[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

>



Maha indicates "Greater" or Extended - it is used commonly in Buddhist sutra titles.

Exactly.

The Maha Sattipatthana Sutra is essentially the same as the Sattipatthana Sutra - it is an extended version with the Four Noble Truths appended. Both reference the Buddha's sermon (as also described above).

I think they were the same basic discourse given at two different times, one being much longer, but I'm not sure. I don't know if anyone is sure.

Neither version is philosophical (which is very obvious), the Sutra is a practice guide laid out by the Buddha and used extensively in the Theravadan School of Buddhism.

True.

The Maha-satipatthana is in the Digha Nakaya series and the Satipatthana listed in the Majjhima Nikaya -

I see. I had never heard of Digha Nakaya series or Majjhima Nikaya, and have no idea what they are.

you can see here the words are the same. Some versions use more commentary and extended elaboration but the essence remains the same.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi...22.0.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....010.than.html

Yes, it doesn't matter much which version or translation we refer to.

(The Maha has the Four Noble Truths appended, as said to you multiple times.)

It seems more elaborate apart from the 4NT appendage, but it's not important. Any preferred format is good enough.

Both are eminently practice based, and not philosophical by any means.

Indeed, it's a practical discourse on the 'way to meditate'.

Feel free to pivo

t "woolly in the woods" style

Not only that, but with quite a few misinterpretations of Buddhist practice and results - in other threads you have argued that there is no reason to believe the teachings and care little for the tradition of Buddhism.

None of that is important in the sense that people who give no importance to Buddhism and know next to nothing about it are in no way lesser in wisdom.

I will say (once again ) that the funny thing about the teachings is the experiential outcomes are the same for the Buddhist Masters/Adepts (sort of like martial arts mastery) - and this is where you differ.

It's an interesting proposition - of course everyone uses discernment and tries things for themselves. This is the whole basis of this religion.

Yes. That is also what I have been saying.

Buddhism is not labored with intense belief systems and this is the way Gautama set out his teachings so there is no contradiction with self-determination, discernment, and Buddhist practice/faith. "Know for yourself" "Cessation of dukkha in this lifetime" - this is Gautama's kind invitation to anyone.

Exactly.

However, just as in martial arts, the instructions are there, as is the experiential outcome. Just because a person can't break the brick in half, it doesn't mean that the teachings are not reliable or that listening to Bruce Lee's instructions and standards is incorrect - it just means the student is wherever they are, which is all good, but still not at the Mastery level.

Precisely.

In Buddhism, the depths are significantly more nuanced, and as always nibbana, enlightenment and true inner peace (not conditioned/conditional) is the standard.

Still, respect worthy for the practice.

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.

BT

Yes. Saddu saddu.