small tortoiseshell wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:54 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for a clear answer. But still, the concept of law
> as you present it as ' our most cherished and valued principles'
> might not apply
> to someone who justifies his actions from an utterly different
> cultural vantagepoint
> then the one who created the laws that are supposed to apply to him in
> the first place, ( maybe this has to do with international law, if
> there is such a thing) and especially so
> if hes actions are a reflection of his cultural consensus. Like a
> soldier killing on order from his governing body, can he be tried by '
> international law' really?
>
>
>
>> Being without principle, however, I am more than comfortable in saying
I
>> would decline the representation in a heartbeat.
>
>
> I usually dont pay attention to trials like that but i think i will
> with this one. Its messy it seems and the u.s involvement in the whole
> thing might explain why his old buddy is doing the defense as well.
> He probably wants it all on the table.
> well, i dont know really, just spinning on something i usually dont.
> Rant finished :)
>
>
> "The US not only helped to create conditions that brought Cambodia's
> Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively sup****ted the genocidal
> force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was
> secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The
> extent of this sup****t -- $85 million from 1980-86 -- was revealed 6
> years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan
> Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign
> Relations Committee and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation."
>
> "In 1981, Pres. Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew
> Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to sup****t Pol Pot. The
> US", he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer
> Rouge(KR) through Thailand."
>
> "In 1980, under US pressure, the World Food Program handed over food
> worth $12 million to the Thai Army to pass on to the KR. According to
> former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke,'20,000 to
> 40,000 Pol Pot guerrillas benefited. This aid helped restore the KR to
> a fighting force, based in Thailand, from which it destabilized
> Cambodia for more than a decade.'"
>
> "In 1982, the US and China, sup****ted by Singa****e, invented the
> Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was, as Ben
> Kiernan pointed out, neither a coalition, nor democratic, nor a
> government, not in Kampuchea. Rather, it was what the CIA calls a
> 'master illusion.' ... Cambodia's former ruler, Prince Norodom
> Sihanouk, was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The KR
> dominated the two "non-communist" members, the Sihanoukists and the
> Khmer Peoples' National Liberation Front (KPNLF). From his office at
> the UN, Pol Pot's ambassador, the urbane Thereon Parish, continued to
> speak for Cambodia. A close associate of Pol Pot, he had in 1975
> called on Khmer expatriates to return home, whereupon many of them
> disappeared."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080422/tod-uk-congo-democratic-witchcraft-cb1d00a.html
|
