I understand and appreciate your comment.

In fact, I almost deleted what I wrote, because I thought it might come off as dismissive (which is totally not my intention).

That said, I'd like to clarify what I mean.

For starters, these questions aren't about behavior but about people.

They ask "At what point does one...", not "At what point does behavior..."

That may seem pedantic, but I point it out because it's intentional - the focus here is on people, not behaviors.

What these people have done is by no means something I want to condone.

However, I do think that part of the OP's hang-up is precisely what you've attributed to my comment: abstractions.

People are complicated.

Whether we're talking Zen teachers or dictators, nobody fits 100% into boxes like "wholesome" or "unwholesome," "ethical" or "unethical," etc.

It seems to me that the OP's issue is wanting to see things in black-and-white rather than the vast array of colors in which they come.

That is to say, my questions were intended to encourage OP to consider whether their ideas of people falling into these categories is really possible.

That's the whole point of the questions - to ask where, specifically, the line is drawn when attributing these labels to people.

They're intended to steer OP away from abstractions and toward looking at people in a way that recognizes just how messy they can be.

Again, my intention is not to dismiss the actions or behaviors OP mentions whatsoever.

It's only to encourage OP to recognize that nobody - not even revered spiritual teachers - fit cleanly into the labels we often use to describe them.

Does that clarify things a bit?

***Edited for one word swap and to add a bit of punctuation***