TrimePema wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:37 pm
smcj wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm
I think a distinction should be made between a theoretical, legalistic, technical perspective versus a “for all practical purposes” perspective on this issue.
Do you mean like this or another way?
Theoretically I would say it is possible to have a bodhichitta motivation here.
Legalistically I would say it should generally not be done because of the criminal aspects.
Technically I would say it should only be done by mahasiddhas, if it were to be done at all, which technically it could if and only if there was a great deal of benefit that would result AND the actor had sufficient powers to know that directly, and not theoretically.
I was using "theoretical, legalistic, technical" as synonyms of sorts, like reading scripture as if it were a legal document. But what you wrote wasn't bad.
For all practical purposes, I would say we can either assume that 1) these types of things never happen
The chances are about as great as winning the lottery. It can happen, but don't count on it.
...or 2) they happen all the time and there are a great deal of bodhisattvas and buddhas working for our benefit in ways we cannot perceive all the time.
As an article of faith, yes. But application into a specific situation is highly dubious.
Maybe we could also say this, which I think is the most appropriate outside of speaking within Vajrayana contexts:
Maybe these types of things do happen, but even if they do, we should never acknowledge in public that they happen because we should outwardly keep the Mahayana conduct and condemn these things, even though we may see with pure perception. If this is one of our teachers or vajra siblings, inwardly we can still have pure perception, and outwardly we can condemn the actions, and still be keeping samaya.
Ya know, when push comes to shove, that's probably how it's going to play out. Things would be so much better if every lama were a truly enlightened master where you don't have to play double-think with yourself in order to have pure view. But all we can do is our best.
My point in all this is that if
you actually did have a fully enlightened master as a personal teacher, then it would be entirely appropriate to have pure view of him no matter what. But good luck with that. So until then you take a short cut and try to practice as if you did.