Quote:
Originally Posted by anista
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuken
Well said, well said! The Buddha is our guide, however there are (at least) three paths (that are all one) The Sravakayana (sometimes called Theravada or Hinnayana) the Mahayana (Zen and Pure Land Schools) and the Vajrayana (Tantric schools or "thunderbolt" vehicle) each having their own texts. If I were studying and practicing the Sravakayana I would not reference Mahayana texts any more than I would reference a field guide to alaska while hiking here in Okinawa. They are all part of the one vehicle, but with different means whereby, and (as I have learned the hard way) it may become important along the way to understand there is a reason for the three classifications. Not sure if that was clear, let me know.
Well Fuken, I don't know where to start. Maybe I miss something in this response, please let me know if that's the case. In your previous post you said that we should according to Mah?y?na act with nobility, yet you call other parts for "lesser"? Is that nobility? Yes, it could be! You are calling things as they are, aren't you?
I think you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of lesser vehicle, it is not a slight, it is the nature of the practice.
Quote:
The Therav?da and H?nay?na are not the same thing. H?nay?na consists of all the early school, and perhaps most notably the Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?da. Therav?da is but one of the early schools.
Yes, but as they are really the only one surviving, they are often assumed to be one and the same.
I suspect you already know this as well.
Quote:
In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered.
This is your opinion, it is mine that we should understand the difference between pepsi and coke.
Quote:
Since the Mah?y?na s?tras are often written as teachings succeding the pali canon, it is wise to first have an understanding of the suttas. So, reference to pali suttas is indeed valid.
Again, I disagree with you here, I grew up on the Dhamapada and still cherish it, but it is not useful at all if you are studying the Lotus Sutra. It could even be seen as a hinderance, along with the rest of the teachings of the Sravakayana.
Quote:
If you compare the difference between suttas and s?tras to field guides of Alaska and Okinawa, well, you clearly have a strong opinion of what constitutes lesser and greater, and seems to cherish this dualism.
That seems crass to me. But we enter dualism as soon as we open our mouths. (or type something out, in this case. As one who appreciates the Sutras I would expect you to appreciate the analogy.
Quote:
I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!
Quote:
But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun! :)
Joy...
Quote:
the La?k?vat?ra s?tra is devoting numerous chapters to the "Erroneous views" of philosophers, and brahmans, "like simple-minded ones they are". Most notably those who have a wrong view of what constitutes dharma. In Vimalak?rtinirde?a s?tra, a clearly polemical work against the h?nay?nist view, Vimalak?rti makes fun of the h?nay?nists personified by ??riputra, with all their petty rules that hinders them from seeing the true dharma.
And the Surangama addresses demonic states of mind of practitioners who think they understand the dharma... Again, so what?
This seems a distraction from the main debate, which was if I can even remember, weather or not the precepts were a hard and fast set of rules or not, I am in the camp that says they are not.
Quote:
It does not matter if it is a sutta or s?tra, there is always the need to call things what they are.
Indeed.
Quote:
Oh, and that quote from Mah?parinirv??a s?tra I agree with completely! It says the same thing I say about the precepts.
Last but not least, yes, buddhadharma points out ultimate reality. Ultimate reality exists not depending on your view of it. Smaller rules for a samgha can be replaced, the graver ones (no matter if it's sa?gha rules or precepts) can not.
I agree, but fail to see the point of addressing it, it does not change what has already been addressed.
Quote:
Let me ask you a question: how much are you willing to reinterpret the precepts? Until they become what you have always wanted them to be?
What do you think I want them to be, what do you want them to be?
For me, it is as I have already made clear, the precepts are not a grounds for causing harm to another by action of body, speech, or mind.
Quote:
When they fit with your current line of work, lifestyle, actions? Where do you draw the line?
Right here __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________