--- In [email protected], "eugnostos2000" <eugnostos2000@...> wrote: > > Hello. I have been following 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.
I am not certain whether Zenist leaders in the US are clear as to whether the principles that guide their decisions on these matters are ad hoc, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Zenist, human potential movement, Osho's or something else's. > So let me ask this. Can a Buddha deliberately harm others? Whom do we label as 'a buddha'? > Now doubtless there are some here that will say that zen has nothing to do with Buddha, etc. etc., 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, what are the postulated characteristics of this assumed Buddha-Dhatu? > And of course Zennists will assert that this "direct pointing to the heart of humanity" goes directly back to Gotama himself. And, what is postulated to exist at the heart of humanity? > So the question remains. Can a fully realized Buddha deliberately choose to cause harm? The answer to this question is: That depends on one's premises concerning the characteristics of a 'fully-realized Buddha.' > The BuddhaDharma has always been concerned, not just with Great Wisdom, but also with Great Compassion. Is this Great Compassion merely another conceptual delusion or is it a fundamental feature of Enlightenment itself? > Steve I might be able to make a comment (to you) if you tell us what 'Compassion' and 'Great Compassion' mean (to you.) (See, Mel, I didn't consult the Internet to decipher the meaning of 'Compassion', but am offering to furnish my opinion on the topic for a multitudinous and Babel-like collection of personal definitions of 'Compassion'.) ;-) --ED
