I begin by warmly thanking Professors Garfield and Hansen for participating in this dialogue. I greatly value the work of both and appreciate having the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with them. Aside from the many important insights I gain from their replies, I believe that both Garfield and Hansen misrepresent my position. In response, I shall clarify the argument contained in my preceding comment, and will consider the objections as they bear on this clarified position.
Both Garfield and Hansen characterize the central argument of my comment as presupposing a relatively mainstream Western account of action. They suggest that, with a mainstream Western account in hand, I challenge Classical Chinese and Indo Tibetan Buddhist thought for not having the resources to fit this account. In replying to my argument, they argue that the mainstream account of action is an inappropriate model of action in the context of the Asian traditions. They also maintain that the mainstream account is itself a highly problematic model of action. Garfield and Hansen then proceed to offer highly insightful suggestions about the possibilities of action available in their respective traditions of Asian thought. The underlying thought of both replies, it would seem, is that the dilemma generated in my comment is the fruit of a mistaken presupposition about the nature of action rather than indicative of a genuine limitation in Classical Chinese and Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought. If the underling argument of my comment did, indeed, fit the above characterization, then I would be extremely sympathetic to Garfield's and Hansen's line of reply. And, to be fair, I can see how it may be read this way. However, this characterization misrepresents the argument. To see this, we first need to clarify what is meant by the mainstream Western view of the nature of action and then identify the aspects of...
