At Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:58:37 +0000, you wrote:
>
>In message <19990223133641.AAA18633@[128.103.125.215]>, Wade T.Smith
><wade_smith@harvard.edu> writes
>>>and [Buddhism is]
>>>perfectly (I mean *perfectly*) compatible with rationality.
>>
>>I'm not at all sure anything adopted as a 'gloss' over rationality is
>>ever compatible. It may well only be benignly parasitic..
>
>It's not so much a gloss over rationality. Recalling that
>we are talking about its "pure form", I'd say that Buddhism
>is to subjective experience as science is to energy and
>matter.
>
>>After all, grasshopper, is not Buddha not needing Buddha?
>
>Certainly not. It is said that if you meet the Buddha on
>the road, you should kill him. "Meeting the Buddha" is
>penetrating to the core of Buddhism. "Killing the Buddha"
>is leaving Buddhism behind. It is, after all, only a
>means to an end, a thief set to catch a thief, an anti-viral
>agent in the form of a virus. I expect Sue Blackmore's
>book due out next month (I think) to be very good on this.
>--
>Robin
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher