Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Re: Buddha Dharma and free thinking
Message-ID: <1990Dec12.010520.5834@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 12 Dec 90 01:05:20 GMT
References: <1990Dec11.022234.11006@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
Lines: 25
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1990Dec11.022234.11006@nas.nasa.gov> chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu writes:
[Quoting Keith Evans, I believe...]
>>If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him,
>>then he also is a slanderer.

Yesterday I posted a longer response to Mr. Evans, but as I read
this I was struck by the irony. Someone who claims that all the
Buddha's early teachings were false and deceptive and that the
Buddha at the end of his life contradicted them to declare the Lotus
Sutra was the only true teaching calls others slanderers, even by
their silence!

I hesitated before posting any response to Mr. Evans
because I at first saw no point in the controversy. But now I'm
glad I did lest I be guilty of slandering the Buddha by letting
Mr. Evan's claims slandering all but a small and suspect part
of the Law go unchallenged. 

I've thought the whole controversy unworthy of Buddhists.
Some may think my own vehement response in this category.
Fortunately Bandul Jayatilaka's response is milder and
more thorough. I commend him for that.

Bill Mayne