Did The Buddha Teach A "Prosperity Gospel"?

[Xangsamhua]

"The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World" by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula

Review by Sunada (August 5, 2008)

It's a widely held view that the Buddha taught his followers to disdain wealth and worldly success, or at best tolerate them as necessary evils. Sunada reviews a book that shatters these misconceptions and repositions the lay life as one of dignity and happiness, and full of opportunities for personal growth.

Here's a pop quiz for you: What famous spiritual teacher taught that the way to happiness is through accumulation of immense wealth, striving for worldly success, and seeking pleasure through the senses? Would you believe it's the Buddha? I bet you're surprised! It's a widely held view that the Buddha taught his followers to turn away from the secular world and seek happiness in a life of renunciation. While this isn't wrong, it turns out to be a very incomplete picture.

Far from disdaining the worldly life, the Buddha suggested that his followers engage with it fully and wholeheartedly, and taught that it is a genuine source of happiness.

In this recently published book, Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula attempts to set the record straight. Based on meticulous research into the Pali scriptures, this book systematically presents how the Buddha advised his lay followers to lead happy and productive lives. Far from disdaining the worldly life, the Buddha suggested that his followers engage with it fully and wholeheartedly, and taught that it is a genuine source of happiness.

More at http://www.wildmind....a-on-prosperity

[Xangsamhua]

An extract from Bikkhu Basnagoda Rahula's book is here: http://www.wildmind....w-on-prosperity

Note his Summary:

The Buddha elaborated on how people should feel about their wealth and guided them toward gaining the proper advantages from their wealth. He stressed that wealth is a clear source of happiness for laypersons. To achieve that happiness, however, they must earn wealth the right way and use it in the most effective way. Money or wealth is neither to keep nor to use solely for one's own sensory satisfaction; it is to make oneself and others happy and satisfied. While using wealth for oneself, one should be aware of the right measure of sensory satisfaction. Prosperity, according to the Buddha, is the reward when following these recommended guidelines.

Wat Dhammakaya has made much the same kind of argument, that wealth is commendable as long as it is not acquired immorally and one is not attached to it.

[fabianfred]

But we have to rememer that the Buddha was not teaching people to try and find happiness....but rather to escape from suffering.

If we imagine life in the cycle of reirths called Samsara, it is like a pendulum, driven by impermanence to keep moving. On one side is pleasure and on the other suffering, and it swings back and forth constantly. Nobody wants suffering, but they try to hold it from moving when it is on the side of pleasure....impossible. The Buddha said that the only true pleasure is peace, perfect peace, Nirvana, avoiding both extremes of pleasure and suffering.

As our understanding of the Damma, and practice, becomes deeper, we are less attached to the pleasures and less affected by the sufferings, so slowing the pendulum until it stops in the middle.

[sabaijai]

Another viewpoint.

A Buddhist Vision of Life Beyond Consumerism

Huffington Post

Craig K. Comstock

October 25, 2010 07:16 PM

Are there alternatives to consumerism? Other than a dreary alternative such as loss of a job, a prolonged economic downturn or the stealth tax of inflation?

What is it, this consumerism? It's the assiduous promotion of cravings which our economic system, at least until recently, has somewhat satisfied: "Your neighbor has it. You will be happy when you get it. You can have it now on easy credit." The amping up of desire for stuff is so normal here that it's hard to imagine another approach to life.

Recently, I came across an old box with photos of my maternal grandfather and some clippings from his youth. There were already ads when he was young, but they seem so naive, displaying an object for its own sake, not associating it with sexy women, power, speed or species that vehicles are named after.

My grandfather had much less materially than my parents, but as I know from taking long walks with him, telling stories, playing games, helping him build a boat, he was happy. How was that?

I thought of him when reading the new book by Stephen Batchelor, author of the wildly popular Buddhism Without Beliefs. Buddhist practice teaches that life is full of suffering and suffering comes from cravings. The trouble with cravings is that they often can't be satisfied and, when they are, the objects may vanish or degrade. And, in any case, they usually don't "make us happy," or, if so, not for long.

In this view, a system of implanting cravings by sellers who hope to profit by them, of exacerbating desire, would be crazy. The question is, why would you do that? Of course, people need the basics such as shelter, clean air and water, food, clothing, education, health care, the ability to work. But as Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin asked in their classic, Your Money Or Your Life, to what extent does it serve you to mortgage your life to get more and then more?

The service offered by Batchelor is to get to what he regards as the core of Buddhist practice, free of "accretions" imposed by various Asian traditions. Of course, some westerners are attracted to Buddhism in part by the rich Baroque trappings of the Tibetans, the subtle Theravada traditions of southeast Asia or the spare paradoxes in Zen cultures. But other westerners want a practice they feel is more suitable for a scientific and democratic society.

Having been a monk in two of three Asian traditions (Tibetan and Korean), Batchelor sought what he regards as Buddha's basic realization. In his writing, he even set aside such crucial elements of traditional Buddhism as rebirth and karma, not denying that the founder taught these doctrines, but attributing them to the Hindu world in which he'd grown up and arguing that they aren't necessary to Buddha's genius as expressed in the "four noble truths."

Within Buddhism, Bachelor's heresy is not to do without the concept of divinity (the founder was agnostic about metaphysics), but rather to set aside any realm other than our life on earth and to accept the possibility of death as oblivion. This is a delicate point because the prestige of Tibetan religious leaders, starting with the Dalai Lama, depends in part on the claim to be reincarnations and because the finality of death is almost unimaginable to most of us.

What a waste to obtain the necessities of life, guard against danger, form attachments to other humans and accumulate knowledge, and then poof, it's all gone like photo albums when a house burns down. This would be almost as unthinkable as a process of evolution. What human would design so slow, wasteful and unfair a process? Batchelor's point here would be that the gist of Buddhist dharma practice is being aware of what's here, now, rather than placing hope, without evidence, in a happier life after death.

Insofar as we can see the situation of Gautama, he had been living the life of a prince. His house was not in foreclosure, he was not forced into the life of a wandering ascetic. The "middle way" that he eventually found was not forced on him by the global peak of oil production, by global warming or by economic breakdown. He felt his realization or awakening was superior to the affluent life of his time.

In the phrase of the brilliant British journalist George Monbiot, "nobody ever rioted for austerity." Monbiot acknowledges this political fact in a book called Heat, about a painstaking and ambitious plan for reducing carbon emissions enough to avoid the worst ravages of global warming. A masterpiece of understatement, his phrase conjures the unlikelihood of a parade with placards calling for less affluence; it fails to mention the widespread phenomenon of denial.

I don't know whether the Buddha ever rioted for austerity, but he certainly counseled against arousing rampant desire, especially as a way of life. But what can we do instead? Change comes eventually less from just a critique of a prevailing system than from the building of a new system, of something that doubters can jump to and help in the next stage of building.

In his new book, Batchelor tells his personal story, reaffirms his understanding of dharma practice and offers speculation about challenges that Buddha faced in creating a new way of thinking and acting. This last task is especially tricky, because the writings called the Pali Canon are roughly as far in time from the founder as we from Shakespeare. (Imagine if we had the plays only through an oral tradition.) But Batchelor asks himself, given what we do know, how would a man with Buddha's basic awakening proceed in the world of his time? We'll never know for sure, but a coherent account at least provides an armature on which to build.

To return to the original question: Is there an alternative to consumerism? If the future will be less affluent than the past, for whatever reasons -- we don't know -- will we cling to a system that is failing, or will we have adopted new basic premises? If the latter, what are values that don't depend on having a growing amount of stuff?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-k-comstock/other-than-consumerism_b_772646.html

[Xangsamhua]

In the critique of consumerism there are several points being made, e.g.

1. One should not consume too much.

2. One should not consume unnecessary or frivolous goods and services.

3. One should not enjoy (i.e. be attached to) what one consumes.

4. One should not confuse consumption with happiness or psychological fulfillment.

But consumerism isn't the same as consumption. If excessive and unhealthy consumption of goods and services is one target of Buddhist criticism, an even greater target is the view that consumption and display define a person's worth and determine his/her happiness quotient.

Consuming things is what we all do, and many - hopefully most - of the things we consume are good for us. We are also wise to plan our lives so that, when required we can purchase the things we need and of a quality we legitimately wish for. I would prefer to pay for a dental plan than to have my family's teeth attended to by a roadside dentist sitting on the footpath. In a nation that has a two- or three-tiered education system I would prefer to send my children to a higher tier school than a lower one. I don't know if it will make them happier or not, but I would be prepared to pay more in the hope it does. At least they'll learn more.

Consuming responsibly is the opposite of the belief that the one who dies with the most toys wins. For lay people I doubt the Buddha had much if any objection to responsible production and consumption of available resources. In our time, the issues are bigger - resources are running out, but producers and consumers use them irresponsibly. In the developed world reducing consumption is important in itself, from whatever motive.

If consumerism, however, as a philosophy means that without constant acquisition of unnecessary or cutting edge consumables my life becomes meaningless ("I shop, therefore I am"), then a philosophy of detachment and a balanced middle path through the genuine needs of our daily lives on the one hand and superfluities on the other is worth pursuing. Probably most of us, as we get older, become less attached to "bling" (in its broader sense) anyway. I guess that's why the prophets and missionaries of consumerism target the young and insecure. Maybe that's also why the Cambridge philosopher, Don Cupitt, though a serious admirer of Buddhism, especially Zen, described Buddhism as " a religion for retired people" (like himself).

Edited October 28, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

In the critique of consumerism there are several points being made, e.g.

1. One should not consume too much.

2. One should not consume unnecessary or frivolous goods and services.

3. One should not enjoy (i.e. be attached to) what one consumes.

4. One should not confuse consumption with happiness or psychological fulfillment.

But consumerism isn't the same as consumption. If excessive and unhealthy consumption of goods and services is one target of Buddhist criticism, an even greater target is the view that consumption and display define a person's worth and determine his/her happiness quotient.

Consuming things is what we all do, and many - hopefully most - of the things we consume are good for us. We are also wise to plan our lives so that, when required we can purchase the things we need and of a quality we legitimately wish for. I would prefer to pay for a dental plan than to have my family's teeth attended to by a roadside dentist sitting on the footpath. In a nation that has a two- or three-tiered education system I would prefer to send my children to a higher tier school than a lower one. I don't know if it will make them happier or not, but I would be prepared to pay more in the hope it does. At least they'll learn more.

Consuming responsibly is the opposite of the belief that the one who dies with the most toys wins. For lay people I doubt the Buddha had much if any objection to responsible production and consumption of available resources. In our time, the issues are bigger - resources are running out, but producers and consumers use them irresponsibly. In the developed world reducing consumption is important in itself, from whatever motive.

If consumerism, however, as a philosophy means that without constant acquisition of unnecessary or cutting edge consumables my life becomes meaningless ("I shop, therefore I am"), then a philosophy of detachment and a balanced middle path through the genuine needs of our daily lives on the one hand and superfluities on the other is worth pursuing. Probably most of us, as we get older, become less attached to "bling" (in its broader sense) anyway. I guess that's why the prophets and missionaries of consumerism target the young and insecure. Maybe that's also why the Cambridge philosopher, Don Cupitt, though a serious admirer of Buddhism, especially Zen, described Buddhism as " a religion for retired people" (like himself).

It would be nice to investigate if 'Buddhism' or what people think it is, is somehow a popular alternative trendy way of spending your time - when dead comes near- (?), for people in the west who can afford this, with pension, inherited capital, interest of capital, some kind of social benefit, and so on.

Even 'Buddhism" turns ouit to be something people consume, with courses, 'monk for a month', visiting Buddhist centers, buying a Buddha statue. Just look how many - non Buddhist - people in the west do have a Buddha statue in their home, must be thousands and thouisands, I know several people even collecting Buddha statues, like others collect statues of frogs, pinguins and clowns

I would say some furhter downvalue of the essential meaning of Buddhism in the world.

[rockyysdt]

It would be nice to investigate if 'Buddhism' or what people think it is, is somehow a popular alternative trendy way of spending your time - when dead comes near- (?), for people in the west who can afford this, with pension, inherited capital, interest of capital, some kind of social benefit, and so on.

Even 'Buddhism" turns ouit to be something people consume, with courses, 'monk for a month', visiting Buddhist centers, buying a Buddha statue. Just look how many - non Buddhist - people in the west do have a Buddha statue in their home, must be thousands and thouisands, I know several people even collecting Buddha statues, like others collect statues of frogs, pinguins and clowns

I would say some furhter downvalue of the essential meaning of Buddhism in the world.

I suspect those turning to Buddhism later in life are realizing their own mortality.

Dissatisfied with mainstream religion, for many Buddhism might be the last throw of the dice.

Whatever the reason, if they embrace what the Buddha taught, they may have stumbled across a good path.

On the subject of Buddhas teaching of prosperity there are two keys.

1. How you earn your wealth.

2. What you do with it.

If one investigates, it might be found that there are very few ventures which are wholesome or do not impact on others or the environment.

Also if you are generally wasteful and over indulgent this is grossly immoral given the state of many on this planet.

[Xangsamhua]

Even 'Buddhism" turns ouit to be something people consume, with courses, 'monk for a month', visiting Buddhist centers, buying a Buddha statue.

Well, I don't know that buying a Buddha statuette makes one a consumer of Buddhism. After all, crosses are a fashion statement for many in the world, including Thailand, without the wearer having the slightest interest in Christian belief. (I've often wondered what would have replaced crucifixes if Jesus had been stoned to death, the standard punishment for blasphemy at the time.)

I suppose if one got tired of or disillusioned with one's religion and then sought around for another to replace it (people do this ... look on forums such as "New Buddhist"), then the acquisition of the new religion could be said to be a form of consumption. The old product fails to please, so choose a new one instead from those available. However, in consuming packaged Buddhism of whatever variety I'm not sure if one is actually practicing Buddhism in any authentic sense.

It could be said that Buddhists by birth in Buddhist countries practice a packaged form of Buddhism - it comes with their culture - but their practice is authentic in that their culture is authentic and they are culturally authentic in practicing that way. An elderly Tibetan lady walking along spinning a portable prayer wheel is engaging in an authentic practice for her. For a young Westerner to do it would be rather odd, though there is nothing wrong with the practice itself. Stephen Batchelor found after a while that, no matter how hard he tried as a young monk in the Gelug tradition, he simply couldn't integrate the lifeworld of the Tibetan monks and teachers.

There is as yet no authentic Western packaged Buddhism that has attained traction. To my knowledge, Western Theravada centres are modelled on their Oriental origins. Tibetan centres are similar, and Zen in the West is modelled on Japanese schools or that of Thich Nhat Hanh. This is my impression. Charlotte Joko Beck's "Ordinary Mind" form of Zen, though derived from Japanese teachers and the Wu Shih ("nothing special") school of Chinese Zen/Chan, may be authentic for its time and place (contemporary United States), as may also Jakusho Kwong's at Sonoma Mountain, CA, but these are small schools.

So for people in the West to "consume" Buddhism is difficult, as what they are consuming is not generally an authentic theory and practice of Dharma for them. It can become so, of course, and in many cases does after a period of trial and error, reflection and discovery. When they get to the point that they understand Buddhism, they realize that "Buddhism" is not Buddhism. Indeed, there is no Buddhism. Like everything else, "Buddhism" is a projection and a concept with no permanent core. Institutional and cultural Buddhism is a package with all sorts of beliefs and practices - some close to the Buddha's teaching, some distant from it; some of central importance, some peripheral - and adherents do all sorts of strange things with them. Monks employed as fortune-tellers, monasteries as holding centres for boys from poor families, the Sangha as an elite hieratic corps dispensing merit in return for gifts, and so on.

In looking around the shelves of the spiritual supermarket, one might find "Buddhism" (located perhaps between "Anthroposophy" and "Catholicism"), but in reaching up to put it in your trolley, you might be disappointed. What you'll get is a promotional package, but the actual content is unavailable. To get it you'll have to go elsewhere and work your way towards it through a process of letting go of the desire to have the package in the first place, and then letting go of what it offers - peace of mind, enlightenment, Nirvana. These can only be attained by letting go of the goal and attending to the moment, of finding the paradoxically liberating emptiness within us, without promise of reward for diligent good behaviour. This is not the hope and consolation offered by conventional or consumable religion.

[christiaan]

The more I read about 'Buddhism' (-in the world-) the more I get the feeling Buddhisme in general is just some state of mind people can have at some moment -or several moments- in their life. It can happen just like that, or by some kind of effort. It can happen in every way of life, in every culture, religion, being a monk, a priest, a lay person, in personal development. It can be in a life attached to prosperity - in a responsible way - it can be in a life in poverty, so it also must be possible in a life of extreme wealth. It can happen being attached or detached. It can be for people with a simple mind and to people of high intelligence. It is always a matter of awareness. A flash, a sequence.

So it is not important it is named Buddhism or any name whatsoever.

I noticed someone wrote (now in my words): maybe a handfull of people came to enlightment in some or another way in the past 2500 years.

I think the number of people that came to enlightment in some or another way will not be big , and by the stories I read , biographies, they have been people from all kind of religious disciplines.

Just take the indians in North America, they were not attached to material life like most of the inhabitants of this part of the world now.

There have been enlighted figures in Islam, Catholicism, Jewish religion and so on.

So one could think the outer state of a human is not realy an important part at all, but it is just the inner state.

Buddhism from this point of view has been significant for Asia, and in general probably is not very suitable for westerners at all, with just a few exceptions.

It is very interesting to see most of the religions are out of origin very cultural and became 'national' in time.

Looking at what is happening now in the world I would say it is quite obvious all 'religions' will disappear in time, and it will not even take a long time anymore.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddhism from this point of view has been significant for Asia, and in general probably is not very suitable for westerners at all, with just a few exceptions.

It is very interesting to see most of the religions are out of origin very cultural and became 'national' in time.

Looking at what is happening now in the world I would say it is quite obvious all 'religions' will disappear in time, and it will not even take a long time anymore.

I think I agree with most of what you say, Christiaan, but I think religion will stay with us and Buddhism will have a place in the West.

Buddhism and Islam are stepping into the gap created by Christianity's widespread loss of credibility in recent decades, particularly in Western Europe, Canada and Australia.

The most dynamic sectors of Christianity in these nations are the evangelical (Protestant) and traditional (Roman Catholic) movements. The lines are being drawn between faith and skepticism, the latter with apparent backing from the empirical sciences and speculative cosmology.

These societies are dividing into three identifiable sectors - the faith-based one of biblical and magisterial (authoritarian) christianity; the immigrant religions (especially Islam), and secularism (including those hostile and those indifferent to institutional religion).

There is also, perhaps separable from but also included in the three categories above, a strand of people who are keen to be "religious", but are still looking for something that is congruent with their values and foundational beliefs. Buddhism in its various forms seems to have an attraction to these folks, especially in view of its apparent harmony with the findings of science, something that appeals to the better-educated and the well-read.

There may be a place for all these strands if they appeal to the cultural values, education levels, temperaments and social and emotional needs of different kinds of people. One question is to what extent they will evolve and either move further away from each other or towards each other. Those who are deeply offended by many of the values of the liberal-secular state and society may move further to the periphery, while those with more open and inclusive dispositions may find more common ground with other traditions and schools of thought and their outward manifestations (institutions, identifiable movements and their organizations).

I suspect some forms of religious practice and the institutions to support it will continue in human society. People seek answers or ways of life and disciplines that will help them make meaning and lead sensible, beneficial and rewarding lives, and it's inevitable that they will seek out like-minded others and draw on traditions (churches, religions) that articulate and systematize the beliefs and values that they wish to maintain. If those traditions do not exist new believers will set them up.

The need to belong and to express oneself socially and to be guided and supported by others whom one respects is inalienable, I suggest, from the vast majority of humankind. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, lodges and, at times, political parties (the latter with disastrous outcomes in some cases) have provided for this need at least to some extent.

Buddhism will find its niche in the West, because it is essentially a sensible, beneficial and rewarding set of teachings, but it will move away from its cultural sources in the Orient and South Asia and will take on multiple forms that suit the temperaments and values of its Western followers. Whether it will be "Buddhism" in the sense you or I or he or she may think of it is of little consequence. It will have its source in the the Buddhadharma and it will be authentic and meaningful in its context and to the people who are drawing on its wisdom.

[christiaan]

Maybe we should see the difference between the wisdom and knowledge as we can find in Buddhism and other philosophies and religions in the world and the labelling of it. For 2500 years ago Buddhism was certainly very specific Asian as the Asians were very specific Asian, but in the last 2500 years this is all changing. East and west are meeting eachother, and this started long time ago and it becomes more and more intensive,

Asia develops more materiality and the West more spirituality. Reincarnation is a concept not accepted for 50 years ago, now it is a very common way of thinking in the West.

The labelling is becoming more and more of no importance , the wisdom however does.

Then, with the disapearance of tribe, family, culture and all these phenomenons based on some togetherness by birth and/or bloodline and the upcoming of individualism people will more and more feel they are their private governement, religion and social happening.

People will reject outer authority to find their inner authority.

This all is the source of many problems in the world as we can see today.

We do not decide how the future will look like, the humans that will be born in future will, and they bring impulses in this world we cannot imagine fully now.

I doubt if Christianity has lost credibility, the instutions build upon interpretations of it are loosing just like we can see with Buddhism in Thailand.

And when the Christian institutions loose ground and other institutions take over they only can by force and/or by the superficial desire of humans for outer authority.

I am sure also Islam will disappear out of this world as a religion, I would say: they are terrorising and bombing their way out, and this is in fact a desparate situation for the real deep spiritual Muslim people we most of the time do not hear from.

The Muslims I know tell me they have become atheist but keep up the facade because of severe cultural pressure.

Skepticism will be the case in the world with regard to all institutions and especially the religious ones.

Religions as we see nowadays as the worldreligions will become peripheral phenomena, they will be there, they will somehow continue their activities but they will not have any major influence anymore.

Why? in fact very simple: becos awareness will evolve.

There will be two important major 'sectors' in future. the material and the spiritual.

One could say : the less aware and high aware people.

One could also say the people who can not look any further as the world of their sences, the physical world, and the ones that can by their spiritual activity not only be aware of the physical world but also discover the origin of the world of these sences, and the meaning, the future of it.

I compare it with logic. There is no church of logic, no religion of it..

Not everyone is a logical thinker.

To be able to solve life problems one has to develop logical thinking.

A human in a balanced and healthy state can think logical, not becos of some outer authority but from inside.

The teachings as we can see as being essential in Buddhisme like we can see them in the esoteric other religions and philosophies al over the world, will be part of inner existence of the human in future even when it is not visible anymore in any institution in the world.

The problem with Buddhism, especially for or in the western world is, that it is suitable to be used for very refined egoism, it is in that attitude the extreme opposit to the absolutely not refined brutal Islam as we can see by the activities many people develop out of their superficial unaware interpretation of Islam.

Both activities structural will damage the institutions.

[Svenn]

Xangsamhua, the "accumulation of immense wealth, striving for worldly success, and seeking pleasure through the senses" are three ancient Hindu principles called 'artha' and 'kama', they being the two preliminary goals of life (purushartha) before one is ready to seek dharma and moksha.

It is no coincidence that the Buddha would have been aware of them, I have long said that Buddha's teachings are merely a chapter in the larger book of the Vedic traditions of north India, rather than a separate doctrine by itself. My guess is that the story of the Buddha, i.e. being born a prince then becoming a monk, was supposed to be a reflection of the truth of the purushartha (one needs to feel the emptiness of wealth and pleasure before one can be truly prepared to forsake it for wisdom).

In this day and age, I fully agree... it is healthiest for a young man or woman to satisfy their natural curiosities about life through the sensual and material pleasures, especially since there are so many opportunities in the modern world. I would be concerned if a young person went straight into monkhood without having experienced it. Now if you're 70 years old and still lusting after a new ferrari, I might suggest you get on the wisdom wagon

[rockyysdt]

Xangsamhua, the "accumulation of immense wealth, striving for worldly success, and seeking pleasure through the senses" are three ancient Hindu principles called 'artha' and 'kama', they being the two preliminary goals of life (purushartha) before one is ready to seek dharma and moksha.

It is no coincidence that the Buddha would have been aware of them, I have long said that Buddha's teachings are merely a chapter in the larger book of the Vedic traditions of north India, rather than a separate doctrine by itself. My guess is that the story of the Buddha, i.e. being born a prince then becoming a monk, was supposed to be a reflection of the truth of the purushartha (one needs to feel the emptiness of wealth and pleasure before one can be truly prepared to forsake it for wisdom).

In this day and age, I fully agree... it is healthiest for a young man or woman to satisfy their natural curiosities about life through the sensual and material pleasures, especially since there are so many opportunities in the modern world. I would be concerned if a young person went straight into monkhood without having experienced it. Now if you're 70 years old and still lusting after a new ferrari, I might suggest you get on the wisdom wagon

My experience, both personal and from observing others, is that there is nothing like personal experience when it comes to wisdom and insight.

The problem with immense wealth and/or sensual pleasure is that there's considerable potential for negative karma.

Edited November 8, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I found the book at Kinokuniya today. From the Foreword by Arthur C. Clark:

"I believe all religions are a form of mind virus that affects otherwise healthy - and often educated - human beings. Buddhism stands apart..."

The book actually covers everything that the Buddha taught to the laity, not just the teaching on material wealth. One can use material prosperity as a springboard to achieve spiritual growth. There's a good section on decision-making, and I particularly like the chapter on what not to do in daily life. It covers more than just the 5 Precepts.

[chutai]

My experience, both personal and from observing others, is that there is nothing like personal experience when it comes to wisdom and insight.

I think so. There is no Buddhism outside of everyday life, albeit than many have an intellectual grasp of Buddhism which doesn't necessarily equate with their own experiences. Like an ill-fitting suit really.

As it is that a balance between heart and mind is the most desirable life-state, so it is with materialism and non-attachment. Everything exists and at the same time doesn't. To actually know this ,rather than only to acknowledge it, will allow for our own wisdom to to discern between that which is beneficial to our well-being and happpiness , and by implication, that of others.

[AYJAYDEE]

he taught that nothing should be clung to, including wealth. if its not clung to, there is no attachment and hence no fetter.

[healthcaretaker]

In the critique of consumerism there are several points being made, e.g.

1. One should not consume too much.

2. One should not consume unnecessary or frivolous goods and services.

3. One should not enjoy (i.e. be attached to) what one consumes.

4. One should not confuse consumption with happiness or psychological fulfillment.

But consumerism isn't the same as consumption. If excessive and unhealthy consumption of goods and services is one target of Buddhist criticism, an even greater target is the view that consumption and display define a person's worth and determine his/her happiness quotient.

Consuming things is what we all do, and many - hopefully most - of the things we consume are good for us. We are also wise to plan our lives so that, when required we can purchase the things we need and of a quality we legitimately wish for. I would prefer to pay for a dental plan than to have my family's teeth attended to by a roadside dentist sitting on the footpath. In a nation that has a two- or three-tiered education system I would prefer to send my children to a higher tier school than a lower one. I don't know if it will make them happier or not, but I would be prepared to pay more in the hope it does. At least they'll learn more.

Consuming responsibly is the opposite of the belief that the one who dies with the most toys wins. For lay people I doubt the Buddha had much if any objection to responsible production and consumption of available resources. In our time, the issues are bigger - resources are running out, but producers and consumers use them irresponsibly. In the developed world reducing consumption is important in itself, from whatever motive.

If consumerism, however, as a philosophy means that without constant acquisition of unnecessary or cutting edge consumables my life becomes meaningless ("I shop, therefore I am"), then a philosophy of detachment and a balanced middle path through the genuine needs of our daily lives on the one hand and superfluities on the other is worth pursuing. Probably most of us, as we get older, become less attached to "bling" (in its broader sense) anyway. I guess that's why the prophets and missionaries of consumerism target the young and insecure. Maybe that's also why the Cambridge philosopher, Don Cupitt, though a serious admirer of Buddhism, especially Zen, described Buddhism as " a religion for retired people" (like himself).

It would be nice to investigate if 'Buddhism' or what people think it is, is somehow a popular alternative trendy way of spending your time - when dead comes near- (?), for people in the west who can afford this, with pension, inherited capital, interest of capital, some kind of social benefit, and so on.

Even 'Buddhism" turns ouit to be something people consume, with courses, 'monk for a month', visiting Buddhist centers, buying a Buddha statue. Just look how many - non Buddhist - people in the west do have a Buddha statue in their home, must be thousands and thouisands, I know several people even collecting Buddha statues, like others collect statues of frogs, pinguins and clowns

I would say some furhter downvalue of the essential meaning of Buddhism in the world.

What do you mean by "downvalue". When more and more people is engaged or consumed, whatever you call, with Buddhism, it's an upvalue to Buddhism, not down value.

I came across moree and more westerners interested to know more about Buddhism.

What's wrong with "courses" ?

Buddhism is a subject to be learn and not simply to be blindly "believed", like you believe in god in christianity.

Furthermore, people paid for courses to learn alot in return, unlike certain religion that was taught to give donation(10% ?) for nothing in return(just blessings), more like a superstitious-scam.

In Buddism, the Lord(Buddha of course) give blessings for free.