'Capitalism' is something to do with 'capital', which I think implies,

• Ability to accumulate millions of dollars in order to build a new factory, a new ship, a new road, a new hospital (and/or one dollar to buy some butter, etc.)
• Ability to use such 'dollars' to rent labour (i.e. to pay wages)

I don't see that as inherently anti-Buddhist: IMO it can fit into the 'Right Livelihood' category.

A commentary to the Dhammapada Verse 286 which you quoted above says,

"Ananda, do you see that merchant? He is thinking that he would stay here and sell his goods the whole year. He is not aware that he would die here in seven days' time. What should be done should be done today. Who would know that one would die tomorrow? We have no date fixed with the King of Death. For one who is mindful by day or by night, who is not disturbed by moral defilements and is energetic, to live for just one night is a well-spent life."

I think the verse you quoted is not a critique of consumerism: rather it's a critique of believing that life is permanent or predictable, perhaps more especially of 'living in the future' instead of "What should be done should be done today".

By the way, lay-people (monks having no money) are supposed to be generous, aren't they? I think it's not anti-Buddhist to become rich (even as a successful capitalist) and generous.

Maybe capitalism can explain where money comes from, and Buddhism explain how to spend it!

I think that mentioning three houses (in the OP) isn't meant as a metaphor for "too much money" because instead I think that:

• In India it might be normal to live in different places at different seasons -- even the monks did?
• For a travelling merchant (who is the subect of the story in that verse), being in different places at different times is also normal
• The fact of being in different places at different times is, perhaps etymologically, a metaphor or description for time itself -- see this description of 'time' (and/or immediacy) in Buddhism:

Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

'Capitalism' is something to do with 'capital', which I think implies,

• Ability to accumulate millions of dollars in order to build a new factory, a new ship, a new road, a new hospital (and/or one dollar to buy some butter, etc.)
• Ability to use such 'dollars' to rent labour (i.e. to pay wages)

I don't see that as inherently anti-Buddhist: IMO it can fit into the 'Right Livelihood' category.

A commentary to the Dhammapada Verse 286 which you quoted above says,

"Ananda, do you see that merchant? He is thinking that he would stay here and sell his goods the whole year. He is not aware that he would die here in seven days' time. What should be done should be done today. Who would know that one would die tomorrow? We have no date fixed with the King of Death. For one who is mindful by day or by night, who is not disturbed by moral defilements and is energetic, to live for just one night is a well-spent life."

I think the verse you quoted is not a critique of consumerism: rather it's a critique of believing that life is permanent or predictable, perhaps more especially of 'living in the future' instead of "What should be done should be done today".

By the way, lay-people (monks having no money) are supposed to be generous, aren't they? I think it's not anti-Buddhist to become rich (even as a successful capitalist) and generous.

Maybe capitalism can explain where money comes from, and Buddhism explain how to spend it!

I think that mentioning three houses (in the OP) isn't meant as a metaphor for "too much money" because instead I think that:

• In India it might be normal to live in different places at different seasons -- even the monks did?

• For a travelling merchant (who is the subect of the story in that verse), being in different places at different times is also normal

• The fact of being in different places at different times is, perhaps etymologically, a metaphor or description for time itself -- see this description of 'time' (and/or immediacy) in Buddhism:

  Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

'Capitalism' is something to do with 'capital', which I think implies,

• Ability to accumulate millions of dollars in order to build a new factory, a new ship, a new road, a new hospital (and/or one dollar to buy some butter, etc.)
• Ability to use such 'dollars' to rent labour (i.e. to pay wages)

I don't see that as inherently anti-Buddhist: IMO it can fit into the 'Right Livelihood' category.

A commentary to the Dhammapada Verse 286 which you quoted above says,

"Ananda, do you see that merchant? He is thinking that he would stay here and sell his goods the whole year. He is not aware that he would die here in seven days' time. What should be done should be done today. Who would know that one would die tomorrow? We have no date fixed with the King of Death. For one who is mindful by day or by night, who is not disturbed by moral defilements and is energetic, to live for just one night is a well-spent life."

I think the verse you quoted is not a critique of consumerism: rather it's a critique of believing that life is permanent or predictable, perhaps more especially of 'living in the future' instead of "What should be done should be done today".

By the way, lay-people (monks having no money) are supposed to be generous, aren't they? I think it's not anti-Buddhist to become rich (even as a successful capitalist) and generous.

Maybe capitalism can explain where money comes from, and Buddhism explain how to spend it!

I think that mentioning three houses (in the OP) isn't meant as a metaphor for "too much money" because instead I think that:

• In India it might be normal to live in different places at different seasons -- even the monks did?
• For a travelling merchant (who is the subect of the story in that verse), being in different places at different times is also normal
• The fact of being in different places at different times is, perhaps etymologically, a metaphor or description for time itself -- see this description of 'time' (and/or immediacy) in Buddhism:

Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

'Capitalism' is something to do with 'capital', which I think implies,

• Ability to accumulate millions of dollars in order to build a new factory, a new ship, a new road, a new hospital (and/or one dollar to buy some butter, etc.)
• Ability to use such 'dollars' to rent labour (i.e. to pay wages)

I don't see that as inherently anti-Buddhist: IMO it can fit into the 'Right Livelihood' category.

A commentary to the Dhammapada Verse 286 which you quoted above says,

"Ananda, do you see that merchant? He is thinking that he would stay here and sell his goods the whole year. He is not aware that he would die here in seven days' time. What should be done should be done today. Who would know that one would die tomorrow? We have no date fixed with the King of Death. For one who is mindful by day or by night, who is not disturbed by moral defilements and is energetic, to live for just one night is a well-spent life."

I think the verse you quoted is not a critique of consumerism: rather it's a critique of believing that life is permanent or predictable, perhaps more especially of 'living in the future' instead of "What should be done should be done today".

By the way, lay-people (monks having no money) are supposed to be generous, aren't they? I think it's not anti-Buddhist to become rich (even as a successful capitalist) and generous.

Maybe capitalism can explain where money comes from, and Buddhism explain how to spend it!

I think that mentioning three houses (in the OP) isn't meant as a metaphor for "too much money" because instead I think that:

• In India it might be normal to live in different places at different seasons -- even the monks did?
• For a travelling merchant (who is the subect of the story in that verse), being in different places at different times is also normal
• The fact of being in different places at different times is, perhaps etymologically, a metaphor or description for time itself -- see this description of 'time' (and/or immediacy) in Buddhism:

Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)