Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 15:29:00 -0700
From: "HARVEY Peter" [email protected]
Peter Junger writes: This is ambiguous, and might mean:
a) this is not the way to truly ‘follow the Dharma’, or b) if I were //only// doing it out of duty, I would not bother, as ‘duty’ would not motivate me.
On a) :One can say, once one follows the Dharma, then various duties, eg. to follow the precepts, are entailed by one’s appreciation for and understanding of Dharma.
On b), this perhaps raises a general point about ‘duty': we tend to think of ‘duties’ as something one would rather not do, something which is ‘//merely// a duty’, but that need not be the case. One may happily concur with the rightness and appropriateness of the duty. This does not mean that laziness and other hindrances arising from various corners of the mind don’t try and get in the way of what the clearer part of your mind sees to be right.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:32:04 +0100
From: "peter.harvey" [email protected]
Robin Kornman questions whether there are ‘duties’ in Buddhism, saying ‘I wouldn’t use the word duty to refer to the undertakings a bodhisattva has promised to engage in. People do not tell a bodhisattva to do his or her duty. They tell him or her to remember the vow’.
a) having made such an important vow, surely there is a duty to keep one’s word
b) even if one has not made such a vow, are there not other duties, of humane treatment of others, which apply whether or not one sees oneself as a bodhisattva, or even as a Buddhist?