[Buddha-l] A question for Jewish Buddhists

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance,

> 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.

That's an odd observation. Perhaps that is not a phrase in common use in the
British Isles, but on this side of the Atlantic it is a common locution with
no particular Jewish implication or resonance. Any other Ameringlish
speakers have an opinion on that?


> 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.

It is amenable to theological reasoning, but that needn't be involved. In
jurisprudence -- at least on this side of the Atlantic (I will try to be
more careful about such caveats) -- "the ability to form intent" is a legal
term for the same thing. Lacking such ability renders one not guilty,
regardless of the nature of the crime. Conversely, the greater the
ability -- for instance, premeditated murder as opposed to aggravated
manslaughter -- the more severe the punishment. The community pillar is more
guilty of a transgression he should know better than to commit than someone
less capable of forming the requisite intent. Is British law much different
on that score?

> No one has said anything about  impunity. Nothing you do, short of some
> degree of enlightenment,  will prevent bad actions from having their
> consequences.

Some Buddhist (e.g., Candrakirti) have a very different take on this. For
them, ONLY the Buddha really suffers, since he is the most fully aware of
the suffering of sentient beings.

Buddhists wrestled with the relation between *previous* bad actions and the
present status of an arhat, the most interesting responses to that coming
from the Sarvastivadins (the actual reason why they argue that the past and
future exist; without having wrestled with klesas in the past, he wouldn't
be an arhat now, so his arhathood is *still* constituted and beholden to his
past klesas, which, by their consequences still exist and still define him
as what he is now, namely, someone who has gotten rid of the klesas; he is
defined by what he is not [any longer], and thus that still exists to the
extent it defines him). But this is something different that saying that
some degree of enlightenment immunizes you from the consequences of
presently commiting bad deeds. Arhats don't do anything bad, until they
do -- and then they've backslid... that too was a matter of heated debates.

> 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 ?

Cricket bats have an edge -- much more effective for slicing someone's head
open, I should think, after you've knocked them off their feet with the
flatter surface. Baseball bats lack such finesse.

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

Non sequitur. "Unhealthy" is an evaluation.

> Perhaps post-freudians have been indirectly influenced by Abhidhamma.

Just as likely the other way around.

> 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.

Much could be expanded on here, but I haven't the time at the moment. That
Buddhists thought so too is clear from the importance attached to the
pratimoksa ritual.

Dan