[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> 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. 

Balderdash. It is not a dichotomy; so it can't be a simplistic  and 
false one.

> 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.

That refers precisely to the effect on others.

>  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. 

I don't think enlightenment is about knowing more.

This is about levels. An arahat doesn't commit wrongdoing. A 
stream-enterer doesn't commit serious wrongdoing, but the wrongdoing he 
commits is minor in comparison to the good kamma he has accumulated over 
many lives. So the effect on him is relatively small.

> 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.

It probably would be, but not necessarily. In any case, it is less 
serious because the mental state behind it is normally much weaker.

> And for
> a common thief (whatever his motivations) to steal, is not as serious as for
> a pillar of the community to steal,

Here Buddhism is more democratic, I think. If the motivations of the 
common thief contain more greed, hate and delusion, then to that extent 
it is worse in the sense of leading to worse kammic consequences. If on 
the other hand, the common thief is stealing from good people, then to 
that extent it is again worse in the sense of leading to worse kammic 
consequences. Exactly the same applies to the rich, the famous or the 
powerful.

>  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 idea that pillars of the community are likely to be spiritually 
advanced seems implausible to me. Rather the converse. Unless you are so 
defining the term. But then the true pillar of the community may as well 
be the unknown street cleaner who lives by himself in a rundown trailer 
park.

In any case that is nothing to do with the Buddhist idea here. Advanced 
people will certainly have diminished the influence of the defilement of 
guilt in themselves. Otherwise they are 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"! 

Discussing how something affects the doer is nothing to do with 
narcissism. That is politician's talk: linking something to something 
which superficially resembles it in order to create a smear.

> 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.

I agree that it is not a defining characteristic of spiritual health or 
mental advancement, but it is a necessary one. To be more exact, what 
marks development is the ability to feel regret and recognize error, but 
then to take whatever action is possible and put the matter down. 
Perpetuating guilt is a form of self hating which is harmful both to the 
individual and to all around.

>  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.
>   

Let's not hold people to standards.


Lance