[Buddha-l] angels

[Gad Horowitz]

Magliola doesnt say its obligatory.  I say it is.  If its superogatory what
remains of ethics.?  Its all just karma. The vow to do one's utmost for the
other obligates all beings whether they know it or not.  The boddhisattva is
the one who fully assumes this obligation in her vow.Anyway, with this, I
bow out of this discussion.  There are limits to e-dialogue.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard P. Hayes" <rhayes at unm.edu>
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] angels


> On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 09:42 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote:
>
> > He [Magliola] refuses to lay claim "to absolute or universalized
> > truth...except for one conviction,which I insist is binding on all:the
> > obligation to loving kindness" And I wondered: whence the exception?
>
> Magliola has a genius for getting almost everything about Buddhism dead
> wrong. What I wonder is why bother trying to sort him out? The fact is
> that there is, and never has been, anything obligatory about the
> bodhisattva vow. It is supererogatory and has always been understood as
> such. So all that need be said to sort Magliola out is to point out that
> he is insisting on a falsehood. That could be said in a footnote.
>
> -- 
> 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