A monk or a monarch - who is happier??
This is the million dollar question that I went through during different phases of my life.
The middle class family status in India is probably the worst as they try to induce themselves into the life style of someone who they aren't. Being born and brought up in such a middle-class family, I always had a burning desire to breakthrough into the riches and affluence. I even had some crazy ideas of becoming the richest man in the world reflecting on the hindi proverb - Khayalon mein khami kyun- What's the need to show misery in dreams?
So, where is the end of this story? - A richer man wants to get more and more richer and a king might want to occupy more lands and expand his kingdom and fame. As an example, entire India was under Ashoka's rule except for a small kingdom named Kalinga. But, Ashoka did not want to spare even that. So, if we assume that the riches would make a person happy then the happiness is very intermittent and would always replace itself with a new desire.
On the other extremity, a saint who renounces all the worldly pleasures and is just happy to spend all his life for the search of god, the eternal bliss or the ultimate aura has nothing to accomplish, nothing to prove to the world. Is this guy really happy? We have seen the likes of Ashoka and Siddhartha (Buddha) who turned into saints from royal origins but I cannot recollect a saint turning into a kings. So, did these great people realize something to renounce everything they had? Did they actually evolve? or is it just that they could not accomplish to become a monarch? I guess we would never know.
I personally feel that the monk is more happier and his life is more fuller than that of a monarch. However, its one such question which might not have an answer.
This is the million dollar question that I went through during different phases of my life.
The middle class family status in India is probably the worst as they try to induce themselves into the life style of someone who they aren't. Being born and brought up in such a middle-class family, I always had a burning desire to breakthrough into the riches and affluence. I even had some crazy ideas of becoming the richest man in the world reflecting on the hindi proverb - Khayalon mein khami kyun- What's the need to show misery in dreams?
So, where is the end of this story? - A richer man wants to get more and more richer and a king might want to occupy more lands and expand his kingdom and fame. As an example, entire India was under Ashoka's rule except for a small kingdom named Kalinga. But, Ashoka did not want to spare even that. So, if we assume that the riches would make a person happy then the happiness is very intermittent and would always replace itself with a new desire.
On the other extremity, a saint who renounces all the worldly pleasures and is just happy to spend all his life for the search of god, the eternal bliss or the ultimate aura has nothing to accomplish, nothing to prove to the world. Is this guy really happy? We have seen the likes of Ashoka and Siddhartha (Buddha) who turned into saints from royal origins but I cannot recollect a saint turning into a kings. So, did these great people realize something to renounce everything they had? Did they actually evolve? or is it just that they could not accomplish to become a monarch? I guess we would never know.
I personally feel that the monk is more happier and his life is more fuller than that of a monarch. However, its one such question which might not have an answer.
