Buddhists are losers?

[LXNDR]

but if anyone agrees with Mkoll and disagrees with me, i'm interested to know your take on this

The Buddha left the household life because he was a samma-sam-buddha. There are billions and trillions of beings for every samma-sam-buddha.

appreciate you picking it up

samma sambuddha means fully/righly self-awakened, but in the sutta he confesses otherwise

Before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living in a home, to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So at a later time, when I was still young, black-haired, endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life, having shaved off my hair & beard — though my parents wished otherwise and were grieving with tears on their faces — I put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.

so he couldn't leave home because he WAS samma sambuddha, to the contrary, he did so because he WASN'T, in order to become one
and until he became one he couldn't predict this would be his fate

If you aspire to be a samma-sam-buddha, then great, go for it, but the vast majority of all beings will never be a samma-sam-buddha; arahant perhaps, but not samma-sam-buddha. And an arahant can be lay or monastic (although a lay person would ordain after gaining enlightenment). One can make great progress as a monk or layman.

why then become a monk and suffer all the travails associated with monastic lifestyle, if arahantship is comfortably attainable leading a household life?

[DNS]

He was already destined to be samma-sam-buddha, the aspiration was already made and the paramitas were already developed. Most beings will never be a samma-sam-buddha.

Yes, one can make arahant and other noble levels as a layman. Why become a monk? For some, it is a better path, perhaps shorter, but progress can still be made as a lay person.

[LXNDR]

BTW a BB's essay relevant to the discussion

Lifestyles and Spiritual Progress

He was already destined to be samma-sam-buddha, the aspiration was already made and the paramitas were already developed. Most beings will never be a samma-sam-buddha.

then even more so, being predestined he could have stayed at home an gain the same fruit, yet he quitted, so if a destined person needed a lifestyle of a renunciate to fulfill his destiny, so much more a regular worldling

i could be making too broad a generalisation, but there's an impression that in the suttas the topic of attainments, patterns of behavior and specific courses of action tends to be discussed as applied to a monk, i.e

"Now, lady, how does the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"

"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to attain the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am attaining the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have attained the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."

"But when a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, which things cease first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."

here the 'monk' reference is used despite the fact that questions are being asked by a layman

whereas as applied to lay followers the topic tends to be merits and not attainments

Yes, one can make arahant and other noble levels as a layman.

in the Buddha time it would normally happen due to the lay person direct contact with him, without such luxury the chances are minimal

[Mkoll]

then even more so, being predestined he could have stayed at home an gain the same fruit, yet he quitted, so if a destined person needed a lifestyle of a renunciate to fulfill his destiny, so much more a regular worldling

Speculation without solid evidence.

here the 'monk' reference is used despite the fact that questions are being asked by a layman

whereas as applied to lay followers the topic tends to be merits and not attainments

There is a sutta (I don't remember the reference) where the Buddha recommends that householders practice the four foundations of mindfulness. There are other suttas where the Buddha exhorts his lay disciples to practice similar "advanced" parts of the path, but I'm not going to go dig those out. He would speak according to his audience, so he would speak differently to the more advanced and energetic lay disciples vs. "newbies".

Besides, virtue is the foundation of concentration which is the foundation of wisdom. Making merit develops virtue. So making merit is practicing the path.

in the Buddha time it would normally happen due to the lay person direct contact with him, without such luxury the chances are minimal

Speculation without solid evidence.

~~~

If you want to hold the view that you can't attain to stream-entry as a householder, that's your prerogative. My point to you is that attitude is self-defeating. It gives you an excuse not to practice as diligently as you could. If you want to become a doctor but you believe it's too hard to attain, then how well do you think you'll do in school?

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

I like the cut of your jib, MKoll.....

[No_Mind]

I saw this on another thread.

For all practical intents and purposes, being a Buddhist means that one will quite likely be a loser in worldly terms. Not necessarily a doormat, but quite likely a loser.
There is a real, visible, measurable worldly price that one has to be willing to pay for practicing Buddhism.

Perhaps we can examine this idea on this thread.

It is not a fair statement to make (whoever said it originally, not RobertK). If you live up to all the teachings of Jesus then also there is a worldly price to pay for it.

(Jesus said to His disciples) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God - Matthew 19:24

Buddha never prohibited acquiring wealth while Jesus specifically forbade it.

There is however the issue if Buddhism promotes inaction and procrastination. I love Ajahn Brahm. But in an YouTube video (link below) he appreciates "doing nothing". I understand that he means to take a step back and relax and let go of the whirlwind of life and calm down. To do nothing is often very powerful. Problem is he did not teach the rest of what I said (he often jumps from topic to topic without any coherent sequence). But if a school dropout turned janitor heard it he / she may just be encouraged to do nothing.

It is also the kind of teaching that puts off Type A personalities successful lawyers, doctors, surgeons, brokers, bankers (people who own a car worth at least $ 50,000, like a medium size BMW)

Before anyone mentions Richard Gere .. he is not a Type A personality. Pretty Woman made 25 years back and Chicago 12 years back were only real successes in a career spanning 40 years or more.

Many believe "work is worship" and saying doing nothing is something desirable will make it seem that those who subscribe to it are "losers" of some form. Strong work ethic exists from Germany to Japan as a way of life (I do not consider the Japanese as Buddhists in the way Theravadins are Buddhists; if Theravada Buddhism is an orange then Japanese Buddhism is orangeade; basically downstream versions of pure Buddhism)

4:55 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TM43Ig5KjQ

I quote Ajahn Brahm "That is what you are supposed to do if you are a good Buddhist ... learn how to do nothing" at 6:36

[SarathW]

The word loser should be evaluated from the vantage point of the observer.
To me a loser is a person who did not get what he need.
People become Buddhist and fallow the path voluntarily achieve their individual goals.
Some people want just to be happy and other want to attain Nirvana and in between.
If they achieve their goal they are winners otherwise they are losers.
Having said that my goal is to attain Nirvana but I am just happy to be a Sotapanna.
So even if I do not attain Nirvana I consider myself a winner.
I am a pretty happy Buddhist at the moment so I consider myself as a winner even if I do not become a Sotapanna.

[Mkoll]

Before anyone mentions Richard Gere .. he is not a Type A personality. Pretty Woman made 25 years back and Chicago 12 years back were only real successes in a career spanning 40 years or more.

\You really don't pull punches.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

.....
It is not a fair statement to make (whoever said it originally, not RobertK). If you live up to all the teachings of Jesus then also there is a worldly price to pay for it.

(Jesus said to His disciples) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God - Matthew 19:24

Buddha never prohibited acquiring wealth while Jesus specifically forbade it.

No, he didn't.

An oft-misquoted passage in the Bible is usually given as "Money is the root of all evil."

It's not: the correct quotation reads "The LOVE of Money, is the root of all evil."

There is nothing wrong with wealth; Jesus just warned against greed and excessive attachment to wealth. Proper use and dissemination of wealth, for the good of others, is recommended and lauded however.

Precisely as it is in Buddhism.

[LXNDR]

then even more so, being predestined he could have stayed at home an gain the same fruit, yet he quitted, so if a destined person needed a lifestyle of a renunciate to fulfill his destiny, so much more a regular worldling

Speculation without solid evidence.

just common sense, when you see an athlete working out daily full time you don't think you can repeat his accomplishments going to a gym once a week after a beer

that may sound maximalist, and it indeed is

in the Buddha time it would normally happen due to the lay person direct contact with him, without such luxury the chances are minimal

Speculation without solid evidence.

i don't recall reading a sutta with a description of a lay person attaining a noble level without having interacted with the Buddha first, could be that i haven't yet come across one

If you want to hold the view that you can't attain to stream-entry as a householder, that's your prerogative. My point to you is that attitude is self-defeating. It gives you an excuse not to practice as diligently as you could. If you want to become a doctor but you believe it's too hard to attain, then how well do you think you'll do in school?

not necessarily self-defeating, i just don't expect much from my practice

[LXNDR]

Buddha never prohibited acquiring wealth while Jesus specifically forbade it.

i have a feeling that there lots of politics were going on around the Sangha, by dismissing wealth and deeming it a hindrance the Buddha most likely would put off the Sangha wealthy sponsors

[No_Mind]

.....
It is not a fair statement to make (whoever said it originally, not RobertK). If you live up to all the teachings of Jesus then also there is a worldly price to pay for it.

(Jesus said to His disciples) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God - Matthew 19:24

Buddha never prohibited acquiring wealth while Jesus specifically forbade it.

No, he didn't.

An oft-misquoted passage in the Bible is usually given as "Money is the root of all evil."

It's not: the correct quotation reads "The LOVE of Money, is the root of all evil."

There is nothing wrong with wealth; Jesus just warned against greed and excessive attachment to wealth. Proper use and dissemination of wealth, for the good of others, is recommended and lauded however.

Precisely as it is in Buddhism.

I will not argue the obvious

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:25

The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. Luke 16:13

All the gospels agree Jesus gave pretty strong disincentive to becoming wealthy. There is a nil probability for a rich man to enter heaven (since there is nil probability for a camel to pass through eye of a needle). How much more clearly do you need him to spell it out?

I did not use any oft misquoted Bible message. If you think I robbed Paul, you cannot convict me for someone stealing from Peter. If you want to convict me then do so on basis of what I wrote (Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, Luke 16:13) not what some dimwit misquoted somewhere. I cannot be held responsible for who misquotes what in this whole wide world.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

No. Nowhere does Jesus condemn the state of being wealthy.
he merely states it is hard for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of heaven, because he is attached to his wealth.

Let us see the quotation incontext of jesus' full teaching, shall we?

Matthew, Chapter 19: 16 - 30
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

Christ does not condemn anyone for being wealthy.
He condemns them for not being able to detach from their wealth.

[No_Mind]

No. Nowhere does Jesus condemn the state of being wealthy.
he merely states it is hard for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of heaven, because he is attached to his wealth.

He is preaching that a wealthy man cannot enter heaven. This is a pretty obvious warning from him - do not try to become rich. What else do you want him to say - I will knock you on the head with a baseball bat if you become rich!!

Note - while you were writing this post I added Luke 16:13 to my post above.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Luke 16:13

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Which makes my point exactly.

To serve God, you must abandon riches. But that does not imply that Money is bad...

Money is extremely necessary, to be honest...
All renunciates take a vow of poverty, no matter whether it is in Christianity or Buddhism.

But what do you think enables Monasteries, convents and temples to keep thriving?

Mother Teresa did a stirling job looking after so many of India's social rejects and outcasts.

But she badgered politicians and the wealthy, mercilessly, for funds, donations and contributions....

And I would add, I studied the Bible extensively, because I had many, many years ago, the intention of ordaining....

(Edit note: Biblical quotation added to save people having to look it up! )