WHY DO BUDDHIST SUPPORT THEIR PARENTS?

[BigJohn]

One facet of Buddhism I admire is how they respect and support their parents financially. In the East, this is a common practice but in the West, this is rarely done. Why?

[JosephineB]

Because the baby boomers are loaded?

[sky]

Buddha taught that all living beings have once been our Parents, and that practicing compassion to all Sentient beings as though they were our Parents is the more superior form of Filial Piety.

Supporting members of your own Family has nothing to do with Buddhist Teachings, take away ' Your Own Family ' and that IS what Buddha taught....

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

One facet of Buddhism I admire is how they respect and support their parents financially. In the East, this is a common practice but in the West, this is rarely done. Why?

I was told in some college class that in most Eastern countries cultures, elders are respected and revered for their wisdom and knowledge. In the West, they are basically treated like idiots and throw aways. The teacher never told us why though. The teacher just said it was because of different cultures.

I can make some guesses why:

In the USA, kids are largely raised by their peers with very little adult supervision or input. Not all kids, but most. I read somewhere that the average teenager in the USA talks to their parents or interacts with them like an hour or less a day. These are pubic schooled kids as home schooled or religious schooled kids may be different. I myself never talked to my parents from age 15 till 18 when they kicked me out of the house. I'd wake up, walk to school. After school hang out with my friends or go to a job till around midnight. Then go home and go to bed. I often went weeks without talking to or seeing my parents.

In the USA, kids and adults are usually segregated in their teens. They just don't interact or hang out much. In middle and high school, kids don't want to be seen with their parents in front of their peers who they are with the majority of their time. Even younger kids can spend just a few hours or less talking or interacting with their parents. As they are at school 6 to 6.... come home play video games or hang out with friends, eat dinner, do their homework alone or on the net or phone with peers, then go to bed.

Another factor is tv and movies in the west. Most of that content made for kids, especially teens, always portrays the kids as smarter and more "hip" than their parents. The parents in these movies are always dumb and the kids much more wise and independent. So because a lot of kids in the west form their own culture with their peers, spend very small amounts of time interacting with adults, are brainwashed by tv and movies to see themselves as smarter and wiser than their "lame" parents, when they reach adulthood, they don't have much of a relationship with their parents. Some kids do, but the majority do not I'd guess.

I live in the USA and one time I traveled to Europe and went into a pub and was shocked to see all ages in there. People from 21 to 91. All together hanging out and listening to a musical group. In the USA, the clubs I would go to had ages 21 to around 28... that's about it. Or non-alcohol clubs ages 18 to around 28.

In the west in the past, kids would leave home at 18 and not work with or see their parents much. Now days, most kids are broke, housing too expensive, so many stay at home living with their parents. So maybe the western culture will change now that families are being forced to stay together and support each other more.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sky123

Supporting members of your own Family has nothing to do with Buddhist Teachings, take away ' Your Own Family ' and that IS what Buddha taught....

If that is true, then why does the Anguttara Nikaya, the 4th section of the Sutta Pitaka, mentions about taking care of your parents in the Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude. It reads:

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."

This can be found at https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....031.than.html

[inavalan]

I think that the decent thing to do is to help others as much as you can. As you can't support everybody, you have to prioritize your efforts, and having those who deserve it the most, vis-a-vis yourself, should be on top of your list. I don't think this has anything to do with religion, and I guess all religions advise you to respect and support your parents.

Maybe a discussion would be who is a parent who deserve your respect. That shouldn't be difficult to say.

[running]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

One facet of Buddhism I admire is how they respect and support their parents financially. In the East, this is a common practice but in the West, this is rarely done. Why?

according to my paychecks i am paying into social security among other programs that older folks are rewarded with. in any case i have been given the opportunity of financially helping both of them at times.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by running

according to my paychecks i am paying into social security among other programs that older folks are rewarded with. in any case i have been given the opportunity of financially helping both of them at times.

I thought we pay for our old age and for our potential disability, which isn't a reward, but a kind of insurance.

Social Security benefits provide partial replacement income for qualified retirees and disabled individuals, as well as for their spouses, children, and survivors.

At most, there might be a small category of beneficiaries that are helped, not rewarded. Am I wrong?

[running]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I thought we pay for our old age and for our potential disability, which isn't a reward, but a kind of insurance.


At most, there might be a small category of beneficiaries that are helped, not rewarded. Am I wrong?

everybody at age 62 is eligible for social security. assuming one worked and is a citizen. which is why i used the word reward. insurance is something that is used in a misfortune of some sort. such as a disability i think would fit with your wording.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by running

everybody at age 62 is eligible for social security. assuming one worked and is a citizen. which is why i used the word reward. insurance is something that is used in a misfortune of some sort. such as a disability i think would fit with your wording.

We'll have to disagree on this. It's called "social security" because that's what it is: a safety net. Calling it a "reward" is incorrect, not politically incorrect. Being old, or disabled isn't worth the money you get from "social security".