The Buddha suggests that it is the same for everyone. Hence it would be possible to be permanently happy by transcending the variability of mental states. At the limit being rich or poor would have nothing to do with it.
It is not wrong to be miserable, it is just miserable.Pat Dodson wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 8:26 pmAs others have said, yes of course you can.
But there is a worrying side to that; the notion of the "noble poor". Let me ask a couple of daft questions.
As you can be poor and happy is it wrong to be poor and miserable?
And as you can be poor and happy, if the rich arranged to take a still larger share of wealth and resources would that be good for the poor?
Is that something to do with Dilbert? I am not a huge fan but my guru Homer says trying is the first step to failure. Now that's wisdomErik Zurcher wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 10:09 pmEver heard of the Peter principle: It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".
Think of the implications worldwide: all managers will reach their level of incompetence and are unhappy in their present position. They have all reached a level too high.
Users browsing this forum: ChristianSchwengeler, CommonCrawl [Bot], JohnW400, Tubbers and 21 guests