Hello Steve and everyone
Just my thoughts....
--- On Wed, 23/2/11, eugnostos2000 <[email protected]> wrote:
STEVE: ------snip------the recent discussions concerning zen, Zen and ethics
with interest. IMO, it is a bit of a Red Herring to stay fixated on sexual
ethics which even non-Zennists will often regard as a subjective muddle.
MEL: I am wondering myself how the above topics came into the forum. If one has
problems with his/her Zen gathering or group which cannot be resolved, the
he/she should leave. Better to be alone than suffer in undesirable company to
no end
STEVE: Can a Buddha deliberately harm others?
MEL: Yes, but the words DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL are open to interpretation
(..ED, no need to post quotes from the dictionary or Wikipedia. I am interested
only in experiences, not academic discussions..)
STEVE: Now doubtless there are some here that will say that zen
has nothing to do with Buddha, etc. etc.,
MEL: I have heard that, but it's hardly important in this day and age whether
such is true, or false. This may be regarded by some conservative Buddhists as
heresy, but I openly admit that the Zen beliefs I follow are basically modern
interpretations from what must have been its ancient origins. By the end of the
day, it's not going to matter at all. The only thing that counts is making
choices and living by them..and with them
My thoughts for all: I don't know what the old prince said. I wasn't there when
he uttered all sorts of things. For all I know, Zen was(or is) probably one big
lie...in relation to the old man himself. Who knows? On top of that, maybe the
man wasn't as virtuous as many Asians had been saying for so many centuries. Is
there anyone alive today who knew him personally and had spent much quality
time with him?
A so-called Buddhist would point out all sorts of holy writings or historical
data to me to prove or disprove many a Buddhist concept, or idea. Again, what
counts by the end of the day is personal choice, and living with that choice.
Academic is good, but with limitations just as all else. It is up to the
individual whether to accept any interpretation, or not
STEVE: but it is a fact that Zen arose within Buddhism as a way to become aware
of our own Buddha-Dhatu in a direct way, unencumbered by intellectualism. And
of course Zennists will assert that this "direct pointing to the heart of
humanity" goes directly back to Gotama himself.
MEL: I can relate to that, and this sounds like something I had been discussing
with a co-worker lately. However, and especially when face-to-face with
non-Buddhists(especially those holding Semitic beliefs), I often cut the
conversation by repeating the above...telling them that my beliefs are modern
interpretations of possible but unproven ancient origins...and then I walk
away. Experience had taught me that this tactic saves me a lot of time from
useless arguments and personal attacks. I am currently trying hard to learn and
be accustomed to avoiding religious and spiritual discussions or issues in
everyday life. It is however, a different story when in the company of others
of similar beliefs
STEVE: So the question remains. Can a fully realized Buddha deliberately choose
to cause harm?
MEL: I thought about this and I asked myself.....did Imperial Japanese troops
deliberately went on a genocidal rampage.....or...did the Buddha within led the
way, all the way? Was it the Buddha(or Tao?) within that delivered multiple and
bloody 'gyaku tsuki' hits to a drunk's cranial area as I was on top of him with
one of my arms and both legs pinned? Or, was it my 'deliberateness'? I remember
from my youth when my mind/thoughts were absolutely clear as I chased after
someone with a harmful piece of wood.
Who's responsible for such things? The Buddha? Tao? Hard to say, I say. It
obviously didn't save the military survivors from the aftermath(Tokyo trials,
etc), but the said Imperial troops above probably thought they were just going
with the flow. Is this flow...the Buddha? Buddha in action? Who knows? There
certainly would have been dualistic thoughts on these we recognize today as war
criminals as they raped and regarded certain nations such as the Chinese and
Filipinos as beneath the level of dogs...but does that dualism exist
whenever any of them raises the katana with a clear head to decapitate one
prisoner's head after another? These criminals were lead to believe that they
descended from the old samurai and that their lord is the Emperor himself. A
clear head(BigMind?) to kill...I can relate to that. How about rape? That
involves sexual desire. Is that dualistic? Does that mean that Zen had flown
out the window, only to come through the front or
back door once more later?
STEVE: The BuddhaDharma has always been concerned, not just with Great Wisdom,
but also with Great Compassion.
MEL: I have heard much in the past that...to kill is compassion. Let's look
at it this way. When the waves at sea crashes against each other, they crash,
brush up against the 'other side', and then end up at the other end. In Karate,
one learns to avoid the attack whilst moving forward before the kill. It's a
movement in circle, where one moves with the opponent, and that circle could
change into any direction
Moving with the opponent is compassionate. It can be 'peaceful', in a manner of
speaking. The initial crash in a Sumo bout is NOT compassionate or harmonious.
I have heard a sumotori say that to do otherwise is beneath the dignity of Sumo
itself...crash, do NOT use your opponent's weight or momentum against him! Or,
at least that's how I understood it from a sumotori in a documentary. The drunk
above attacked me and we both ended up on the ground with me on top of him, and
he was bloodied(and I thought my jaw was broken) before he managed to get up
So, is this Great Compassion limited to acts of peace? It all depends on one's
personal grip on reality I suppose. We all have our own individual
interpretations of reality
STEVE: Is this Great Compassion merely another conceptual delusion or is it a
fundamental feature of Enlightenment itself?
MEL: I'm not sure how to answer that. My interpretation of things is that we
do...just do. There are no descriptions or academic analysis involved
