Robert Epstein wrote:
> Good to see you in any case.
>
> If sitting under a tree is the solution,
> and people are not the problem,
> where does that leave sangha?
> where does that leave compassion?
>
> I prefer the razor's edge of the Diamond Sutra
> to an either/or solution:
>
> a. "The bodhisattva saves countless beings."
> b. "The boddhisattva does not allow the thought to arise
> that he is saving countless beings."
> c. "Even though countless beings are saved, in truth there are no
> beings,they are just called such."
>
> In other words, he acts without a sense of separate self, he acts
> without a sense of a separate other, yet he still does act
> compassionately and does not refrain from acting on behalf of others.
The issue to me is not about self and others,
separate or not, real or not, but it is how to
know for sure that what I want to do to
others is good or bad. Marx was
unquestionably motivated by humanitarian
motives, but look at the Communist
movement that took inspiration from him.
Pol Pot and Khien Sampan were sure that
they did good and that they did not do evil.
How can I be sure that I do good and don't
do evil? What guarantees to me that my
motivation is good and not evil and that my
actions that derive from it are good and not
evil? How can I set myself up as the model
for all others to follow, especially if I force
them to follow me? And if my sangha will
correct me if I am wrong, why did the
Japanese sangha not correct the Japanese
Zen masters who trained the Samurai-s at
war skills right in the meditation halls and
who vocally advocated the Japanese side
of WW II without any hesitation? They
also quoted Buddhist scriptures in the
sup****t of their nationatistic ideology. At
least the Communists did not.
Tang Huyen
|
