[Buddha-l] Loving your object of study

[L.S. Cousins]

Richard,

I wrote:
>  > b) both are envisaged as legitimate and presumably therefore as
>>  leading to the same goal. I would take this as implying that both are
>>  considered as necessary.

Richard asked:
>Why would you take this as implying that both are necessary, rather than that
>each is sufficient?

That of course is a logical alternative. I reject it on historical grounds:

1. All of the later schools of Indian Buddhism down to the sixth 
century (and probably later) seem to agree that Awakening (bodhi, 
etc.) is the union of calm and insight, if they define it at all.

2. Such seems to be already the understanding of the canonical 
Abhidha(r)mma literatures, as far as I can determine.

3.  I do not see any evidence for the existence of a conflict between 
the two approaches in earlier Buddhist literature. I am of course 
aware that many have thought otherwise.

Lance