Otherwise, as some one has noticed, many of your points are merely convictions without a solid basis of investigation and actual experiences.
I'm interested in how they could know what my investigations and actual experiences might be.
I'm one of those who also sees a lack of communicated investigations and actual experiences. Note that I am referring to what you seem not to have communicated
, which Is the point of the first quote, I suspect. I understand, I believe, your staements that the Mahayana texts prove your convictions, but the same thing is said by their respective followers of the Bible, The Koran, The Pali canon, etc. Your inquiry/point seems to be the bodhisattva ideal in Theravada. To how many believers in other systems can you speak using just the Mahayana texts as your basis?
This has been most interesting, Dexing, but I'm afraid I'm losing interest in statements of personal conviction. I can read descriptions of the bodhisatta in Theravada in other places that appear to be willing to quote sources in the Pali Canon. I can read many varied versions of Mahayana belief and the bodhisattva ideal in other places and they don't coincide quite with what you have presented.
If you came to demonstrate you are right, you join the ranks of at least 4,000 years of others who did the same on their convictions. Get into religion and poorly recorded history and you can take it much further back. None of them...none...have successfully shown the world that they alone are right. If they had, there would be only one religion/system of beliefs now. All others could readily see how false they are. ......But none of that seems to be happening.
Should you have a teacher that blames it on the blunt faculties of the poor deluded who practice modern Western philosophy (happened to me in one discussion), inform him/her that the philosophical systems in question are documented to 4,000 years, roughly 1500 prior to the Buddha. "Everything is change" goes back about 3000 years in documentation and there's a link to the same continent. That philosopher didn't come out of the box that way, I suspect. The issue of change and what it means has been around for a long time, IMHO. end/
But it's just my views again
It does raise the question in my mind (and maybe it should in yours) why a rigid belief or preference of a system doesn't just take us into year 4,001 of being wrong? In my case, I believe the Buddha did a pretty good job of making a practical description of non-conceptual process/situation/etc. But even among Buddhists there is debate on what He said, if He said it, when He said it, why He said it that way, etc. So I don't try to tell a devoted Yogacara that he's wrong. I tell him that his position of strict mind-only has some serious counterarguements to deal with - unless he's just an evangalist interested in only convincing others.
If you do decide to move this thread over to Dharma Wheel, I'm afraid I won't be around much. I don't go there often because there's little there that interests me. I find I do better listening to what the Buddha said, rather than what people say the Buddha said. So far, I find that mostly in the Pali Canon.