[Buddha-l] RE: Nirvana si, bodhi no!

[Steven Lane]

 Yes you are correct I really must stop thinking of you as a god. I will try but it will be hard. You understand. 

 You made a statement that there is no difference between a Buddha and Arhat. This is only true in non-Mahayana texts. Grace us with your knowledge and explain how the Mahayana texts differ.

  (I forgot I used grace us)

   Steve  

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard P. Hayes
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:16 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: Nirvana si, bodhi no!

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 19:16 -0400, Steven Lane wrote:

> My god Richard have you ever actually picked up a Mahayana canonical 
> text at all.

First of all, it's sufficient to call me Richard. Even though I am the moderator, there is no need to address me as your god.

Second, I stand a little puzzled. Frankly, I didn't know the Mahayana was uptight enough to have a canon. I thought only dualists (boo, hiss) had fences between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. 

But let's get now to the most interesting point. Why don't you begin by explaining why you ask such a silly question, amigo? Were you expecting that when someone asked my opinion about several passages in the Pali canon, I would respond by giving references to the Lotus Sūtra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the Sukhavatī-vyūha-sūtra, the Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra or one of the other texts that I regularly read?

--
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l