Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because I can't get to my usual type of Buddhist group by public transportation, I go to a somewhat different type near by, and the compassion level is a little, well, low. Tonight we had a meditation topic of "we should live our lives by helping others, and not by helping ourselves". A basic altruistic concept or philosophy.
Afterwards there was a discussion about what came up, and I discussed some things such as my volunteering at certain places that address homelessness and helping non English speakers to learn English, and mentioned that I was not sure whether it was better to do this or just work directly w/ individuals rather than through organizations. This was met w/ silence.
On the other hand, all the other people talked about the resistance they felt over this topic. One woman mentioned that as a mother that worked, she was always doing for others as it was. Another talked about how when we help others we leave the door open to being manipulated, and someone else said that in their job they had to be careful not to be too helpful and end up enabling someone. That's how the group saw this topic, and the discussion was lively.
Now all of these perspectives are valid, but it just seemed perverse because while I was talking about increasing my ability to help others, everyone else was talking about the dangers and downsides of that. To be frank, it just made me feel, and not for the first time, that these are just latte liberals that talk about this and that but are not actually willing to do anything to change the world and make it a little better place. Am I just off base? I don't expect people to see things my way, it just seemed odd.
By the way, this group, like nearly every Buddhist group I have been associated with in this country, is all white and middle to upper class. That's typical, w/ very little minority participation or input from less privileged individuals. So I wonder if that is not the core issue here? Any input would be appreciated. This is not a religious question, but rather a question about the basic philosophies that we live our lives by.
It's true, those who have the privilege of adopting alternate beliefs have the means and time to do so. When you're poor or working class with children, it's that much harder to even care about an alternate belief. Hence those groups believe in what they were raised with.
It also could have been a small sample size, and the loudest "more selfish" people were being heard.
However even though I'm comfortably middle class, being a new parent myself and working in a profession that solves other's problems, telling me that I need to be more selfless might not be the best of ideas. In theory, yes we can donate time or money, but when there's little of both to go around it's just that much harder of an ask.
It's easy to sit back (I don't know your personal situation) and tell others what they need to do in order to be a good (Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, whatever) person. Ironically it is a lack of empathy or awareness of the other that tends to make us have the belief of "Why aren't they doing more?" When in fact the only question we should be asking is "How much can I do."
I think it is way too easy to judge others when you barely know them.
Life is exhausting, particularly for those who can't "get ahead" and are always hand to mouth and one bad case of the flu away from financial collapse. Which in the US and much of the West, is rapidly becoming the bottom 99% of people in society.
If you're making $250K per year you're at the bottom of the top 1.5% in the US; from there the income graph literally shoots straight up into the great beyond. $250K is a level of income that one reaches later in life and it just might might be the endgame of a single income worker to support a family of four and allow a modest but debt-free retirement if you're a good money manager.
Much below that and the American dream has become a nightmare, with both spouses working, and ends only sporadically meeting. Asking such people to give generously on top of treading water themselves is a bit unrealistic.
That's why I believe that income inequality is the first nut to crack, and that means a humane form of populism that believes in basic social safety nets as a human right. But the West is pretty much headed in the opposite direction, so good luck with that.
You can not help others if you do not help yourself.
Mof best help to others is when you help yourself.
In the right way. though I do agree, there is not such thing as right or wrong way.
There is wise way and foolish way.
I think that you have shown a unique perspective to the group, which makes your contribution very valuable. If you leave them to continue sharing their similar points of view, they might never progress beyond what they already have. Perhaps you can see this as an additional opportunity to give of yourself to others.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino
Because I can't get to my usual type of Buddhist group by public transportation, I go to a somewhat different type near by, and the compassion level is a little, well, low. Tonight we had a meditation topic of "we should live our lives by helping others, and not by helping ourselves". A basic altruistic concept or philosophy.
Me being me, I can a lot of semantics here. But despite this, I 90% agree. I would only frame it more as "We should help those who need it most (physically or psychologically), and help ourselves only to the extent we do not hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others". But that's just a semantic nitpick on my part. I 100% agree with the spirit of what you say, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino
Afterwards there was a discussion about what came up, and I discussed some things such as my volunteering at certain places that address homelessness and helping non English speakers to learn English, and mentioned that I was not sure whether it was better to do this or just work directly w/ individuals rather than through organizations. This was met w/ silence.
Again, my 2 cts., but more of a tactical than a heart-in-right-place matter -- which is yours to take or leave. Your talents, passions, and instincts define the most effective way to help others. Wherever you, personally can do the most good (or IMO, more accurately, prevent or mitigate against suffering) is where you should be. Just where that is, only you can decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino
On the other hand, all the other people talked about the resistance they felt over this topic. One woman mentioned that as a mother that worked, she was always doing for others as it was. Another talked about how when we help others we leave the door open to being manipulated, and someone else said that in their job they had to be careful not to be too helpful and end up enabling someone. That's how the group saw this topic, and the discussion was lively.
Maybe the first woman does indeed "always do for others as it is", which I'm not in a position to know about. The second person does have a point about letting others take advantage of you some how. Though I'm no longer Christian, the Bible does have one part that does make sense; basically saying "we should be as shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves".
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino
Now all of these perspectives are valid, but it just seemed perverse because while I was talking about increasing my ability to help others, everyone else was talking about the dangers and downsides of that. To be frank, it just made me feel, and not for the first time, that these are just latte liberals that talk about this and that but are not actually willing to do anything to change the world and make it a little better place. Am I just off base? I don't expect people to see things my way, it just seemed odd.
They may well be "latte liberals", or maybe there's more to their situation than meets the eye. As I'm not there, I can't really know. They may have extra obligations to their family, friends, work, etc that preclude them from doing as much as they theoretically think should be done. Strictly in a monetary sense, even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined can only do so much to help the world. In the end, it's a judgement call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smarino
By the way, this group, like nearly every Buddhist group I have been associated with in this country, is all white and middle to upper class. That's typical, w/ very little minority participation or input from less privileged individuals. So I wonder if that is not the core issue here? Any input would be appreciated. This is not a religious question, but rather a question about the basic philosophies that we live our lives by.
Socioeconomic composition is a huge web of interacting factors - IMO in the end largely due to "comfort zones" and "commonalities with others". I'm sure there's 1000 sociology papers based on this narrow topic alone. Understand I'm not trying to handwave away the issue. I see the same thing with non-religious special interest organizations (astronomy clubs, garden clubs, historic preservation groups, just to name three). I wouldn't simply conclude it's classism or elitism from the get-go just on that basis, although I can appreciate that social separations can easily lead to such attitudes.
In the end. I'd say don't be surprised if it IS as exclusive as you give the impression of it being, but don't automatically assume any group member is exactly what you think it is without reasonable suspicion of it being so.
Because I can't get to my usual type of Buddhist group by public transportation, I go to a somewhat different type near by, and the compassion level is a little, well, low. Tonight we had a meditation topic of "we should live our lives by helping others, and not by helping ourselves". A basic altruistic concept or philosophy.
Afterwards there was a discussion about what came up, and I discussed some things such as my volunteering at certain places that address homelessness and helping non English speakers to learn English, and mentioned that I was not sure whether it was better to do this or just work directly w/ individuals rather than through organizations. This was met w/ silence.
On the other hand, all the other people talked about the resistance they felt over this topic. One woman mentioned that as a mother that worked, she was always doing for others as it was. Another talked about how when we help others we leave the door open to being manipulated, and someone else said that in their job they had to be careful not to be too helpful and end up enabling someone. That's how the group saw this topic, and the discussion was lively.
Now all of these perspectives are valid, but it just seemed perverse because while I was talking about increasing my ability to help others, everyone else was talking about the dangers and downsides of that. To be frank, it just made me feel, and not for the first time, that these are just latte liberals that talk about this and that but are not actually willing to do anything to change the world and make it a little better place. Am I just off base? I don't expect people to see things my way, it just seemed odd.
By the way, this group, like nearly every Buddhist group I have been associated with in this country, is all white and middle to upper class. That's typical, w/ very little minority participation or input from less privileged individuals. So I wonder if that is not the core issue here? Any input would be appreciated. This is not a religious question, but rather a question about the basic philosophies that we live our lives by.
yeah, I am with you. Ying and yang.
A helping hand becomes a crutch that hold people back.
The root cause of confusion for me is 'Everybody must be saved.". the universe does not work that way. It never has and never will.
As for blacks. Why do blacks not be Buddhist? what do they have against it?
maybe the word "against" is wrong.
Afterwards there was a discussion about what came up, and I discussed some things such as my volunteering at certain places that address homelessness and helping non English speakers to learn English, and mentioned that I was not sure whether it was better to do this or just work directly w/ individuals rather than through organizations. This was met w/ silence.
On the other hand, all the other people talked about the resistance they felt over this topic. One woman mentioned that as a mother that worked, she was always doing for others as it was. Another talked about how when we help others we leave the door open to being manipulated, and someone else said that in their job they had to be careful not to be too helpful and end up enabling someone. That's how the group saw this topic, and the discussion was lively.
.
You don't need to belong to an organization to be compassionate to others. That's probably why you were met with silence when you were. Some people don't know how to be kind to others unless their organization approves it....compassion for others doesn't need to be organized....though the organizations might disapprove of that because how else will they be recognized and credited for it?
I don't see how you could be too helpful (to the point of enabling) unless you're buying an alcoholic his booze or an addict their drugs....
Don't let some organization tell you how or when you should care for others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
