By Winston
L. King
Emeritus Professor,
Vanderbilt University
ISSN
1076-9005
Volume 1 1994
Abstract:
Is a viable and
authentic Buddhist ethic possible without the prospect of rebirth
governed by one's karmic past? This paper explores traditional and
contemporary views on karma with a view to determining the importance of
this doctrine for practical ethics in the West. The Theravāda emphasis
on the personal nature of karma is discussed first, followed by a
consideration of the evolution of a social dimension to the doctrine in
the Mahāyāna. The latter development is attributed to the twin
influences of the Bodhisattva ideal and the metaphysics of Nāgārjuna and
Hua Yen. Following this survey of traditional perspectives, attention is
turned for the greater part of the paper to a consideration of the
relevance of the notion of karmic rebirth for Buddhist ethics in the
West. The notion of "social kamma" advanced by Ken Jones in The Social
Face of Buddhism is given critical consideration. The conclusion is that
a doctrine of karmic rebirth is not essential to a viable and authentic
Buddhist ethic in the West. Is a viable and authentic Buddhist ethic
possible without the prospect of rebirth governed by one's karmic past?
Were one to take only
the portrayal of the good Buddhist life presented by the Pali Canon and
its Theravādin interpretation, the answer would be negative. We shall
begin by briefly reviewing that interpretation.
Karmic Rebirth in Pali
Buddhism
In traditional Pali
Canon/Theravāda Buddhism karma (kamma) plays out its decisive role on
the field of the double-eternity of every existent being, and even of
the universe itself. That is, both the past and future of every existent
being, human or other, are endless. Every presently existing being is
but one link in a chain of continuing existences in various forms from a
beginningless eternity in the past on into an endless future eternity,
unless an existential breakthrough (enlightenment) can be achieved.
There is a second
notable feature about any existence: the seeming arbitrariness of its
form and fortunes. On the human level some are born healthy, handsome,
into wealthy families and experience good fortune all their lives.
Others are born ugly and diseased and into poverty and distress. But who
on any level knows when illness, disaster, or death may strike?
Existence, at least in the human form, seems to be totally arbitrary in
its allocation of goods and ills. Why should this be so? This is the
major problem that all religions have sought to solve.
For Theravāda Buddhism
the answer is clear. Our lives are governed by karma. Wrote the late
Venerable Nyanatiloka in his Buddhist Dictionary:
KARMA (Skt.), Pali:
kamma "Action," correctly speaking denotes the wholesome and unwholesome
volitions...and their concomitant mental factors, causing rebirth and
shaping the destiny of beings.
And again, quoting from
the Pali Canon:
There is Karma (action),
O monks, that ripens in hell...Karma that ripens in the animal
world...Karma that ripens in the heavenly world...Ṭhreefold...is
the fruit of karma: ripening during the [human] lifetime..ṛipening
in the next birth..ṛipening in
later births.[1]
And what is the power of
karma? It is but the continuing power of the deeds done by sentient
beings when in their human form. The possible forms of rebirth from the
human state include eons-long hells (purgatories), unhappy spirit-forms,
animal existences, and ages-long celestial existences.
One can readily
understand the attractiveness of this version of existence. It
rationalizes and moralizes what seem to be the thrustings of a blind,
random fate or a capricious deity. One no longer can reasonably feel
aggrieved and wronged by one's present evil fortunes; they are the
merited result of wrong dispositions and actions in some former human
existence. And good fortune is the fruit of past ethically good deeds.
So too it teaches the
human being to cherish his or her present human status as a priceless
opportunity to create "good" karma, i.e. that leading to fortunate
rebirths and offering a basis for eventual release from the rebirth
cycle (saṃsāra). For all other than human states are but the reward or
punishment--or better, the inevitable karmic ripening of deeds done as a
human being. They are but the spending of one's good or bad karmic
capital, so to speak.
There is an important
corollary to this version of the dynamics of reality: each chain of
individualized existence is an almost single-line affair. Each
individual's karma, in its creation and working out, remains almost
entirely a single-channel, closed-circuit course. No one else can
increase, or decrease, my individual stock of merit or demerit. Yes,
there was (is) a tradition of sharing merit but it seems to apply to a
kind of general fund of merit, not to other individual accounts. This
has somewhat characteristically led to a blunting of charitable and
socially reformative activity in Theravādin societies, for each
individual is now in the state to which his/her past deeds have led.
That is, each one gets what one deserves. And charity tends to be almost
exclusively directed toward the sangha, where it produces superior
merit-dividends compared to that directed toward lay persons or general
community needs.
Yes, there are the
higher sublime states of spirit which are praised in the Pali scriptures
as the summit-attainments of the good life: loving kindness, compassion,
sympathetic joy in the joy of others, and equanimity, a state of
unruffled benevolence toward all beings. But on the whole, rather than
ameliorative or redemptive activity, these seem to be the marks of
superior spiritual achievement on the part of those of great spiritual
maturity, or occasionally by those of lesser attainments. In the main it
is the merit-for-human-rebirth concern that wins out, given this
context.
This basic belief in
the perpetual rebirth of the individual as determined by past karmic
merit/demerit, until and unless nirvanic salvation be achieved, seems to
have remained firmly in place in most of Asian Buddhism, Theravāda or
Mahāyāna. A few random examples scattered over the centuries of the
existence of Buddhism will make this evident; it seems that one finds
this belief wherever one touches down in Asian Buddhism.
For example, we may note
the general ambience of theLotus Sūtra, so influential in Asia. The
Lotus Sūtra exudes the philosophy of karmic rebirth on almost every
page; karmic-determined birth is taken for granted throughout: arhats
are promised Buddhahood in some far-off but certain blessed future
existence; many of the great saints of the past appear on stage. Indeed
the whole sūtra is a spectacle of glorious spiritual destinies being
played out in future eons in a multitude of universes.
Then there are the Pure
Land Sūtras. Therein we read of Amitābha Buddha who has become a Buddha
by virtue of countless eons of virtuous deeds and can now offer sinful
human beings, with much past "karmic indebtedness," the destruction of
their past moral-spiritual liabilities out of his infinite store of
merit. Saint Hoonen, founder of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism in the
12th-13th centuries gives expression to this prevailing sense of
karma-bound rebirth as the lot of all men:
For the sin or merit of
a former life, men may be born to good or evil in this fleeting
world.[2]
Suzuki Shoosan,
16th-17th century samurai turned Zen master in mid-life, speaks of "the
six forms of transmigration and the four types of birth," and sees
himself striving for enlightenment "birth after birth."[3]
To come down to the
present: The late Yasutani Roshi, using modern terms, spoke as follows:
Now in our subconscious
are to be found the residual impressions of our life experiences
including those of previous existences, going back to time
immemorial.[4]
And in the
present-present Abe Masao, likewise from a Zen perspective, speaks of
acting in "wisdom and compassion...operating to emancipate innumerable
sentient beings from transmigration."[5]
This is not the total
account of the matter however. The development of Mahāyāna life and
doctrine resulted in important modifications of the rebirth-karma
complex of ideas and practice. Central to the change of their
significance was the development of the bodhisattvic theme and ideal.
Nāgārjuna's (circa 150-250) philosophy of emptiness ("sūnyatā)
contributed importantly to that development. He took as his Buddhist
philosophic mission the destruction of the rigid fixities of Buddhist
scholasticism. He maintained that rigidly held intellectual concepts are
convenient linguistic devices but do not represent reality. Most
opposites or contrasts, for example, are mutually interdependent. This
is true even of those ultimate Buddhist opposites, saṃsāra
and nirvāṇa. Thus as Frederick
Streng has written:
The spiritual ideal is
[for Nāgārjuna] not release (nirvāṇa)
from conditioned existence by an individual person, because that effort
implies an essential distinction between nirvāṇa
and conditioned existence (saṃsāra).
Rather the idea is of a bodhisattva ("enlightenment being") whose
awareness of the nonsubstantiality.... of bodhisattvahood is expressed
in a kind of wisdom that seeks the release of all beings.[6]
Thus Nāgārjuna moved
Buddhist thought to a new fluidity of the concept of karmic destiny: no
longer could, should, one look upon one's spiritual destiny as
hermetically sealed off from another's. Indeed they intertwine; one
cannot be rescued from one's own spiritual predicament without his/her
fellow-creatures' rescue. This of course is the bodhisattvic ideal, now
being broadened from the pre-enlightenment career of Gotama Buddha to
apply to everyman!
Obviously this was a
tremendously significant step for Buddhist ethics. Fully developed it
linked all creatures indissolubly to each other for good or ill. In his
pre-enlightenment career the Buddha-to-be (bodhisattva) lived countless
lives (as animal, spirit, human being) always in selfless service and
even life-sacrifice for others. Now this quality of life is to be that
of everyone. In the Vimalakīrti Sūtra the bodhisattvic quality of life
is extended to, preeminently embodied in, the life of the layman
Vimalakīrti, who, though a full-fledged active layman, has a more
penetrating understanding of Buddhist truths than the great saints of
early Buddhism!
This new bodhisattva
ideal was given eloquent expression by "Sāntideva (7th-8th centuries) in
his Path of Light in these words.
By constant use the idea
of "I" attaches itself to foreign drops of seed and blood, although the
thing exists not [as a genuine entity]. Then why should I not conceive
my fellow's body as my own self?...I will cease to live as self and will
take as myself my fellow creatures ... why should not he [man] not
conceive his self to lie in his fellows also? ..Ṃake
thine own self lose its pleasures and bear the sorrow of thy fellows.
Cast upon its [one's own] head the guilt even of others' works.
Such a man would "be a
protector of the unprotected, a guide to wayfarers, a ship, a dyke, and
a bridge for them who seek the further Shore, a lamp for them who need a
lamp, a bed for them who need a bed, a slave for them who need a
slave."[7]
This new bodhisattvic
Buddhist then vows that even when on the verge of final nirvanic
enlightenment (release from samsaric rebirth) he/she will not enter into
final release from the cycles of rebirth until all other beings have
attained their release.
There is one further
development to be noted before turning to the nature of Western
Buddhism. Hua-yen Buddhism, developed in 7th century China, provided a
cosmic philosophical model of organic interrelatedness that
universalized and undergirded the bodhisattvic ideology. Its basic
typology is contained in the concept of an organically integrated
universe, using the model of Indra's Net.
Writes Robert Gimello:
This inspired trope [the
net of Indra] pictures a universe in which each constituent of reality
is like a multifaceted jewel placed at one of the knots of a vast net.
There is such a jewel at each knot, and each jewel reflects not only the
rest of the jeweled net in its entirety but also each and every other
jewel in its individuality. Thus, each particular reflects the totality,
the totality so reflected is both a unity and a multiplicity...All
things and beings, Hua-yen teaches, are like this net.[8]
Obviously the Hua-yen
philosophy fits hand in glove with the bodhisattvic ideal of human life.
No one can gain spiritual freedom independently of others. The
organically interconnected texture of the universe makes this
impossible. Thus Hua-yen universalizes and firmly establishes the
bodhisattvic vision of the truly good life.
Karmic Rebirth and
Buddhist Ethics in the West
As Buddhism in its
various forms has made its way into the Western world all of its
doctrines, traditions, and practices have faced a challenging new
cultural and social situation. The main Buddhist concern has been to
maintain the basic Buddhist perspective on human life and conduct in a
new and different context. Of course Buddhism in its two and one half
millenium-long history in Asia has successfully established itself in
several differing cultures due to its tremendous flexibility. But
perhaps the West poses a greater challenge to it than any of the Asian
traditionalist cultures it infiltrated.
The Western
civilizational emphasis is upon frenetic activity. Here history is not
viewed as cyclically repetitive as in so many Asian cultures, but as a
kind of ongoing torrent of change, which lurches, plunges, progresses
forward to some new and unpredictable new state. These changes are
perceived as due in great part to human intentions and actions; humans
create history. And of special relevance to our immediate topic, in the
West each human birth is an absolutely de novo affair, a totally new
beginning without karmic past. Its individual qualities are explained in
terms of physical, psychical inheritance through its parents; and its
social environment will further shape its nature and career. Many in the
West believe in a future eternity of existence for each of these new
human beings (an immortal soul), its nature determined by the quality of
life lived in this one-and-only human life, one-life karma so to speak.
Others believe that this life is the totality of one's existence, and
should be lived to its hedonic full.
The prevailing quality
of Western life and culture, with its attendant idolization of
"success," "achievement," "prosperity," and historical-social "progress"
and "improvement" is perceived by Western Buddhists to be profoundly un-
or even anti-Buddhist in spirit. Ken Jones, for example, in his The
Social Face of Buddhism,[9] terms Western culture "egoic"; it magnifies
and idealizes the very qualities of greed, violence (expressed hatred)
and self-esteem (first-personalized delusion) that Buddhism considers
its basic enemy.
How then can Buddhism,
marching to a totally different drumbeat of ideas and goals in life,
create meaningful Western forms? And in terms of our special interest,
how does the Buddhist ethic of karmic rebirth fit in here, if at all?
We may note two general
types of Buddhist reaction to this cultural situation. The first is what
may be termed the "suppression" of the karmic-rebirth theme in the
presentation of the Buddhist message. Karmically qualified rebirth may
be the taken-for-granted belief in such meditation-centered groups as
Insight Meditation and the U Ba Khin (Burmese) oriented movements, but
such a belief is not urged upon beginners nor does it appear in their
publications to any observable degree. At the very least it is not a
talking-point. The same can be said of the other end of the Buddhist
spectrum, the Zen Buddhist publications and centers. No doubt
enlightenment through zazen always has karmic and rebirth connotations,
but they are made little of upon the American scene at least.
In all of these the
emphasis is upon what one might call the rebirth-karma of personal
transformation. The important "karma-force" and karmic-determination are
that of the "karmic" influence of thoughts, aspirations, and emotions
upon the character, attitudes, and consequent actions o¸ a
person. Here an emotion or thought is "reborn" as an attitude or
character trait which irrevocably finds expression in one's actions.
This might be called thought-character-action karma, or psychic karma.
There are those
Western-born Buddhists--and their numbers and influence in the shaping
of Western Buddhism will only increase through the years--who find some
of the Asian Buddhist emphasis upon karmic rebirth unnecessary. As an
example of this tendency, we may take the before-mentioned Ken Jones as
the spokesman of a Westernized Buddhism. On the cover of his book we
read that he "has been a social activist of one kind or another, for
much of his life and a Buddhist trainee for the last eight years" [in
1989]. His book therefore is a good example of what a Western-born
person, reared and educated in a Christian-humanist-scientific and
socially activist culture, finds of value in the Asian Buddhist
tradition, how he interprets it, and what he considers authentically
Buddhist attitudes and actions in a Western society. With respect to the
Asian Buddhist doctrine of rebirth he writes:
None of the arguments
advanced in this book require either rejection or acceptance of the
notion of rebirth.[10]
What then of the
doctrine of karma which historically has been so tightly tied to that of
rebirth? He finds it in need of reinterpretation:
[T]he better known
Sanskrit karma has acquired Hindu meanings of "fate" and "justice" which
have nothing to do with [true] Buddhism.[11]
In place of "karma" he
would use the Pali form "kamma" and would interpret it thus:
Kamma, however, seems to
me to be both a logical element in fundamental Buddhist teaching and an
interestingly suggestive idea in the discussion of Buddhist social
theory.[12]
Thus with one fell
stroke the strong Asian Buddhist concern about gaining merit for a
"good" future rebirth by "good" actions is swept away. In fact Jones
finds some of the motivations in the developed Theravāda tradition that
speak of the "good" next life to be gained by "good" actions, to be
totally anti-Buddhists because they pander to greed and pride. Thus to
take as an example the following kind of statement by a prominent
Buddhist layman in Burma:
A person who steadfastly
and continuously observes the Five Precepts can gain the following
beneficial results: (1) he can gain great wealth and possessions; (2) he
can gain great fame and reputation; (3) he can appear with confidence
and courage in the midst of a public assembly; (4)..ḥe
can die with calmness and equanimity; (5) after his death he will be
born into the world of Devas.[13]
In Jones' view all of
the above fruits and rewards of living according to Buddhist ethical
principles would represent the glorification of the very greed and
delusion that Buddhists seek to escape! The first three rewards
represent the essence of the "egoic" Western culture which Jones
believes to be the spiritual antithesis of Buddhism and which Buddhist
social action would seek to modify and transform. His purified (truly
Buddhist) version of kamma is stated thus:
The theory of karma is
the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction. Every volitional
action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good
effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice or reward...but
this in virtue of its own nature, its own law.[14]
To this revision of the
traditionally accepted version of kamma (karma), freed from its fateful
connotations, Jones would add a significant new meaning, that of "social
kamma." He complains that much of traditional [Eastern] Buddhism has
assumed that "Society is...ṇo
more than the aggregate of individuals composing it,"[15] hence the mere
sum of individual karmic strands. To put his statement into figurative
language: A society in traditional Buddhist thought is a collection of
parallel and intertwined channels of separate karmic destinies. But
Jones rejects this version of social "structure" for one of societal
kamma. Society as a super-individual entity has a moral-immoral
character that affects all of its members for better or worse. It too
must be modified Buddhistically for individuals to achieve their full
spiritual destiny.
Therefore, writes
Jones: "A socially engaged Buddhism needs no other rationale than that
of being an amplification of traditional Buddhist morality [five
precepts], a social ethic brought forth by the needs and potentialities
of present-day society."[16] (In a slightly different phrasing of the
same motif we have the book edited by Thich Nhat Hahn the Vietnamese Zen
monk, entitled suggestively For a Future to be Possible, subtitled
Commentaries on the Five Wonderful Precepts.
Significantly for the
future of Western Buddhism, and interestingly in terms of its historic
past, two of the ideational patterns noted in the development of
Mahāyāna Buddhism have been picked up as especially useful and
ethically-socially significant: the bodhisattvic motif and the Hua-yen
vision of an organically interconnected world.
Writes Jones in defense
of a socially activist Buddhism:
The great bodhisattva
vow to "liberate all beings" now also implies a concern for changing the
social conditions which in every way discomfit us..Ṭhese are surely among the conditions which the Buddha declared
"lead to passion, not release therefrom, to bondage, not release
therefrom; and to the piling up of rebirths; these to wanting much, not
wanting little; to discontent, not to contentment; these to sociability,
not to solitude; these to indolence, not to exertion; these to luxury,
not to frugality."[17]
It might be noted in
passing that some of the items, e.g. those calling for solitude and
frugality, speak more of monastic than ordinary living. However the main
point is clear; Buddhists must work for a society that does not idolize
individual acquisitiveness and purely personal satisfactions to the
detriment of others.
The other integrative
and social-action motif strongly supporting the bodhisattvic theme which
Jones finds useful is that of Indra's net. To redescribe it in Jones'
words:
At each intersection in
Indra's net is a light reflecting jewel (that is, a phenomenon, entity,
thing [person]) and each jewel contains another Net ad infinitum. The
jewel at each intersection exists only as a reflection of all the others
and hence has no [independent] self nature. Yet it also exists as a
separate entity to sustain the others.[18]
This is to say, in the
strengthening of the bodhisattvic motif that no one being, or small
cluster of beings, actually exists independently, or even
semi-independently, of the others. Here is an organic vision of the
universe that ties all mankind, all living creatures, and the very
physical world together in one organic wholeness. No one can pursue
private goals and goods without affecting others. Such a view of the
world makes every action a "social action."
This viewpoint leads
Jones to make a number of specific recommendations. He believes along
with E. F. Schumacher that "small is beautiful" economically; that the
ruling economic gigantism works against the true welfare of men,
stimulates the fires of greed, and leads to the deprivation and
oppression of the many. He would favor small businesses and speaks of
the formation of "free autonomous cooperatives," as well as "right
livelihood cooperatives."[19] He lauds the "creative non-violence" of
Gandhi and Martin Luther King as "a natural and direct expression of
Buddhadharma." [20] Environmentalist values are likewise to be promoted.
He also favors "democratic and egalitarian values."[21] To sum it up
Jones suggests that the proper mix of Buddhist values in the modern
world can be summarized thus:
The psycho-social
transformation suggested here is a continuously sustained metamorphosis,
in which a significant number of people change the whole social climate
by actualizing these [Buddhist humanist] social values in their social
values in their own experience...and [do] the work needed to make them
the norms of public behaviour.[22]
Not all Western
Buddhists would agree with Jones in his delineation of a socially active
Buddhism as its proper role. Many look upon Buddhism as a refuge from
the wear and tear of daily life and from the frenetic pace of life in
the West, not as a bugle call to action. What is more promising to the
activity driven Westerner than the Buddhist emphasis upon inward purity
of spirit and its cherishing in the meditative life in quiet retreats
and peaceful isolation? Many perceive this as the main mission of
Buddhism in the West: To offer centers where there are solitude and
spiritual leaders and healers. To them it seems that social-reformism
overlooks the basic problem of mankind, that it is ruled by greed,
hatred, and delusions about life and self--the basic three evils as seen
by Buddhism. As Kenneth Kraft, editor of Inner Peace, World Peace puts
the view of many Buddhists about social reformism: "A reform that is
pursued only from a socio-political standpoint they assert will at best
provide [only] temporary solutions, and at the worst it will perpetuate
the very ills it aims to cure."[23] Only the purifying of individual
hearts and lives will effect genuine social change.
This of course is a
very old and fundamental Buddhist view: The world will only be changed
for the better by individuals who have been changed for the better
through spiritual discipline. The fully stated form of this is that only
when one is oneself fully enlightened can one "save" others.
The llth-12th century
Tibetan monk Milarepa put it thus:
One should not be
over-anxious and hasty in setting out to serve others before one has
oneself realized Truth in its fullness; to do so, would be like the
blind leading the blind.[24]
He goes on to say that
since there will "be no end of sentient beings for one to serve," a
bodhisattva need be in no hurry to help them. Obviously Milarepa is more
concerned for the would-be bodhisattva's spiritual progress than the
alleviation of suffering or righting of wrongs in contemporary society.
But most in the West, even Buddhists, do not have Milarepa's robust
confidence in the perpetual rebirth of all beings or his almost callous
unconcern for present sufferers.
To this approach Robert
Aitken responds thus:
There is no end to the
process of perfection, and so the perfectionist cannot begin bodhisattva
work. [But] compassion and peace are a practice on cushions in the
meditation hall, [and also] within the family, on the job, and at
political forums. Do your best with what you have and you will mature in
the process.[25]
Perhaps the right
Buddhist attitude for modern Buddhists in the West is, as many
Western-born Buddhists would see it, that of a watchful awareness of
one's own inwardness, nourished by meditation, and appropriate outward
activity according to Buddhist principles. These must be pursued
jointly, not set against each other, in a pattern of social inaction.
Now we may return in
the end to the initial question: Can there be a viable and authentic
Buddhist ethic without a belief in perpetual rebirth governed by the
karma of an infinite number of past existences? The answer, explicit or
implicit, of many contemporary Buddhists in the West, and perhaps some
in Asia, is a resounding yes! Even without those beliefs the central
Buddhist ethical values can and, in the interest of all living
creatures, should be vigorously followed. Indeed it is perhaps possible
to say that both Buddhism and Buddhist ethics may be better off without
the karmic-rebirth factor to deal with.
Notes
[1] Nyanatiloka Buddhist
Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, (Colombo: Frewin and
Co., 1972). "Karma." Return
[2] Hoonen the Buddhist
Saint: His Life and Teaching, Translated by Harper H. Coates and Ryugaku
Ishizuka (Kyoto: Society for the Publication of Sacred Books of the
World, l949), p. 430. Return
[3] Winston L. King,
Death was his Kooan: The Samurai Zen of Suzuki Shoosan (Berkeley: Asian
Humanities Press, 1986), pp. 195, 370. Return
[4] Philip Kapleau, The
Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, Enlightenment (Tokyo: John
Weatherhill, 1965), p. 101. Return
[5] Frederick J.
Streng, "Nāgārjuna," Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan and
Free Press, 1987), Vol. X, p. 293. Return
[6] Christopher Ives,
Zen Awakening and Society (Honolulu: University of Hawaī Press, 1992),
p. 88. Return
[7] J. B. Pratt, The
Pilgrimage of Buddhism (New York: Macmillan, 1928), pp. 220, 219. Return
[8] Robert Gimello,
"Hua-yen," Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. VI, p. 488. Return
[9] Ken Jones, The
Social Face of Buddhism: An Approach to Political and Social Activism
(London: Wisdom Publications, 1989). Return
[[10] Ibid., p. 68.
Return
[11] Ibid., p. 63.
Return
[12] Ibid., p. 68.
Return
[13] Winston L. King,
In the Hope of Nibbana: An Essay on Theravada Buddhist Ethics (LaSalle,
Ill.: Open Court, 1964), p. 43. Return
[14] Jones, p. 66.
Return
[15] Ibid., p. 202
Return
[16] Ibid., p. 194.
Return
[17] Ibid., p. 194.
Return
[18] Ibid., p. 137.
Return
[19] Ibid., p. 330.
Return
[20] Ibid., p. 302.
Return
[21] Ibid., p. 325.
Return
[22] Ibid., p. 325.
Return
[23] Kenneth Kraft,
ed., Inner Peace, World Peace (Albany: State University Press of New
York, 1992), p. 12. Return
[24] Jones, p. 202.
Return
[25] Ibid., p. 203.
Return
Copyright 1994
---o0o---
Source: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/
Update: 01-12-2004