[Buddha-l] RE: Nirvana si, bodhi no!

Richard P. Hayes rhayes at unm.edu
Thu May 19 08:55:46 MDT 2005

On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 00:24 -0400, Steven Lane wrote:

>  You made a statement that there is no difference between a Buddha and
> Arhat.

"A text without a context is a pretext." If you note carefully the
context in which that statement was made, I was reporting what my
impression is of how things are stated in the Pali canon. Bruce had made
it clear that he was interested in hearing how things stand in the Pali
canon, NOT in later Theravada scholasticism and NOT in Mahayana.

> Grace us with your knowledge and explain how the Mahayana texts differ.

Since I have written about this quite a bit recently, may I suggest you
look through the archives. By far the best statement on this to appear
recently has been Dan Lusthaus's response to Bruce yesterday. If this
topic is of interest to you, I'd recommend reading Dan's posting on the

Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico

More information about the buddha-l mailing list