Like it or not, most often success is judged in terms of a person's
bank balance. In a consumer-driven economy, a penchant
for selling—ideas, concepts or products—goes a long
way in earning money, as well as in being materially successful.
"If you don't want to sell what you produce," asks Lester,
"why would you produce it?"
Which is
why, today, even spiritual leaders and healers need to advertise
their unique capabilities because the most successful are those
who reach out to a wide variety of people. After all, how would a person
sitting in Timbuktoo know where to go for something as esoteric as rudraksha
therapy, if not through advertisements?
Despite
consumerism, it would be a mistake to read success as
a synonym for money. Although the two often go hand in hand,
money itself cannot make you a success, and vice-versa.
Take A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, former chief of India's Defence Research
and Development Organization. A simple man who came from a not-so-well-to-do
family, nobody can deny that he is a success. Yet, who is interested
in how much money he makes? What makes him a success is
his intellect and achievements.
What about
the sages who left all to seek something much more intangible? Were
they any less of a success? Would the Buddha have been more successful
had he stayed with his palace and wealth?
Money
rarely defines a person's worth in the real sense of the term.
In an ideal world, money would change hands ethically and the money
that you earn would be directly proportionate to your capability. In the
real world, money is often a result of lineage, contacts, unethical
shortcuts or exploitation, so that the respect it should demand in ideal
circumstances eludes it.