Buddhists are losers?

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Untrue.

That is nihilism, not Buddhism.

[walkart]

Untrue.

That is nihilism, not Buddhism.

It is the way it is.

I can not say to my body to not aging, get ill or dead, i can not choose my mental formation i can just contamplate those which already arise.
Soo i have no full control of it. If i have not full control of it - it's not belong to me. It's not me, mine, my self.

Nihilism (from Pali Canon point of view) is the view that there is no given, no offered, no fruit of good or bad action, no this life no the next life etc.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

In order to lose something, first, one has to posses it (either material or immaterial). Those who goes after gain, status, censure, and pleasure will someday face loss, disgrace, praise, and pain. Therefore one who posses less lose less, perhaps nothing.

Very good reasoning.

Actually nothing is in our possesion. Our body, feeling, perceptions, mental formation, consciousness - all this is out of our full control, so we dont "have" it, it's not our proprety.

you have partial control. So it is partially yours.
To exempt yourself from full control is to say that you are not responsible for everything you think/say/do.

I disagree with your logic.
There is Not-Self.
But there is also Self.
so to a great extent, the body most certainly is yours.
if it is not fully yours, who else controls what happens to it?

[walkart]

you have partial control. So it is partially yours.
To exempt yourself from full control is to say that you are not responsible for everything you think/say/do.

I disagree with your logic.
There is Not-Self.
But there is also Self.
so to a great extent, the body most certainly is yours.
if it is not fully yours, who else controls what happens to it?

Buddha said that 5 khandhas are not me, mine, my self.

I dont belief in self, in somethink that exist without conditions. I dont find it in any of 5 khandhas.

[DNS]

In my opinion, Buddhists are not losers by any definition. A loser in unambitious, lazy, not interested in pursuing wealth, career, employment or anything else. Buddhists are not unambitious, since they strive for enlightenment. See my post on the first page of this thread.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 32#p273964

They are also not losers in worldly terms either. Many Buddhists are successful in film, sports, politics, business, careers, etc. Of course the majority are middle class or lower. This is true of any demographic group, including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. The rich are called the One Percent for a reason: they are only 1% of the population. Only 1% of Christians are very wealthy. Only 1% of Muslims are very wealthy; etc. etc.

According to this site: http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/ you only need to make $33,500 per year to be in the top 5%. You need to make $69,000 per year to be in the top 1%. We probably have many DWers who are in the top 1% or top 5%.

You can be poor and still be a winner. As long as you have some wholesome goals and work diligently toward that, you are a winner. A monk can be a winner. A nun can be a winner. A lay person can be a winner. Even the term sotapanna is often described as "stream-winner".

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

you have partial control. So it is partially yours.
To exempt yourself from full control is to say that you are not responsible for everything you think/say/do.

I disagree with your logic.
There is Not-Self.
But there is also Self.
so to a great extent, the body most certainly is yours.
if it is not fully yours, who else controls what happens to it?

Buddha said that 5 khandhas are not me, mine, my self.

I dont belief in self, in somethink that exist without conditions. I dont find it in any of 5 khandhas.

You practice as you see fit.

[ihrjordan]

Untrue.

That is nihilism, not Buddhism.

It's funny because many times the buddha was deemed a nihilist and it's true...

[Denisa]

It's funny because many times the buddha was deemed a nihilist and it's true...

nihilism
noun
■(Philosophy)extreme scepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence

Don't have the reference, but I remember reading Buddha saying something like: "There's nothing whatsoever worth clinging and with a core."

[SarathW]

It's funny because many times the buddha was deemed a nihilist and it's true...

nihilism
noun
■(Philosophy)extreme scepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence

Don't have the reference, but I remember reading Buddha saying something like: "There's nothing whatsoever worth clinging and with a core."

Buddha taught about dependent origination.
He reject the idea the existence and non existence which is a belief due to ignorance.
Dependent Origination is not the middle of existence and non existence either.

[beeblebrox]

Buddha said that 5 khandhas are not me, mine, my self.

Hi all,

This is a bit off topic (or maybe not really)... but here's a thought: whose khandhas was he speaking of that were not him, his, or his self?

When we try to perceive someone through the khandhas, it turns out that it's never accurate. When we try to cling to them (such as trying to call a couple of disrobed monks as "losers"), I think it usually creates trouble.

[tiltbillings]

Buddha said that 5 khandhas are not me, mine, my self.

Hi all,

This is a bit off topic (or maybe not really)... but here's a thought: whose khandhas was he speaking of that were not him, his, or his self?

When we try to perceive someone through the khandhas, it turns out that it's never accurate. When we try to cling to them (such as trying to call a couple of disrobed monks as "losers"), I think it usually creates trouble.

Agreed. This whole "loser" business is nonsense.

[walkart]

We are losers of unwholesome kamma ans sufferings.

[tiltbillings]

We are losers of unwholesome kamma ans sufferings.

Only if we do the practice, and that certainly has not a thing to do with worldly considerations.

[walkart]

We are losers of unwholesome kamma ans sufferings.

Only if we do the practice, and that certainly has not a thing to do with worldly considerations.

it's true

[Denisa]

...

There are ultimate truths and then there are conventional truths.

When Buddha said one who disrobed due to a woman is similar to a warrior who ran away after losing the battle, one can say Buddha was talking nonsense since there is no person and it is just khandhas. But Buddha was talking about a conventional truth. When robertk started the thread, he was talking about a conventional truth.

If someone always live in ultimate truth then he/she better stay in that stage without peeking to our mundane conventional world. Because for him what's the point trying to perceive us through the khandhas and clinging to what we say!