Money Can Bring Happiness

So According to you do you think in India or any developing countries, we get free food and people don't go to work? We do go for work. We also live in the real world. But People who think money gives happiness are the ones who are living in the virtual world. One thing please understand that paying bills and getting food is not the source of happiness, God is giving food to even dogs and hogs. That is not the goal of life either. Human being has a higher responsibility of Inquiring about God. Vedas Begin with the statement "athatho brahma jijnasa", means: now that you have got the human form of life, your duty is to inquire about God. Pro says "Minority are happy without Money". but i also say majority are unhappy without it, refer to the previous arguments. If money is valued by majority of earth's population, You cannot blindly conclude that it brings happiness. That would mean the richest are the most happy people on earth and nobody else. Which is not, refer to the statistics in the previous arguments. Those who are God realized, The saints whom i am talking about will not again take birth in this mortal world. No more birth, no more old age , no more death for them. It is said in the bhagavad gita "yad gatva na nivartante, tad dhama paramam mama", Those who are surrendered to God, reach His abode and never return back. But those who have no faith in God suffer in hell and go through repeated birth and death. Pro is talking about his some uncle having diabetes, That uncle is already in terrible suffering and by curing the disease, it just prevents suffering, doesn't give happiness, it is like coming from negative to zero. Pro is in a illusion that money can give positive happiness. But please understand "PREVENTION OF MISERY IS NOT CONSIDERED HAPPINESS". For example, if there are mosquitos causing you suffering, and you put a mosquito repellent, do you think that mosquito repllent is giving you happiness? No, it is just preventing misery, it is not a source of any positive happiness. try to understand this simple point. I have already mentioned, how even billions of dollarscannot save your lives, if it would, then rich people would have a longer life span than the poorer ones. But that is not observed unfortunately Pro. Saints don't have any misery of losing loved ones or any such kind of nonsense miseries like the one Pro may experience. They worry for the spiritual benifit of others and not for selfish reasons. i never said money brings true happiness, My point is the person after getting money is in illusion that he can do anything and he is happy, but soon sufferings are going to inflict upon him. Pro says with money, he can purchase some sort of best technology and gadgets which would be a source of happiness for him, So let us lock up Pro in a room containing all his gadgets and he would be eternally happy..!! would you?? Yes certainly we can do an in depth study of karma with these technology and that would be the right use of technology. To prevent people from doing anymore sin. But possessing that technology is not happiness. Pro is sadly mistaken that i am arguing for the topic "Poverty brings happiness".. Pro, I am not arguing on this topic. I am saying Money is not the source of happiness. even if a person is rich, and is not too much attached to money, he can be happy. For example : If you know Alfred Ford (great grandson of Henry Ford), He is called a billionare devotee, he is a god conscious person and leading a very happy life. You are just arguing "richness vs poverty", wheras that is not the topic of the debate. My point is "Even if a person has money. that is not the source of happiness". I have told this many times in the previous arguments, still Pro comes back to the same point of poverty which is not at all a topic of this debate. Pro says if i take out all the money from Americans, they would not be happy.. This statement is made as though now americans are very happy. No, even now Americans are miserable with all those latest technology and gadgets. because that is not the source of happiness. >> Pro thinks my arguments are not realistic, He would be thinking, working hard like a donkey day and night and enjoying like a monkey is a realistic idea. Which is not. I would like to ask him which point sounded to him unrealistic? are rich people are also not suffering? is it not realistic? But Pro argues only poverty stricken people are unhappy. I don't deny this point. But only providing them money would prevent their misery but doesn't give them happiness. They would then become the rest of the americans who are still unhappy. Installing a powerful security system in the house just exposes his fear that somebody would steal his money, So that person is fearful and worried that somebody would take my money. Don't you think this fear and worry is miserable. I know Pro will argue that if that person becomes poverty stricken, he would be still miserable. Yes he would be, But having money or no money, in both cases he is miserable.. So money is in no way a source of happiness. Only the form of misery changes. Pro says the concept of reincarnation is because there are no explanantions to his topics, I don't think so. Just because Pro doesn't know the explanantions, He cannot deny reincarnation as something fictitious. The principles of reincarnation and Karma are elaborately described in the scriptures billions of years before our Pro was born as Human. and they accepted by authorities. So Pro need not take a role of authority do deny them and He is no authority on scriptures as well. The argument of "everlasting". I have already explaines. How the happiness which you get by marriage or getting money is not at all happiness, though you may think.. but it is illusion. And it naturally concludes "Those who think money can bring happiness are in illusion". Even the scriptues say the same thing: this is a verse from Srimad bhagavatam 11.3.20. "nityï¿½rtidena vittena durlabhenï¿½tma-mï¿½tyunï¿½ gï¿½hï¿½patyï¿½pta-paï¿½ubhiï¿½ kï¿½ prï¿½tiï¿½ sï¿½dhitaiï¿½ calaiï¿½" Translation : Wealth is a perpetual source of distress, it is most difficult to acquire, and it is virtual death for the soul. What satisfaction does one actually gain from his wealth? Similarly, how can one gain ultimate or permanent happiness from one's so-called home, children, relatives and domestic animals, which are all maintained by one's hard-earned money? Attachment to the wealth causes illusion. I can quote many more verses, but there's no space here. and Pro says all this is not realistic on no basis of his own. Pro is even confused with economics. The manslow's Hierarchy states that "Self actualization" is the highest need for the person, even above money, Of course money is required to achieve this level but money is just a means to achieve this level. But the happiness is derived from self actualization. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Pro also says, saints are self realized and happy and get everything for free. It easily proves my point that money cannot bring happiness, therefore i won the debate, no need of further arguments itself !!. In the website regarding Bangladesh, it is never mentioned that Bangladeshis derive more happiness because of money. Pro is just concocting with some word jugglery. If money could bring happiness, then why doesn't the survey say that britain is more happy? Please read carefully Pro, It says, british and Soviet union even though they have money, their quality of life has not improved. It is the quality of life not the money. And you cannot purchase quality of life with your money.. Even with billions of dollars in hand can you improve the quality of a hog which eats stool, and make it eat sandwhich? No , Unfortunately. You have not still answered my question. You are saying money can cure illness, So having only money and no medicine, No doctors , cure the illness?? Certainly not, and also you cannot