Bill, I envy your intelligent reply. Next time I run into a rapist, killer, looter or swindler, I will recommend that they talk to you. Whether you and the other parties will 'know' or not, it will be fun to get the details of the talk. Anthony
--- On Sun, 18/9/11, Bill! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill! <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 18 September, 2011, 6:27 PM Anthony, There may not be any difference between the zen monk in my story and the pedophilic priest in your story; and then there might be a huge difference. I don't know. The zen monk doesn't know. The priest doesn't know. I can't tell by just hearing the stories. I'd have to talk to the individuals involved, and then I still might not know. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > 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! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
