Thanks, Mel. I'll spend some time with your comments.. k
--- On Wed, 2/23/11, Mel <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Can A Buddha Harm Others? To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:57 AM 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
