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

[Mike Austin]

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

Balderdash!

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

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin