[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance,

> I don't think enlightenment is about knowing more.

It is certainly about knowing more about how karma works. Otherwise Buddha
wasted at least two watches of the night during his night of enlightenment.

> The idea that pillars of the community are likely to be spiritually
> advanced seems implausible to me.

This is twisting what I said. A pillar of the community is such by virtue of
knowing what is good and proper for the community. That may or may not
involve a component of spiritual advancement. As such, he should be more
aware of why robbing is wrong and its impact on others as well as himself,
and thus should refrain. Similarly (not because they are the same person)
someone spiritually advanced should understand how karma works, and thus
refrain. For *either of these* to engage in wrongdoing is more grave than
for someone who does not understand what they do.

>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.

That sort of quantitative bookkeeping has no business in karmic accounting.
How many little old ladies do you have to help cross the street in order to
bash your next door neighbor over the head with a cricket bat with impunity?

>An arahat doesn't commit wrongdoing.

That's begging the question. (or the label)

>Advanced people will certainly have diminished the
>influence of the defilement of guilt in themselves.
>Otherwise they are not advanced.

My point exactly!

> 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.

When an action that impacts other (wrong action, wrong speech, stealing,
etc.) is only evaluated in terms of how the doer feels about it, or is
impacted by it, while ignoring the other being so impacted, is pure
narcissism. I didn't say this is the actual Buddhist position (actually
there are many Buddhist positions), but that some seem inclined to
understand that to be the Buddhist position.

> > 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,

Finally, we agree on something.

>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.

Sounds very post-freud. I would say that depends on the severity of the
misdeed. The goal should not simply be to put the matter down, but to
rectify it, especially if it entailed grave injury to others. That is not
guilt tripping oneself, but taking responsibility for one's actions.

> Let's not hold people to standards.

Then let's not call them arhats. Or Buddhas. Or...

Dan