[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Artur Karp]

2010/7/16 L.S. Cousins <selwyn at ntlworld.com>:
>  On 15/07/2010 19:21, Artur Karp wrote:
>> Let me use Charles Hallisey's heuristic distinction between "event" and "idea".
>>
>> As an event what is described in the MhV XXV can be relativized,
>> belittled, represented as unimportant, even negated. Yes, it's
>> "amazing how often this is cited". Or - maybe not? Considering that
>> the text conveys a rather disturbing idea?

> I don't believe it does. I think this is being read in from European
> ideas.

Dear Professor Cousins,


Three things.

A general remark. Am I justified to think that you believe your way of
reading the text is free from European ideas? As far as I am concerned
I believe I do have the right to read the text as one of its potential
- and late - addressees/recipients. My not being a Buddhist
notwithstanding.


Now, the question of guilt. The text weighs up two kinds of guilt:
one, entirely unjustified, ensuing from the king's participation in
mass-killing, and the second, very much justified, resulting from not
sharing food - one pepper-pod (ekaṃ maricavaṭṭikaṃ) - with the local
monastic community.

114
Adatvā bhikkhusaṅghassa bhuttaṃ atthi nu kho iti
Addasa pātarāsamhi ekaṃ maricavaṭṭikaṃ

[Geiger]"Have I ever eaten anything whatsoever without giving to the
brotherhood of bhikkhus?' Then he saw that he had, all unthinkingly,
eaten pepper in the pod,"

115
Saṅghassa aṭṭhapetvāca paribhuttaṃ satiṃ vinā
Tadatthaṃ daṇḍakammaṃ me kattabbaṃti ca cintayi.

[Geiger] "at the morning meal, leaving none for the brotherhood; and
he thought: 'For this I must do penance."


Sorry, but as a late reader I am reminded of a widely circulated story
about this general involved in some mass-killings, but judged, in
accordance with the current law, for not paying a traffic ticket on
time.



Finally. When the text (XXV, 116-117) says:

116
Ete te nekakoṭī idha manujagaṇe ghātite cintayitvā
Kāmānaṃ hetu etaṃ manasi ca kayirā sādhu ādīnavaṃ taṃ;

[Geiger] "Should a man think on the hosts of human beings murdered for
greed in countless myriads, and should he carefully keep in mind the
evil (arising from that),"

Sabbesaṃ ghātaniṃ taṃ manasi ca kayirā 'niccataṃ sādhu sādhu
Evaṃ dukkhā pamokkhaṃ subhagatimathavā pāpuṇeyyā 'cirenāti

[Geiger] "and should he also very carefully keep in mind the mortality
as being the murderer of all, then will he, in this way, shortly win
freedom from suffering and a happy condition."

I am reminded, strongly, of the Bhagavadgita XI, 32-34, where the text
attempts to absolve mass-killers of guilt.

[...] ṛte 'pi tvā na bhaviṣyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitāḥ pratyanīkeṣu yodhāḥ ||32||

tasmāt tvam uttiṣṭha yaśo labhasva
jitvā śatrūn bhuṅkṣva rājyaṃ samṛddham |
mayaivaite nihatāḥ pūrvam eva [...] ||33||

[...] mayā hatāṃs tvaṃ jahi mā vyathiṣṭhā
yudhyasva jetāsi raṇe sapatnān ||34||

SBE Vol. 8, 1882:

<<[..] Even without you, the warriors standing in the adverse hosts,
shall all cease to be. Therefore, be up, obtain glory, and vanquishing
(your) foes, enjoy a prosperous kingdom. All these have been already
killed by me. [...] whom I have killed, do you kill. Be not alarmed.
Do fight. And in the battle you will conquer your foes.>>

To my mind, this parallel documents a concern regarding moral
responsibility for organized violence. As it seems, it's not enough to
clothe it in the garb of "just war" (dharma-yuddha). Justifications
for it are sought in much broader ideological frameworks, allowing for
the use of such relativizing terms as "man's mortality-as-a-murderer"
or "God's will".


Best regards,


Artur K.