Some people view existence as the good life -- having a fast car, a mansion perhaps or just plain big house, lots of money for spending all day, even fame -- i.e., people knowing them once they pass by or they are read in the papers all the time.
Other people view life as transient and so do not care what ever materials things they own. They may prepare for the afterlife by constantly seeking a spiritual meaning in their present lives. (But wait, there are some people who attempt to look spiritual but in their daily lives, more so in their business, they are quite shrewd and would not budge an inch for a reduction of their profit.)
Still others think that life must be lived well -- meaningfully. Every act they do must stem from their inner guts, what they think they really like to do. This last group is worth emulating because they know their directions in life -- they know what would make them happy.
The first thinks happiness could be bought or, with the presence of the material things, they would be happy.
The second leads a segmented life -- one part is spiritual, the other is material. There is no continuity thread between the two. And so, sometimes they come up neurotically driven to do things -- one that would fulfill them in both, which of course will never happen.
What is difficult about existing is when people become leaders of a group of people. The leaders cannot come from the first two groups, I think. The first would think that the people may need only a minimum of material wealth, and reserve the most for those who they think deserve it -- those who have lots of money to spare for surplus. Isn't having a lot of material wealth a case of having surplus?
And so as a leader, the first would have a very narrow view of what leadership means, what making the people happy means. If they see that there is no war in their midst, then that's good enough. It means that people can coexist with each other, no matter how deprived some groups of the majority of the people are. The 'peaceful' atmosphere is actually a mirage because inside, the stomachs of the groups of people they lead are rumbling.
The second who leads must probably be earning a lot from showing to the people that they are spiritual, and so they preach in huge quadrangles, telling the people how to grow rich, ;but actually they grow richer than the people. They even go on radio and TV, telling the people how they can attain what they are aiming at. But do their predictions or advice bear fruit? Not all the time but the people blame themselves if they do not get what they want. And so under the rule of this person are people who could turn pragmatic. 'I must listen to the preachings because who knows, tomorrow I may die; but at least I have prayed well.' Outside of their prayerful meetings, they become shrewd business people so that they can live affluently.
The third is an idealist. They could turn leaders but they could be bad leaders as well -- because if they are rigid in their values, they would not know how to deal with different kinds of people. People are not idealistic like them and may offer solutions to problems but are actually camouflaged profit-taking endeavors. But if the idealists temper their idealism with a bit of pragmatism, they could turn out to be good leaders. To do this, they must put out their third eye -- be sensitive as to who is approaching them sincerely and not. They must be able to distinguish who are truly their friends, and who truly are loving of the people so that their solutions redound to the welfare of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment