[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> 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.
>   

Part of the problem here is that your use of the term 'pillar of the 
community' is a very Jewish one with lots of resonances in Jewish thought.

Again it depends upon what you mean by 'more grave'. I think there is an 
underlying theistic conception of moral authority in what you are 
saying. For Buddhists it is a matter of kamma i.e. the way things are or 
it is a matter of the path. Normally one should not confuse the two. But 
when it comes to knowledge, then for Buddhists 'not understanding' is an 
act of embracing delusion. So not understanding is both additional bad 
kamma takes one further from the path.

>> 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?
>
>   

No one has said anything about  impunity. Nothing you do, short of some 
degree of enlightenment,  will prevent bad actions from having their 
consequences. We are a small fungus with a vast underground network. 
What happens to the fungus has only a limited effect on the underground 
network.

And I am deeply offended at the suggestion that I would use a cricket 
bat for such a purpose. What do you think baseball bats are for ?

>> 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. 

Narcissism is an unhealthy self-involvement and self love. It is nothing 
to do with any kind of evaluation.

>> 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. 

Perhaps post-freudians have been indirectly influenced by Abhidhamma.

> 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.
>
>   
I said first to take whatever action is possible and _then_ to put the 
matter down. Possible action includes both external action when 
available and internal resolves etc. to improve.

The issue of taking responsibility is an interesting one. There is no 
obvious equivalent to this in Indic languages. At least I can't think of 
one. But I think this is actually what Theravāda Buddhists mean when 
they talk about 'ownership of deeds' and treat that as a necessary 
component of ordinary right view.

Lance