Astus wrote:kirtu wrote:Right but strong samadhi suppresses desire at least for a time.
This could also be said about satisfying a desire, after eating one is not hungry for a while.
No it's quite different. Using your analogy after sex, desire wouldn't arise for a while and that's just not necessarily true.
Strong samadhi will suppress desire in general but esp. sexual desire (samadhi will also suppress hunger for a while depending on the circumstances).
And as I've said in my last post, if the case is as many of you have agreed upon, there's no point in lay people engaging in so many complicated and difficult practices unless they become like hermits. So either one is fine with working on accumulating good karma for a better birth or becomes a renunciate. Third option being only aspiring for birth in the Pure Land. This view makes most of current Western Buddhism pointless and mistaken and also cries for establishing a widespread monastic order.
Except that we see some realization amongst Zen laypeople at least. Likely there is realization at some level happening in the common Mahayana and the Theradava. On top of that Vajrayana practices are very powerful and can result in transformation. Adding to that even if there is no realization per se the so-called "complicated and difficult" practices (depending on what they are of course) can still transform a layperson significantly. The problem with these kinds of statements is that we see no proof because we aren't privy to the inner life of people other than us. But we can see how people are transformed over time.
Monasticism is said to be necessary for the continuation of the teachings. But I would suggest that dedicated non-celebate laylife is an absolutely valid path beyond merely striving for rebirth in the Pure Lands (i.e. people can bring bodhisattvic activity to the world around them).