The "Jewish" Question

First off, I don't especially care to be suitable for politics. I want to create a situation where politics is so radically transformed that it becomes suitable for me (and other reformers who are tired of business as usual).

I think we've had enough of “diplomatic or juridical weight.” These concepts have outlived their useful or, at best, have been perverted beyond the point of usefulness. It must be fairly obvious by now, even to the most casual reader of my material, that I'm trying to create a new politics totally divorced from ancient suppositions of what is true and of what will work. The old politics won't work any longer and in fact will ruin us.

You should reconsider your attempted parallel to a murder prosecution. Let us suppose (for the sake of argument) that one on trial for murder had (himself) been murdered by his current victim (many lifetimes ago). Biblically speaking, this might be considered some variation of “an eye for an eye.” However, the jury (most likely, consisting of ordinary, unenlightened persons) would have no way of knowing of the past-life murder. In fact, most likely, the present murderer wouldn't know of that past event either.

The only reasonable (as opposed to “enlightened”) course of action for such a jury is to simply take into consideration that evidence which is presented to them. Of course, they cannot consider anything other than what the judge sees fit that they consider (but that just shows the limitations of our trial by jury system).

This is why I could never serve on a jury in a capital punishment case. I would vote “not guilty.” Before anyone screams I'd be letting a murderer go, I would counter with:

1) The guilty eventually get their just desserts (though perhaps not in this lifetime and perhaps not by human hands). Cries for “justice” are usually thinly-veiled howls for revenge.

2) How often have the innocent been executed by the state by means of a so-called “fair” trial?

This is a very difficult concept for a non-Buddhist to accept: “There is no such thing as an innocent victim.” I've been asked: “What about babies who are murdered?” The answer: “We, as unenlightened mortals, can only see the here and the now. We can't see back into the past to see what that 'innocent baby' did (aeons ago) that would have warranted such (seemingly) cruel karmic payback.”

However, it is also true that the Buddha did not run around killing people, simply because he could see into the past and witness the evil they had committed. He did not have a mind-set to mete out “justice” or seek revenge. Wrongdoers are punished by the universe, sooner or later, without our intervention. Which is why I held that it was wrong to execute Saddam Hussein (the karmic payback from that will haunt us for generations to come).

The Buddha even accepted a mass murderer into his group of disciples, a certain Angulimalla (who had murdered 999 people). The point? Better to encourage an evil person to practice Buddhism, so he could thereby eradicate his sins and become a Buddha himself.

You'll notice that the Buddha's attitude was based on a faith in humanity sorely lacking among a great multitude of Western rah-rah fundamentalists who are so-o-o keen on revenge.

Thank you for your comment.

Well, Anthony, if (as you just said) “My point … was a reference to the evasiveness of your answer,” why didn't you just say so in your first comment? That shortfall would seem rather evasive on your part, yes?

Most disinterested observers would conclude from my blogs that I am quite far from evasive. Perhaps, however, further clarification is in order:

First, a question: How do you claim that my position is “juries have to decide based on evidence?”

I made it clear how I, as a juror, would vote (at least in a capital punishment case); that is, I would not “decide based on the evidence.” What I did say: “The only reasonable (as opposed to “enlightened”) course of action…” I will expand that comment here to say, I would urge upon jurors that they attempt to not exclusively rely on being “reasonable,” I would urge (insofar as they are capable) that they exercise a limited form of enlightenment (yes, there are levels of enlightenment) which goes by several names: “gut instinct,” and “independent thinking” (as opposed to letting a judge be sole dictator as to how a jury should behave).
I hopes this helps.

You wrote, “I honestly didn't think I'd have to explain it.” My expectation wasn't that you “explain it.” Your shortfall was in that fact that you didn't even make your point. Many people assume they don't have to “make their points;” however, I maintain that failure to do so comprises sloppy writing. If you're going to bother to respond, come right out and make your point(s). Don't assume your reader will read your mind and understand your unwritten theses. That's just bad form.

You don't have to “entertain” anything. Any reasonable reader of my comments can readily see that (as I've said before) I'm far from evasive. I'm in no “predicament” since Buddhists don't abandon reason. They simply acknowledge there are many ways to intuit the world and reveal what is hidden. Reason by itself works only within the confines of closed-system analysis. The real world is not a closed-system, though of course Western science had made great strides in assuming that it is.

You seem to like to pick and choose what to quote. What I actually said was, “The only reasonable (as opposed to “enlightened”) course of action…” Even a casual reading of these few words presents the possibility that a so-called reasonable approach can be “opposed” to an enlightened approach.

You may or may not choose to respond to my comments. That is your choice. However, this is my decision: If you do decide to respond, I will not answer you. And for a very practical reason: Much of what you're hinting at (unwritten, though it may be) will be covered by my future blogs. I invite you to read them, though of course that will be your decision.

I did take a look at your homepage and noticed that you are quite steeped in what may be called a classical Western tradition. Yes, some Eastern influences are apparent, though your preference definitely seems to be for things Western. Out of all your influences, one in particular stood out: You consider Ronald Reagan to be one of your heroes. I consider him to have been (as a friend of mine once aptly put it): “dumb as a box of rocks, a mouthpiece for the Oligarchy, and a war criminal to boot.” Anyway, I shall not be responding to any more of your comments, though of course you are free to post them for the benefit of other Zaadsters.