[Buddha-l] Buddhists taking a stand against Islamophobia

[Tim Cahill]

Franz, Richard and everybody else!

Regarding this exchange:

Second, on what grounds can one say that an arhant's actions are different in their consequences from anyone else's.

Just that an arahant is one who no longer produces karma. Thus, de jure, an arahant's actions must not create suffering. As I agreed, this is pure dogma.


  I'm not too sure about what "de jure" means in this context.   From a 
few examples I think I recall that some ancient Buddhists acknowledge 
that an arahant's actions might create suffering (de facto?), but they 
nevertheless do not produce karma.

I have to agree with Richard that Mahāvīra did not counsel suicide.  But 
I think the primary intention of desisting completely from harming 
others is mukti.  The fact that other living beings benefit from this is 
great --surely a very noble secondary!  Paul Dundas notes that an 
enlightened Jain may still walk, preach and meditate, but no new karma 
results --and it's impossible for such a person to do violence, even 
involuntarily.  (Some might see that last part as dogma!)

best,
Tim Cahill