Timy vs. Gur

Dear Timi, I don't deny that food, clothing, and shelter are necessities (although this can be debated). I only mentioned food and housing as evidence that money is a means to acquire certain benefits. Now, let's analyze your statement: "Many spend large sums of money, accumulated by them or their ancestors, in vain." Essentially, this is a repetition of my statement in message #15 (expressed in different words): "When we earn money, we earn it not for the money itself, but for the benefits that can be acquired with that money." In your case, the benefit takes a specific form – the form of idle pastime, the form of empty and subjectively unnecessary things. And in general, the wording "in vain" is incorrect, because what may seem useless to you may not be so to another person and, therefore, does not "make the world go round." Let's move on. You say: "But many invest money in metals, stones, housing, stocks, bonds, investments..." Again, this is essentially a repetition of my aforementioned statement from post #15. In this case, the benefit takes the form of metal, stones, and so on. Thus, you yourself say that a person spends their money on acquiring benefits. In other words, money is only a means, including a means of accumulating new funds to obtain a benefit, and therefore cannot be the fundamental motive for human actions. So, as you yourself put it, many people spend their money in vain, while others spend it on metals, etc. But both spend it on some kind of benefit. What, in your opinion, makes a person choose certain things (both spiritual and material) from the entire set of benefits? Sincerely, Gur