In message <19990223171353.AAA29215@[128.103.125.215]>, Wade T.Smith
<wade_smith@harvard.edu> writes
>>we are talking about its "pure form"
>
>Last thing I'd expect to hear about Buddhism is any relation at all to
>Platonism....
>
>;-)
Why do you think I used the scare quotes?
The "pure form" of Buddhism does not exist anywhere, I only meant to mean the form that IMHO (and that of Stephen Batchelor, and apparently joe deeds) is most beneficial to its practitioners. The word "pure" seems appropriate because the most beneficial form also appears to be (a) the simplest, and (b) the most true to the original intent (as far as that can be discerned after 2500 years).
-- Robin