Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Rick Repetti

For Charles Goodman:

Two small questions.

1. You make a good case for why utilitarians ought to be able to accept a tame interpretation of karma. But does a tame version of karma eliminate the element of karma most Buddhists and even pre-Buddhist Indians see as a moral element?

2. Why should believers in a tame sense of karma (the meaning of which depends on your answer to 1 above) accept utilitarianism?

Rick Repetti


You said toward the end of your talk that Buddhism is all about tension (e.g., one cannot move a muscle without it), but how is there agentless tension when there is no duality for an enlightened being? How does the Buddha walk, speak, have intentions, etc.?

The comments to this entry are closed.