PeterB wrote:A monk or a gangster does not have kusala or akusala dhamma. Conditions arise. Those conditions can be describe as kusala or akusala...those conditions are not a person characterised by kusala and akusala.
My job, my responsibility, as I see it is me. Not them.
A monks positive qualities or otherwise are not for me to appreciate or dwell in aversion to.
My responsibility begins and ends with MY anger, MY aversion, MY negative responses.
Every Buddhist knows, PeterB, that all formations are conditioned phenomana and all dhammas (conditioned as well as the unconditioned) are 'anatta'.
Some people who study the Abhidhamma are very fond of taking a refuge in the 'anatta' principle that they interpret to mean 'no self', 'no person', 'no being'. That clinging to 'no self' sometimes effectively confuses the discussion so much that they can get away using it as a "smoke screen".
But I am not sure what your position is.
Saying "Those conditions can be described as kusala or akusala...those conditions are not a person characterised by kusala and akusala." sounds to me as if you are confusing the issue by emitting the smoke screen. But by saying " My job, my responsibility, as I see it is me.", sounds like you you are defending your 'self' in the dhammas that you say are "not a person" !
Please try to see kusala and akusala being separate from a gangster or a monk or a being in general. Then you may understand why I said earlier :
"You apprciate wholesomeness such as understanding(panna) and compassion(karuna) even when you find such qualities in a gangster.
I do not appreciate gangsters!
You do not appreciate stubbornness or haughtiness or anger whenever you find them -- even in a monk."