In Reply to: Re: Could reincarnation explain Family karma? posted by susie on August 09, 2004 at 23:46:57:
I'm totally with you on your understanding of Buddhism--at least the form(s) of it to which I've been exposed, which mainly consists of Shambala International. However, I also took an eastern philosophy course at the University of Kentucky many years ago that was taught by a practising Buddhist.
The way I understand the idea that you are "the man serving life in prison for murder and the saint who has given her life to serve others" is this way: Ultimately, the person who is wounded and the person wounds others are one and the same.
This is a very, very hard saying for many people who have been wounded to get; however, as a "wounded" person (i.e., the victim of a predator), I have learned to recognize the predator in myself. I've probably done more damage to myself on many occasions than most of the people who have injured me. And I know that I've hurt others, despite my best intention not to do so.
As is the case with many profound insights, I believe it's easy to take this notion of the unity between victim & victimizer and come to some faulty conclusions about the responsibility that each has with respect to dharma (in this context, I mean personal responsibility for following the Middle Way or teachings of the Buddha).
While there is no difference on some profound level between victim and victimizer, there remains a difference none the less. I really believe victimizers (predators) need to be taken out of society or contained in some way that prevents further victimization. I also believe that self-sacrifing saints need to learn how to be more self-preserving.
If you think of predator & prey (victimizer/victim) as two ends of a continuum, then finding the Middle Way means the predator becomes a little less self-interested and the prey becomes a little more self-interested. This is how I understand the idea of "engaged Buddhism" or living out of the Dharma.
Finally, I used predator & prey because these are fairly neutral terms in nature. When we observe animal behavior in nature, it's basically eat and be eaten. This is a scientific observation that is worked out in Buddhist philosophy in a much more logically compatible manner than occurs with the Christian metaphysics of "original sin" being the nature of the problem and the "error" in the order of creation.
It is exactly this issue that makes it very difficult for me to label myself Christian, despite the fact that I think like a Christian when it comes to ethics and matters of personal faith.