I am confuse about Buddhism approach of conduct to people
rohit
Maharrashtra Veteran
I comes across many words from Buddhist scriptures and monks that life is so delicate and temporary that one is doing futile efforts for it like strong attachments to things in life..
Other hand i also came across where Buddha criticize youth who neither earned money nor spiritual progress in young age ...Sometimes religious preachers of Buddhism says if one chooses the layman life then have to work very hard for livelihood with 100%. otherwise they condemns the lay people (like a dirt as i have observed...)
My opinion is that first they discourage people saying that everything is futile to have attachments.. then people becomes ambitions less then they also condemns lay people who don't progress due to absence of money...
I think it's misleading at first place to allow negative approach of life and it's harmful..
Comments
Work hard. Play softly. Be kind. If monks are confusing you kick them back into the meditation hall until enlightened - it is the kind thing to do.
Hope that helps
Buddhism has always claimed to walk the middle path, but what exactly does that mean?
On the one hand, you have a call to retreat from life and abolish attachments to just about everything that complicates a lay person's life like ambition, family dynamics, marriage, and dealing with society. On the other, it's those complications that put food on the table and defines a human culture. The monks have always been in danger of making the mistake of setting themselves above the lay people and if you know what you're looking for, you can find this attitude in the writings.
On the other hand, enough wise monks have known this is an ego trap, so the assumption that "only monks can be enlightened" has actually been debated and it's pointed out that this lay life of attachments and stress Buddhists tend to disparage is necessary for the monk's own survival. If reaping the greatest rewards of the Dharma doesn't allow you to live a normal life, then why the heck are you bothering?
So reading the sutras, I think, requires a bit of translation on the part of a lay person looking for personal enlightenment. You're not the intended audience in most cases. I can see where it can be confusing.
I love that saying "Work hard. Play softly. Be Kind" i'm going to use this
Right Effort.
Whatever your chosen vocation or livelihood, do it to the best of your ability, with dedication, focus and joy.
If you run ICI as CEO, do that Mindfully, skilfully and with Right View, Intention, Speech & Action.
If you're employed by your local Authority to empty street bins and sweep the pavements, do that Mindfully, skilfully and with Right View, Intention, Speech & Action.
It doesn't matter what you do.
'How' - matters.
I am thinking that it is misleading preaching if they say everything is futile to have attachment because lay person has to work very hard even more if it has to do with complete right efforts and in many cases in between harsh people. Then it is likely that lay person will have some attachments towards whatever he earned in life to some extend.. Right effort is necessary.
But when they say everything is delicate and can destroy anytime then they making people aimless to work hard.. It is reason of making passive attitude in Buddhist followers, i believe strongly..
And without lay people there can not be supporter for monks and sangha.. If everyone would think that being monk is more promising to be enlighten then it does not making any sense in large picture.
They must say that right effort is rewarding although objects don't last as it is forever..
Each side must play their part; each side involves sacrifices of some kinds.
Sacrifice is an archaic, outdated concept, but it's an important aspect of dedicated worship.
People want to achieve their goal, but not to have to give up too much for it.
But something has to give.
A Monk gives up an awful lot of material things to follow an austere, ascetic life.
He leaves his family, he cannot always return.
he remains single; marriage is not always an option.
he lives frugally - no money should pass through his hands, and many monks survive through the goodness and kind donations form others.
We as laypeople have difficult choices.
If anything, although we sacrifice less, materially, the road is tougher, exactly because we are beset constantly by the material luxuries denied to the ordained community.
'Letting go' is a tougher ordeal.
The temptations are higher, and we are beset constantly by our belongings and property
Monks sacrifice an awful lot - that is their burden.
We don't need to sacrifice anything - and that is ours.
Act whole-heartedly.
Correct as necessary.
It is probably due to knowledge bombardment that sometimes we got confused. This is true specially western buddhists, where people are educated and see things based on what was learned from books. **There is a teaching that Ajahn Chac mention about not focusing much on written instructions - but rather we should try to read our own minds. **
What does the mind tells us, how we look at things rising and ceasing. Maybe that is the place to start.
What do you think attachment is? Are you sure you know what that word means in Buddhism?
@rohit
Both monks & lay people are as ignorant as their attachments allow them to be.
but...
Focusing on other peoples attachments, instead of placing that attention on addressing one's own attachments, is itself one of the most common attachments of all.
Until one can address** that** attachment, your own practice at best, is actually imitating the perceived faults that you are currently finding in others.
Instead, why don't you tell us how you conduct yourself around people.
No, Many times you will see being Monk would be good and better option than being a household. Monk atleast can focus fully on their liberation but Household who remained poor has to struggle lot. Such household not only condemned by society and also religion as a lazy but with struggles on daily basis for livelihood..
In such case monk should not be talking everything is going to destroy which kills the ambition to earn more in household people.
I think you are overwhelmingly generalising....
Religious preachers makes lot impact on minds that's why i am talking about it to avoid people being less ambitious because ambitions will be required to earn through right efforts.
@rohit
Religious preachers makes lot impact on minds that's why i am talking about it to avoid people being less ambitious because ambitions will be required to earn through right efforts.
@rohit
Ambition is a driving forth of an intention regardless of the circumstances.
Both the most noble and the most horrendous actions have unfolded from ambition.
In my 40 years of practice, ambition has never seemed like something safe to foster.
Buddhist** Right effort** is as much dependent on "effort" as it is on "right".
What is your understanding of what that "right" means?
If I may stick my nose in -- right = ethical. But that's just me.
Right, doesn't necessarily mean right as in the English understanding of the word...
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm
Thinking for oneself. Good plan.
Right is the sense occupation or earnings should be based on harmless actions. Like not killing animals to earn money, not stealing or cheating in business.