Bill, That is not the question I asked. The key is: what is the difference between the zen monk you described and the pedophilic 'priest' in my story? If they are the same, that can extend to murderers, rapists etc. If they are different, whether you classify the 'priest' as moral or amoral, where the distinction comes from? That assumes the so-called priet (I don't want to imply the all priests are the same type) acts from his 'nature'. Anthony
--- On Fri, 16/9/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 16 September, 2011, 10:51 AM Anthony, Your question is like asking if the act you've described is illegal. To answer that my reasoning would go like this: IF the act took place in a jurisdiction that had laws, AND there was a law against that specific act, THEN the act was illegal. ELSE the act was not illegal. Applying that logic to your question: IF the act took place in a dualistic state-of-mind, AND there was an illusion of morality (the dualistic pair moral/immoral), THEN the act was either moral or immoral. ELSE the act was amoral (niether moral or immoral). It is possible that the priest you describe below is acting amorally, not morally or immorally. Only the priest would know. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Ah Bill, >  > You always miss the more important part of my question: Regarding the > pedophilic priests taking sexual acts with minors, are these actions also > their nature? Does that make it the same as the monk's acts, whether you > classify it as moral or amoral? >  > Anthony > --- On Thu, 15/9/11, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: > > > From: Bill! BillSmart@... > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 15 September, 2011, 10:56 AM > > >  > > > > Ah, Anthony my little foxlet...your questions are always the same and ask > about motive. What is the motive? > > The monk in the story does not judge his actions as moral or immoral or > supermoral or submoral, he just acts. I would classify him (if forced to > classify) as amoral. > > And why is he amoral? He is amoral because he has no motives. Nothing 'urged' > him to act. His actions were for the same reason birds sing in the trees and > polar bears kill and eat seals. > > These actions are their nature. These actions are fundamental and what > defines them as monks, birds and polar bears. > > ...Bill! > > ...Bill! > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu wuasg@ wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > Touching stories. > >  > > Is the monk moral or amoral? > >  > > What urged him to save drowning and choking kids, and a hunted rabbit? > > Or was that a 'natural act' from Buddha nature? > > > > What do you think of pedophilic priests in Ireland, who had 'sexual > > indiscretion' with minors? Is that amoral? > >  > > Anthony > > > > --- On Wed, 14/9/11, Bill! BillSmart@ wrote: > > > > > > From: Bill! BillSmart@ > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Wednesday, 14 September, 2011, 10:47 AM > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Siska, > > > > Your point belows mirrors a zen story. I searched for it on the internet > > but couldn't find a version there. I'll give you a very condensed version > > of it: > > > > A zen monk was on a journey between two monestaries. He was travelling > > alone. > > > > About an hour into his journey while walking past a lake he heard a women > > screaming for help. He ran to her where she pointed out her young son > > thrashing about in the water about 20 yards from shore. "He can't swim! > > Please help him!", she pleaded. The monk shed his robes, jumped in the > > water, swam out to the boy and brought him safely back to shore. > > > > After his robes had dried he continued on his journey. About an hour later > > he was walking through a small village and smelled smoke. He found the > > source of the smoke to be coming from the second floor of a storefront. He > > heard crying coming from the room. He burst into the store, ran up the > > stairs and found the front room on fire. In the room was a baby crib with a > > small infant choking on the smoke. He scooped up the infant, carried her > > back down to the street and returned her safely to her family. > > > > He had not gone but about an hour more until he came across a frightened > > rabbit hiding under some bushes. The rabbit was completely exhausted and > > couldn't even move away when the monk uncovered him. Just then he heard the > > baying of dogs and saw a group of hunters hurring towards him brandishing > > their bows and arrows. "We've been chasing a rabbit. Have you seen him?" > > they inquired. "Yes I have, just a moment ago" answered the monk. "You > > should continue on down the road as quickly as you can!" After they left > > the monk picked up the rabbit, tucked it under his robes and continued the > > opposite way down the road. After some time when the rabbit seemed revived > > he released it. > > > > When he finally arrived at the other monestary well after dark he was > > summoned to the zen master's room. "We were worried about you! Why are you > > so late? What happened on your journey?" asked the zen master. "Oh, nothing > > special" replied the monk. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mayka, > > > > > > I agree there are people who serve 'selflessly' for the benefit of > > > people. 'Selfless' here is in the sense where the actions are not > > > performed for the benefit of oneself but others, and nothing is expected > > > in return from people who receive the kindness. I believe this is what > > > you are saying. And again, I agree. > > > > > > On the other hand, unless it is an action of an enlightened person (or in > > > Zen's words perhaps of Buddha Mind), then there is still 'self' or 'ego' > > > behind these 'selfless' acts. Most people still do an act of kindness > > > with a purpose, for example, to see others happy. What happen if others > > > are not happy? What happen if the conditions of people being helped is > > > not improved? > > > > > > This is not to say that there is absolutely no one, on this earth, who do > > > kindness just for the sake of doing it, just like eating when hungry and > > > sleeping when sleepy, without identifying the kindness as something more > > > special than the act of eating and sleeping. There may be. I just have > > > not met any. > > > > > > Siska > > > ------Original Message------ > > > From: Maria Lopez > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > Sent: Sep 11, 2011 15:53 > > > > > >  Siska: They may be a tiny minority left in the world but still there > > > are people who do things for the wellbeing of life and other human > > > fellows for nothing. It's empathy what leads this minority to act > > > in that way. There also culutres consider as an undevelop that > > > they also do things for the sake of doing it.  And there is not a > > > catch when they do that. On the other side of the spectrum and > > > Living in that "develop" societies that seem to go crazy in the worst way > > > of destructive madness for all what is simple and beautiful and giving > > > as a result selfish self-centered individuals doesn't mean > > > that everyone is on that boat. Mayka   --- On Sun, 11/9/11, > > > siska_cen@ <siska_cen@> wrote: From: siska_cen@ <siska_cen@> Subject: Re: > > > [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle To: [email protected] > > > Date: Sunday, 11 September, 2011, 4:27  Hi Mayka, > A high percentage of English people met, >  they tended to be very > > friendly only when they're not in their own land or also when they want > > something from you. Don't we all? Each of us is selfish being. It's > > only the extend we apply it in our actions that is a little different. > > Unless we're enlightened. Siska From: Maria Lopez <flordeloto@> Sender: > > [email protected] Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:04 +0100 (BST) To: > > [email protected] ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: > > [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle  Billl: If someone from the > > all over the world students studying in England hear you about this > > "friendly people" may give you a good slap in the face to help see reality > > in England. American people are very helpful and friendly, that is a > > true statement. But, THE ENGLISH LIVING IN ENGLAND?.  I don't > > think so!!. A high percentage of English people met,  they tended > > to be very friendly only when they're not in their own land or also when they want > something from > > you. . Mayka    --- On Fri, 9/9/11, Bill! <BillSmart@> > > wrote: From: Bill! <BillSmart@> Subje > > > > > >
