The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Sam Vara »

Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:45 pm
To me an unbounded mind of loving-kindness would naturally lead to unbounded actions of loving-kindness and not be some kind of a theoretical unbounded mind that might perform niceties on the internet and fancy itself unbounded. What kind of action would flow from such a mind, would you say?
Unbounded actions of loving kindness would, for mere mortals, be a tougher challenge than an unbounded mind. Actions are limited to what our puny physical capacities can accomplish in this vast universe. I can wish all the world's coronavirus sufferers a speedy recovery, but my actions in that direction are extremely limited. The flying ban doesn't help...

Dan74
Posts: 3320
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Dan74 »

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:53 pm
Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:45 pm
To me an unbounded mind of loving-kindness would naturally lead to unbounded actions of loving-kindness and not be some kind of a theoretical unbounded mind that might perform niceties on the internet and fancy itself unbounded. What kind of action would flow from such a mind, would you say?
Unbounded actions of loving kindness would, for mere mortals, be a tougher challenge than an unbounded mind. Actions are limited to what our puny physical capacities can accomplish in this vast universe. I can wish all the world's coronavirus sufferers a speedy recovery, but my actions in that direction are extremely limited. The flying ban doesn't help...
I guess I was unclear. I mean 'unbounded' in the sense of not be bound or restricted by any self-cherishing. As in unlimited generosity, boundless compassion. Actions that do not automatically halt at the common or the acceptable. The Jataka tales come to mind, like the Starving Tigress story: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... igress.htm
_/|\_

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Sam Vara »

Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:32 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:53 pm
Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:45 pm
To me an unbounded mind of loving-kindness would naturally lead to unbounded actions of loving-kindness and not be some kind of a theoretical unbounded mind that might perform niceties on the internet and fancy itself unbounded. What kind of action would flow from such a mind, would you say?
Unbounded actions of loving kindness would, for mere mortals, be a tougher challenge than an unbounded mind. Actions are limited to what our puny physical capacities can accomplish in this vast universe. I can wish all the world's coronavirus sufferers a speedy recovery, but my actions in that direction are extremely limited. The flying ban doesn't help...
I guess I was unclear. I mean 'unbounded' in the sense of not be bound or restricted by any self-cherishing. As in unlimited generosity, boundless compassion. Actions that do not automatically halt at the common or the acceptable. The Jataka tales come to mind, like the Starving Tigress story: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... igress.htm
Then yes, one would hope that there would at least be a tendency in that direction; for actions to follow thoughts and words. :anjali:

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:32 pm
I mean 'unbounded' in the sense of not be bound or restricted by any self-cherishing.
Some people help others entirely out of what you term "self-cherishing". Just because someone gives money to others, or helps them in their time of need, etc. doesn't already mean that they are not acting out of "self-cherishing". Some help others just so that they themselves can believe "I am a good person, I help others", whereas those others are merely objects in this person's self-cherishing.
As in unlimited generosity, boundless compassion. Actions that do not automatically halt at the common or the acceptable.
And the more the things one "does for others" are special, the more special one is as a person ...


But :offtopic: this topic is about what the Buddhist doctrine says about being indifferent about whether one harms others. It's not about personal opinions, repugnance, or moral indignation.
And it is at a Theravada forum, so we're not looking for a Mahayana/Vajrayana take on the matter.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5403
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Dhammanando »

Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:45 pm
However, it is not entirely clear to me that developing an unbounded mind of metta for all beings is substantively different to what my prior interpretation was. To me an unbounded mind of loving-kindness would naturally lead to unbounded actions of loving-kindness and not be some kind of a theoretical unbounded mind that might perform niceties on the internet and fancy itself unbounded. What kind of action would flow from such a mind, would you say?
I would say that to ask such a question is to miss the point. The divine abidings are abstract Platonic meditations to be optimally developed by a socially uninvolved quietistic hermit living in a cave or under a tree, and for the sake of becoming a super-yogi (and thence an arahant), not a super-philanthropist or a super-boy-scout. If you don't agree, I invite you to re-read the first and last lines of the Metta Sutta to refresh your memory on how the whole thing is framed.
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Spiny Norman »

binocular wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:42 pm
According to Buddhist doctrine, what is the ethical and kammic situation of a person who doesn't care whether other people come into harm as a consequence of this person's actions?


For example:
A person is diagnosed as being infected with the new coronavirous, is symptomatic, can infect others, and the doctors order them to self-isolate. But this person refuses to self-isolate and instead continues to socialize, thereby endangering others.
If a person in such a situation, acting this way, has no actual intention to cause harm to others, then what are the kammic consequences for them?

For example, such a person may hold, "Everyone is responsible for themselves", "I need to look out for my interests first"; or they genuinely lack the thought or concern that they endanger other people; or they genuinely lack the desire to cause harm to others.


Again, I am asking what the Buddhist doctrine says about this, if anything at all, so this is not a matter of speculating about how exactly kamma works out in any particular case, so, please, no refering to the sutta about the unconjecturables.

Thank you.
Right Intention is clearly pivotal here, particularly developing harmlessness. In other words, there is an intention NOT to cause harm, which goes beyond merely not intending to cause harm.
Kamma is a bit of an afterthought here, and possibly a cop-out.

So with a pandemic, there is a moral obligation to protect others from infection.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dan74
Posts: 3320
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Dan74 »

Dhammanando wrote:
Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:31 pm
Dan74 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:45 pm
However, it is not entirely clear to me that developing an unbounded mind of metta for all beings is substantively different to what my prior interpretation was. To me an unbounded mind of loving-kindness would naturally lead to unbounded actions of loving-kindness and not be some kind of a theoretical unbounded mind that might perform niceties on the internet and fancy itself unbounded. What kind of action would flow from such a mind, would you say?
I would say that to ask such a question is to miss the point. The divine abidings are abstract Platonic meditations to be optimally developed by a socially uninvolved quietistic hermit living in a cave or under a tree, and for the sake of becoming a super-yogi (and thence an arahant), not a super-philanthropist or a super-boy-scout. If you don't agree, I invite you to re-read the first and last lines of the Metta Sutta to refresh your memory on how the whole thing is framed.
I don't know if I agree with the dichotomy of a quietistic hermit/super-yogi versus a super-philanthropist/super boy-scout. The chief reason for me is that both extremes fall into a trap of cherishing. The latter is more transparent and mentioned above by binocular and the former by cherishing his solipsistic practice without sufficient regard to his surroundings or environment. The Middle Way, the way I see it (admittedly with a limited and imperfect sight) seems to me to be about avoiding these extremes. A true yogi may seclude himself for years of intense cultivation, developing the Divine Abidings, but he would never turn away from suffering when it manifests and give boundlessly. Whether reaching out to serial killers, like Angulimala, looking after the sick monk, neglected by his fellows, or helping to avert a war, the Buddha never showed indifference to suffering and indeed as a Bodhisatta displayed boundless compassion for all beings.

And for most of us, given the constraints of lay life, what is the import of the Buddha's teachings on loving-kindness and compassion? Is it to retreat into some fabricated peace, lock the door and turn our back on the samsara at home, at work or in our communities? Or is it to do what we can, Dana-Parami, give of ourselves and what we have, abandoning the cherishing of me and mine, whether in the act, in what it implies or in the consequence? I see that in itself as a powerful practice, but not only. The introverted view is only one half of the coin. The actual contact, the act, the external is just as important. Both may be fabrications in the final analysis, but holding on to one, we fall prey to the other, unawares.
_/|\_

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:09 pm
Right Intention is clearly pivotal here, particularly developing harmlessness. In other words, there is an intention NOT to cause harm, which goes beyond merely not intending to cause harm.
Would you agree to frame this in terms of the dichotomy
"lack of intention to cause harm"
vs.
"intending not to cause harm (=intending to be harmless)"
?


For example, an infant simply lacks the intention to cause harm. Neither the intention to cause harm nor the intention not to cause harm occur to him. He just doesn't have the cognitive capabilities for any of that.

But actually intending not to cause harm, actually intending to be harmless is quite another matter. It requires quite a bit of reflecting on the situation, and sometimes also empathy.

So with a pandemic, there is a moral obligation to protect others from infection.
But a moral obligation according to whom?

I don't know. Does Buddhism even operate with the concept "moral obligation"?
Actually, I'll put this into a separate thread, because it is so fundamental.

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

Dan74 wrote:
Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:03 pm
And for most of us, given the constraints of lay life, what is the import of the Buddha's teachings on loving-kindness and compassion? Is it to retreat into some fabricated peace, lock the door and turn our back on the samsara at home, at work or in our communities? Or is it to do what we can, Dana-Parami, give of ourselves and what we have, abandoning the cherishing of me and mine, whether in the act, in what it implies or in the consequence? I see that in itself as a powerful practice, but not only. The introverted view is only one half of the coin. The actual contact, the act, the external is just as important. Both may be fabrications in the final analysis, but holding on to one, we fall prey to the other, unawares.
The goal of Buddhist practice is nibbana, not the betterment of the world.

You'd be hard-pressed to find canonical support for the idea that the world can be bettered to begin with. It's in its nature to be like a small pond in which fish struggle for water while the schorching sun is shrinking it.

Whatever betterment of economical and social conditions is sought by the ideal Buddhist practitioner, it's for the purpose of reducing unnecessary strife, unnecessary suffering, so that one's practice for the attainment of nibbana can run more easily. But the betterment of economical and social conditions is not a worthy goal per se. This is where Buddhism, ideally, differs both from humanism and from capitalism.

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:05 pm
First, we might mean that we don't care about the harm we actually inflict upon others, because we don't know or believe that we are inflicting it. This would seem to be exemplified by the coronavirus carriers mentioned who "genuinely lack the thought or concern that they endanger other people". They refuse to self-isolate because they don't believe the medical expert about the dangers. In accordance with the Buddha's central claim about what kamma is:
Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
then they are not intending to harm others. They are in that specific respect as innocent as a child who carries the virus. What they are guilty of, however, is the intentional act of deliberately ignoring expert advice. If (as per the example) they can understand the concepts "virus" and "infection", then presumably they are intentionally absolving themselves of obvious agency in the matter.

So,
There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication
and this is dark kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I've been thinking about this for days, and something is bothering me here, but I can't quite specify it yet.

What about the function of self-confidence? A person can be so self-confident that this blocks out other considerations.

While an external observer may say that Dick is deliberately ignoring expert advice, Dick himself can be so self-confident that the thought of "deliberately ignoring expert advice" doesn't even occur to him. Basically, it seems to me that self-confidence seems to mitigate against kammic consequences, or at least some of them. Granted, Dick's self-confidence might get him to be reborn (self-confidence and self-identity view go hand in hand). But if he thinks something like, "The doctor told me that I am a carrier of a dangerous infectious disease and ordered me to self-isolate. But I am a good person, I couldn't possibly do anything harmful to others. So I'll go on with my life as usual." -- where are the injurious bodily, verbal, and mental fabrications in this? Perhaps if he also thinks "Oh, but Harry, now that's a scoundrel! He's carrying the virus, and he's endangering others, and me!" that could be to Dick's kammic disadvantage.

I just can't shake the thought that some people could have the virus, know it, know that they can infect others, know the possible courses of the disease, infect others -- and yet kammically get away with it.

chownah
Posts: 8830
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by chownah »

binocular wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:34 am
.....and yet ...... get away with it.
Appearances can be deceiving but it does look like you are into seeing people be punished.....I don't think there is a doctrine that talks about people being punished (whether they deserve it or not).

If one is wanting to think in terms of punishment then for example take the person who is over-confident: while it might not be clear in every instant of their lives (like the short scenario you present above) that they are being punished if you take the long view of their life it will become more obvious that their over-confidence does in fact lead to punishment.
chownah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:34 am
What about the function of self-confidence? A person can be so self-confident that this blocks out other considerations.

While an external observer may say that Dick is deliberately ignoring expert advice, Dick himself can be so self-confident that the thought of "deliberately ignoring expert advice" doesn't even occur to him. Basically, it seems to me that self-confidence seems to mitigate against kammic consequences, or at least some of them. Granted, Dick's self-confidence might get him to be reborn (self-confidence and self-identity view go hand in hand). But if he thinks something like, "The doctor told me that I am a carrier of a dangerous infectious disease and ordered me to self-isolate. But I am a good person, I couldn't possibly do anything harmful to others. So I'll go on with my life as usual." -- where are the injurious bodily, verbal, and mental fabrications in this? Perhaps if he also thinks "Oh, but Harry, now that's a scoundrel! He's carrying the virus, and he's endangering others, and me!" that could be to Dick's kammic disadvantage.

I just can't shake the thought that some people could have the virus, know it, know that they can infect others, know the possible courses of the disease, infect others -- and yet kammically get away with it.
I agree with Chownah's point, in that "getting away with it" seems to imply that someone has evaded some cosmic machinery whereby people get their just deserts. There is a nice passage in the blog post I originally quoted in the thread started by No_Mind regarding his obligations to others:
ethics in Buddhism is essentially psychological and subjective.

Some people may object that Buddhist ethics is based on the idea of karma, or kamma in Pali, and thereby not purely subjective; although most people don’t understand the Buddhist conception of karma very well. From an orthodox Theravada Buddhist perspective, karma is purely psychological; in fact in the Pali texts the Buddha identifies karma with cetanā, which is a mental state usually translated into English as “volition.” It may come as a surprise to some that karma is not some universal law of metaphysics along the lines of, “for every moral action there is an equal and opposite moral reaction”—in fact that’s how I understood it before I became a monk and studied the texts; but although that’s what karma may be in New Age or maybe Hinduism, in Buddhism karma is a mental state.
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blog ... dhism.html

With regard to Dick and his self-confidence, the important point regarding cetana is what Dick is intending to do. "Confidence" is merely the label we put on his general demeanour, and won't help us with intentions. If he is confidently attempting to save someone from drowning such that he is heedless of spreading the virus, that's very different from a person who knows what doctors and experts say but considers himself to be a "good person" in a way that negates established virology and epidemiology. That latter person truly is an ignorant Dick!

Paññobhāsa has some interesting points about kamma and sociopaths (by which he appears to mean people who are heedless of the feelings of others) but I'm not sure if that applies with your example. It might be that Dick's kamma is based on greed and delusion, if he is too busy trying to get on with his life as usual in the midst of a killer endemic plague, or if he thinks that his personal characteristics somehow suspend the rules of nature.

As Dr. Johnson said,
There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.
It's meant to be a provocative half-truth, of course, and should not be confused with anything the Buddha or Paññobhāsa said, but it does have the virtue of helping us to think about intention.

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

chownah wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:24 am
Appearances can be deceiving but it does look like you are into seeing people be punished.....I don't think there is a doctrine that talks about people being punished (whether they deserve it or not).
No, I'm not into punishment per se. It's just that in Buddhism, there are principles of morality and their implications that I find downright repugnant. And I want to figure out what exactly this is about.

binocular
Posts: 7585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:03 pm
I agree with Chownah's point, in that "getting away with it" seems to imply that someone has evaded some cosmic machinery whereby people get their just deserts.
Well, I haven't given up on the notion of objective morality yet, so it's no wonder some things about Buddhism trouble me.
ethics in Buddhism is essentially psychological and subjective.

Some people may object that Buddhist ethics is based on the idea of karma, or kamma in Pali, and thereby not purely subjective; although most people don’t understand the Buddhist conception of karma very well. From an orthodox Theravada Buddhist perspective, karma is purely psychological; in fact in the Pali texts the Buddha identifies karma with cetanā, which is a mental state usually translated into English as “volition.” It may come as a surprise to some that karma is not some universal law of metaphysics along the lines of, “for every moral action there is an equal and opposite moral reaction”—in fact that’s how I understood it before I became a monk and studied the texts; but although that’s what karma may be in New Age or maybe Hinduism, in Buddhism karma is a mental state.
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blog ... dhism.html
Yes, and this is why Buddhism seems so cold, so Darwinistic.
With regard to Dick and his self-confidence, the important point regarding cetana is what Dick is intending to do.

"Confidence" is merely the label we put on his general demeanour, and won't help us with intentions.
I'm not sure about this. From what I've seen, confidence is about a lot more, including a person's intentions. Confidence isn't just skin-deep. It's about the person's self-image, about who they believe they are, how they act, what they want and what they intend. The confident belief "I'm a good person, I can do no wrong, my intentions are always good" is a persistent cognitive background for the person holding such a belief, so that whatever particular intention they have about any particular action, because of the self-confidence, this intention is by default experienced as good/right/harmless.

If a person genuinely believes that they have intended no wrong, then, by Buddhist ethics, they are kammically innocent, regardless of what they actually did.

So, all in all, self-confidence seems to be the quickest path to kammic innocence!
If he is confidently attempting to save someone from drowning such that he is heedless of spreading the virus, that's very different from a person who knows what doctors and experts say but considers himself to be a "good person" in a way that negates established virology and epidemiology. That latter person truly is an ignorant Dick!
But if the only relevant type of ingorance is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, and Dick is not ignorant of those ... then maybe he's a Richard.
Paññobhāsa has some interesting points about kamma and sociopaths (by which he appears to mean people who are heedless of the feelings of others) but I'm not sure if that applies with your example.
It could, or not. The line between self-confidence and sociopathy seems to be a thin one.
It might be that Dick's kamma is based on greed and delusion, if he is too busy trying to get on with his life as usual in the midst of a killer endemic plague, or if he thinks that his personal characteristics somehow suspend the rules of nature.

In a conception of the universe in which there is no objective morality, can we still talk about the "rules of nature"?
As Dr. Johnson said,
There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.
It's meant to be a provocative half-truth, of course, and should not be confused with anything the Buddha or Paññobhāsa said, but it does have the virtue of helping us to think about intention.
How about these two:
"Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice" (Clark's law)
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice" (Grey's law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27 ... _third_law

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: The ethics of being indifferent about whether one harms others

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:01 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:03 pm
I agree with Chownah's point, in that "getting away with it" seems to imply that someone has evaded some cosmic machinery whereby people get their just deserts.
Well, I haven't given up on the notion of objective morality yet, so it's no wonder some things about Buddhism trouble me.
Sure, but this objectivity can have two different meanings. It might be that there is an objective order to the way things are (i.e. kamma) but that there is nobody making you do anything about it. The flood actually is cold and stormy, but there is no obligation to do anything about it. There is just help if you want it.
Yes, and this is why Buddhism seems so cold, so Darwinistic.
See above. Darwinism portrays a universe where completely uncomprehending beings are simply jerked along by chemicals, or squished, depending on factors completely beyond their control. The Buddha offers ehipassiko...
I'm not sure about this. From what I've seen, confidence is about a lot more, including a person's intentions. Confidence isn't just skin-deep. It's about the person's self-image, about who they believe they are, how they act, what they want and what they intend.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. But the important points for Buddhism are already in there, and have been explained: intentions, how they act, what they intend. It is these that constitute kamma, and by which a person moves forward into a new identity. A confident person can act well, and make good kamma. That's one aspect of saddhā. But (back to Kant, here!) any character trait can be misused, and the confident person can make an effective robber or fraudster. The key is intention. When the intention is wholesome, that's good kamma, and when it's not wholesome, that's not good kamma.
The confident belief "I'm a good person, I can do no wrong, my intentions are always good" is a persistent cognitive background for the person holding such a belief, so that whatever particular intention they have about any particular action, because of the self-confidence, this intention is by default experienced as good/right/harmless.
No, this is where the naturalism works. That person sounds as if they are driven by unexamined assumptions, a gigantic ego, and (certainly in the case of someone who thinks they are somehow personally exempted from the responsibilities they recognise for others) a massive dose of delusion. All that seems to be incompatible with the calm expansive mind-states that the Buddha talks of.
But if the only relevant type of ingorance is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, and Dick is not ignorant of those ... then maybe he's a Richard.
If he is still exhibiting the kind of "confidence" (i.e. in his own inexpugnable goodness) then he might be able to recall the 4NTs, but they haven't really sunk in.
In a conception of the universe in which there is no objective morality, can we still talk about the "rules of nature"?
Why not? Gravity still does its thing. There is no objective reason not to walk off a cliff, but that doesn't affect the outcome.
How about these two:
"Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice" (Clark's law)
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice" (Grey's law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27 ... _third_law
both good! :D :anjali:

Post Reply