In the universe of religion, of which Buddhism is an important view, one principle that stands out is the principle of responsibility. For the individual human being taking responsibility does not always seem like an ideal course, yet in the long run, in the human universe, it is paramount that people do so. Because responsibility can be gamed, Buddhism has always framed the analysis of why taking responsibility was necessary in terms of karma. This was always an expedient means, because Buddhism has also always pretty much taught that the idea of fixed ego's or a fixed soul is equally an expedient means teaching for those who haven't figured out the truth yet. Yet when we recognize that we are temporarily harmonized entities as individuals, and yet instances of a self-motivated project called humanity, we can see why it might be beneficial to take responsibility for our lives.
To me this truth has always seemed self-evident, but looking around me I see that it is not always so to others. Even Buddhists have become famous for ducking responsibility and acting irresponsibly. Indeed this was a common criticism of Buddhism from outside -- they monks went to live on Mountain Tops and dropped out of day to day life. This has never really applied to Nichirenism -- which is what I love about Nichiren's Buddhism.
What brings up this subject?
Two things. One is a report on Donald Rumsfeld's lack of memory about scandals he was very deeply involved with -- and which everyone has taken the fall for being involved with except the ones who apparantly gave the orders. Rumsfeld, in an accountable administration would have been held responsible for the Tanker Scandal, even if his argument that he "doesn't recall" the facts and wasn't involved in the day to day operations -- on the principle of responsibility:
When asked about what he knew, he either said he couldn't remember, or if it had to do with a discussion with the President, that it was privelaged information. Here is the quote:
"The investigators tried a different tack. Tell us, one said, about the extent and nature of conversations with the White House about the tanker lease. The question related to the fact that in 2002 President Bush asked then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to help reach a deal between the Pentagon and Boeing, which had substantial clout on Capitol Hill and was a major contributor to Bush's inaugural celebration."
"I have been told," Rumsfeld said, "that discussions with the president are privileged, and with his immediate staff." Large portions of text on the next five pages of the 38-page interview transcript were blacked out in the copy provided to The Post.
And this is particularly frustrating to me because I'm familiar enough with the acquisition process to know that an ACAT I program such as the Tanker Program could not have gotten anywhere without his involvement, and that the investigators questions were exactly on target:
Part of the controversy over the tanker deal involved the department's failure to conduct an "Analysis of Alternatives" -- a routine comparison of options mandated by Pentagon rules before any large-scale weapons acquisition. When one investigator started asking about this, Rumsfeld demurred. "You are way out of my league on all of this," he said.
He can't not know this. I know for a fact that he and his leutenants authored major changes to the acquisitions process that represent detailed understanding of Defense Acquisition and the process. Moreover, he can't have been paying too much attention to Iraq or we wouldn't be in the mess we are in there. As Richard Cohen says in his Op Ed, there is a Culpability Deficit Disorder in this administration.
Which is the second reason this topic came up in my mind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901235.html