DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Beragagnu** · 05-05-2012, 10:33 PM

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

I do not believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana indicates any misinterpretation of the Buddha's words as you say, it simply shows that different styles of teaching and practice arose. I'm sure that somewhere along the line there have been many misinterpretations and mistranslations by different people, but the arising of these two schools is not a definite indication of this happening. I also don't think that it is actaully as you describe it "Hinayana VERSUS Mahayana." Certainly practitioners of each each style have different ambitions, but it is not true that the two traditions must oppose eachother.

I'm sure there have been and still are differences of opinion among people of each school with regard to the teachings, but there are many similarities as well. Perhaps I am reading into your "versus" comment too much, it just came across as soudning a bit conflicting when this isn't necessarily the case. The short 'Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada Compared' section in the following link helped me get a bit of a feel for the differences in the traditions and how they came to be separate schools. If you know of any other sources on this topic please feel free to share them.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...20Buddhism.htm

I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say, "I believe it's evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate" after being translated. Did you mean to say "inevitable" or "probable"? To say that it is "evitable" that they have been inaccurate seems to contradict your previous statement. Thanks for the clarification.

As to the question about interpretation by Aloka-D, I believe this depends a lot on the practicioner. At some points in one's practice there may be no other way to interpret certain teachings except metaphorically. Then later, after some insight has been gained the literal meaning may naturally become clear.

Here is an example: Somebody wishes to convey to me what a pear tastes like but I have never eaten one. They tell me, "Oh it's like this, and like this, and a little bit like this." After a lot of explaining and telling me about what a pear is like I have some general idea about how a pear tastes, but it is just an idea. Then one day I find a real pear and take a bite, "Ahhhh, thats what a pear tastes like." Then I literally have the true experience of how a pear tastes, but until then I only had ideas and notions. Hope that makes sense.

05-05-2012, 10:33 PM	#8
Beragagnu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.) I do not believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana indicates any misinterpretation of the Buddha's words as you say, it simply shows that different styles of teaching and practice arose. I'm sure that somewhere along the line there have been many misinterpretations and mistranslations by different people, but the arising of these two schools is not a definite indication of this happening. I also don't think that it is actaully as you describe it "Hinayana VERSUS Mahayana." Certainly practitioners of each each style have different ambitions, but it is not true that the two traditions must oppose eachother. I'm sure there have been and still are differences of opinion among people of each school with regard to the teachings, but there are many similarities as well. Perhaps I am reading into your "versus" comment too much, it just came across as soudning a bit conflicting when this isn't necessarily the case. The short 'Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada Compared' section in the following link helped me get a bit of a feel for the differences in the traditions and how they came to be separate schools. If you know of any other sources on this topic please feel free to share them. http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...20Buddhism.htm I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say, "I believe it's *evitable* that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate" after being translated. Did you mean to say "inevitable" or "probable"? To say that it is "evitable" that they have been inaccurate seems to contradict your previous statement. Thanks for the clarification. As to the question about interpretation by Aloka-D, I believe this depends a lot on the practicioner. At some points in one's practice there may be no other way to interpret certain teachings except metaphorically. Then later, after some insight has been gained the literal meaning may naturally become clear. Here is an example: Somebody wishes to convey to me what a pear tastes like but I have never eaten one. They tell me, "Oh it's like this, and like this, and a little bit like this." After a lot of explaining and telling me about what a pear is like I have some general idea about how a pear tastes, but it is just an idea. Then one day I find a real pear and take a bite, "Ahhhh, thats what a pear tastes like." Then I literally have the true experience of how a pear tastes, but until then I only had ideas and notions. Hope that makes sense.
	Quote