I think you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of lesser vehicle, it is not a slight, it is the nature of the practice.
Originally Posted by anista
Yes, but as they are really the only one surviving, they are often assumed to be one and the same.
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.
I suspect you already know this as well.
This is your opinion, it is mine that we should understand the difference between pepsi and coke.
In Mah?y?na, the pali canon are studied and revered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I do not, even though I certainly fall into this thinking myself!
But, if you want, I can stop quoting suttas and move on to s?tras! All the more fun! :)
And the Surangama addresses demonic states of mind of practitioners who think they understand the dharma... Again, so what?
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.
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.
It does not matter if it is a sutta or s?tra, there is always the need to call things what they are.
I agree, but fail to see the point of addressing it, it does not change what has already been addressed.
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.
What do you think I want them to be, what do you want them to be?
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?
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.
Right here __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
When they fit with your current line of work, lifestyle, actions? Where do you draw the line?