XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.society.liberalism, alt.society.kindness   
   XPost: talk.politics.theory   
   From: jack_foreigner@yahoo.com   
      
   stumper wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > Zen would be compassionate but ruthlessly effective.   
   >   
   > --   
   > ~Stumper   
      
      
      
   Krishnamurti makes an interesting point concerning that sort of idea   
   somewhere in his "Commentary on Living" Series...he asks something   
   along the lines of, why do we consider great sacrifice and effort and   
   hardship as having anything to do with spiritual goodness, when   
   remarking that all ambition is evil, that ambition itself is inherently   
   evil.   
      
   Of course, you really need to refer to his actual words to get a better   
   sense of what "ambition" and "evil" means...but I've always wondered   
   about that: despite the beautiful nobility of Spinoza's stoic "anything   
   worthwhile in life is rare and hard" (paraphrase, that), the Daoist "do   
   nothing, say nothing, just be" (gross paraphrase, that) seems equally   
   valid.   
      
   Sacrifice is deceiving.  Because we are lazy, we feel we need to   
   sacrifice and submit to discipline, values, a code of conduct.  But   
   "laziness" isn't a quality or an actual characteristic; it's simply the   
   lack of interest!  So why the lack of interest?   
      
   When I used to go to church, the justification given as to why an   
   all-powerful all-loving God could allow evil in the world was because   
   He was being "ruthlessly compassionate."  I suppose Kant and Professor   
   Pangloss are right after all: this is indeed the best of all possible   
   worlds!  But Daoism says that, too, doesn't it?   
      
   Seems that Zen is democracy and liberalism...anything which evolves is   
   "good"...evolution can only be good, if you think about it: evolution   
   is about selecting for the best possible fit, after all!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)