Monks get something for nothing-if there are people or friends who don't believe in Buddhism in the society who question or doubt this topic, how should they think as Buddhists?

Answer the truth that "monks get something for nothing" with words and flowers (reproduced)

In fact, I personally don't want to answer this question raised in the last article, because it is a cognitive question! For those who study Buddhism, this is a ridiculous question, or an ignorant question! But I also take this opportunity to answer some people who have the same doubts! In fact, if you think about it, how can a monk who gets something for nothing exist for thousands of years? Are all the people who provide food, clothing, housing and transportation for monks mentally ill and willing to be "exploited class"? !

First of all, we should affirm that "all monks in China are laborers"! From the beginning of Mazu's establishment, the rules of the hundred zhangs system in the jungle were defined, that is, the temple system centered on meditation. Because monks used to beg mainly, but later changed to self-sufficiency, which adapted to China's national foundation based on agriculture. "The new wind pushes bad habits, and it is a step further. If you go to the fields, you will plow the fields, and you will bring your own sewing needles. The wooden fish knows the Buddha's ambition, and the golden bell sings the Zen mind. Deye was in the Spring and Autumn Period, and its merits have been passed down to this day. " This "don't do it for a day, don't eat for a day!" Legacy is the best evidence!

Thirdly, we should affirm "the work of monks"! Monks in Nanchuan really beg for a living! This is also the case now. Monks in Sakyamuni's time did beg for food, and even Sakyamuni himself begged for food. This is clearly stated at the beginning of the Diamond Sutra! Before the Tang Dynasty, monks in China lived by begging. For the so-called Buddhist Florology, I suggest reading more classics. For example, French sentence classics or something! Because someone asked the same question in the teacher's time, and it was Sakyamuni himself who answered the question! I think it will be better than an ordinary person like me!

Now let's make a simple noun explanation. The word "monk" comes from ancient India. The Chinese word "monk" is transliteration. Simply understand the monk's meaning: teacher! Monk = teacher = mentor! Then, monks can also be considered as soul teachers or spiritual educators! Then the direct result of their labor is certainly not the creation of economic wealth! Of course, not every monk can be called a monk. There is basically only one monk in each temple, and that is the abbot!

As we all know, in the populous countries in the south, most men have left home. For example, in Thailand, it is difficult for a man who has never left home to get a wife! So here, I want to tell you the concept of "temple"! There are documents in our country that Buddhism was introduced in the Han Dynasty, and the earliest temple was Baima Temple! In the era when Buddhism (Buddhism) has not been reduced to Buddhism (religion), the social function and responsibility of temples is to learn and cultivate talents. Of course, the main thing is to cultivate talents who can get rid of troubles!

China Temple, then, began to change from a government agency to an institution of higher learning from the Han Dynasty. In today's world, such institutions of higher learning can be found in India, some southern countries and even other western countries! This is why the vast majority of men who spread to the south have become monks! Just like most people in our country have school experience. In countries that spread to the south, monks can be seen lining up in the streets near temples early in the morning to receive offerings, and the givers will come here earlier. This is the collective education of one generation to the next! In today's China, monasteries are recognized as religious places by the government, which also has its religious significance and value! Monks are still trying to spread religious and moral education. Isn't this labor? Personally, people without faith are unfortunate and terrible!

You can clearly see how he understands labor by borrowing words and flowers. It seems that only working in the fields or supporting the family (creating material wealth) is labor. If working in the fields is labor, then China's urban population and farmers in economically developed areas can also be called "exploiting classes"! If only creating material wealth is labor, then all creators of spiritual wealth can be called "exploiting class"! According to this reasoning, students themselves are typical "exploiters"!

In fact, it can be seen that the problem of flower characters is a social problem. This era, this society; Even people in this era and society are pursuing material wealth and material enjoyment! This sensual pursuit will inevitably bring spiritual emptiness and spiritual poverty! Then this objective emptiness and poverty will inevitably ignore the creation of spiritual wealth, and this neglect will inevitably be negative!

After full warmth (sensual enjoyment), people begin to yearn for elegance (spiritual enjoyment). For contemporary people who are used to going to ktv, bars or nightclubs as spiritual enjoyment, the charm and poetry of ancient immortals are undoubtedly the fashion that better embodies their unique "noble sentiments". What's more, this Zen tea is a nice tie! Put on this fashion and this avant-garde tie. If we stride forward on the glorious road of pursuing labor and having food (material sensory enjoyment), then "getting something for nothing" will inevitably become the ulterior ultimate goal; And spurned by beautiful women!

Then, these fashions are detached and travel in the jungle; Open-minded in writing and merciful to the great knowledge on the Internet. After seeing Buddha, how can you have such amazing knowledge of cursing Buddha or something you don't understand in this world? It's normal! Such a rich dragon image coincides with the prosperity of Buddhism predicted by our teacher that year!

It says that monks work and don't work, but if they are happy or unhappy, they will be confused. People who see Buddha say that not working is happiness, so there will be mistakes!

Qiweizhuang

-

A few days ago, a series of photos went viral on the Internet. The photo shows that two young men and women in dresses are drinking and playing in the subway. They take their women to the hotel to check in. (Source: Southern Metropolis Daily Dunan Net)

Instead of showing off afterwards, the author concluded that there must be something fishy in it. On April 2, one of my Weibo reminded my friend: "Do you really believe in this obviously planted game?" However, at that time, these pictures went viral on the Internet. My comments are aimed at many people who care about public affairs and are quite upright. At that time, they were also forwarding these photos, and at the same time they were saddened and lamented that "I didn't expect quiet Buddhism to be so corrupt."

The police are investigating the identity of the "monk brothers" and the motives of pretending to be monks and trampling on Buddhist precepts. And I believe that the reaction of honest people on the internet is probably the most direct goal pursued by these two people, although its ultimate goal remains to be verified.

The most interesting question is here: why do those who think they are rational and care about public affairs believe that the act of pretending to be a monk is true without thinking? The reason is complicated. The more direct reason is that in recent years, people have seen many reports about the commercialization of religion, which leads people to doubt the purity of religions and religious organizations in contemporary China. This incident seems to confirm people's doubts.

The next question is: Is there any bias in such a report itself? It may have to be said that behind these reports and people's belief in these reports, there is an important conceptual fact in contemporary China: the online public, especially intellectuals, do have a series of deep-rooted prejudices against religion.

The core idea of modernity is the supremacy of reason, and religion seems irrational, so it is the fundamental appeal of the French Enlightenment to doubt and oppose religion. This is also the basic idea of the New Culture Movement in China at the beginning of last century. The so-called commercialization of religious organizations is an important reason why enlighteners doubt and oppose religion.

However, is this problem really as serious as intellectuals think? After the "Monk Brothers" were detained, someone said something that seemed to represent the views of intellectuals: "Religious belief is a private matter in the soul field, and a person's soul can never be defiled by the actions of others." This view is very popular, but in fact, the intellectuals who advocate this view have serious cognitive bias: they are not clear about the difference between faith and religion, and they also ignore the fact that religious organizations exist as a social and political system.

It is true that faith and belief are indeed things in the field of private soul, but advanced faith must be realized through scriptures, rituals and so on. So it will almost certainly develop into a religion with a series of external systems. It is human nature to fit in. People who like fishing will form fishing associations, and people who engage in religious activities will almost certainly form religious organizations. As a social organization, religious organizations are of course special, but like any other organization, they have to raise resources to survive and develop. Therefore, religious organizations have an economic side from the beginning. Give a simple example: how to build a temple without money? How can religious ceremonies be held without temples? Without ceremony, how to present faith?

Of course, in some periods, some religious organizations may indeed pursue material interests excessively. However, what is "excessive" is actually a difficult thing to judge, and modern intellectuals seem to think that religious organizations always pursue profits excessively, mainly because they confuse faith, religion and religious organizations and think that religious organizations should only deal with people's souls and should not deal with money; As long as you deal with money, it is "excessive."

Of course, intellectuals still have a lot of prejudice against religions and religious organizations. I am afraid that based on these prejudices, modern intellectuals are very willing to spread scandals about religions and religious organizations, even at the expense of embellishing them. This is also the root of the photos of "Monk Brothers" being forwarded by network intellectuals without thinking. These photos meet the needs of the concept of the forwarder. They have no time to judge whether it is true or not, although they can judge that the monk is false as long as they have basic common sense.

More interestingly, after the public security organs detained the two fake monks, some intellectuals defended their rights online: "If believers of any religion want to enjoy their freedom of belief without the interference of secular power, they should not expect secular power to safeguard their religious reputation." It can be speculated that this kind of rhetoric is based on the separation of church and state.

However, the separation of church and state has a very complicated meaning, which does not mean that religion and religious organizations have nothing to do with the government. At least, when the rights and interests of religious organizations are violated, the law and the government must give relief. As religious organizations are tangible social organizations, like any natural person or legal person, they also have their own reputation rights. Such a right of reputation should be protected by law. The government's detention of "monk brothers" is also based on this logic. Wearing sea blue, onlookers will think that this is a monk. Wearing a Christina but doing something completely against the precepts in public places, onlookers will think that monks are doing such things, which will have a very strong negative feeling that the reputation right of Buddhist religious organizations has been damaged. This kind of destruction should be stopped, and it is necessary for public power to stand up for it.

After the detention of the "Monk Brothers", the author once wrote a Weibo: "Those who are sad by Buddhism have never thought of coming out to apologize after seeing the pictures?" I mean, I'm afraid intellectuals should reflect on the rationalist superstition of the past 100 years and treat religion with a more sound attitude. In short, they should respect religion.

In the past 30 years, there has been a religious revival in China. In this rapidly changing and anxious era, various orthodox religions with a long history have played an important role in correcting people's thoughts and creating and maintaining a benign social order. Is there any reason not to respect religion?

20 12 April 16 09:27

Source: Southern Network Author: Autumn Wind