user17676: Say foreign people would come in a ideal buddhist country where everyone is an aharant. They would take the monks into slavery by force to have them work in a field and they would also steal their resources. The buddhists are physically weak, they're outnumbered because they don't reproduce.
How is buddhism a proper belief?

user254: If everyone was a buddhist, nobody would work the fields
And yet they do.
According to the original form of Buddhism, monks don't "work the fields" and are sustained by alms-food.
I think that the existence of people who renounced worldly ambitions was a feature of Indian society in general -- see Ashrama -- not only Buddhism. You might see something like that in the West still too, i.e. a class of people who have "retired".
In later Chinese and Zen Buddhism I think there was some point in history where the State (e.g. the Emperor) decided there was too much of that -- it's difficult to tax monks, not to mention it being difficult to conscript them into your army. I think at that point the monasteries were expected to become more self-sustaining -- which lead to societies, stories, and attitudes like,

No Work, No Food
Hyakujo, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the trees.
The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.
That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next. "He may be angry because we have hidden his tools," the pupils surmised. "We had better put them back."
The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

Your argument reminds me of what happened in Tibet last century -- i.e. the Chinese accusing the Tibetan monks (which was like a "theocracy") of being land-owners exploiting peasants, and invading.
I suspect your argument could be applied to any class of person ...

The army expects lay people to feed them
The politicians expect people to feed them
The teachers expect people to feed them

... as well as to almost any "religion". So I don't see the point of your question.
At any moment I expect there are more Buddhist laypeople than there are monks, too. Your idea of Buddhists "not working" might imply that only monks are Buddhist -- you might want to read something like The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, which is addressed to laypeople, for some idea of how traditional Buddhist doctrine might inform laypeople's work and relationships etc.
Conversely I think there are (Buddhist) countries where most people (at least, most men) have been a monk, but only temporarily -- as part of like their training or education (e.g. "Temporary ordination is the norm among Thai Buddhists"). Which I find analogous to Western countries -- where a lot of people or even the majority might have gone to school or university, but only a few stay on permanently.

What is your idea of a "proper" and "viable" ideology? Do you take as exemplary  a stereotypical communist doctrine -- i.e. that everybody should be peasants (working in the fields), and, in the army?

user43: You are basically saying, buddhists are less competitive and therefore have weaker survival abilities. This is based on the theory that survival in the world of limited resources requires competition for resources. 
Then you're saying, how is Buddhism a "proper belief" if it makes buddhists less fit for survival. This assumes that survival is like winning the game and death is like losing.
However, from Buddhist perspective, surviving in samsara is not better than dying. When you survive you're still caught up in samsara, which means sooner or later you will die. 
Instead, Buddhists focus on finding the deathless peace called nirvana. When you have found the Deathless, surviving vs dying does not matter, it's not applicable. This is the real victory, not the fake victory inside samsara. 

17676: <p>Say foreign people would come in a ideal buddhist country where everyone is an aharant. They would take the monks into slavery by force to have them work in a field and they would also steal their resources. The buddhists are physically weak, they're outnumbered because they don't reproduce.</p>

<p>How is buddhism a proper belief?</p>
 254: <p><strong>If everyone was a buddhist, nobody would work the fields</strong></p>
<p>And yet they do.</p>
<p>According to the original form of Buddhism, monks don't &quot;work the fields&quot; and are sustained by alms-food.</p>
<p>I think that the existence of people who renounced worldly ambitions was a feature of Indian society in general -- see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ashrama</a> -- not only Buddhism. You might see something like that in the West still too, i.e. a class of people who have &quot;retired&quot;.</p>
<p>In later Chinese and Zen Buddhism I think there was some point in history where the State (e.g. the Emperor) decided there was too much of that -- it's difficult to tax monks, not to mention it being difficult to conscript them into your army. I think at that point the monasteries were expected to become more self-sustaining -- which lead to societies, stories, and attitudes like,</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>No Work, No Food</strong></p>
<p>Hyakujo, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the trees.</p>
<p>The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.</p>
<p>That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next. &quot;He may be angry because we have hidden his tools,&quot; the pupils surmised. &quot;We had better put them back.&quot;</p>
<p>The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the evening he instructed them: &quot;No work, no food.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your argument reminds me of what happened in Tibet last century -- i.e. the Chinese accusing the Tibetan monks (which was like a &quot;theocracy&quot;) of being land-owners exploiting peasants, and invading.</p>
<p>I suspect your argument could be applied to any class of person ...</p>
<ul>
<li>The army expects lay people to feed them</li>
<li>The politicians expect people to feed them</li>
<li>The teachers expect people to feed them</li>
</ul>
<p>... as well as to almost any &quot;religion&quot;. So I don't see the point of your question.</p>
<p>At any moment I expect there are more Buddhist laypeople than there are monks, too. Your idea of Buddhists &quot;not working&quot; might imply that only monks are Buddhist -- you might want to read something like <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0861715470" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity</a>, which is addressed to laypeople, for some idea of how traditional Buddhist doctrine might inform laypeople's work and relationships etc.</p>
<p>Conversely I think there are (Buddhist) countries where most people (at least, most men) have been a monk, but only temporarily -- as part of like their training or education (e.g. &quot;Temporary ordination is the norm among Thai Buddhists&quot;). Which I find analogous to Western countries -- where a lot of people or even the majority might have gone to school or university, but only a few stay on permanently.</p>
<hr />
<p>What is your idea of a &quot;proper&quot; and &quot;viable&quot; ideology? Do you take as exemplary  a stereotypical communist doctrine -- i.e. that everybody should be peasants (working in the fields), and, in the army?</p>
 43: <p>You are basically saying, buddhists are less competitive and therefore have weaker survival abilities. This is based on the theory that survival in the world of limited resources requires competition for resources. </p>

<p>Then you're saying, how is Buddhism a "proper belief" if it makes buddhists less fit for survival. This assumes that survival is like winning the game and death is like losing.</p>

<p>However, from Buddhist perspective, surviving in samsara is not better than dying. When you survive you're still caught up in samsara, which means sooner or later you will die. </p>

<p>Instead, Buddhists focus on finding the deathless peace called nirvana. When you have found the Deathless, surviving vs dying does not matter, it's not applicable. This is the real victory, not the fake victory inside samsara. </p>
