tiltbillings wrote:We do not need long disquisitions on the the Mahayana or Vajrayana here.
Dharma Atma wrote:tiltbillings wrote:We do not need long disquisitions on the the Mahayana or Vajrayana here.
Joking?! Don't you find, dear sir, this phrase sounds a bit sectarian? Listen, I believe that there's no Mahayana or Theravada or something else. There's only truth or fault. For ex, if the number of planets in the Solar System is 9, then we can't say "It's Theravada" or "It's Mahayana". When we say "They are 9 in number" we pronounce "truth", not of any "Mahayana" or something else. Right?
So, if there exists any space with all the objects inside, we don't speak of Mahayana or Hinayana. No! We discuss a fact in nature or reject this fact. That's all.
And now I want to ask: is there in the Universe anything static, eternal and unchangeable? is there something real?
You may believe that, which is your choice, but the reality is that there are differing points of view associated with differing schools. Your opening msg made that very, very clear: I propose to discuss it from viewpoint of Theravada, All I asked is to keep the discussion focused. And so your complaint is what exactly?Dharma Atma wrote:tiltbillings wrote:We do not need long disquisitions on the the Mahayana or Vajrayana here.
Joking?! Don't you find, dear sir, this phrase sounds a bit sectarian? Listen, I believe that there's no Mahayana or Theravada or something else.
Hi, Dharma Atma. The translations on Access to Insight are fairly straightforward. There aren't that many difficult English words, and you also don't encounter many English idioms which could make the readings somewhat difficult for a person accustomed to a non-Anglophone language.Dharma Atma wrote:Thank you, EricJ! You wrote perfectly what I wanted, your own opinion. I asked for someone's opinion but always got only quotes. When I'll have read the sources you recommended then I'll be able to discuss this theme more profound way. When I read those sutras, we'll be able to discuss it better and in terms of Theravada. But it will take time, for I have to find these texts in Russian, due to make understanding of them more clear.
Anyway, it was very interesting to read your own opinion, or "interpretation" as you said. Out of this it goes that our viewpoints are not so deep. And I can even say that I'm completely agree with the above-stated!
And what is "Mahaviharin Theravada"? Never heard of it.
Users browsing this forum: Fluke and 21 guests