No subject

"In the Lonaphala Sutta (AN 3.99) the Buddha says that the same trifling misdemeanour can send one person to hell for lifetimes, whereas another may feel only minor pain and that in the here and now. Why the difference? It is because the effect is diminished by spiritual practice. When someone practices awareness, ethics, and dwells in the immeasurable (surely a reference to the Brahmavihāra’s although this is missed by others) then they are less bothered by the consequences of small evils... Dropped into a small cup of water a single grain of salt can render it unfit to drink; dropped into the Ganges it makes no difference. Clearly this was written a long time before the Ganges reached it’s present state of pollution, but the image is still comprehensible. "

So there is a possibility of mitigating the impact of kamma-vipaka that doesn't involve capitulation to worldly concerns. I think what happens is that we become more and more able to withstand the painful vedanas that we produce - they are less able to deflect us from the visuddhimagga. But only if we are actively and effectively pursuing the visuddhimagga.

AN3.85 also allows for a bhikkhu to rehabilitate himself after a minor transgression - and although the text does not say so I think it is through a *sincere* practice of confession that he does so. Of course there is no faking it as far as kamma is concerned - it will ripen no matter what powerful rationalisations are bought to bear on it.

So Kalupahana has misinterpreted this text I think. It doesn't suggest to me that a great or powerful person may act badly with relative impunity. Although that said it does appear that powerful people do tend to be quite thick skinned and seem to suffer less from, say, sending young men to their deaths in a war, than the hoi polloi might. 

I think it goes to show that Buddhist ethics work best when applied to one's own actual actions, rather than the hypothetical actions of hypothetical others. Trying to solve generalised hypothetical moral problems almost always results in confusion and argument in my experience of teaching Buddhist ethics; whereas a discussion of things I've actually done, or am doing, generally makes things more clear. There may still be ambiguity but the options and possibilities are more meaningful. 

Best wishes
Jayarava