user21821: I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals.
In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong.
Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others.
Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a determinist for a lack of a better word.
I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).

user13709: The Buddha does NOT say "just sit still and accept life for what it is". The Buddha says we should practice to benefit one and all (e.g., "to be grateful, empathetic, help others"):

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Practicing to benefit one and all requires a shared understanding of one and all. Empathy is a start:

DN34:1.7.87: They understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having comprehended them with their own mind.

In that shared understanding is a form of acceptance. In that understanding is a simple acknowledgement of present perception. But we have to be very careful here. That shared understanding is perilously close to identification. Buddhist acceptance is NOT identification. So there is a problem with using the term "acceptance".
There is a problem with using "acceptance" to understand Buddhism. Buddhists will see anger but not accept it. Buddhists will see covetousness but not accept it. Buddhists will see ill will but not accept it. Buddhists will see lying but not accept it. Buddhists will see delusion but not accept it.
There is also a problem with using "not desire more/less" to understand Buddhism. It is a problem because the Buddha decided to teach the lessening and ending of suffering. The Buddha did not accept the apparent inescapable inevitability of suffering. And he shared the escape from suffering with a foundation of more love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.
In brief, teach sympathy/empathy without identification. It feels bad to be lied to, so don't tell lies. It feels bad to have things stolen, so don't steal. It feels bad when others are stingy, so be generous. Those are all examples of a shared understanding without identification.

user43: Speaking as buddhist and a father of four (3 biological kids and 1 step-son).
I don't think we should teach the passive unfolding. Like, we obviously can't say: "if they provoke you and you get angry, you may have an impulse to hit them, just watch it unfold" - absurd.
Instead, we can teach them karma and how we always reap what we (or our previous generations) sow.
I.e. your family is not just lucky. You inherited the results of someone's hard work, good ethics, and kindness. Not necessarily your direct ancestors but in general some people who contributed to good circumstances that shaped your life. That said, we can't just rest on the old laurels, we must make sure in our own life we can preserve the good karma we inherited and pass it on to the future "us".
Those other kids are not just unlucky. They inherited results of someone in the past being stupid and/or lazy and/or wicked.
So we (the parents and kids) can empathize their condition, because it's hard to build good life on a bad foundation. And we (the parents and kids) should pray that they will intuitively discover what kind of behavior leads to a less troubled future, or may they encounter good role models who would show them how to create better future instead of perpetuating old problems.
In short, to me it's not about being greedy for more vs passively watching things unfold. I think it's about creating causes of trouble vs creating causes of harmony - and how this process spans past, present and future generations. Thinking in terms of karma we can be grateful, we can empathize, and we can aspire to do as well or better as our karmic benefactors.
P.S.
It's totally okay to desire less trouble and more harmony. In fact that's what Buddhist path is all about. Harmony is not just external comfort, you know, that's the coarse aspect of harmony. The deeper types of harmony are e.g. the social harmony, ecological harmony, and finally the inner harmony.

thankful for exactly the things we have ... shouldn't want more than what has been given to us.

This is not entirely accurate. We should accept what we have rather than wishing it were otherwise. Indeed, things are the way they are for a reason, and wishing they were otherwise is plain stupid not to mention unnerving. We have what we have and that's what we work with. We shouldn't want more shiny objects, power, and fame - because eventually they lead to trouble. Wanting more harmony for ourselves and for others is totally fine.

21821: <p>I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals.</p>
<p>In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong.</p>
<p>Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others.</p>
<p>Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">determinist</a> for a lack of a better word.</p>
<p>I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).</p>
 13709: <p>The Buddha does NOT say &quot;just sit still and accept life for what it is&quot;. The Buddha says we should practice to benefit one and all (e.g., &quot;to be grateful, empathetic, help others&quot;):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.95/en/sujato#an4.95:3.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN4.95:3.3</a>: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Practicing to benefit one and all requires a shared understanding of one and all. Empathy is a start:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn34/en/sujato#dn34:1.7.87" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN34:1.7.87</a>: They understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having comprehended them with their own mind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that shared understanding is a form of acceptance. In that understanding is a simple acknowledgement of present perception. But we have to be very careful here. That shared understanding is perilously close to identification. Buddhist acceptance is NOT identification. So there is a problem with using the term &quot;acceptance&quot;.</p>
<p>There is a problem with using &quot;acceptance&quot; to understand Buddhism. Buddhists will see anger but not accept it. Buddhists will see covetousness but not accept it. Buddhists will see ill will but not accept it. Buddhists will see lying but not accept it. Buddhists will see delusion but not accept it.</p>
<p>There is also a problem with using &quot;not desire more/less&quot; to understand Buddhism. It is a problem because the Buddha decided to teach the lessening and ending of suffering. The Buddha did not accept the apparent inescapable inevitability of suffering. And he shared the escape from suffering with a foundation of more love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.</p>
<p>In brief, teach sympathy/empathy without identification. It feels bad to be lied to, so don't tell lies. It feels bad to have things stolen, so don't steal. It feels bad when others are stingy, so be generous. Those are all examples of a shared understanding without identification.</p>
 43: <p>Speaking as buddhist and a father of four (3 biological kids and 1 step-son).</p>
<p>I don't think we should teach the passive unfolding. Like, we obviously can't say: &quot;if they provoke you and you get angry, you may have an impulse to hit them, just watch it unfold&quot; - absurd.</p>
<p>Instead, we can teach them karma and how we always reap what we (or our previous generations) sow.</p>
<p>I.e. your family is not just lucky. You inherited the results of someone's hard work, good ethics, and kindness. Not necessarily your direct ancestors but in general some people who contributed to good circumstances that shaped your life. That said, we can't just rest on the old laurels, we must make sure in our own life we can preserve the good karma we inherited and pass it on to the future &quot;us&quot;.</p>
<p>Those other kids are not just unlucky. They inherited results of someone in the past being stupid and/or lazy and/or wicked.</p>
<p>So we (the parents and kids) can empathize their condition, <strong>because it's hard to build good life on a bad foundation</strong>. And we (the parents and kids) should pray that they will intuitively discover what kind of behavior leads to a less troubled future, or may they encounter good role models who would show them how to create better future instead of perpetuating old problems.</p>
<p>In short, to me it's not about being greedy for more vs passively watching things unfold. I think it's about creating causes of trouble vs creating causes of harmony - and how this process spans past, present and future generations. Thinking in terms of karma we can be grateful, we can empathize, and we can aspire to do as well or better as our karmic benefactors.</p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>It's totally okay to desire less trouble and more harmony. In fact that's what Buddhist path is all about. Harmony is not just external comfort, you know, that's the coarse aspect of harmony. The deeper types of harmony are e.g. the social harmony, ecological harmony, and finally the inner harmony.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>thankful for exactly the things we have ... shouldn't want more than what has been given to us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not entirely accurate. We should accept what we have <em>rather than wishing it were otherwise</em>. Indeed, things are the way they are for a reason, and wishing they were otherwise is plain stupid not to mention unnerving. We have what we have and that's what we work with. We shouldn't want more shiny objects, power, and fame - because eventually they lead to trouble. Wanting more harmony for ourselves and for others is totally fine.</p>
