Don't monks struggle?

There seems to be something conflicting.
I think everyone probably has conflicts.
Yes, in my case, at times like that, I think about my original intentions, at other times, I think about what is most important, and after becoming a monk, I think about what Buddhism is like.
You don't have to worry about it.
If you take on your worries alone, you may go in an unexpected direction, so sometimes talk to someone close to you, consult with an expert, or talk to Hasunoha.

I think all the monks here are here because they have something to think about in this real world (society).

This is probably an extension of my previous question, but I don't have confidence in myself. But I have confidence in Buddhism. Because for 2,500 years, it moved from India to the Middle East, then passed through the Silk Road to Japan and Southeast Asia, and today it has been filtered through the filters of so many people that it is impossible to imagine how many digits it would be, and now it has been transmitted to us.

So I think that if you have a heart to learn Buddhism, that means you trust humanity as it is. I believe that “traditional Buddhism is certain.” Any denomination. That's because sects that aren't “sure” have been eliminated in history.

Now, impermanent conduct or lawlessness does not mean “nothing is certain.”
The “self,” which you cherish for future generations, is surprisingly not a source of emotional support; in fact, it means that it is the parent cause of suffering.

People are not taught by anyone, they are born with how to breathe, and they know how to sleep. In the same way, they were actually born with a way to feel happy. That is the “sure thing.”
However, as people grow, they gain wisdom, and push forward to something that seems more convenient, other than the “sure thing” they were born with. That is the wisdom of “what is right.” For example, in the Heart Sutra, they call it “overthrow dream” (Tendomuso), a delusion that has been turned upside down 180°. There are many ways to call it ignorance, or annoyance, or filth.

Instead, let's go back to where wisdom, which causes all kinds of suffering, to the place where it should be, “something certain,” is impermanent and lawless.

If that is conveyed to one person, one person will be freed from the common understanding that they are deceiving each other.

appending
It's written by skipping out the background ideas and line spacing, so I don't think it's something you can understand if you read it over and over again. If you follow the path of Buddhism without throwing it out halfway, I think one day you'll understand it. To that end, the answer is that it would be nice if adjustments were made to the direction.

　that's because there are all kinds of people.
There's no end to looking at others, that's different, this is different, and saying “this is a conflict.”
For example, in your question, it says “reluctantly,” but the correct answer is “notice.” The monks who answered the question went through that and answered it. You wouldn't feel comfortable being pointed out like this either.
Even if you notice some differences, I think those who have the tolerance to acknowledge them will be able to live without stress.

Buddhists receive commandments such as the Five Commandments.
However, with the exception of some saints, most people are unable to keep the commandments.
Monks are like that too.
Therefore, receiving the commandment is the beginning of conflict. Rather, they are given commandments in order to struggle.
In the Jodo sect, there is a term called “gengu (fight).”
I go back to my foolish self. It refers to being aware of one's own foolishness and realizing that he is an ordinary person who is worried. It's like saying, “Have a fight.”
However, conflict alone is just painful.
Even in the midst of conflict, salvation is probably necessary there.
That salvation is the Buddhist spirit of equality and mercy.
The Buddha won't abandon me for being so foolish and full of mistakes.
There is a sense of security and salvation there.
May everyone be saved without omission, and may all living beings be happy.
Buddhism may also be a doctrine created by man after all. There are probably people who think it's a huge picture.
However, if it is mercy created by man,
Isn't that a declaration that people forgive and love others?

I am the Jodo Shinshu sect,
Even if you're in conflict,
even if it's stupid
You can attain Buddhism by being saved by Amida,
It's a teaching called,
I'm struggling with peace of mind.

Manju-sama

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is my humble answer to the question.

In Buddhism, it is called “two words,” and it is necessary to proceed with understanding and practice with two things: “secular truth” at the secular level and the truth “Katsuyoshi” at the level of enlightenment (enlightenment).

This means that even in the Buddhist scriptures that are the foundation of Buddhism, it is necessary to understand whether Shakyamuni matches the secular level, that is, whether it is a teaching preached as “convenient,” or whether it is preached from the level of enlightenment, which is the highest sense of truth.

After all, it's not easy to get out of conflict if you stay with the truth and convenient teachings on a secular level.

It's a place where I want to work even harder towards the level of victory (enlightenment).

Nagarjuna Daishi “Nemoto Chūron” Kanshitsuten (24, 8) to 10

“Based on two truths (two truths), all the Buddha's laws (teachings) have been explained []. [Namely], the truth (secular) as the understanding of the world, and the truth (Katsu Yoshitaka) as supreme significance.”

“Roughly, those who don't know the distinction between these two truths (two truths) never know the profound truthfulness of Buddha's teachings.”

“Without relying on [the world's] language conventions, the supreme meaning cannot be explained. Nirvana (nirvana) cannot be proven without reaching the highest meaning.”

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho