Comments on: The Christian Rawls http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/ Philosophy through multiple traditions Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Biology and Justice: First Cut « Liberal Biorealism http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-724 Biology and Justice: First Cut « Liberal Biorealism Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:15:07 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=646#comment-724 [...] doctrines, and seriously considered preparing for the Episcopal priesthood. Indeed, I find this summary of Rawls’ undergraduate thesis (which I presume is accurate enough on the point): Fundamental to the thesis is a rejection of [...] [...] doctrines, and seriously considered preparing for the Episcopal priesthood. Indeed, I find this summary of Rawls’ undergraduate thesis (which I presume is accurate enough on the point): Fundamental to the thesis is a rejection of [...]

]]> By: Amod Lele http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-601 Amod Lele Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:38:23 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=646#comment-601 No, I haven't encountered such references. It is something that's made me wonder about the redirection of pu?ya, whether p?pa cannot be similarly redirected, but I've never seen anything to that effect. I would still describe the two as antonyms, but you are right that they are not exact mirror images of each other. No, I haven’t encountered such references. It is something that’s made me wonder about the redirection of pu?ya, whether p?pa cannot be similarly redirected, but I’ve never seen anything to that effect.

I would still describe the two as antonyms, but you are right that they are not exact mirror images of each other.

]]> By: elisa freschi http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-595 elisa freschi Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:26:50 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=646#comment-595 Thanks for your reply. I understand from your reply (and from my question) that pu?ya and p?pa are not a close pair of antonyms. I remember texts speaking of pu?ya being transferred, but I cannot recall instances of p?pa being transferred (to enemies in black magic, for instance). Do you? Thanks for your reply. I understand from your reply (and from my question) that pu?ya and p?pa are not a close pair of antonyms. I remember texts speaking of pu?ya being transferred, but I cannot recall instances of p?pa being transferred (to enemies in black magic, for instance). Do you?

]]> By: Amod Lele http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-594 Amod Lele Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:35:58 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=646#comment-594 I've never understood pu?ya and p?pa to be the actions themselves, but rather their spiritual results, or at least the mechanism of those results. After all one can transfer pu?ya from person to person (according to Śāntideva and most Mahāyāna texts) - it's not the actions being transferred, it's not that one changes it so that the recipient actually becomes the one who performed the karmically good action. Rather, pu?ya and p?pa are the "fruitfulness" of actions, the means by which those actions produce results like good and bad rebirths. I have heard of modern Indians referring to actions themselves as <i>p?p</i>; maybe that usage derives from older <i>?stika</i> texts. But I don't think it's what we see in Buddhist or Jain works. (Even in modern Thailand, giving to monks is described as <i>tham boon</i>, <i>making</i> pu?ya - it is not itself pu?ya.) I’ve never understood pu?ya and p?pa to be the actions themselves, but rather their spiritual results, or at least the mechanism of those results. After all one can transfer pu?ya from person to person (according to Śāntideva and most Mahāyāna texts) – it’s not the actions being transferred, it’s not that one changes it so that the recipient actually becomes the one who performed the karmically good action. Rather, pu?ya and p?pa are the “fruitfulness” of actions, the means by which those actions produce results like good and bad rebirths. I have heard of modern Indians referring to actions themselves as p?p; maybe that usage derives from older ?stika texts. But I don’t think it’s what we see in Buddhist or Jain works. (Even in modern Thailand, giving to monks is described as tham boon, making pu?ya – it is not itself pu?ya.)

]]> By: elisa freschi http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/the-christian-rawls/comment-page-1/#comment-583 elisa freschi Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:28 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=646#comment-583 Thanks for pointing out Rawls' thesis (I did not know about). I am sorry to ask just a lateral question, but do you really think that p?pa is "bad karma"? I have always been thinking that the concept of p?pa is not dependent on the theory of karman, so that p?pa has bad karman as result, but it is not conceived as a synonym of "bad karman". I agree with your point "demerit" is only a (possible) consequence of p?pa and not p?pa in itself. I guess that the equation is smoother in regard to pu?ya, where the link to "merit" seems to be more direct –at least in the texts I am aware of. In fact, a bad thing one has not willingly caused is still a p?pa (I am thinking of the popular example of a cow who dies because it struggles –in vain– to get rid of the rope one has tied around its neck and is eventually choked). But it would be difficult to call this a "demerit", as if it were not primarily independent of the subject. As a translation of p?pa I would rather think at something like "evil". But I would be happy if you could correct my view. Thanks for pointing out Rawls’ thesis (I did not know about). I am sorry to ask just a lateral question, but do you really think that p?pa is “bad karma”? I have always been thinking that the concept of p?pa is not dependent on the theory of karman, so that p?pa has bad karman as result, but it is not conceived as a synonym of “bad karman”.
I agree with your point “demerit” is only a (possible) consequence of p?pa and not p?pa in itself. I guess that the equation is smoother in regard to pu?ya, where the link to “merit” seems to be more direct –at least in the texts I am aware of. In fact, a bad thing one has not willingly caused is still a p?pa (I am thinking of the popular example of a cow who dies because it struggles –in vain– to get rid of the rope one has tied around its neck and is eventually choked). But it would be difficult to call this a “demerit”, as if it were not primarily independent of the subject.
As a translation of p?pa I would rather think at something like “evil”. But I would be happy if you could correct my view.

]]>