[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance, Richard, et al.,

>>in the Buddhist view of moral responsibility,  [...]
> Does not this refer to the effect on the person himself ?

[...]

> >  in Jewish thought, [...]
> And this to the effect on others ?

A simplistic and false dichotomy. As the example I gave of Moses' sin (one
of the prototypes for the Jewish axiom), the consequences fell primarily to
himself.

In case the story is not familiar (Numbers 20, esp. 20:11), while wandering
in the wilderness, the people had become thirsty due to lack of water. God
instructs Moses to ask a certain rock for water. Moses not only asks the
rock, but strikes the rock twice with his staff. Striking the rock was
considered by God overkill and unnecessary, even arrogant (and disrespectful
to the rock -- a subtheme in numerous Torah stories). As a result, Moses
could only lead the people to the Promised Land, but not enter it himself.
He dies east of the Jordan River, having only glimpsed the land. His effect
on others? They got to drink water, and they got into the promised land. It
is Moses himself who dies without ultimate fulfilment for himself. No one
else struck the rock, no one else told him to do it; so why should someone
else be punished for his indiscretion?

In broader terms, as I also indicated, the principle is not just that
prominent people doing bad things set a bad example -- that's entailed, but
not the rationale. Rather, the more one knows, or to put it in more
Buddhistic terms, the more enlightened one is, the less likely it should be
that one would commit wrongdoing. As a corollary, the greater the
consequence. For example, if a couple of two year olds are playing, and one
hits the other and takes his ball, since they are only two, this is not as
serious a transgression as an adult committing robbery and assault. And for
a common thief (whatever his motivations) to steal, is not as serious as for
a pillar of the community to steal, not because the latter would set a bad
example (though that too), but precisely because he does know better, i.e.,
he is more aware of the guilt involved, and thus is more guilty (stated in
simple terms). The more advanced one is, the greater the responsibility to
do the right thing. Otherwise, one is not advanced.

The Buddhist should also be aware of the karmic consequences of an action,
and thus willfully violating right action puts a greater burden on him not
to have committed it in the first place, moreso than someone less clear
about what constitutes a right action and its karmic entailments. Thus the
negative consequences should be greater, not less.

Oddly, some seem to view the Buddhist approach as largely narcissistic -- 
how it affects "me"! How non-self-ish is that? I agree with Richard that
being able to perform unseemly actions without qualms is not necessarily a
sign of mental health or spiritual advancement, since it is also
characteristic (in fact, defining) for sociopaths and psychopaths. If
someone is deemed "higher" then we should hold them to higher standard, not
a lower one. And if they are really higher, they would be holding themselves
to a higher standard -- otherwise their "higher-ness" would be an illusion.

Dan