[grizolsemn]

When it's read and considered carefully, does the article in the previous post make sense to anyone ? If so, please explain.

I didn't like the aproach of the article... it has a very bad taste like the one told by stuka:

"Saving all 'setient beings'" is pie-in-the-sky evangelistic idealism.

Quoted from the article:

The Hinayana practitioner feels the pain of samsara and says, "I can't take it anymore. What can I do about it?" And having understood what samsara is, we can all sympathize with the Hinayana practitioner. It is a worthy approach. We are not belittling it.

But the Mahayana practitioner takes a much more radical approach. The Mahayana practitioner wakes up one morning and realizes, "Sentient beings from endless time have been roaming in samsara."

And the Zen practitoner, as ilustrated in the Ten Bulls, and very much like the Arhat ideal, when the tenth bull is reached, she/he "must return to the World":

"Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the pople of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now before me, the dead trees become alive".

Here, the idea depicted is about the development of Right View about life facts and not the development of a deluded mind that see evilness all arround so the need to become the savior of the world, what is nonsense at the spirit of Zen practice.

This idea comes from the devotion about the Lotto Sutta which is not important in our practice and is against the aim of zazen and shikantaza.

The idea of the Boddhisatva or the intention of becomeing a saviour of the world, from the Zen perspective, is against our core practice of Dana Paramita when this has to be done "just because" so the practice itself is done also, "just because too..." once this is mastered the rest will happen by it self. Behind the idea of a "Boddhisatva" there is some sort of a solid self, a huge one, that experience separation.