dkotschess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:30 am, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>dkotsch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Dave K wrote:
>>
>>>>>Right. There is no "change the world" vs. "change other people."
>>>>>Thich Nhat Hahn said that the enemies are greed, anger, and delusion,
>>>>>not people.
>>
>>>>>Seeing as it's earth day I think I can reveal my greenhouse gas
theory
>>>>>of Buddhism. Greed, anger and delusion are like greenhouse g*****.
>>>>>Our job is to reduce emissions. The less the world has the better.
>>
>>>>>No bothering about who's emissions they are. No bothering about
>>>>>whether it's better to do this in a cave by yourself or to be a
>>>>>"useful member of society" who also writes letters to congress and
>>>>>goes to protests or whatever it is that people do to be useful
members
>>>>>of society.
>>
>>>>>Go plant something. Then sit under it.
>>
>>>>Very noble feeling, and presumably very
>>>>noble action to follow through with it.
>>>>However would you take your feeling
>>>>and action to be universally valid, beyond
>>>>any question, iow would you attempt to
>>>>impose them on everybody else?
>>
>>>>Tang Huyen
>>
>>>I wouldn't even know how to do that.
>>
>>>-DavK
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Hmm, it seems no-one is picking up on my metaphor. Guess it needs
> work.
>
> -DaveK
Why don't you explain it, since we are not of the "superior" type?
Robert
= = = = = =
|
