Sexual harassment and other misuse of sexuality is unacceptable.
Speaking ill of whole classes of people is unacceptable.
In fact wrongful speech is unacceptable.
Not endeavoring to understand is unacceptable.
Misusing intoxicants is unacceptable.
Taking what's not given is unacceptable.
Mindlessly killing is unacceptable.
I haven't gotten into the good stuff...like having compassion for all beings, cultivating wisdom and generosity, etc.
There's a lot more to Buddhism, and hence Zen Buddhism, than a) sitting on cushions, and b) going into internet outrages over some "reporting."
Speaking ill of whole classes of people is unacceptable.
In fact wrongful speech is unacceptable.
Not endeavoring to understand is unacceptable.
Misusing intoxicants is unacceptable.
Taking what's not given is unacceptable.
Mindlessly killing is unacceptable.
I haven't gotten into the good stuff...like having compassion for all beings, cultivating wisdom and generosity, etc.
There's a lot more to Buddhism, and hence Zen Buddhism, than a) sitting on cushions, and b) going into internet outrages over some "reporting."
19 comments:
It is so good to see you back in full swing once again. Your piquant commentaries ease the dull ache of samsara, and are like the sting of eye-salve which corrects the vision.
How will my site get traffic if I don't beat the sex drum (ok, that metaphor may be bad...)?
Al-
Lol! Well, there's always good ol' violence... :-)
You forgot one John.
Treating every precept as equally important in the cases of Eido and Sazaki is unacceptable.
Your just like the supporters of these men, Someone sticks their necks out and says:
"Hey, these Zen monks are abusing the women of their sanghas!"
And your response is:
"Tisk tisk... Thou shalt not speak of others errors and faults."
Shodo -
You may not accept that practicing all the precepts is what practicing the precepts is all about, but when you're ready to truly help others go past their suffering please re-consider what I'm actually saying here.
You can offer nothing but a plea to do something that only works in your imagination.
"You may not accept that practicing all the precepts is what practicing the precepts is all about..."
LoL, you are terrible at reading comprehension.
I'll say it again for you:
Treating every precept as equally important in the cases of Eido and Sazaki is unacceptable.
If you think that calling a serial abuser of women over half a century (speaking of others errors and faults) is on par with the half century of abuse itself, then you need to stop sitting zazen and take a course in ethics at your nearest community college.
Shodo -
You may not accept treating every precept as equally important, just as you may not accept that you are not separate from Eido Shimano or Joshu Sasaki, or that you may not accept that there are such things as interdependency, karma, and dependent origination.
But reality tends to be that way, at least from this Buddhist's perspective.
Mumon says:
"You may not accept treating every precept as equally important, just as you may not accept that you are not separate from Eido Shimano or Joshu Sasaki, or that you may not accept that there are such things as interdependency, karma, and dependent origination."
LoL... It's funny how you assume thigs Mumon.
I know I'm not separate from Eido & Sazaki.
I also accept karma, interdependency AND Pratītyasamutpāda as well.
Personally, I find it funny that you seem to think one cannot accept those things AND make a clear moral stand.
But it's the first thing you said that I find interesting:
"You may not accept treating every precept as equally important."
Ever heard of something called the "Kobayashi Maru...?
Let's put your wisdom to the test, shall we?
Let's say you are living in the deep south... when late at night you hear a banging at the door.
It's a young gay man. Beat up and obviously scared. He begs you to let him in... you do. You've recently gone off the grid and your phone is down for a few days, you also live in the backwoods alone, a good hour from town.
After letting him inside, a truckfull of drunk rednecks drives recklessly up to your house - the young gay man runs and hides in your bedroom, in obvious terror for his life.
These med have ropes, knives and bats. You are certain that this young man is in mortal danger. They ask you, with alcohol on their breath:
"You see a faggot running around these parts? We are looking for him."
Do you mean to tell me Mumon, that your position in this situation here is that the precept for not killing is EQUAL TO the precept for not lying?
What do you do here?
Shodo-
1. Go back & read the verb tenses of what I wrote, esp. w.r.t. use of the word "may."
2. In your precept use-case why do you think you have to violate the precept regarding right speech? I don't see that you need to, and still not tell them the whereabouts of said man.
I'm lousy at keeping the precepts, and in fact there are more skillful ways no doubt to deal with the situation without breaking any precepts, but I don't think the real problem is with hypothetical situations or with precepts...
Your unwillingness to engage the issue I presented is interesting to say the least.
I think it is because you now recognize that life will provide you situations where you will have to break a precept, because not all precepts are equal in specific circumstances.
Shodo:
Are you saying I'm "not engaging" the issue because you don't like my response that there need be no violation of precepts here?
Or is it because I don't think the real problem is with hypothetical situations or with precepts...
Neither...
you don't want to admit that there are some times where in order to do the right thing, a precept MUST be broken.
Shodo-
Inter-dependency and dependent origination -> any one action or event, no matter how characterized is associated with other actions and events, no matter how characterized.
And that ain't just theory...
But it's also clearly not as important to some folks as the fun of saying X is evil...
Shodo -
All of that said, there are times when one is given a Hobson's choice where it appears a precept must be broken.
But such times are not often, and such choices should not be made because one's inflamed by anger, to say the least, or because one is attached to their view.
Some Zen osho's failures, and perceived failures on the part of others do not give anyone free reign to engage in wrongful speech, including coercive speech which is not truthful, kind, etc.
Actions, including speech, have consequence
Mumon said:
"
Inter-dependency and dependent origination -> any one action or event, no matter how characterized is associated with other actions and events, no matter how characterized.
And that ain't just theory...
But it's also clearly not as important to some folks as the fun of saying X is evil..."
Again, instead of addressing my point, you spin off and talk about something else.
Do you accept there are times where in order to do the right thing, you may need to break a precept?
Yes or No?
Shodo-
Yes or no would not be right speech.
No Mumon, a Yes or No would pin you down... and until you choose one or the other you are refusing to make any sense.
Shodo-
Nothing or no one needs to be pinned down. There are good reasons that "yes or no only" is wrong speech, and I encourage you to think about that. There's no need for me to explain further than what I've written, and I don't think there's any benefit to explain further.
Besides, why do you care what I might be saying about this topic?
It's not like you need my permission or approval to break or keep the precepts.
Post a Comment