small tortoiseshell wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:00 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> I never know with absolute certainty whether my actions or inactions
>> with respect to others are helpful or harmful. And yet, it is an
>> empirical fact that I both act and don't act in each moment. Further,
I
>> appear to be able to use my own sense and reflection to make tentative
>> judgments about the skillfulness or unskillfulness or my actions and
>> intentions. And so, I move forward, making choices that sometimes
help,
>> sometimes not, but generally looking for the small ways I can help.
>>
>> So far, the balance seems to favor the help column.
>
>
> sorry for slight digression, but since i know you have law as a
> profession i grab a chance and hope to hear what you think about this:
>
> "
> Mr Verges, 83, has known Khieu Samphan, 76, since they were both
> involved in left-wing student activities in France in the 1950s."
> "
> Khieu Samphan has never denied these deaths, but both he and his
> lawyers insist that, as head of state, he was never directly
> responsible. "
>
> I dont know law at all but to me it
> seems that the lawyer has decided to trial himself as well
> using his old buddy as a strawman. or rather, the french left is
> perhaps, I dont cow, politics is not my table... but my question to
> you: what would you do if somebody asked you to defend at a trial like
> that?
> would you do it even if
> you personally were convinced the charges were legitimate
> and thereby running the risk of 'helping' him to avoid being found
> guilty in legal terms? or would you separate lawyer from person? is
> Mr. Verges really ' helping'
> anybody in pleading his innocence based "as head of state, he was
> never directly
> responsible. "? must be more to if of course, i dont know how far '
> indirectly' responsible can be taken in legal terms of course but
> still, Im scratching my head over this one. ..
The answer is traditionally given that, while the person may or may not
be guilty of horrific crimes, they deserve a vigorous and learned
defense. The justification is that the rule of law and the concept of
justice are some of our most cherished and valued principles, and they
would be undermined if not available even to the lowest of the low.
Being without principle, however, I am more than comfortable in saying I
would decline the representation in a heartbeat.
|
