Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00445)

Subject: Re: essence of evil.
From: Charlie Mlhallot <mlhallot@cs.uct.ac.za>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:34:01 +0200
X-Message-Number: 3

I too am reading this info...Are you saying that it is best not to speak of 
this
subject? I am interested in the grey areas that lie between Good and Bad. Foe
example a wise Rabbi once told me this story:
Two men were in a desert, they only had enough water for one to make it out 
the
desert? If I was one of them what would I do. If I were to relate this topic 
of
Good and Evil. In light of what has been discussed what would I do? The rabbi 
told
me that the one carrying the water must be the one to walk out the desert. 
However
one is taught to give ones life up for the other person. The rabbi informed 
me that
this was the natural course of life and that one was to follow what was 
ordained.
It was an interesting answer. What do you think? Is the natural course of 
life in
this story evil or good?
Regards
Charlie
======================================
Although this may or may not answer your last question in your post it did 
remind me of something I'd heard.
Evil and good being only stepping stones to true enlightenment is a view that 
has been taught by most all great religions.
Interestingly, Buddhism (in the Dhammapada) tells a story in similar terms 
utilizing the background of two monks wishing to go to see the Buddha.They 
knew they had to cross an uninhabited, inhospitable desert in order to 
accomplish that and so set out to see him.
After long travel they were utterly exhausted and thirsty and found ,at last, 
a pool of water in which to slake their thirst.But...
the water was filled with insects of all types.
One monk could not bring himself to break his vow of harming life and 
therefore did not drink but the other monk said to himself "The end justifies 
the means and , if I don't drink I shall never be able to see the Buddha."
The first monk who would not drink from his desire not to harm life and 
recognizing that the Law of all Buddhas is universal love died and went 
straight to heaven and after considering his former life(review period in 
after death state) he re-descended to the place where the Buddha was and 
saluted him. 
A short time later the other monk who drank the water also arrived at the 
place where the Buddha was.
The Buddha asked him what became of his former companion and the monk 
tearfully related the tale of all that had happened.
The Buddha pointed to a bright Deva (italized) descended from heaven and 
reassured the monk that this was his former traveling companion and informed 
the monk that his fiend that had died had ascended directly to heaven and 
then told the monk that "But you, who say you see me , and yet have 
transgressed the Law , are not seen by me. You are distant as ten thousand Li 
, whereas this man who has kept the Law , ever dwells in my sight."
The World- Honoured One then added:
The obedient disciple who follows the precepts without fail , exalted in 
either world , shall obtain his wish and aim.
But the disciple who is lax in obedience, not observing the precepts in 
their strictness , is grieviously afflicted in either world and mourns for 
his former [unfullfilled vows] vows.
Yet both , if they perservere in their quest , shall be saved from error , 
even if with difficulty.

(And as in most stories of this sort in Buddhism, the monk was overjoyed and 
attained enlightenment.)
What could be the difference in two ordinary men and two monks utilizing the 
same story?