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/