Money is unanimously seen as a very forceful variable. The importance of material wealth outstrips any other form of wealth. It differentiates the donor from the needy. It differentiates the respected from the condemned.
A person abjectly poor in terms of physical, psychological and spiritual health assumes the role of a donor (because he is materially rich) to a tribal beneficiary, who has everything except money. Material wealth in such cases include high academic qualifications and high positions of political or economic power.
What does richness entail? Who should be considered rich in the broader sense of the word ‘wealth’? A cheerful disposition, ability to sleep like a log, the skill to cook food or stich a cloth, access to the freshest air or the expansive sea, a temperament to be cool during crisis, ability to connect emotionally with a loved one in pain. Surely the lack of many of these is felt when the need arises. How different then are these vis-à-vis money?
Consider this…In the broader sense of the term wealth, a child is born with some inherited wealth. The parents’ job is to help him increase his wealth till the child is on his own. Later the child is on his own, doing the same job.
As a person assumes adulthood, his growth in net wealth is either very slow, stagnant or it degrows. He gains money, house, car, but loses out on health, enjoyment he draws from playing football, time spent with friends. However, if he is conscious of this, he might be able to stem the erosion.
Sounds quite logical…doesn’t it?