Prince Buddha begs?

[Amorphos]

Prince Buddha begs?
The Buddha was a prince who gave up his lifestyle & possessions & become a beggar. The question is that; it is easy [at least easier] to give things up when you have everything, & when you live in a society ‘built’ for this kind of spiritual lifestyle such as ancient India. Yet if you adopted this philosophy in a culture that was not designed for this lifestyle you would simply starve to death!
So are people like this being just a little bit pretentious?
Is it wrong to have possessions?
Or is it wrong to have extreme amounts of possessions while others have none or very little?
If everyone could have what they want – then is it wrong to have everthing?

[DarthJames]

I would say that it all depends upon who one comes about those posessions, not the extent. Otherwise you get problems trying to create a line above which 'wealth is evil', or trying to bring everyone to an even level or worth (BIG NO, for too many reasons that we all know).

Think about it; a good man works all his life, honestly and diligently, building up has savings, and then at some point you turn to him and say that he is wrong to have so much. It's not right.
As a practical note, you might be cynical about current wealth distribution, but then Bill Gates is one of (if not the) biggest philadrophers on the planet. The charities he funds actually get stuff done, simple because he can afford to throw the money away.


As a final point, the people most commonly demanding wealth redistribution are the ones who have less, and are envious of those who have more. Greed is hardly the starting point to do something good in the world, is it? Even to right a 'wrong'.

[Bovril]

Yeah, Buddha was walking a well trodden path when he renounced a material life, and was acting very much within the cultural traditions of his time.

I don't think that he or really anyone would argue that possesions are inherantly evil. Buddha just felt that they were distracting him from his search for enlightenment, which he valued more.

Only Jesus demands that we give up our possesions and follow him (intruiging given the historical devellopment of the 'protestant work ethic&#39.

[totalwar junkie]

I dont know if Buddha ever said it was "wrong" to have possesions, did he?

I think its more if you want to become enlightened, you need to give those things up becuase they are worthless, theres no need for them if your a Buddha. Also I think some of it comes from jainism, the idea of cutting off ones self from life, renouncing self existence. Giving up all your possessions would be a good way to do this.

The point is from my understanding that you have to practice being more sensible and reasonable, even the Dalai Lama has possesions, but hes still a monk so hes not allowed to seek fame and fortune. From what I've read he has a very humble home, hes probably a real frugal guy, and I think thats really what its about. Just as you say attila, its about balance.

I agree though that if you tried to do what the Buddha did nowa days, at least in a industrialized nation, you'd probably starve or come very close to it. Though, I do remember reading that the Buddha only ate one meal a day, which wouldnt be too hard to accomplish as a begger, I have known some panhandlers who could make 100+ dollors on a good day. Not too bad for a homeless person. Actually now that I think about it, it could probably be done.

I think it is wrong to have extreme amounts of possessions, unless you are somehow sharing those possessions with others or are very charitable. I dont care how hard a person works for it all. There are people who work just as hard if not harder and have practicly nothing becuase what they do isnt as "important"/doesnt pay as much. There are people who break their back, busting their ****** for minimum wage, and can barely afford to feed their family. To me thats wrong.

The problem is, people want to justify greed at any opportunity, so they can feel better about people that starve to death all over the world that dont need to. The quality of life can easily be higher if people actually cared about people, but they dont, so its not. Its as simple as that.

[Xiaodun]

Buddha was a man who became sick of how the royal court hogged all of the wealth when they didnt need it while the poor starved. He renounced his power and became a beggar to show contempt for a lifestyle that centered around the gaining and use of objects. It isnt wrong to have more objects than others, but its pathetic for a man to hog wealth and revel in the sheer amount of his possesions while others starve.

[Amorphos]

Good replies chaps! I agree with what you are saying of course, I just think that if the Buddha had become king then he could have changed his society for the better in a real way! But once he died, some power mad king would have come along, and everything would go back to the way it was [& to a degree still is]. So I say thank you to Buddha for rebelling!
I was just pointing out that as tw junkie said, there is a question of balance, to which humanity has been trying to find the answer to since the beginning of civilization. The acquisition of possessions is our main drive [& in this is necessary], but as I have always said – extremities are our enemy, possessions in modest degrees are ok. There is an almost vulgar amount of wealth in the west built on cheap labour from the east etc….

[Ummon]

Originally posted by attila of nazareth@May 22 2005, 03:48 AM

Is it wrong to have possessions?
Or is it wrong to have extreme amounts of possessions while others have none or very little?
If everyone could have what they want – then is it wrong to have everthing?

Tanzan used to drink wine, although Buddhism forbids alcohol, and yet many followed his teachings. The act of leaving behind possessions, is just the same as not drinking wine.