of poverty. And once poverty exists, it gives the rich people the great feeling that they are going to help the poor.
But why would you want to create or extend the existence of poverty if you truly want to help the poor?
Because you value the poor very high to have a live purpose. But if you would pay the poor for that high value....giving you a life purpose.....you would not be able to maintain your wealth or being rich or richer...and so on....
If money is what society gives to what is of high value, well your life purpose must be the highest value..those people that give you a purpose are the poor, but you are not willing to give your money to them......contradicting indeed. And this because you fear to find out what your real purpose is. It is not to grow richer so you can help the poor, as growing richer is extending existence poverty.
Your life purpose can't be extend the existence of poverty or is it?

There can't be rich without poor. Those two are inseparable on earth.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by dream23

Now if your saying you mean power over oneself, then surely the Dalai Lama has more focus and discipline over himself and his materialistic urges than Bill Gates?

I've haven't met either of them yet (I've only seen Gates in person at COMDEX), but from what I've read about both of them, I would say Gates is likely the more focused and disciplined of the two. He also seems more in tune with his desires, and his sense of vision for the future is stronger as well.

The aspects of power are responsibility, desire, self-determination, focus, effort, and self-discipline. On the whole I think Gates is more aligned with these qualities than the Dalai Lama.

Really the point of these principles isn't to compare who's more truthful, loving, and powerful. The point is to use them as a growth compass for our own development.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Mizan

So the poor are of no value??
In fact they are of a very high value to the rich.
You would not be able to feel rich, if there were no poor. The only reason why there are poor people is because there are rich people as well.
If everybody had the same share of everything that the earth provides, the words "poor" and "rich" would not even exist.
If you say something feels cold, it is because you can compare it to something that feels less cold so something that feels warmer.
If you name yourself rich it is because you can compare how much you possess to that what other people possess.
So if you strive to be rich...it means that there will always be poor.
If there are no more poor....you will be not rich anymore neither. So strive to become rich is a fine, but don't pretend that it is to help the poor. As to be and feel rich( have more than others have) implies that some have to stay poor.....if not you won't feel rich anymore....and you get the feeling that you can't help them if there is no difference in wealth between you and the poor.
So the only reason why most want to be rich, is to extend the existence of poverty. And once poverty exists, it gives the rich people the great feeling that they are going to help the poor.
But why would you want to create or extend the existence of poverty if you truly want to help the poor?
Because you value the poor very high to have a live purpose. But if you would pay the poor for that high value....giving you a life purpose.....you would not be able to maintain your wealth or being rich or richer...and so on....
If money is what society gives to what is of high value, well your life purpose must be the highest value..those people that give you a purpose are the poor, but you are not willing to give your money to them......contradicting indeed. And this because you fear to find out what your real purpose is. It is not to grow richer so you can help the poor, as growing richer is extending existence poverty.
Your life purpose can't be extend the existence of poverty or is it?

There can't be rich without poor. Those two are inseparable on earth.

What a disempowering load of hooey!

Wealth is about empowerment, not competition. There's no need to compare yourself with others. Empowering someone else doesn't diminish your wealth.

[Apollia]

Originally Posted by Mizan

So the poor are of no value??

I'm sure she didn't mean it that way.

Mizan, there are wealthy people who deserve your anger, but I don't think Erin is one of them.

Look at the the credit card industry which drains people through exorbitant interest rates and unfairly high fees, the automobile industry which doesn't do enough to assure its vehicles don't pollute the environment, the meat industry which cruelly slaughters billions of animals.

Erin, in contrast, gives people psychic readings, and writes really excellent, inspiring articles for free.

In fact they are of a very high value to the rich.
You would not be able to feel rich, if there were no poor.

I guess there are probably _some_ rich people who like to feel like they're an elite or something with lots of little people they can look down on, but, others truly do want everyone to experience as much wealth and abundance as they themselves have.

So if you strive to be rich...it means that there will always be poor.

OK, then, my new goal is to strive to make everyone on earth rich, including myself... Or at least, everyone who won't abuse their wealth by using it to hurt others.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[Mizan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

There's no need to compare yourself with others. Empowering someone else doesn't diminish your wealth.

Where did I say that empowering someone else does diminish wealth?
And where did I compare my own wealth to others?
I am not the one that claims that I have to grow rich or richer before I can do something to empower others.

[dream23]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I've haven't met either of them yet (I've only seen Gates in person at COMDEX), but from what I've read about both of them, I would say Gates is likely the more focused and disciplined of the two. He also seems more in tune with his desires, and his sense of vision for the future is stronger as well.

Really the point of these principles isn't to compare who's more truthful, loving, and powerful. The point is to use them as a growth compass for our own development.

I agree that gates is probably more in tune with his desires and vision, Its a shame its not as noble as the dalai lamas. While gates source of power is money, the Dali Lamas is the divine. This may be why The Dalai Lama has a nobel peace prize while Gates is trying to buy his.

I also agree that people should be used as a growth compass. As you have said Gates and Microsoft has had a greater impact on you development, and i am pleased for you.

While reading Dalai Lamas books has has a profound impact on my personal development.

Bottom line is you became rich from Gates' teachings... while i'd like to think i became enriched from his holiness's teachings.

Peace out

[Steve Pavlina]

Gates' money is a result of his power, not the cause of it. His power is an internal quality, consisting of his vision and drive. You can take away all his money, and he'll still possess those qualities.

Similarly, you can strip the Dalai Lama of his title (as the Chinese have tried to do), but it won't rob him of his inner strength.

[Lenie]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Erin Pavlina's blog:

Are You Afraid to Be Rich?

Really well explained.
Thank you.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

In terms of recognized social value, Bill Gates is the clear winner. On the whole, society values his contribution more than that of the monk, including the Dalai Lama. Given what I've paid to Microsoft over the years and given that I use their software every day, I also value Gates' contribution more highly than the monk's. Even though the monk may be aligned with truth and love, if he isn't aligned with power too, he won't deliver much social value. This shortcoming greatly dampens the monk's social impact.

Keep in mind that social value isn't the same thing as intrinsic value or personal value.

Now imagine what Bill Gates could do if he retained his alignment with power but also gained the monk's alignment with truth and love. Similarly, imagine what the monk could do if he brought himself into stronger alignment with power and focused on creating a massive, sustainable social contribution. The Dalai Lama is more aligned with power than most monks, but he could still learn a lot from Bill Gates in this area, especially in the area of creating a practical vision and taking decisive action. The Dalai Lama has been criticized by his own people for being too passive.

Whoa, had a few mental shifts there, where can a get some information on values like social and intrinsic.

[supertom]

Ok what about earning money from the stock market, you can get rich but do you provide any value????

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by supertom

Whoa, had a few mental shifts there, where can a get some information on values like social and intrinsic.

Making Money Consciously

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by supertom

Ok what about earning money from the stock market, you can get rich but do you provide any value????

See Making Money Consciously

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

See Making Money Consciously

I'm getting confused by the emphasis to contribute socially in order to have money. Why not use the Law of Attraction to attract money without being a moocher or a contributer. I've heard stories of people who used LOA to imagine having $100K, and in one example, an aunt and uncle they hadn't thought of suddenly gives them $100K check just like that.

[munish]

Originally Posted by Mizan

The only reason why there are poor people is because there are rich people as well.
If everybody had the same share of everything that the earth provides, the words "poor" and "rich" would not even exist.
If you say something feels cold, it is because you can compare it to something that feels less cold so something that feels warmer.
If you name yourself rich it is because you can compare how much you possess to that what other people possess.
So if you strive to be rich...it means that there will always be poor.
If there are no more poor....you will be not rich anymore neither. So strive to become rich is a fine, but don't pretend that it is to help the poor. As to be and feel rich( have more than others have) implies that some have to stay poor.....if not you won't feel rich anymore....and you get the feeling that you can't help them if there is no difference in wealth between you and the poor.
So the only reason why most want to be rich, is to extend the existence of poverty. And once poverty exists, it gives the rich people the great feeling that they are going to help the poor.
But why would you want to create or extend the existence of poverty if you truly want to help the poor?
Because you value the poor very high to have a live purpose. But if you would pay the poor for that high value....giving you a life purpose.....you would not be able to maintain your wealth or being rich or richer...and so on....
If money is what society gives to what is of high value, well your life purpose must be the highest value..those people that give you a purpose are the poor, but you are not willing to give your money to them......contradicting indeed. And this because you fear to find out what your real purpose is. It is not to grow richer so you can help the poor, as growing richer is extending existence poverty.
Your life purpose can't be extend the existence of poverty or is it?

There can't be rich without poor. Those two are inseparable on earth ..

I agree with your point. Especially, that people want to be rich , so that they could compare themselves with the poor and feel good about themselves.

Originally Posted by Mizan

those people that give you a purpose are the poor, but you are not willing to give your money to them.......

as growing richer is extending existence poverty. .

But steve has this web site and forums free of cost for those who can't afford information . Is this not a service ?

Originally Posted by Mizan

If money is what society gives to what is of high value, well your life purpose must be the highest value..those people that give you a purpose are the poor, but you are not willing to give your money to them......contradicting indeed. And this because you fear to find out what your real purpose is. It is not to grow richer so you can help the poor, as growing richer is extending existence poverty. .

You need to first read his articles on this site , before making a comment like this.

[supertom]

read the "making-money-consciously" article but i still dont understand how i can have the "contributor mindset" in the stock market. For me the stock is like a 2nd chance, "hey you didnt come up with the idea, but you can still come join us"

[wulph]

Playing in the stock market is often akin to gambling, and thus falls under Option 2, or the Moocher mindset. Most day traders and short sellers probably fit into this category.

On the other hand, if you contribute your resources (money) to a company whose management is aligned with your direction, the company can leverage those resources to provide more value to society. Theoretically, some of that value returns to you in the form of dividends and higher share prices. Many buy-and-hold investors fit into this category.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by wulph

Playing in the stock market is often akin to gambling, and thus falls under Option 2, or the Moocher mindset. Most day traders and short sellers probably fit into this category.

On the other hand, if you contribute your resources (money) to a company whose management is aligned with your direction, the company can leverage those resources to provide more value to society. Theoretically, some of that value returns to you in the form of dividends and higher share prices. Many buy-and-hold investors fit into this category.

yes adding value to the company buy buying their stocks even more so when they use it to fund thier company.

[mncz]

Originally Posted by dream23

But i see ''social value'' falling into the category of spiritual value. Therefore placing jesus and Buddha offering more social value than Bill Gates would you agree?

Which plane do you live on now, dream23? Spiritual or material? So if you are on material plane, you are here to master the material plane to the extent that you possibly can. You are already a spiritual person, and the more aware of yourself you become, the more you know that no amount of money or lack of it can take your spirituality away from you - unless you consciously allow it.

Money is a tool. Just like a computer or an axe. It should be viewed as such. It is neither good nor bad. For some people, it gives a lot of leverage to do good. For others it becomes an obstacle, because they fail to understand its lessons. Rich people are neither good nor bad. Each of them is unique, and they all are perfect as they are and should be viewed as such. You are unique too. Your lessons about money are yours, not someone elses. Learn them and don't judge other people for theirs.