MISTAKEN FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

Clinging Stubbornly to What Is Wrong

We can also see that the world today is still not completely civilized. Although science has made tremendous advances, with countless research findings recognized throughout the world, many religious concepts are no longer appropriate. However, just like Sanjaya, those who hold such views do not change. Even the highest leaders of those religions know that many aspects of their doctrines can no longer develop any further, yet they still refuse to abandon what is wrong and seek the truth. Instead, they find various ways to spread their religion.

Their initial assessment is quite correct: “Many aspects of their doctrines are no longer appropriate.” But their second conclusion is no longer correct. It is a stubborn mistake: “Then we will spread our religion to other regions.” In other words, it is not only Sanjaya who thought this way; even today, there are many religious missionaries of other faiths who have a similar mentality. To compensate for their decline, they expand their missionary activities rather than abandoning the mistaken concepts in their doctrines. In this respect, they are no different from Sanjaya in the past.

Today, Buddhists also have a duty to reach the remote and difficult borderlands, the sun-scorched and windy regions, and the distant mountainous areas, to bring the teachings to people and help our fellow human beings come to know the truth and what is right as soon as possible.
**
Should We Use Money to Measure Happiness?**

Another mistake in the world today is that politicians, economists, and social scientists measure the prosperity of a country by its average per-capita income each year. In other words, they take the total national income and divide it by the population of the country. The higher this figure is, the more prosperous, civilized, and happy the country is considered to be. Thus, money is still being used to measure the happiness of an entire nation—truly a painful and unjust situation for humanity. Why?
Because in order to increase income, people have to work themselves to the bone. From top to bottom, society becomes a machine operating at full capacity, leaving people with no time to rest or enjoy life. Therefore, we should not assume that people in countries with high per-capita income are necessarily happy. On the contrary, they may have to work extremely hard from morning until night and constantly live under stress and fear. They fear that if they lose their jobs, they will lose their homes because their houses are being paid for through mortgages, and lose their cars because those too are being paid for in installments. Without money, everything can immediately be repossessed, and eventually they may have nowhere to live.

Thus, people have to work relentlessly under stress and fear, constantly trying to please their employers. But what kind of mental state is characterized by hardship, stress, and fear? That of a slave.
In other words, although people work extremely hard, they still cannot be masters of their own lives. Anxiety is constantly present in their minds, which is precisely the mental state of a slave. Several centuries ago, or even thousands of years ago, slaves were the same. They had to work constantly, with their minds under tremendous pressure, very much like people in many countries today that are considered civilized and developed.

Could it be that today, in very wealthy countries that constantly proclaim democracy and civilization, the harsh system of slavery of the past is still being maintained—only disguised in a far more sophisticated form? All of these realities stem from the fact that people have chosen to measure prosperity and happiness with money.

Conversely, there are countries where people are able to live and work more peacefully. They have a stronger culture, greater discipline and social order, and live more deeply and with a stronger sense of morality. Clearly, such countries can be happier even though their per-capita income may be lower. People work together with love and mutual support. They work diligently without working themselves to exhaustion; they are responsible without being constantly stressed; and therefore, they do not live in fear. The people there are truly happy.

It is time for us to change our concept of economics. Instead of creating a life filled with stress, relentless work, and anxiety, let people live and work with diligence and responsibility while remaining peaceful and joyful.

The world should stop measuring happiness by national income, because doing so only turns human beings into slaves. Instead, we should encourage people to live more selflessly and responsibly. That is the true path to happiness.

Another Misguided View: Money Is Everything

There is another mistaken view that many people hold: the belief that having money means having everything, and that in order to obtain money, they are willing to sacrifice even their conscience, dignity, morality, and chastity. Yet they never expect that the final result will be nothing but brokenness, suffering, and loss, until not even a shred of human dignity remains.

Conversely, there are families who live more modestly, but their money is earned honestly, and their children are raised with that honest money, so they grow up more obedient and moral. Thus, although they may not be richer, they are clearly happier. Perhaps from now on, we should reconsider using money as a measure of human happiness.

Understanding the Precept of Non-Killing Correctly

A temple was once attacked by an overwhelming number of flies, and the abbot had no choice but to ask everyone to find a way to reduce their numbers. A nun came to visit the temple and happened to learn about this. She criticized the abbot, wondering how he could bear to kill so many living beings. Later, however, she was given an explanation of the circumstances.

Many people have asked us: If Buddhism teaches us not to kill living beings, why do some people still kill flies and mosquitoes?

In fact, the precept of non-killing is a profound matter. It is not as simple as we might think—that we must never kill any living creature under any circumstances. For example, according to Buddhism, we should love all living beings. We should love both the tiger and the rabbit. But if we see a tiger eating a rabbit, which one should we protect? Or Buddhist monks may love Buddhists and also love fish, but if they know for certain that those Buddhists will eat fish when they return home, whom should they protect?
Therefore, the precept of non-killing is by no means simple. We should never interpret it one-dimensionally as meaning that we must never lift a hand to kill any animal. Instead, we should adopt a broader perspective, one that is also consistent with science.

We must understand that the purpose of the precept of non-killing is to protect life.
So, what is the greatest form of life that we need to protect first? It is the shared living environment of the Earth, because the existence of all other living beings depends upon this common environment. We should give priority to preserving the Earth's living environment first, and then protect the lives of other species, in descending order of priority.

According to the abbot, flies and mosquitoes therefore occupy a rather low priority. He was obliged to protect the health of the monastics living at the temple and the Buddhists who came to the temple first.
The abbot also shared another concern: Whenever a large ceremony was held, with tens of thousands of people attending, Buddhists would have to spread out into the trees, bushes, and other areas around the temple. What he worried about most was that snakes might appear and bite someone. Therefore, we must always give priority to human life and human health, while placing the protection of our shared living environment above all else.

Moreover, if Buddhism is simply about being gentle and never killing, then why do temples often place statues of Dharma Protectors holding swords at their entrances?
Or, if everyone strictly observes the precept of non-killing, who would protect the country and protect the Dharma from evil and violent people?
We should develop a broader and more contemporary understanding of the precept of non-killing.

The Philosophy of “Might Makes Right”

There was a child who was aggressive from an early age. He noticed that whenever he growled and threatened his friends, they became afraid of him. Eventually, all he had to do was raise his fist, and the other children would obey him and hand over whatever they had. If they had money, they had to give him money; if they had candy or snacks, they had to give those to him as well.

Gradually, he arrived at what he thought was a fundamental truth:

To survive in this world, you have to be fierce so that others will fear you.
Following this path, when the child grows up, he may become an arrogant and evil person—a thug, a gangster, or someone involved in organized crime, constantly extorting and bullying others.
If he accepts the idea that using his fists can force his friends to submit to him and share their money and food with him, then when he grows up, he will likely choose a life of providing “protection” in exchange for money.

He might walk into a business and shout:
“Have you paid your protection money this month?”
If the answer is no, he simply punches the person in the face and takes the money.
Clearly, the disobedient and unruly child of the past has now become a brutal thug.
Through countless lifetimes of greed and selfishness,
Forgetting others and thinking only of our own gain,
Deceit, theft, robbery, and rivalry,
Leaving others to suffer and weep at will...
Yet while one still has merit, one may be able to remain aggressive and arrogant. But when that merit is exhausted, others may tear one apart into a hundred pieces.
So, is the belief that “In this world, you must have enough power to make others fear you” right or wrong?
It is completely wrong.

It is true that someone who is excessively weak and timid may be unable to protect what is right. But someone who is excessively brutal will exhaust their merit very quickly.

Remember this.
Misguided Love
There was a father who loved his child very much. One day, he called his son over and said:
“You are the fruit of your parents’ love, so we love you more than anything and are willing to sacrifice everything for you. You do not need to do anything else. You only need to focus on one thing: studying hard and becoming successful.”
Several decades later, the son ended up serving a prison sentence because of secretly engaging in a life of indulgence and committing crimes. The deeper cause of this tragedy also came from his father's misguided way of loving him.
**
Why was that statement wrong?**

Because although the father loved his son, he did not teach him morality. He did not train him to make an effort to cultivate merit. He did not encourage him to feel compassion for the suffering of others. He did not teach him to bow his head before those worthy of respect.
Instead, he simply told his son to study—to “study in order to become talented and successful.”

That is a very ordinary and limited goal.
Once a child lacks morality and has been given the wrong goals, it becomes easy for that child to go astray.

If the father had known how to restrain his affection and instead taught and disciplined his son strictly, filling his heart with selflessness and love for others, then perhaps his son would have developed much stronger moral character.

He might have taken a little longer to achieve success, but once he succeeded, that success would have been much more solid and lasting.

It was precisely because of the father's mistaken understanding of love—that loving a child means constantly expressing affection, indulging the child, and giving the child every comfort and pleasure—that the result he received was so bitter.

Janna