Anthony, I you run into a rapist, killer, looter or swindler you have already decided what they are. Why do you want me to validate your judgement - or not?
...BIll! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > 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! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > 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, > > à> > That is not the question I asked. > > à> > The key is: what is the difference between the zen monk you described and > > the pedophilic 'priest' in my story? > > à> > If they are the same, that can extend to murderers, rapists etc. > > à> > 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'. > > à> > 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 > > > > > > à> > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > Your question is like asking if the act you've described is illegal.àTo > > 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 specificàact, > > > > 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 ofàmorality (the dualistic pair moral/immoral), > > > > THEN the act was either moral or immoral. > > ELSE the act wasàamoral (niether moral or immoral). > > It is possible that the priest you describe below is acting amorally, not > > morally or immorally.àOnly the priest would know. > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Ah Bill, > > > Ãâà> > > 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? > > > Ãâà> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > Touching stories. > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > Is the monk moral or amoral? > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > What urged him to saveÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàdrowning 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? > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàSiska: 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 fellowsÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàfor > > > > > nothing.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàIt's empathy what leads this minority to > > > > > act in that way.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàThere also culutres > > > > > considerÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàas an undevelop that they also do things > > > > > for the sake of doing it.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàAnd > > > > > there is not a catch whenÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàthey do > > > > > that.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàOn 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 > > > > > andÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàgiving as a resultÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàselfish > > > > > self-centered individuals doesn't mean > > > > > thatÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàeveryone is on that boat.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > > Mayka ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà--- 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 ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàHi Mayka, > A high percentage of English > > people met, > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàtheyÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàtended to be very > > > > friendly only when they're not in their own land or also when they want > > > > something from you.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàDon'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 ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàBilll: 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.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàAmerican people are very > > > > helpful andÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàfriendly, that is a true > > > > statement.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàBut, THE ENGLISH LIVING IN > > > > ENGLAND?.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàI don't think > > > > so!!.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàA high > percentage of English people met, > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàtheyÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâàtended to be very friendly only > when > > they're not in their own land or also when they want > > > something from > > > > you.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà. Mayka ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà> > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâà--- On Fri, 9/9/11, Bill! > > > > <BillSmart@> wrote: From: Bill! <BillSmart@> Subje > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
