...: BELOVED OSHO, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT MONEY? WHAT ARE ALL THESE FEELINGS WHICH ARE AROUND MONEY? WHAT MAKES IT SO POWERFUL THAT PEOPLE SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES FOR IT? This is a very significant question. All the religions have been against wealth because wealth can give you all that can be purchased in life. And almost everything can be purchased except those spiritual values - love, compassion, enlightenment...

..., freedom. But these few things are exceptions, and exceptions always prove the rule. Everything else you can purchase with money. Because all the religions have been against life, they were bound to be against money. That is a natural corollary. Life needs money because life needs comforts, life needs good food, life needs good clothes, good houses. Life needs beautiful literature, music, art, poetry...

..., but they have all been cutting man's richness. And the most basic teaching is that you should renounce money. You can see the logic. If you don't have money, you can't have anything else. Rather than cutting branches, they were cutting the very roots. A man without money is hungry, is a beggar, has no clothes. You cannot expect him to understand Dostoevsky, Nijinsky, Bertrand Russell, Albert...

... Einstein, no; that is impossible. All the religions together have made man as poor as possible. They have condemned money so much, and praised poverty so much that as far as I am concerned, they are the greatest criminals the world has known. Look what Jesus says: A camel can pass through the eye of a needle, but a rich man cannot pass through the gates of heaven. Do you think this man is sane? He is...

... ready to allow a camel to pass through the eye of a needle - which is absolutely impossible, but even that impossibility he accepts may be made possible. But a rich man entering into paradise? That is a far bigger impossibility; there is no way to make it possible. Wealth is condemned. Richness is condemned. Money is condemned. The world is left in two camps. Ninety-eight percent of the people live in...

.... They want to find some way, some yoga, some exercises, as a compensation. This whole world has been turned against itself. Perhaps I am the first person who is respectful of money, of wealth, because it can make you multi- dimensionally rich. A poor man cannot understand Mozart. A hungry man cannot understand Michelangelo. A beggar will not even look at the paintings of Vincent van Gogh. And these...

..., born painters, I would like you to remember there are born wealth- creators. They have never been appreciated. Everybody is not a Henry Ford, and cannot be. Henry Ford was born poor, and became the richest man in the world. He must have had some talent, some genius for creating money, for creating wealth. And that is far more difficult than to create a painting, or music, or poetry. To create wealth...

... is not an easy job. Henry Ford should be praised just as any master musician, novelist, poet. In fact, he should be praised more, because with his money all the poetry and all the music and all the sculptures of the world can be purchased. I respect money. Money is one of the greatest inventions of man. It is just a means. Only idiots have been condemning it; perhaps they were jealous that others...

... have money and they don't. Their jealousy became their condemnation. Money is nothing but a scientific way of exchanging things. Before there was money, people were in real difficulty. All over the world there was a barter system. You have a cow and you want to purchase a horse. Now it is going to be your whole lifelong task.... You have to find a man who wants to sell a horse and wants to purchase a...

... cow. It is so difficult a job! You may find people who have horses but they are not interested in buying cows. You may find people who are interested in buying cows but they don't have horses. That was the situation before money came into existence. Naturally, people were bound to be poor: they could not sell things, they could not buy things. It was such a difficult job. Money made it so simple...

.... The man who wants to sell the cow need not search for the man who wants to sell his horse. He can simply sell the cow, take the money and find the man who wants to sell the horse, but is not interested in a cow. Money became the medium of exchange; the barter system disappeared from the world. Money did a great service to humanity. And because people became capable of purchasing, selling, naturally...

... they became more and more rich. This has to be understood. The more money moves, the more money you have. For example, if I have one dollar with me.... It is just for example, I don't have one; I don't have even a cent with me. I don't even have pockets! Sometimes I get worried that if I get a dollar, where am I going to keep it? For example, if I have a dollar and I go on keeping it to myself, then...

... why money is called currency. It should be a current. That's my meaning. I don't know about others' meanings. One should not keep it. The moment you get it, spend it. Don't waste time, because that much time you are preventing the dollar from growing, from becoming more and more. Money is a tremendous invention. It makes people richer, it makes people capable of having things that they don't have...

... upon you about money. Be respectful to it. Create wealth, because only after creating wealth do many other dimensions open for you. For the poor man all doors are closed. I want my sannyasins to be as rich as possible, as comfortable as possible. This is the first commune in the whole history of man where every house is centrally air-conditioned. Never before has any commune happened with air...

... other?9  — There is no contradiction [between the two views]. The first view [was stated] in connection with a note of indebtedness, [in which case it is assumed] that no man will advance money without adequate security.10  The second view [was stated] in connection with buying and selling, [in which case it is assumed] that a man may buy land for a day,11  as, for instance...

... assumed to contain the mortgage clause, as no one will lend money without adequate security, and if a note is produced which contains no mortgage clause it can only be due to an error on the part of the scribe who, in writing the note, failed to carry out the instructions given to him by the creditor. Cf. infra 15b; Keth. 104b; B.B. 169b. The scribe must ask whether, in drawing up a deed of sale of land...

... cannot plead that Reuben's counter-claim does not affect his right to seize the land bought by Simeon, and that Simeon's claim should be dealt with by the Court as a separate action. I.e., I shall have to refund him the purchase money. I am thus directly concerned in your action against Simeon, and I have a right to stop you from seizing his land in virtue of my counter-claim. Although legally Simeon...

... seizure of the field and entitling you to demand your money back] and I shall pay you.'6 It was stated: If one sells a field to his neighbour and it turns out not to be his own,7  — Rab says: He [the buyer] is entitled to [the return of the money [which he paid for the field] and to [compensation from the seller for the] improvement [which he made in the field].8  But Samuel says: He is...

... entitled to the money [he paid] but not to [compensation for the] improvement. R. Huna was asked: If he [the seller] expressly stated [that he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement [if the field were taken away], what is the law then? Is Samuel's reason [for withholding compensation] that [the seller] did not expressly state [that he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement? [Then it...

... would not apply to this case, for] here [the seller] did state expressly [that he would compensate the buyer]. Or is Samuel's reason that, in view of the fact that he [the seller] really had no land [to sell, the money received by the buyer as compensation for the improvement] would appear like usury?9  R. Huna answered: Yes and No, for he was hesitant.10 It was taught: R. Nahman said in the name...

... of Samuel: He [the buyer] is entitled to [have returned to him] the money [paid for the field], but not to [compensation for] improvement, even if he [the seller] stated expressly that [he would compensate the buyer for the] improvement, the reason being that, in view of the fact that he [the seller] really had no land to sell, he [the buyer] would be taking profit for his money.9  Raba then...

... buyer's loss, the buyer has no right to withdraw from the transaction on the plea that in the end his money will have to be refunded. I need not refund your money until the Court has given its decision regarding the legality of the seizure and your title to have the money refunded. The seller had acquired the field wrongfully and had no title to the property. The rightful owner then comes and seizes the...

... away from the rightful owner, and the buyer only restored it to its original condition so that the original owner derives no actual benefit from the change (Rashi). As the seller had no right to the field the transaction was entirely invalid, and there was no sale. The money handed over to the seller could therefore only be regarded as a loan, and when the seller returns to the buyer a larger sum...

... than the purchase-price paid him, it appears like interest on the money. Lit., 'it was lax in his hand.' Similar expressions occur in Shab. 113; 115a; Kid. 65a. Cf. Git. 48b. The reason why one may not hold encumbered property liable for such purposes is that it would prevent people from buying land, as such obligations are so common that they would arise in nearly every case. [This is apart from the...

... from the seller, who had no title to the land, for the amount he spent on improvements. The seller was entitled to sell, but the seller's creditors were entitled to seize the property, in which case the buyer is certainly entitled to the return of the money he spent on improvements, and if he receives a larger amount than the price he paid for the field it does not appear like interest on a loan, as...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 74         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 74a here it does not rest with him.1 Raba said: If three men gave money to one person to purchase something for them, and he purchased on behalf of one only, he has purchased [it] for all three.2  This is so...

... only if he [the agent] did not make up a separate sealed package of each man's money; but if he did, then for whom he has bought, he has bought, and for whom he has not bought, he has not bought. R. papi said in Raba's name: The mark [on the wine-barrels]3  gives possession. In respect of what [does it effect a title]? — R. Habiba said: In respect of actual possession.4  The Rabbis...

... earth, such as that of Kfar Hanania and its environs, Kfar Sihin16  and its environs, an agreement may be concluded, for even if one [merchant] has none, another has. Amemar paid money [for earthenware] when he [the manufacturer] had stocked himself with the earth. In accordance with whom [did he do this]? If in accordance with R. Meir? Surely R. Meir ruled [that no contract may be made] until...

... the wine-grower (the payment of money not effecting a change of ownership), but should he desire to rescind the sale, as he may legally do, he must submit to the curse. I.e., a method of acquisition based on local usage receives full legal recognition. I.e., processes not dependent on man. This refutes both Rab and Samuel, for three processes are wanting, one of which, at least, sc. drying by the...

.... Which is rare and difficult to obtain. Both in Galilee. But not while it is still earth. So that Amemar could have given money even sooner. Upon the transaction, which cannot be rescinded without submission to a curse. And each may retract. V. Mishnah, 72b. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 74b They differ with respect to winter.1 AND ONE MAY ALSO BARGAIN FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. A...

... man once paid money [in advance] for his father-in-law's dowry,2  [i.e., the trousseau comprised therein.] Subsequently the dowry fell in price.3  So they came before R. Papa. Said he to him [the purchaser]: If you have contracted for the lowest price, you can take at present prices; if not, you must accept at the original price. But the Rabbis protested to R. Papa: Yet if he did not...

... stipulate [thus], must he accept at previous prices? Surely it is only money [that has passed between them], and money gives no title! — He replied: I too spoke only with reference to submission to the curse. If he stipulated for the lowest price, and the vendor wishes to retract, the vendor must submit to the curse; if no stipulation has been made, and the purchaser wishes to retract, the purchaser...

... must submit to the curse. Rabina said to R. Papa: Whence do you know that it [our Mishnah under discussion] accords even with the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon and maintain that money does not effect possession;4  and yet even so, [only] if he stipulated for the lowest price does he receive at the present value, but if not, he must accept it at the previous price?5  Perhaps it accords...

... [only] with R. Simeon, who maintained that money effects possession,6  so that, if he stipulated for the lowest price, he receives it at current values, but if not, he must accept it at previous prices, because his money has effected possession for him; whereas in the opinion of the Rabbis, whether he stipulated or not, he can take it at present prices, for a man's intention is for the lowest...

... price?7  — He replied: You must assume that R. Simeon ruled [that the purchaser is morally in possession after paying money] only if the price remained uniform; but did he rule thus when there were two prices?8  For should you not admit this, does R. Simeon maintain that the provision of the curse never applies to the purchaser?9  And should you rejoin, That indeed is so &mdash...

... circumcised on the eighth [day]; there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. 'There is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day.' How so? If one purchases a pregnant female slave and then she...

... gives birth, that [the infant] is an acquired slave who is circumcised at eight days — If one purchases a female slave together with her infant child, that is a slave bought with money who is circumcised on the first day.4  'And there is [a slave] born in [his] master's house who is circumcised on the eighth day' — How so? If one purchases a female slave and she conceives in his house...

... circumcised on the eighth day; one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day, and one bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. [Thus:] if she gives birth and then has a ritual bath, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in the house who is circumcised on the eighth...

... [day].9  'One bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth [day]': e.g., if one purchases a pregnant female slave and she has a ritual bath and then gives birth; 'one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day': e.g., where one buys a [pregnant] female slave and another buys her unborn child.10  But according to the first Tanna, as for all [others] it is well: they are...

... enjoined upon a Jewish woman. V. next note. These laws centre on Gen. XVII, 12, 13: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed (v. 12). He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised (v. 13). Whereas v. 12...

... the eighth day. But otherwise the infant is not like a Jewish-born child, and is circumcised on the first day. But the first Tanna ignores this distinction: thus R. Assi's ruling is a matter of controversy between the first Tanna and R. Hama. Maharam deletes this. Both of these refer to a slave who conceived in her master's house, so that the infant is not 'bought with money'. Since the latter does...

... there is a warranty the same law applies, as the vendor may still say to him: 'Produce the distress warrant2  against you and I will indemnify you.' R. Huna said: [The payment for damages is] either with money or with the best of the estate.3  R. Nahman objected to R. Huna [from the Baraitha]: He should return4  shows that payment in kind is included, even with bran?5  — This...

... deals with a case where nothing else is available. If nothing else is available, is it not obvious? — You might have thought that we tell him to go and take the trouble to sell [the bran] and tender the plaintiff ready money. It is therefore made known to us [that this is not the case.]. R. Assi said: Money is on a par with land. What is the legal bearing of this remark? If to tell us what is...

... best, is this not practically what R. Huna said?6  It may, however, refer to two heirs7  who divided an inheritance, one taking the land and the other the money. If then a creditor8  came and distrained on the land, the aggrieved heir could come forward and share the money with his brother. But is this not self-evident? Is the one a son [to the deceased] and the other one not a son...

...? There are some who argue [quite the reverse]: The one brother may say to the other, 'I have taken the money on the understanding that if it be stolen I should not be reimbursed by you, and you also took the land on the understanding that if it be distrained on there should be no restitution to you out of anything belonging to me.' It9  will therefore refer to two heirs7  who divided lands...

... and void. Samuel said: The portion is waived; but R. Assi said: The portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money.12  Rab, who said that the partition becomes null and void, maintains that heirs, even after having shared, remain13  co-heirs;14  Samuel, who said that the portion is waived, maintains that heirs, after having shared, stand to each other in the...

... relationship of vendees, each being in the position of a purchaser without a warranty [of indemnity];15  R. Assi, who said that the portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money, is in doubt as to whether heirs, after having shared, still remain co-heirs16  or stand in the relationship of vendees;15  and on account of that [doubt] there must be refunded a quarter in land or...

... a quarter in money.17  What then is the meaning of 'Money is on a par with land'?18  — In respect of being counted as 'best'. But if so, is not this practically what R. Huna said? — Read 'And so also said R. Assi …' R. Zera said on behalf of R. Huna: For [the performance of] a commandment one should go up to a third. A third of what? To Part b Original footnotes...

..., 'And so also said R. Assi …' Lit. 'brothers'. Of the deceased. I.e., R. Assi's statement. [In which case R. Assi stated that the other can offer in refundment either money or land.] B.B. 107a. Cf. Bek. 48a. In this respect. So that all of them have to share the burden of the debt and if the portion of the one was distrained on, the portion of the other constitutes the whole inheritance...

... comes through a balance: you simply possess a thing to share it, then possession is not ugly. Then you are simply waiting to share it. It happened: Two monks were travelling. One monk believed in renunciation of everything, so he would not carry a single PAISE. He was against money, absolutely against - he would not touch it. By the evening they came near a river, and they had to cross the river; the...

... river was very vast. They had to ask the ferry-boatman to take them. He asked for money. The other monk was a hoarder; whatsoever he could get he would hoard. He was a miser. And there had always been an argument, a continuous argument between them about what is right. One would say: Money is useless. It is dirt - as all the ascetics have always said, which is nonsense. The other would say: Money...

...? - money is life. Without money you cannot even live. It is not dirt. And there was no end to their argument. The ferryman asked for money. The money-hoarder, the miser said: Now, what will you do? I have money. I will go to the other shore, to the town, and you will have to stay here. This is a wild and dangerous area. Now what do you say? The other monk simply smiled and didn't say anything. Of course...

..., the friend paid for him also. When they had crossed, the man who had smiled, who has against money said: Now see what has happened. Because you gave the money to the ferry-boatman, that's why we could pass. If you had been miserly about it, we would have died on the other shore. You renounced money that's why we have come to this bank. Now we are safe. And I always say, money has to be renounced...

.... Miserly people are wrong, and people who renounce are wrong. People who possess are wrong, and people who renounce are wrong. Somewhere there is a mid-point where you simply see that money is necessary and to renounce the money is also necessary. To hoard money is necessary, and to share it is just as necessary. If you can create a balance between hoarding and sharing, then you have come to the point...

... were doing within the house. They never married, because misers never want to fall in love. A woman can be dangerous. And when a woman enters, you never know what she will do with your money. She is bound to waste it. So they never married, they never fell in love. And they hoarded and hoarded things, every type of thing. Just a few days ago, just two or three months ago, they both died from an...

... how many dollars they had left behind. They had never put any money in the bank, because nobody knows, banks can go bankrupt. And they lived like poor beggars. They could have lived rich lives, but a miser always lives a poor beggar's life. A miser is really a beggar, the ultimate in beggary. You cannot find a greater beggar than a miser. He has it and he cannot use it. Then there are other types of...

... people. They are just the reverse image of a miser. They renounce everything - they escape. It was said of Vinoba Bhave, that if you brought money to him he would simply close his eyes. He would not touch, he would not look at the money. This seems to be another extreme. Why be so afraid of money? Why this fear? Why close your eyes? What is wrong with money? Nothing is wrong with money, but you are...

... afraid. This is the reverse image of the miser, because the man is afraid that if he looks at the money then the desire for it will arise. Remember, if you are afraid of looking at money, at a beautiful woman, if you are afraid to look, what does it show? It shows that a fear is there that if you look at a beautiful woman, the desire for her will arise. You are afraid of the desire and you have...

... can move from one extreme to another. One can hoard money or one can throw it to the dogs and escape from it to the Himalayas. But both types are the same. Twice is enough, once is not enough, thrice is too much. Why can't you remain in the middle? Because in the middle, mind disappears. It is just like the pendulum; the pendulum goes on moving to the right and to the left. You know that if the...

... gain balance. Then when he feels that the opposite is happening, that he has leaned too much to the right, he moves immediately to the left. With every single step, one has to attain balance. It is not something that you have attained and finished with. It is a process. Be more aware. Be more aware when you exhale, be more aware when you inhale. And don't cling to either of them. Earn money - share...

... warmth, rather than fulfilling the child by her love, food will become the substitute. Now food will be symbolic. The child has grown up - the father cannot love the child, because he has never loved. He does not know in fact what love means at all... he does not know what love is. He cannot give love, but he can give money. So he will go on giving the money to the child and he will say, 'Look how much...

... I love you!' Money is symbolic, food is symbolic, and the reality is denied. When the child becomes a grown-up person, he will be mad after money. Money is a symbol - it has nothing real in it - but he will be mad after money, because he will think, 'The more money you have, the more love you get. The more money you possess, the more you will be loved.' So he will become greedy. He will forget all...

... about love, all about life. He will live a neurotic life of greed, and will accumulate money and will die accumulating it. Now the symbolic drove him crazy. I am giving you this name so that you can remember it. This is one of the basic problems of humanity. The world 'god' has become more important than god himself. The word god is not god. The statue in the temple is not god, neither is the temple a...

.... It has nothing to do with money or kingdom. It has nothing to do with power over people. And if somebody waits to enjoy life only when he has so much money, and so much power, and such a big kingdom, then he is never going to enjoy. He will die a beggar. [Osho told the story of alexander the great, meeting the mystic, Diogenes. Alexander felt envious of Diogenes' obvious contentment with life, but...

... valid. And again even if he is forced to sell 'this' field, the sale is not valid only if he has not counted out the money [received in payment], but if he does count out the money, the sale is valid.3  And again, [even in the case of 'this' field and even if he did not count out the money] the sale is not valid only if it was not possible for him to wriggle out of it,4  but if he did have a...

... violence, the betrothal is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi, however, said: In the case of the woman the betrothal is certainly not valid; he treated the woman cavalierly7  and therefore the Rabbis treat him cavalierly and nullify his betrothal. Rabina said to R. Ashi: We can understand the Rabbis doing this if he betrothed her with money,8  but if he betrothed her by means of intercourse, how can...

... renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., if he is called upon merely to sell one of his fields, and is allowed to choose which, because in that case we can say that the sale is not unwelcome to him. I.e., one which his torturers specify, and which perhaps he particularly wished to keep for himself. Because by the act of counting out the money he shows that he is satisfied with the transaction...

.... E.g., by saying to the other 'wait till tomorrow' or 'wait till my wife comes' (Rashb.). Because the woman may be regarded as selling herself to the betrother, who is intent on her alone. V.l. 'A master said'. Lit., 'not as it beseems'. Betrothal could be effected in three ways — by a money gift, by written deed, and by actual intercourse (Kid. ad init.). If he gave her money, they can declare...

... the money common property, so that the gift was no gift, but they cannot say that the intercourse was no intercourse. A notorious ruffian. According to another rendering, 'Tied Papi up on account of an artichoke (to make him sell it).' V. Levy, s.v. [H] Lit., 'notification': a declaration by a person about to make a sale that the sale is made under duress and that he intends to claim the thing sold...

... to a debtor who signed a bond without receiving money that the creditor would not enforce it unless he actually lent him the money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                       ...

... world. The longing seems to be almost mad to those who are concerned with money, power, prestige. They will think you have gone crazy if you become interested in meditation, if you become interested in silence. if you become interested in a Master. But the East has paid tremendous respect to the Masters. Ko Hsuan starts each sutra with these beautiful words: THE VENERABLE MASTER SAID... He does not...

... life is. You know how to earn money and you know only how to waste life. There was an old professor of Darjeeling Who traveled from London to Ealing. It said on the door, "Please don't spit on the floor," So he carefully spat on the ceiling. "That philosopher really suffers for his beliefs," said Mulla Nasruddin one day to me. "Why, what does he believe?" I asked him...

..., but if desires persist it is still sexuality. And you can watch it... There are people who are obsessed with money. You can see one thing: they are no more interested in sex; their whole interest has moved into money. But now money has become their sex object. When they touch money they touch as if they are touching their beloved. I have seen people touching hundred-rupee notes with such tenderness...

... - unbelievable. I used to know one person whose only joy was money, even somebody else's money. Just if you are interested in beautiful women it does not matter whose wife it is. If a beautiful woman passes by you become immediately interested; a great desire arises in you. Civilization prevents you; the police is there, the law is there, so you don't do anything, you don't act - that is one thing - but the...

... thought starts fantasizing. The mind starts spinning, weaving dreams. The same was true about this man. He was a relative of mine. Somebody else's money... if he will see that you have many notes in your pocket he will just take the money out, will count it, with such tenderness - and it is not his money either! He will give it back to you, but when he will give you can see the sadness arising in his...

... eyes, you can see the unwillingness. He was always asking for money, and he had enough money. He was always borrowing money from others. I used to ask him, "You have money - why you go on borrowing?" And slowly slowly he became very honest with me and he said, "I cannot use my own money in any way. It hurts to bring the money out of my own pocket - it hurts. I feel almost paralyzed! I...

... can borrow it from somebody?" And he never used to give back. He was well known all over the city, that once he takes money from you he will never give back - he cannot. Everybody used to feel pity for him. He had ten bungalows, but he himself used to live in a very small room, in one of his bungalows' servant quarters. He could have afforded a beautiful car, but he used to move on a bicycle so...

... his bicycle. He lived a poor man's life, a very poor man's life - the life of a beggar. And he collected so much money... He had no son, no daughter. It almost always happens that miserly people don't have children; there must be some psychological reason in it. In India the very miserly people have always to adopt children - rich people they are. Poor people have many children, too many, in fact...

...; they need birth control And the rich people, the very rich, the miserly people, don't have children. They are so miserly that something deep happens even to their chemistry. Their whole sexuality becomes obsessed with money. Hence, remember, the first poison Ko Hsuan calls sexuality. It does not mean only sex, it means all desires. A Scotsman arrives at the toll gate of a bridge, gives a penny to the...

... at a dollar a gallon.'" Last words! Last words are always very important; they are the essence of your whole life. There are people who even at the very end of their life are thinking of money. When God created Switzerland he asked a Swiss, "What do you want?" Without hesitation the Swiss replied, "I want a lot of milk!" And so it was. After a few days god, curious, asked...

... the Swiss, "Is your milk good?" The best, my Lord," replied the Swiss. "Try some!" God tasted it and found it really good. then he asked the Swiss, "Do you want something else?" Again, without hesitation, the Swiss replied, "Yes, my Lord. Four francs for the milk you drank!" Even if you come across God, if you are obsessed with money you won't see God at...

..., whatsoever form your sexuality has taken - it may have become money obsession, it may have become power obsession, it does not matter - when you are thinking in terms of sexuality, everything deep inside you becomes sexual. Your whole life functions as a transforming mechanism for everything, to create more and more sexuality. Whatsoever you see, you see your own sexuality projected - you can't see...

... of their money. The first comes out of anger and the second comes out of greed, but the cause of both lies in the first. Repressed sex will create anger and greed. You will be surprised to know that any religion that has been teaching to its followers some kind of repression has always helped its followers to become rich. In India, Jains have become very rich; they are the most repressive people...

... are a small community, very small community - in such a big, vast country they are nothing - but still they are very powerful because they have all the money. You will not come across a single Jain beggar; nothing like it exists. They are not poor people - they cannot be poor; their religion has made it absolutely certain for them that they will he rich. Sex has to he repressed and anger has to he...

... is a country of immense resources; but the actual money which the people have at their disposal is comparatively limited." True enough. It was a member of Mr. Kahn's firm who invented a monetary system which was promised to keep money in more equal relation to wealth. But as he goes on telling what America will and will not do (the American people knowing nothing about it meanwhile) Mr. Kahn...

... ought to exist. Take Walter Rathenau, a German Jew on the plane of the Warburgs. Rathenau was the inventor of the Bolshevik system of centralization of industry, material and money. The Soviet Government asked Rathenau directly for the plans, and received them directly from him. Max Warburg's bank held the money; Walter Rathenau's mind held the plans — which makes it a pertinent question: If...

..., the international financiers have been so engrossed in world money that the sense of national responsibility sometimes becomes blurred in their minds. They desire everyting — war, negotiations and peace — to be conducted in such a way as to react favorably on the money market. For that is their market: money is what they buy and sell: and because money has no fixed price, it is a market...

... which offers the widest opportunity for the trickster and swindler. One cannot play such tricks with stone or corn or metals, but with money as the commodity everything is possible. Mr. Warburg is already very much interested about the treatment to be accorded foreign securities in the next war. Readers of the daily newspapers may recall that recently a demand was made for the gold in the Reichsbank...

... command instant agreement because of its appeal to superficial national pride and selfish ambition. If what Mr. Warburg says is an intimation that the International Jews are planning to move their money market to the United States, it is safe to say that the United States does not want it. We have the warning of history as to what this would mean. It has meant that in turn Spain, Venice, Great Britain...

... or Germany received the blame and suspicion of the world for what the Jewish financiers have done. It is a most important consideration that most of the national animosities that exist today arose out of resentment against what the Jewish money power did under the camouflage of national names. "The British did this," "The Germans did this," when it was the International Jew who...

... did it, the nations being but the marked spaces on his checker board. Today, around the world the blaming word is heard, "The United States did this. If it were not for the United States the world would be in better shape. The Americans are a sordid, greedy, cruel people." Why? Because the Jewish money power is largely centered here and is making money out of both our immunity and Europe's...

...-Jewish press. But here is an example: Do you remember "The Beast of Berlin," that lurid piece of war propaganda? You did not, perhaps, know that its producer was a German Jew, Carl Laemmle. His German birth did not prevent him making money out of his film, and his film does not prevent him annually going back in state to his birthplace. This year he goes accompanied by Abe Stern, his...

... treasurer; Lee Kohlmar, his director; and Harry Reichenbach — a list of names duplicable in any movie group. Messrs. Stern and Warburg, of Frankfort and Hamburg, respectively, and away from home perhaps only temporarily, were not concerned about the fate of the "Huns," but they were immensely concerned about the fate of Jewish money power in Germany. To indicate how blind the public has...

... a significant sign of the times that a German firm should be responsible for an American loan to a neutral country. The conditions subject to which this money was borrowed, are not regarded as very favorable to Norway, and no marked effect on the rate of exchange between the two countries has followed." Note, in the light of all the statements made about Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and the...