helpfuldemon

Desire is the spice of life!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

if only you would follow your incisive statement by a "because..." and a quote...but you did not...(sigh)

 

you mean you don't have any applicable quotes already handy in your memory yet knew of the related  history?  (Oh btw. we are in a Buddhist sub-forum and I'm not qualified to teach Buddhism or much else for that matter but then again I could give a quote here and there as you say)

 

‚ÄúThere is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.‚Ä̬† Buddha

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, old3bob said:

you mean you don't have any applicable quotes already handy in your memory 

eh in my memory i dont even have what i had for breakfast

9 hours ago, old3bob said:

‚ÄúThere is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.‚Ä̬† Buddha

good quote. indeed it does hint at the buddha nature. however strictly speaking the 'unborn' here is a place or a state - the nirvana, not the buddha nature which is a thing.

 

Quote

 

And it is to this opposite that the Buddha referred when he was
speaking of NibbńĀna. In the UdńĀna he has said: ‚ÄúThere is, O
Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a notcompounded.‚ÄĚ [32]¬†

https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh123_Gunaratna_The-Significance-of-the-Four-Noble-Truths.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds debatable: see my underline below...  so most would agree that only things are born or die while the underline says, "this nature itself remains beyond birth or death"

 

In his Khenjuk, Mipham Rinpoche writes:

The 'naturally present potential' (Skt.¬†prakŠĻõtistha-gotra; Wyl.¬†rang bzhin gnas rigs) is the essence of the¬†tathagatas. In essence, it is naturally arising and uncompounded wisdom, the union of awareness and¬†emptiness, the¬†dharmadhatu¬†which has always been inseparable from the¬†kayas¬†and¬†wisdoms. It is naturally pure, the nature of things, just as it is, pervading all phenomena, beyond any transition or change, like space. Although it is within this context that the ordinary¬†aggregates, elements and faculties of beings are born and die, this nature itself remains beyond birth and death. It is through the realization of this nature that the¬†Three Jewels¬†come into being. This immaculate 'element' (Wyl.¬†khams) is present in all beings without exception as the very nature of their minds, just like the example of a treasure beneath the earth and so on. Nevertheless, for those in whom this nature remains veiled by the four stains, and who have not activated their potential, despite its presence, it does not function in an apparent way [rather like a candle kept inside a jar]. And although they are naturally pure, because they are obscured by temporary veils, this nature is beyond most people's imagination. If the veils that obscure the potential are reduced, it serves to inspire us with a longing to leave¬†samsara¬†behind and attain¬†nirvana.
The four veils that obscure our potential are (1) an antipathy to the Mahayana teachings, (2) the view of self, (3) fear for the sufferings of samsara, and (4) a lack of concern for beings' welfare.
The causes for purifying these veils are: (1) an interest in the Mahayana teachings, (2) a high degree of wisdom, (3) meditative concentration (samadhi), and (4) love.
When we possess these four, through the force of awakening our potential, we come to possess the 'developing potential' (Skt.¬†samudńĀnńęta-gotra; Wyl.¬†rgyas 'gyur gyi rigs) through which we can properly cultivate the virtues of the Mahayana.
Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2023 at 3:43 PM, old3bob said:

I sometimes wonder why the historic Buddha did not say that  Buddha nature is the first Noble Truth instead of suffering...?

 


The Buddha-nature is the pure mind, also known as the Buddha-mind, luminous mind and true mind. It is the first point emphasized by Buddha in the Dhammapada.


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html

 

Quote

 

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

 

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

 

 

 


An impure mind (tainted by the poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion) leads to suffering.

 

A pure mind (untainted by the poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion) leads to happiness.

 

The three poisons that defile the originally pure mind are greed, hatred and delusion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons

 

Here greed is but an intense uncontrolled desire or craving for more pleasant sensations and experiences, while hatred is but an intense uncontrolled desire or aversion for unpleasant sensations and experiences, leading to destructive thoughts, speech and acts.

 

The mind filled with strong desires in the form of cravings or aversions due to conditioning is considered impure and deluded, due to its inability for proper perception and interpretation of events or facts, and consequent incapability for proper judgement,  correct and ethical action.

 

A judge being partial towards his own criminal son due to desire for his well-being inspite of evidence to the contrary, a religious fanatic arguing for the destruction of other religions,  well as a jingoist nursing irrational hatred for other nations are some commonplace examples of a deluded mind caught in its own conditioning and resulting cravings/aversions and being swayed by them mechanically like a puppet.

 

The unconditioned mind is the pure mind which can properly perceive and act correctly, as opposed to the impure mind with the filters of conditioning  that may generate likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions that would lead to incorrect perception, poor judgement and wrong actions.
 

Edited by Ajay0
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course the term mind is used differently in meaning and usage when it comes to comparisons between Buddhism and Hinduism,  Thanks for your post but it shows/reminds me of the convoluted quandary that I hear and don't follow when it comes to the Buddhist definition/pointer concerning "mind".  

 

I'd add that to me a pure mind is nothing more than a tool for the Self,  the Self as pointed to in the Upanishads.

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2023 at 5:00 PM, Taoist Texts said:

because the concept of Buddha nature was first  invented in china a 1000 years after the the historic Buddha. It was not in, and is actually counter to Theravada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

 

 

The origin of the Buddha Nature doctrine can be traced to a teaching of the historical Buddha , as recorded in the Pali Tipitika (Pabhassara Sutta,Anguttara Nikaya 1.49-52): 

 

Quote

 

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually¬†is present, which is why I tell you that ‚Äď for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ‚Äď there is no development of the mind.

 

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actuallyis present, which is why I tell you that ‚Äď for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones ‚Äď there is development of the mind." [Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation]

 

 


 Buddha nature as a term  is mainly used in Mahayana and Zen traditions,.
 

Edited by Ajay0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

The origin of the Buddha Nature doctrine can be traced to a teaching of the historical Buddha , as recorded in the Pali Tipitika (Pabhassara Sutta,Anguttara Nikaya 1.49-52): 

not it can not. Because the exact words: 'The Buddha-nature' are not used there.  Thats why the pure mind is not The Buddha-nature. 

 

And thats why the chinese buddhism which actually invented The Buddha-nature contradicts Theravada on this point. The absolute contradiction between a pure mind and The Buddha-nature is emphasized in the well known 6th patriarch's gatha.

to sum it up, the pure mind is samsara. The buddha-nature is nirvana. 

 

Shen-hsiu presents the following verse which Hung-jen characterizes as incomplete in understanding.

The body is the bodhi tree,
The mind is like a clear mirror.
At all times we must strive to polish it,
And must not let the dust collect.
***

2) Hui-neng offers the following alternative verse:

Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?

https://pages.uoregon.edu/munno/OregonCourses/REL444S05/HuinengVerse.htm

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminology can get confusing and is sometimes ambiguous but fortunately it is nothing but terminology…

 

In the Tibetan traditions, the nature of mind is synonymous with Buddha nature. While the nature of mind and the mind are distinct, the phrase pure and perfect mind, sometimes pure mind or even simply mind, have been used to denote the nature of mind. There are some teachings that use the word mind to mean both samsaric mind and Buddha nature depending on context. Context is very important in understanding the teacher or author’s intention.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents, The Self sees the mind for what it is, a THING, whether or ranging from the purest and most subtle dharmic thing  to the grossest and most impure adharmic thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

individual minds do not need a physical body or brain excepting that those are used as interfaces to the physical world, while and for instance in the subtle realms there are minds or one could say mental bodies...

 

many folks here have been out of our body and brain restrictions and give witness to same...

btw I'd say the Tibetan Wheel of Life depicts such by showing the non-earthly beings in those various realms. 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cobie said:

The¬†mind (regardless of level of purity) is part of the body, so¬†belongs to ‚Äėsamsara‚Äô.¬†
The¬†Buddha-nature (always pure)¬†is independent of the body, so¬†belongs to ‚Äėnirvana‚Äô.

 

 

 

I’ve found it interesting to reflect on the relationship of mind and body. Is mind a part of the body or is body a part of the mind? Neither is ever a hair’s breadth from Buddha nature. 

 

In the teachings I follow Buddha nature does not belong to anything, not even nirvana. Nirvana refers to liberation which is always related to samsara. Buddha nature is the ultimate root of both samsara and nirvana but belongs to neither. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steve said:

… In the teachings I follow …


You do you. :)
 

Sorry, I had failed to notice the thread was in the Buddhist sub-section. Have deleted my posts now.
 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2023 at 3:13 AM, old3bob said:


I sometimes wonder why the historic Buddha did not say that  Buddha nature is the first Noble Truth instead of suffering...?
 


My understanding of the four truths is that they only apply when suffering exists.  

Very commonly, that first truth is read to imply that life is suffering.  My take is that when suffering exists, so do the other three truths, but when suffering is not present, there's no need for any truths. 

WIth the grasping after self (small "s", not the Upanishads version you refer to),  suffering is present.  It's a natural human tendency, that grasping, so much so that the first of Gautama's thoughts applied and sustained to the state of mind was the contemplation of impermanance, presumably as here:

 

"Is material shape permanent or impermanent?"  "Impermanent, revered sir."

 

"But is what is impermanent painful or is it pleasant?"  "Painful, revered sir."

 

"And is it right to regard that which is impermanent, suffering, liable to change as 'This is mine, this am I, this is my self'?"  

No, revered sir.

 

What do you think about this...?  Is feeling... perception... are the habitual tendencies... is consciousness permanent or impermanent?... (etc., etc.)

(MN III 19-20, Pali Text Society MN vol III p 69)
 

 

The second of the thoughts Gautama applied and sustained with regard to state of mind was the contemplation of dispassion with regard to the pleasant, the painful, and the neutral of feeling.  I think both the contemplation of impermanence and the contemplation of dispassion are necessary, in one form or another, to be able to let go of "determinate thought" or volition in action.

And that's the third thought Gautama applied and sustained as a part of his way of living, the contemplation of cessation (the cessation of "determinate thought" or volition in action).


 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

The origin of the Buddha Nature doctrine can be traced to a teaching of the historical Buddha , as recorded in the Pali Tipitika (Pabhassara Sutta,Anguttara Nikaya 1.49-52): 

 


 

Regarding Buddha nature, the quotes that have been given from Udana and sources in the fifth Nikaya I think are suspect, as that Nikaya was a later composition than the first four.  The quote from Anguttara Nikaya, both Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi are troubled by aspects of that sermon.  Here's a little of what they had to say:

 

This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries. The commentary maintains that "mind" here refers to the bhavanga-citta, the momentary mental state between periods when the mental stream adverts to objects, but this statement raises more questions than it answers. There is no reference to the bhavanga-citta or the mental stream in any of the suttas (they appear first in an Abhidhamma treatise, the Patthana); and because the commentaries compare the bhavanga-citta to deep sleep, why is it called luminous? And why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And further, if "mind" in this discourse means bhavanga-citta, what would it mean to develop the bhavanga-citta?...

(Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous)


Pabhassaram idaŠĻÉ bhikkhave cittaŠĻÉ. The exact meaning of this
statement has been a matter of contention that has spawned con-
flicting interpretations. Mp identifies the ‚Äúluminous mind‚ÄĚ with
the bhavaŠĻÖgacitta, an Abhidhamma concept denoting the type of
mental event that occurs in the absence of active cognition. It
corresponds, very roughly, to the subconscious or unconscious
of modern psychology. The word bhavaŠĻÖga means ‚Äúfactor of exis-
tence,‚ÄĚ that is, the factor responsible for maintaining continuous
personal identity throughout a given life and from one life to
the next. However, the bhavaŠĻÖga is not a persistent state of con-
sciousness, a permanent self. It is a series of momentary acts of
mind that alternate with active cognitive processes (cittavńęthi),
sequences of cognition when the mind consciously appre-
hends an object. Hence the texts sometimes use the expression
bhavaŠĻÖgasota, ‚Äústream of bhavaŠĻÖga,‚ÄĚ to highlight the fluid nature
of this type of mental process. The occurrence of the bhavaŠĻÖga is
most evident in deep, dreamless sleep, but it also occurs count-
less times in waking life between cognitive processes.

The most important events in the cognitive process are the
javanacittas, ethically determinate occasions of consciousness
that create kamma. The javanas may be either wholesome or
unwholesome. It is in the javana phase that the defilements,
dormant in the subconscious bhavaŠĻÖga, infiltrate mental activ-
ity and defile the mind...

(comment attributed to Bhikkyu Bodhi)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cobie said:


Sorry, I had failed to notice the thread was in the Buddhist sub-section. Have deleted my posts now.

 

 

Speaking for myself, you are welcome to weave in threads from other traditions.  It's the spice of Dao Bums!

Edited by Mark Foote
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2023 at 2:24 AM, helpfuldemon said:


Life is desire!  Life is about wanting, and getting what you want.  If not for desire, would we have so much today?  People wanting and getting, and doing and having.  

(On 4/21/2023 at 7:11AM)
Speaking as someone who has lost all desire, I can say that in this silence, there is suffering.  I don't like to sit in nothingness for days, and now that I witness the world as it is, I see the suffering in it, and I mourn.  I am suffering without desire.
 

 

Here's some fun you could try:

 

Okay‚Ķ So, have your hands in the cosmic mudra, palms up, thumbs touching, and there‚Äôs this common instruction: place your mind here. Different people interpret this differently. Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. It‚Äôs a way of turning the lens to where you are in space so that you‚Äôre not looking out here and out here and out here. It‚Äôs the positive version, perhaps, of ‚Äėnavel gazing‚Äô.¬†
 

The other way to understand this is to literally place your mind where your hands are‚Äďto relocate mind (let‚Äôs not say your mind) to your centre of gravity, so that mind is operating from a place other than your brain. Some traditions take this very seriously, this idea of moving your consciousness around the body. I wouldn‚Äôt recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it‚Äôs like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you‚Äôll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can‚Äôt will it to happen, because you‚Äôre willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it‚Äôs an act of letting go‚Äďand a fascinating one.

(‚ÄúNo Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]‚ÄĚ, by Koun Franz, from the ‚ÄúNyoho Zen‚ÄĚ site
https://nyoho.com/2018/09/15/no-struggle-zazen-yojinki-part-6/)

 

 

Waking Up and Falling Asleep
 

I have a practice that I’d like to offer, something that I believe is already part of the general repertoire of this community, even though the details I will provide here are new.
 

The practice I have in mind is a practice that everybody is already familiar with, even if they don’t think of it as a practice. What I’m referring to is waking up in the morning, or falling asleep at night; if you’ve ever had a hard time waking up or falling asleep, then you know that there can indeed be a practice! In my experience, the practice is the same, whether I am waking up or falling asleep: when I realize my physical sense of location in space, and realize it as it occurs from one moment to the next, then I wake up or fall asleep as appropriate.
 

This practice is useful, when I wake up in the middle of the night and need to go back to sleep, or when I want to feel more physically alive in the morning. This practice is also useful when I want to feel my connection to everything around me, because my sense of place registers the contact of my awareness with each thing, as contact occurs.
 

Just before I fall asleep, my awareness can move very readily, and my sense of where I am tends to move with it. This is also true when I am waking up, although it can be harder to recognize (I tend to live through my eyes in the daytime, and associate my sense of place with them). When my awareness shifts readily, I realize that my ability to feel my location in space is made possible in part by the freedom of my awareness to move.
 

I sometimes overlook my location in space because I attach to what I’m feeling, or I’m averse to it, or I ignore it. The result is that I lose the freedom of my awareness to shift and move, and I have difficulty relaxing or staying alert. When I allow what I feel to enter into where I am, then my awareness remains free, and I can relax and keep my wits about me.

(Waking Up and Falling Asleep, yours truly)


 

Edited by Mark Foote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steve said:

 

I’ve found it interesting to reflect on the relationship of mind and body. Is mind a part of the body or is body a part of the mind? Neither is ever a hair’s breadth from Buddha nature. 

 

In the teachings I follow Buddha nature does not belong to anything, not even nirvana. Nirvana refers to liberation which is always related to samsara. Buddha nature is the ultimate root of both samsara and nirvana but belongs to neither. 

 

I'm somewhat surprised at the variance in Buddhists or Bon interpretations on the recent subjects brought up in the is string. Interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:


 

Regarding Buddha nature, the quotes that have been given from Udana and sources in the fifth Nikaya I think are suspect, as that Nikaya was a later composition than the first four.  The quote from Anguttara Nikaya, both Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi are troubled by aspects of that sermon.  Here's a little of what they had to say:

 

This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries. The commentary maintains that "mind" here refers to the bhavanga-citta, the momentary mental state between periods when the mental stream adverts to objects, but this statement raises more questions than it answers. There is no reference to the bhavanga-citta or the mental stream in any of the suttas (they appear first in an Abhidhamma treatise, the Patthana); and because the commentaries compare the bhavanga-citta to deep sleep, why is it called luminous? And why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And further, if "mind" in this discourse means bhavanga-citta, what would it mean to develop the bhavanga-citta?...

(Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous)


Pabhassaram idaŠĻÉ bhikkhave cittaŠĻÉ. The exact meaning of this
statement has been a matter of contention that has spawned con-
flicting interpretations. Mp identifies the ‚Äúluminous mind‚ÄĚ with
the bhavaŠĻÖgacitta, an Abhidhamma concept denoting the type of
mental event that occurs in the absence of active cognition. It
corresponds, very roughly, to the subconscious or unconscious
of modern psychology. The word bhavaŠĻÖga means ‚Äúfactor of exis-
tence,‚ÄĚ that is, the factor responsible for maintaining continuous
personal identity throughout a given life and from one life to
the next. However, the bhavaŠĻÖga is not a persistent state of con-
sciousness, a permanent self. It is a series of momentary acts of
mind that alternate with active cognitive processes (cittavńęthi),
sequences of cognition when the mind consciously appre-
hends an object. Hence the texts sometimes use the expression
bhavaŠĻÖgasota, ‚Äústream of bhavaŠĻÖga,‚ÄĚ to highlight the fluid nature
of this type of mental process. The occurrence of the bhavaŠĻÖga is
most evident in deep, dreamless sleep, but it also occurs count-
less times in waking life between cognitive processes.

The most important events in the cognitive process are the
javanacittas, ethically determinate occasions of consciousness
that create kamma. The javanas may be either wholesome or
unwholesome. It is in the javana phase that the defilements,
dormant in the subconscious bhavaŠĻÖga, infiltrate mental activ-
ity and defile the mind...

(comment attributed to Bhikkyu Bodhi)

 that's mostly beyond me,  Mark.  You must do a hell of a lot of study!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cobie said:


You do you. :)

 

When using this colloquialism in a dzogchen (or wu wei) context, would it be better to say… you not do you?

ūüėĀ

 

Quote

Sorry, I had failed to notice the thread was in the Buddhist sub-section. Have deleted my posts now.
 

 

Sorry to see you go. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

not it can not. Because the exact words: 'The Buddha-nature' are not used there.  Thats why the pure mind is not The Buddha-nature. 

 

It is mainly the Mahayana, Zen and Vajrayana traditions that use the term Buddha nature in their teachings. It is also an important element of Nichiren Buddhism.

 

If you are uncomfortable with the term 'Buddha nature' on account of the Buddha not ever using the term , you are free to use the terms 'pure mind' or 'luminous mind' that he had used instead, and substitute them with 'buddha nature' in my posts. 
 

Quote

And thats why the chinese buddhism which actually invented The Buddha-nature contradicts Theravada on this point. 

 


The Buddha-nature is traced to the 'luminous mind' which is mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya, and is part of the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism as well.

 

Leading  Theravada figures like Ajahn Mun have also elaborated on this teaching  in his commentaries.

 

Quote

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits ‚Äď passing defilements ‚Äď come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds. Don‚Äôt go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won‚Äôt be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mahayana, no matter how noble and valid, may be the path proposed for the bodhisattva, the mantras, the ceremonies, the new sutras, etc.
It truly disqualified the path of Gautama Buddha's original teachings contained in the early texts of the Pali Canon, worse still pejoratively created the epithet Hinayana, as small vehicle as opposed to the great vehicle or Mahayana.

  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

If you are uncomfortable with the term 'Buddha nature' on account of the Buddha not ever using the term , you are free to use the terms 'pure mind' or 'luminous mind' that he had used instead, and substitute them with 'buddha nature' in my posts. 

well i am not really free to do so because for me words actually have meaning and also i understand the historical developments but thank you very much for your kind permission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eduardo said:

worse still pejoratively created the epithet Hinayana, as small vehicle as opposed to the great vehicle or Mahayana.

Apparently there was no such thing as hinayana in the real buddhism. Apparently hinayana meaning 'early buddhism' is only used in the west.

 

Jonathan Silk has argued that the term "Hinayana" was used to refer to whomever one wanted to criticize on any given occasion, and did not refer to any definite grouping of Buddhists.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana

  • Like 1
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites