[Buddha-l] Joanna Kirk <jkirk@spro.net>

[Richard Hayes]

On Saturday 24 February 2007 21:51, Piya Tan wrote:

> Ethnographers generally like to use somewhat water-tight categories of
> "kammic," "nibbanic," "apotropaic" etc. 

You're about 35 years out of date, Bhante. I don't think people have been 
using those categories since the publication of Buddhism and Society in 1970. 
That book ably demonstrated the inadequacy of oversimplified schemata, and it 
has had an enormous impact on those of us who make a living by talking about 
Buddhism. 

By the way, dear denizens, please be mindful about answering messages. Please 
be sure to 1) cut out everything in the message you are replying to except 
what is necessary to establish a context for your answer, and 2) send your 
message only in plain text format and NOT in HTML. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico