DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**kvitacencia** · 07-13-2010, 10:22 AM

It's ridiculous; one of the clearest explanations of why was given by Sam Harris at a TED talk, but that is merely an example of the fact that the argument "Ethics must have its foundation in some sort of metaphysical structure" is demonstrably weak, albeit highly popular.

Maybe l'm being a little dense here ,but why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?"
Imo if we have a clear understanding of Anatta then we have a clear understanding that there is no self to become a "bodhisattva" no self to become enlightened,in fact no issue.
If karmma does not have consequences why are we even discussing the matter. Why did Buddha make karmma such a issue.
In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.

07-13-2010, 10:22 AM	#18
kvitacencia Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 432 Senior Member	It's ridiculous; one of the clearest explanations of why was given by Sam Harris at a TED talk, but that is merely an example of the fact that the argument "Ethics must have its foundation in some sort of metaphysical structure" is demonstrably weak, albeit highly popular. Maybe l'm being a little dense here ,but why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?" Imo if we have a clear understanding of Anatta then we have a clear understanding that there is no self to become a "bodhisattva" no self to become enlightened,in fact no issue. If karmma does not have consequences why are we even discussing the matter. Why did Buddha make karmma such a issue. In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.
	Quote