[Buddha-l] Re: Nirvana si, bodhi no! [was liturgical languages]

Mike Austin mike at lamrim.org.uk
Sat May 14 04:15:24 MDT 2005

In message <1116040727.4778.35.camel at localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. 
Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> writes
>On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:04 -0600, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>Here's why I like nirvana. It's completely knowable. I mean there's no
>DOUBT about nirvana. If you still get angry with people,
>then you haven't attained nirvana. End of story.

I am not angry with anyone at the moment.  I am not in nirvana because I 
may get angry with someone tomorrow. I still have the roots of anger. If 
I reach nirvana, how will I know these roots have completely gone?

>Here's why I hate bodhi. You always need someone else to tell you
>whether you've attained it.

No, you don't.  For example, you don't need someone to tell you that you 
have a generous mind - nor do you need someone to tell you that you have 
performed a generous act.

>So you are always beholden to a guru or a
>master at whose feet you have to grovel for several decades


Not one of your better posts, Richard. But maybe you do not need someone 
to tell you that.

Mike Austin

More information about the buddha-l mailing list