[Buddha-l] Wealth and excess

[jkirk]

"These episodes shows how compassion can surpass the final
knowledge of Reality, except in the case of a Buddha."

Well, but there is also the case of the Buddha himself (not a
bodhisattva or a mere arhant) taming the enraged elephant that
Devadatta sent to kill him...to me this signifies that the Buddha
can do anything, contrary to the rest of us, who would either run
for our lives or pull out a death ray and shoot the monster.  
Maybe the stories you remind us of were invented to make us think
more deeply about life, death, compassion, etc., or even to
remind us of absurdity --that is, if there is room for absurdity
in Buddhism (?).

Joanna
===================================
 


Sorry maybe my message was not enough clear with the use of the
word "genocides" for both the authors and the events (I hope my
practice in this list will improve my English).

The question was knowing if you (or anyone) will kill only one
individual to save  billion of lifes. Or in the contrary, you
don't kill one individual then allowing the death of billion
people.

There are many famous examples to illustrate this problem.
One is the famous episode of a Boddhisatva travelling in a boat,
who killed one man in order to save 500 Bodhisattvas. It is
frequently used today:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/ctbw.htm

Another one is with Mahakasyapa, who wanted to save a whole
village from attackers by rescuing magically all the people
inside his bowl.
But when he looked inside the bowl it was plenty of blood.

The two are interesting because both men were arhants, therefore
they known about delusion, live and death. However, they cannot
resist the impulse to help others, despite they known it was not
accordance with the final truth but a deluded action.

In these episodes, an interesting thing is the power of
compassion but also to affirm the self and the attachment to a
deluded Reality, even they can drive to defend killing with heavy
arguments.
These episodes shows how compassion can surpass the final
knowledge of Reality, except in the case of a Buddha. And from
another side, it forces to ask if enlightened activity also can
be empty of compassion, and therefore where is the difference
regarding living in a empty dwelling. 


j> I don't see that the Chan story helps in this
instance--Jingshan 
j> probably felt it was better to eat than to go hungry?

I think Jingshan said that one was compassionate because he saved
the sheep before any other consideration. The other one was
emancipated because he show awareness of the delusion of life and
death.

Both are the main attitudes in Buddhist Ethics in front these
problems; knowing if they must be looked from compassion or from
emancipation arguments.

The dialogue is to solve that, I think


best regards,


_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l