Would you say that it is appropriate
This book, for example, shows there's a whole bookful of advice in the suttas for laypeople -- and that (whole bookful) is without even trying to customise or select, specify, present, apply, offer that advice to specific laypeople with specific complaints.
I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice?
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but:
- How can a doctor give advice to someone who is sick?
- How can a teacher give advice to someone who is ignorant?
- Even, how could a sports coach give advice to an athlete? Or the conductor in an orchestra, to the musicians who are performing? Or an air traffic controller, to a pilot?
Obviously these people can, and should.
I wouldn't go to the opposite extreme and say that all advice is skilful and appropriate to you, that you'll be willing to hear it and able to use it ...
And maybe everything is "intellectual" in some way -- e.g. someone might tell me how to ride a bicycle; and regardless of whether they do it themselves, I'd still have to learn to actually do it myself.
Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him
Perhaps that depends, on their personal history; I'd guess they've all been children at least, and had families, and been friends, and so on.
Anyone made same experiences?
Not the same but sometimes I have ignored well-meaning advice: and eventually felt good about the outcome, no remorse. Other times, in retrospect I should have given better consideration to advice I was offered, and not have rejected it so quickly. So I'm heir to my own kamma, I guess -- I don't think it's possible to generalise here like this (e.g. to "always" or to "never" offer or accept advice).
Also, beware, rejecting advice because of who the advice comes from is an ad hominem argument. IMO, ad hominem isn't entirely wrong (it's a useful shortcut, like "don't ask for legal advice from strangers on the internet"), but it's not right either.
Also maybe there is some advice, some types of advice, which you'd rather get from friends, family, and/or professionals -- when you're lay, asking for lay advice about the lay life. And I think you can say that without going too far, i.e. so far as to say that a monk shouldn't or cannot give advice.
And the success or otherwise of offering advice (i.e. suggestions about a future which you haven't experienced yet) depends partly on faith -- whether or not that faith is justified isn't easy to generalise about.
I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns.
So ... the whole problem, it starts there, is that so?
Maybe that is a type of conceit: comparing people -- "they are better than me, because they are ordained"?
The converse might sound like a 'conceit' too, though -- "my advice is better, because I'm lay".