Guest guest Posted November 2, 2002 Report Share Posted November 2, 2002 On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, vpcnk wrote: > >Would you know if what we call the Lotus Suutra ( Saddharma Pundarika > >Suutra ) "belongs" to both Hinaayaana and Mahaayaana or only to the > >last ? Since of all Buddhist texts it is the one that insists most stridently on a rigid distinction between Mahayana and Hinayana, and viciously slanders the latter, I would say that by its own account it should be taken to belong in the former category. P. Ernest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2002 Report Share Posted November 2, 2002 I should have mentioned that the saddharmapuNDariikasuutra actually refers to three yaanas, but it does so by subdividing hiinayaana into shraavakayaana and pratyekabuddhayaana, and setting them against the buddhayaana or bodhisattvayaana, that is, the mahaayaana, which it actually asserts to be the ekayaana. If I remember correctly. yaana yaana yaana P. Ernest On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, vpcnk wrote: > Somebody asked me the following question : > > >Would you know if what we call the Lotus Suutra ( Saddharma Pundarika > >Suutra ) "belongs" to both Hinaayaana and Mahaayaana or only to the > >last ? > > Grateful for any pointers. > > > > > > > indology > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2002 Report Share Posted November 2, 2002 It is not enough to speak of such terms. That is dishwater buddhism. A shrAvaka, for example, is a scholar, and a pratyekabuddha is at least pretty close to enlightenment. A buddha, we must suppose, is the illumined being. The bodhisattva, in the contemporary understanding of the term, is the Saviour of all beings, the conductor to the Ark, who risks (like the unicorn) missing the gangplank. To call mahAyana ekAyana is about on the same level as Christians' claim to unique truth. Some meditate. Some realize. Some merely juggle terminology. ===== ____________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2002 Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 > To call mahAyana ekAyana is about on the same level > as Christians' claim to unique truth. Some meditate. > Some realize. Some merely juggle terminology. But there's little doubt that that's the way that the Mahaayaanis themselves viewed the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2002 Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, vpcnk wrote: > > To call mahAyana ekAyana is about on the same level > > as Christians' claim to unique truth. Some meditate. > > Some realize. Some merely juggle terminology. > > But there's little doubt that that's the way that the Mahaayaanis > themselves viewed the issue. And can anyone think of a religion/philosophy that takes a relativist view of its own truth claims? shuunyataavaada comes closest, but of course even that non-position has its own ineluctable danger of self-exaltation. Phillip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.