Right Action, Cont.

Though a well balanced vegetarian diet is definitely preferred, the Chan man eats whatever foods are good for him and whatever foods he can afford to buy, and he does this without criticizing others. In many Buddhist countries, dog meat is considered good food. The thought of Fido roasting in someone's oven may make us sick and/or sad, nevertheless we are obliged to respect other people's culinary preferences even as we decline their invitations to dinner.

The commandment to be nonviolent also encompasses the abuse of family members and extends to covering up the domestic abuses of others. When we witness or otherwise know that someone is battering his children, we must report the felony to the police. The abuser may be emotionally ill and in need of much counseling; but his psychological needs must wait until after he is arraigned.

There was a time when priests of all religions assumed a judicial role in the domestic crimes of their parishioners. The priests were discreet and their counsel was wise; nevertheless, especially where child abuse is concerned, the days of private religious interventions are over. Ecclesiastical authority may not be substituted for civil authority.

Buddhist priests who commit acts of child abuse, either sexual abuse or battery, are likewise not to be accorded the in-house punishments of yesteryear. The abuses committed by clergymen are not of a different order than the abuses committed by laymen. The abbot of a monastery may not take it upon himself to impose punishment or negotiate settlements of victims' claims without having the matter formally adjudicated.

Too often congregation members are required to hold priests harmless in instances of improper conduct. Note how the last item in the list of ten precepts given above stipulates that the Buddhist devotee vow "not speak ill of the priesthood." When a priest commits an "ill" act we are in most cases required by law to "speak ill of the priest" at the police station or in court. Number ten as given above is a self-serving, Sangha-inspired rule. It is not a valid precept and no one should promise to keep it.

2. Deceitful words and deeds. This involves all forms of misrepresenting, lying, flattering for advantage, and being hypocritical or two-faced.

Salesmen frequently have difficulty with this precept. They do not know where to draw the line between puffing and deception. The person on the Path should try to impose upon himself tougher standards than exist in consumer protection laws. He should always put himself in his customer's place; and if he would buy what he is selling at the price for which he is selling it - excluding, of course, considerations of his 'wholesale' advantages - then he may proceed in good conscience. If he's earning his living cheating people, then he's breaking the law and needs to find a new job.

For most social interactions, a rule of thumb for the second precept is, "If you can't tell the truth then keep your mouth shut." Usually, we have no difficulty with this commandment if we operate from a base of non-desirousness. When we stop trying to gratify our egos, we stop having to be deceitful.

White lies preserve the peace, and only an officious fool or a sadist tells an obviously fat person that he appears to be so. A white lie is a totally innocent lie. No advantage is sought and no money changes hands.

A different matter altogether is lying for a "good cause." Religious institutions, for example, frequently subscribe to the dictum that when sheep must be fleeced no method is too sleazy. Priests or lay volunteers will unabashedly resort to a list of tear-jerking and wallet-opening ploys. The deception is excused because the money is spent on some building project or other the benefits of which suffuse the entire religious body - or so the fund-raisers may wish to believe.

Sometimes, on the pretext of "getting to know" a new member of a congregation, information about the member's occupation and financial resources is obtained. If the member is either rich or is in a position of advantage, say is a roofing contractor when a new roof is needed, the person is singled out for ecclesiastical stroking. Anyone who participates in deception of this unconscionable sort is violating the second precept.

We may not elicit a promise of secrecy from someone and then disclose to that person our criminal acts. Likewise, we may not promise confidentiality as a precondition to listening to someone's misdeeds. We don't become Buddhists in order to function as each other's father confessor or co-conspirator. We have no right to compromise others just as we have no obligation to allow others to compromise us. On the other hand, if someone reveals to us certain non- criminal personal history, we are bound to keep his confidences secret whether or not we have explicitly promised to do so.

3. Abstaining from illicit sexual activity. Again, following the law of the land, we don't have sexual relations with minors or with adults who would rather not. Neither do we indulge ourselves with somebody else's spouse no matter how enthusiastic that spouse is in his or her approach to us. Nor, if married, to someone who not our spouse. No means no.

Does this mean that we may entice at arm's length those persons with whom we are prohibited contact? May we flirt or tempt or suggest? No, we may not. Especially where minors are involved, we may not in any way introduce, by word or deed, any sexual possibilities.

When we exclude absolutely any sexual contact whatsoever with children or anyone under the age of eighteen and married people of any age, we are left with consenting, legally and morally available adults to play with. This ought to be enough.

Regarding homosexuality, every state has its own laws and the prudent man or woman doesn't get caught breaking them. This is a rancorous, emotional issue and personally speaking, I don't know why it should be. Many homosexuals are born that way and we may ask how a just God justifies creating a person who prefers his own sex only to condemn that person for his preference. Knowing what we do about karma, we should understand that a person who, by circumstance, has been led to favor his own sex can likewise be held responsible for the harmless execution of his choice.

Homosexuals are subject to the same rules which prohibit sexual contact with minors and married people. They may not flaunt their sexuality or otherwise attempt to entice juveniles or married persons into considering the possibilities of sexual contact.

A person cannot mature without knowing human love. We either love or go a bit berserk from loneliness. We have all seen the spiritually maimed who, having been brought to their religion at a tender age, grow old without the human experience of shared sexual love. They make the worst sort of priest or neighbor. A mature homosexual is a mature person whereas a person whose need to experience a deep and abiding sexual relationship has been relentlessly stifled tends to become a pious fool.

Pious fools should be allowed to do whatever it is they do providing, of course, that they are consenting adults.

Previous Page   Index    Next Page