Deleted (double posting by mistake)

Did you actually read the article"No Hinayana" that I posted ? It was written by two people and one of then is a Buddhist teacher and the other is a Buddhist scholar.

In the modern world 'Hinayana' only exists in people's imaginations.


:smile:

Not only did I read the article (parts of it anyways), but here a quote that recognizes the historical reality of Hinayana:

In the centuries around the birth of Christ there was a radical development going on in Buddhism. A new school was born, and its adherents called it Mahayana. How this new school differed from the earlier schools, can be found in any history of Buddhism. Here we will concentrate on one of the results of this schism: the term Hinayana.

The adherents of the older schools criticized the Mahayanists, especially for creating new sutras, forging the word of the Buddha. The Mahayanists on the other side reacted to that critique by accusing their opponents of not understanding the teaching of the Buddha at all and for being narrow-minded egoists. The debate got heated, and accusations flowed from both sides. Then some brilliant person at the Mahayana side of the debate created the word pair “Mahayana-Hinayana”, and it stuck.

So that one may understand what is going on, it is like if the utmost Catholic modern authority said that Catholicism is the only existing (true) Christianity.

You need exterior sources, and they simply talk about 2 main traditions in Buddhism (plus the others that you list). These are historical facts, that's all. But all in all, you can have it the way you want, it makes no difference to me :hug3:

There is no such thing as a spiritual debate.

Yes your right, how can one debate something that cannot be conceptualized, but can only be pointed to.

Humans deal almost exclusively in symbols. Almost all communication depends upon this. But humans tend to forget that the symbols are not the things they symbolize.
Spirituality is (but rarely is, among humans) direct experience of things for which there can be no symbols. This is why parables and metaphors show up so often in spiritual teachings. But the fact is, many humans are unable to grasp metaphors, resulting in the circular fracas you so often see on forums.

I'm beginning to love the way you think Crow, very nicely said.:smile:

I actually don't think. But I'm glad you enjoy it: most people get upset by it.

Yes I understand by not thinking, its more of an intuition that arises from a place deep within, this is why I don't have beliefs, just don't need them.

Don't need them, or just not actually capable of having them?
Or perhaps, not taking them seriously?

I am often bewildered by the 'belief' that Christians claim to have, as if 'believing' was some concrete and transcendental end-point.
To me, a 'belief', if one has such a thing at all, is a way-point to 'knowing' whatever it is that one currently only 'believes'.