Buddhists are losers?

[LXNDR]

i think the statement in the citation of OP is accurate, one can hardly succeed in both fields: spiritual and secular, so ought to make a choice and if the choice is in favor of spiritual way of life then any interest in worldly success needs to be put aside, because for the majority of ordinary people it would be a distraction

Majority, perhaps, but not all. Anathapindika and Citta and several others were rich merchants in the Buddha's time and still reached noble levels, sotapanna and even anagami. In modern times, S. N. Goenka was a successful businessman but also quite successful at teaching Dhamma and apparently very advanced in the Dhamma too.

if one feels he/she can combine the two, good for he/her, everyone decides for him/herself

and logically, if the Dhamma is meant as a way of attaining nibbana which cuts short the string of rebirths and stops becoming, why take interest in activities pertinent to what must eventually be abandoned?

Because while one is still a layman, one has responsibilities to have a Right Livelihood, to take care of oneself and their family.

to provide for a family doesn't mean to be preoccupied with worldly success and affairs, it means doing your bare minimum to keep your family comfortable

you can support your family and still be considered a loser, because you have no career, your salary isn't high, your car model is old, you don't own a house etc. etc.

wasn't Buddha himself a loser, when he left his comfortable and 'successful' life to seek liberation?

No, he was quite famous, quite the "celebrity" as people sought him out and wanted to find him, to learn from him. Even in worldly terms, this is not considered being "a loser." Winner and loser doesn't have to refer to wealth or income and in fact often refers to prestige.

it feels like you misunderstood my comment, he became a loser by the wroldly standards when he left his life as Siddhartha Gautama
speaking from an ignorant point of view (that is forgetting about kamma for a second) he might have never attained anything and tormented himself to death with austerities and there would be no sought out spiritual celebrity Gautama Buddha
for some reason he quitted the houshold life to seek liberation, so if the Buddha quitted, who are we to hope to be able to achieve anything meaningful, leading a housholder lifestyle?

many if not the majority go forth and attain next to nothing in one lifetime, because it's really difficult, so how much more difficult it must be for those distracted by other duties and activities?

[Mkoll]

and there would be no sought out spiritual celebrity Gautama Buddha
for some reason he quitted the houshold life to seek liberation, so if the Buddha quitted, who are we to hope to be able to achieve anything meaningful, leading a housholder lifestyle?

many if not the majority go forth and attain next to nothing in one lifetime, because it's really difficult, so how much more difficult it must be for those distracted by other duties and activities?

LXNDR,

You seem to have a very cynical attitude regarding Noble attainment as a householder or even just practicing the path as a householder. I'm not going to dig out the references, but there are quite a few suttas that show householders attaining one of the first three noble attainments. And there are many more who attained at the moment of death. They wouldn't have attained at death if they hadn't been practicing well in life.

It seems, like Disciple, you are blaming the Buddha's teachings for your own lack of energy to rise up to the difficult challenge of practicing well as a householder. Just because you don't have the energy now doesn't mean others also don't have it.

That also means you can muster the energy and effort to practice better. But I don't see you even attempting to do so if you hold a defeatist view of what practice you're capable of in the household life.

[LXNDR]

It seems, like Disciple, you are blaming the Buddha's teachings for your own lack of energy to rise up to the difficult challenge of practicing well as a householder. Just because you don't have the energy now doesn't mean others also don't have it.

That also means you can muster the energy and effort to practice better. But I don't see you even attempting to do so if you hold a defeatist view of what practice you're capable of in the household life.

it seems you're blaming me for blaming Buddha's teachings, which i never did, and for my own alleged lack of energy which i don't think i ever made known or gave a reason to believe i'm guilty of

that's terrible, but ok, i'm sorry

my attitude is not cynical but sceptical

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.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

now why in your opinion Siddhartha Gautama being one step short of the final attainment instead of practicing as a housholder left his home ? he was young, stupid and rebellious?

[Mkoll]

No need to apologize. Your practice is your prerogative, I'm just giving my opinion.

now why in your opinion Siddhartha Gautama being one step short of the final attainment instead of practicing as a housholder left his home ? he was young, stupid and rebellious?

No.

What point are you trying to make?

[LXNDR]

now why in your opinion Siddhartha Gautama being one step short of the final attainment instead of practicing as a housholder left his home ? he was young, stupid and rebellious?

No.

What point are you trying to make?

isn't it your point that one can successfully practise as a householder and probably even not at the expense of his/her worldly aspirations ?

if it is, then i'd like to know your opinion on the reasons why the Buddha left his householder life given that he didn't do so because of being young, stupid and rebellious

[Mkoll]

now why in your opinion Siddhartha Gautama being one step short of the final attainment instead of practicing as a housholder left his home ? he was young, stupid and rebellious?

No.

What point are you trying to make?

isn't it your point that one can successfully practise as a householder and probably even not at the expense of his/her worldly aspirations?

No.

My point is that one can successfully practice as a householder.

[LXNDR]

No.

What point are you trying to make?

isn't it your point that one can successfully practise as a householder and probably even not at the expense of his/her worldly aspirations?

No.

My point is that one can successfully practice as a householder.

so you mean Yes, it IS your point

then great, this is exactly what i thought, can you give your opinion about the Buddha's decision?

then i'd like to know your opinion on the reasons why the Buddha left his householder life given that he didn't do so because of being young, stupid and rebellious

if you don't want to answer the question and give your opinion, since you have ignored the request twice, just let me know, i won't persist

[Mkoll]

so you mean Yes, it IS your point

...I give up.

I'm not answering your question, sorry.

[LXNDR]

so you mean Yes, it IS your point

...I give up.

I'm not answering your question, sorry.

haha, i wouldn't think this question could be such a stumper

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

[DNS]

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. 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.

[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.....