Poverty and Prophets

Why do religions with a more moral origin promote the vow of poverty?

Think about it, all the great prophets have renounced their possessions to live the world in a humble way.

Basically, this may be due to a much more advanced knowledge of the world than it seems.

In reality, the only way to eradicate suffering, in a world where perceived resources are finite, is for all beings to reduce our needs to the point where we all have the bare minimum to stay alive.

If all human beings took a vow of poverty, hunger and scarcity of resources would cease to exist for the least favored geographical areas.

The vow of poverty, in that case, would be made by reducing the overall wealth to the point where resources and needs meet.

That is, the point at which 100 apples, for 50 inhabitants, would yield a result of 2 apples per person.

With no one entitled to more apples because they were born in a privileged position. If not, that more apples could be distributed to achieve equity, giving them to those people who need them to obtain the same level of welfare as the rest.

That equitable world can only be achieved if the vow of poverty is realized as a universal decision.

Without the renunciation of the possession of wealth by all those involved, this cannot be achieved. For the moment that one out of a hundred decides not to take the vow of poverty, and accumulates more than necessary, the resources will not be sufficient for the remaining 99 and many will suffer.

Those prophets led a humble life and postulated humility as a way of life.

Obviously, they practiced detachment from everything external, both material goods and ideas about the world and oneself. But the vow of poverty is not only detachment, detachment from everything that conditions us.

It is also living without possessions, because they are resources that we accumulate and, therefore, what others cannot enjoy. And without the burden of protecting resources from those we see as our enemies. This management of resources is what starts conflicts and wars.

Poverty, understood as the reduction of possessions to the point where we can all survive, leaving no one behind, would be the point of equilibrium. From there, following an equitable vision, a more just world could begin to be built.

But without the vow of poverty there will always be those who accumulate the resources. Those who rule over the rest for personal ends that are not focused on seeking the collective good, but the individual good.

Reshaping the world according to an economic model of generalized "poverty" is an enormous challenge, of course, but it is not impossible.

The problem is that it needs universal acceptance and to define what the state of generalized poverty is.

I speak of poverty as opposed to wealth, which is the accumulation of resources beyond what is necessary. And, therefore, the word poverty implies, in the idea I propose, the non-accumulation of resources.

Not accumulating resources does not mean that we starve to death, but that a balance can be reached if we distribute resources and prevent accumulation by a few.

It seems that this was the idea proposed at the origin of many religious beliefs. The vow of poverty implies the non-accumulation of resources, not the lack of a livelihood.

It is about not accumulating. Because when we accumulate we do not want to share, since possessiveness over what I feel as mine always leads to a defense of the individual good. Of my resources, which I do not wish to share with others.

Of my beliefs and ideas, which I claim to be superior to those of others. Even of one's self-image, which always seems to be under attack by others and, therefore, we must constantly protect it.

The vow of poverty is a very lofty idea that holds the key to the reduction of suffering.

The vow of poverty would, in turn, make it possible to reduce the suffering of the great part of the inhabitants of this planet, beyond the human species.