Posted by Sergio (188.8.131.52) on November 09, 2000 at 04:35:32:
In Reply to: Well, just be pacified posted by Zolla on November 08, 2000 at 18:33:45:
Very Dear Zolla:
I think that these kinds of debates are good and very helpful for all of us in the forum. I think that we are not really debating, just exchanging ideas about different aspects of the Buddhist schools. A lot of people here are learning from each other, and I think it is worthy.
I agree with you about your comments. When I said hinayana I was refering to all hinayana’s schools. Nowadays there is only one: theravada. However, these kinds of debates began when more hinayana’s schools were still alive.
As you said any of them have the same objective, differences between such schools are philosophical aspects and techniques. The argument of the theravada’s tradition is that they practice exactly what the Buddha taught, and it is in the suttras, while other traditions practice news things. The argument of the mahyana and vajrayana traditions is that even they practice something different that the Buddha taught, they practice it like that because other Buddhas taught it, and in that sense it is also a Buddha’s teaching. This occurs in Tibet, a fabric of Buddhas. During its history, a lot of Buddhas have been created there and they have improved and added new technologies. We must remember that Buddhism is not a frozen system, it evolutions.
Nowadays I practice several theravada’s meditations which are excellent, and the studies I’ve made about the Abbidharma have given me a lot of insight. I have a high respect for the Abbidharma. I agree with you about the fact that all Buddhas are arahts, but not all arahts are Buddhas. Maybe that was the confusion about “superiority”.
However in my personal point of view, I think that tibetan Buddhism is more for me. Tibetan Buddhism has the vajrayana practice, the tantra. This advanced system doesn’t exist in the theravada tradition, and unfortunately it has been lost in the Zen tradition. To me it is an important difference even when I am not ready for tantra. But I’ve seen what the tantra has made to high lamas, and that’s enough for me. Besides I fear that in the future the tantra system get lost if the tibetan culture gets lost, and it would be a horrible lost because tibetan culture is the last Buddhist culture with tantra. Anyway we all are trying to develop ourselves, and I think that we all in this forum need the preliminary practices more than the tantric ones. In that sense, theravada’s practitioners are an example of renunciation.
What do you think???
Post a Followup