PeterB wrote:I dont mean would you treat them with personal respect...I would hope you would.
Would you assume that his/her view was just as valid as yours ?
I think that the view of the Theravada , beyond a partially shared vocab is as far removed from the Mahayana as is the view of the Jehovahs Witnesses. I think we are not talking about the same thing at all....
Well honestly, I would try to look at the parts of whatever it is the views of the Jehovahs Witnesses are (I really don't know). Maybe there are some parts that I would agree completely with, perhaps involving basic morality, or the golden rule or something. Other parts I'm sure I would disagree with. So, treating something with respect, or not regarding it as self or as opposed to self, doesn't mean that I don't disagree, necessarily. We can respectfully disagree and I can work on not taking whatever someone says personally. Easy to say, not so easy to do, I recognize that.
I give a big thumbs up to paying close attention to the suttas. I look at some "Mahayana" things and I don't see any difference there. I look at others, and I can't find how it relates. But I see that with Theravada commentary as well, and there's plenty of Theravadins who say of other Theravadin stuff "That's not in the suttas!"
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230