Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00006)

bhive888 wrote:

> Interestingly enough I do not believe that money is transferable
> or translatable in the higher worlds.  What I mean to say is that
> no amount relates at all - only our actions.  (This principle
> requires therefore that a wealthy man who did not physically work
> for his existence, but only paid folk to care for his needs, will
> become much of a servant in futher life-times to come.  This to
> me seems fair if you think about it.  It also suggests that
> bartering would be preferable to the abstract which is money.)

Why is money different than anything else, in that it does not
translate into higher worlds? Money is a symbol, like many
others.  While it can symbolize what appears to be the difference
between people, it can also be a balancing force.

In terms of a rich man being a servant in the next lifetime, I
like to believe that one has a choice of the general kind of
lifetime one will have, and one chooses based on dharmic
necessity.  A wealthy person has as much opportunity for learning
as a servant; they just learn different things.  And a wealthy
person is just as likely to learn those lessons as a servant,
too.