Thread
:
Neutrality and moral crisis
View Single Post
09-20-2011, 10:41 AM
#
8
TerriLS
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
657
Senior Member
Hi Lazy Eye
I really don’t know the answer for that. But maybe you ever heard about growing a tree, not a forest, because we cannot (if not impossible for us to) do the latter. Great suffering is always out there, in every ages. What can we do to lessen it? Sure, we have to try our best. But we have our own limitations. This is also the conflict point of Theravada (Hinayana) and Mahayana. Mahayanist’s blamed that Hinayanist (literally means cramped/narrow vehicle) save only himself/herself before the others (in the sense that you have to deny even you enlightenment for the sake of the others.) But Hinayanist focuses on only his/her urgent duty: get rid of his/her suffering. How could one helps the other if he still couldn’t help himself?
But the truth is, both Mahayanist and Hinayanist are still Neutrality in one way or another when it has something to do with worldly stuffs. They have their compassions but also their limitations.
Below is some poem I like.
People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives.
Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.
Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable.
Be honest and transparent anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.
People who really want help may attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt.
Give the world your best anyway."
-Mother Teresa
I don’t know why I think she was a very Buddhist. ;-)
Quote
TerriLS
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TerriLS
All times are GMT +1. The time now is
03:57 AM
.