On YouTube
An upper limit to salary? || Acharya Prashant, with IIT Ropar (2022)
7.7K views
3 years ago
Proportional Resources
Consciousness
Wealth Distribution
Vedanta
Spirituality
Private Property
Liberation
Value
Description

Acharya Prashant responds to a question about whether there should be a concept of maximum wealth, similar to a minimum wage. He suggests that instead of a maximum wage, the corresponding idea should be "proportional resources." He explains this from a Vedantic perspective, stating that resources should be proportional to the importance of the work one is doing. The fundamental nature of human beings is that they are conscious beings who want their consciousness to rise, to be better, and to be more free. Therefore, the only proper use of resources is for the elevation of human consciousness. Using resources merely to entertain, feed, fatten, comfort, or secure oneself is a secondary, if not improper, use. The amount of wealth an individual should possess ought to be proportional to their intention to use it in the right direction—for the elevation of their own consciousness, social consciousness, and global consciousness. If one's objectives are correct and pure, there should be no upper limit to the funds that flow to them. However, if one intends to use wealth for personal gratification, they do not deserve even a penny beyond the minimum required for basic sustenance. The speaker notes that the entire problem today is that undeserving people are hoarding vast wealth while righteous causes suffer for a lack of resources. This discrepancy must be corrected. Addressing a related point about culture, Acharya Prashant states that the West's interest in Indian culture is focused on its pure spiritual aspect, which is Vedanta or non-duality, not on hollow rituals and superstitions. He observes that the younger Indian generation is also rejecting these old, nonsensical traditions. The future of the Sanatan stream lies in Vedanta because every conscious being needs it for liberation. In an awakened society, the economic structure would change because the valuers—the people—would change. Money, as a declaration of value, would still exist, but it would value the right things. Industries based on falsehoods, like cosmetics or animal flesh, would be obliterated because no one would value them. In an awakened world, economic activity would continue, but it would be of an awakened kind, centered on what truly helps human beings internally.