Quote:
|
Originally Posted by catsquotl
Yes, but that didn't last did it.
The names themselves Mahayana and Hinayana seem to be invented (possibly after the fact) to enforce a split between schools of thought.
I believe/have faith that the Pali canon comes closest to what the buddha actually taught.
The fact that some monks later viewed the bodhisatva path as more "enlightened" or desirable in terms of doing good has no significance in the ability to become liberated from suffering.
WIth Love
Eelco
|
Again, it was never invented but was always there.
Also, the pali canon was just the first teachings that were presented. Doesn't make it the only source :)
The difference is Theravada doesn't believe one can be liberated in this life. The other paths that you believe are incorrect do just that.
So it seems you believe in teachings that don't promote liberation in this life and that one can only become an arhat if you are a monk where the others do teach that one can become a Buddha in this life and you don't have to be a monk.
Interesting stuff :)