- João Pinto
- Lisboa
- Portugal
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Are buddhists/monks that say they have found inner peace and happiness, selfish somehow, considering the world around us (poverty,etc)?
Lots of monks in the world dedicate their lives to the pursuit of happiness and inner peace. They live through charity, limited to their temple and village.
Aren´t they sellfish (just a question) knowing after all that there are people around the globe needing help and knowing that they could contribute to them?
Topics:
happiness inner peace monks sellfish
scott lee
João Pinto
scott lee
My point is they are a shining example of living happily with less. Obviously there are people who are so impoverished that they need no example of how to do this. There are many people, however who are absorbed in a consumerist lifestyle that strains the economies and ecologies of other parts of the world. The roots of wealth lie in the poor and roots of poverty lie in the rich. Some have to let go of what they have if others are to have more.
My second point is that we can't really say that monks spend their whole life doing nothing. How do we know what every monk actually contributes to his or her community? Its a huge and unfair generalization to say that they contribute nothing to society.
João Pinto
2) I´m not saying they don´t contribute nothing to society (when I refer to monks generally I don´t mean every monk), but with what they accomplished in meditation they were supposed to reach a different level of sensibility of the problems around them.
Don´t forget that the question of this debate is "CAN WE CONSIDER monks selfish because...".
Of course every person who don´t contributes to solve the worlds problems directly can not be considered selfish because not every people has the same sensibilisation of the worlds problems.
Trough this debate, I've already understood that to make peace for other people we have to find our own.
If you still have any question or argument left, don´t hesitate replying.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
1. buddhists believe in karma. that is, your situation is a consequence of your previous lives. if you are poor, these sufferings are connected to your own past behavior, possibly greed or lack of compassion, though these things are not that simple. either way, you are here because you need to pass that test. that is a step, you can't bypass that.
2. buddhists do care about others, and their purpose is to help others. but not economically. the real help is to teach them about reality. about the fact that their suffering can be remedied only by knowledge, and not by food or medicine.
João Pinto
I am being totally honest: this will affect my life (positively of course) and I´m glad i´ve made this question.
In this present moment of my life I have given a great advice. And this advice fits in my present moment of my life.
Thanks to you all!
Christophe Doré
It takes a lot to help other people's failure in happiness, wether they are poor or wealthy. If you have not found a minimum of happiness on your side, something you can find support with, I guess you cannot push other people to feel better.
Vivienne Eggers
The monk who is dedicated to inner peace and harmony understands that to find it within, he need never search for it ever again. By searching - he believes it is not there - missing from his own being - he is not whole. He becomes listless and not satisfied with what he has - because he maintains this belief that happiness has escaped him. He strives out to find it - and in doing so creates impact with those around him - impact that in turn sparks conflict and peace remains elusive.
The monk who first finds inner peace and harmony does not search in the world any longer. Instead he carries the treasure with him always. When he encounters others - they too perceive his contentment and desire this condition also. He tells them it lay hidden inside. What greater help could that monk be to people around the globe - if not to show them the divine secret of self realization? The concept of 'self love' is often considered in egoic state. Many have interpreted scriptures of 'love thyself' in religions to mean self indulgence and gratification - a one eyed emotional journey. Self love balances selfless sacrifice with self respect.
The lineage of Buddhist monks comes from cultures where spiritual values are placed highly within family and community structure. It is not considered a demeaning charity to support the life of a monk who is often one from a family who has given up thoughts of a typical life to serve the spiritual needs of his family and ancestry. The child who joins the monastery is respected and honoured as he or she maintains the role of serving filial consciousness beyond the limited fleeting time of flesh of mortal coil. Regardless, monks in understanding always open their doors and give great support to those who have lost the values of spirit and higher truth - in life and beyond. I thank them for walking with me. Om Gaia Om.
David Grant
An interesting question. I highly recommend a short article by Dale Wright in Psychology Today in which he looks at precisely this issue.
He states that "[Buddhist] practitioners vow to seek enlightenment not just for themselves but globally on behalf of everyone" and "we are unable to be of service to others until we have undergone enough self-transformation to begin to see larger realities beyond the importance of our own personal well-being".
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/six-perfections/200911/is-self-cultivation-inherently-selfish-buddhist-perspective
Vivienne Eggers
NEW WORLD ORDER
Shobhag Joshi
João Pinto
And I´m not saying that the poverty and misery is because of the monks.
Vivienne Eggers
Firstly although I think a 'charity' model is certainly not the most sustainable - it does not regenerate and requires a huge amount of donor solicitation, marketing and energy to receiving the 'giving' - I think it necessary a few points about monks and charity. Any monks (not just buddhist)
Firstly monks conduct 'labour' every day by living. I spent a couple of months with Tibetan government in exile recently and was fortunate to witness and experience 'how' by living in a Monastery with them - and also by one example a Monk how had used his wisdom and compassion to gather homeless Hindu (actually any nationality) street children - often sick or maimed for begging purposes and set up a home and school for them. He's one of the people you describe who have no right to preach about fruits of labour. I wonder why you think it is not reasonable for this man and others who choose to serve others - not to be remunerated for it?
I am amazed at how many people who run charities (Monks or otherwise) go broke because they are not 'allowed' to be supported financially - while they are effectively performing legitimate community service work. Why would you think that turning up in a suit in an office, talking to a few people in a meeting over coffee and juggling a few numbers around a balance sheet is more legitimately deserving of remuneration - i.e. is some labour that deserves 'fruits' - and very big fruits at that!
We the people have something in life to enjoy - because of our circumstances and priveleges - nothing more nothing less.
Time spent running a business or selling a product is not a higher or elite superiority. It simply means that someone somewhere is 'giving out' financially. I personally favour payingthe labour that goes directly and unselfishly into community
Robert Galway 20+
Ed Schulte 50+
THAT which is not (poverty, etc)?) so how could had be considered "selfish some how"?