Stephen A. Evans<\/p>\n
The running debate whether or not pu\u00f1\u00f1a <\/em>and kusala <\/em>refer to the same class of actions evinces a lack of clarity over the meaning of pu\u00f1\u00f1a<\/em>, accompanied by unwarranted assumptions about motivation and by a tendency to conflate \u201ckarmic\u201d results with what we would today consider ordinary consequences, that is, roughly, those accruing through material, social or psychological processes. The present paper reviews the contributions of Keown, Velez de Cea, and Adam to the discussion, then argues that in the Nik\u0101yas <\/em>\u201cpu\u00f1\u00f1a<\/em>\u201d almost always refers to the force of goodness generated by certain actions and issuing in pleasant karmic results, rather than to a class of actions; that in spite of the Buddhist belief that pu\u00f1\u00f1a <\/em>is gained, such actions are not typically motivated by craving; and that conflating karmic results with ordinary consequences hampers our ability to understand Buddhist ethics. It is suggested that questions about the relations among the cluster of concepts that make up the mythology of kamma <\/em>and vip\u0101ka<\/em>, and their relationship to what we call morality or ethics, be asked anew. <\/p>\n Read article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ISSN 1076-9005 Volume 19, 2012 Ethical Confusion: Possible Misunderstandings in Buddhist Ethics Stephen A. Evans The running debate whether or not pu\u00f1\u00f1a and kusala refer to the same class of actions evinces a lack of clarity over the meaning of pu\u00f1\u00f1a, accompanied by unwarranted assumptions about motivation and by a tendency to conflate \u201ckarmic\u201d results … Continue reading Possible Misunderstandings in Buddhist Ethics<\/span>