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

**hitaEtela** · 06-26-2011, 08:16 PM

When one gets into the teachings of the historical Buddha (the discourses of the main Nikaayas), into what the Buddha really taught, one can find both or neither: the Bodhisatva and the Arahat. So there is no need to get meshed with the presumptuous achievement of the "glorious Bodhisatva" who in contrast looks, with a hint of contempt, "at the barren Arahat" when one follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. Traditions understood as quoted in the OP are the same as "me", "I" and "mine"... of course, in a subtle way.

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Keith

06-26-2011, 08:16 PM	#11
hitaEtela Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 536 Senior Member	When one gets into the teachings of the historical Buddha (the discourses of the main Nikaayas), into what the Buddha really taught, one can find both or neither: the Bodhisatva and the Arahat. So there is no need to get meshed with the presumptuous achievement of the "glorious Bodhisatva" who in contrast looks, with a hint of contempt, "at the barren Arahat" when one follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. Traditions understood as quoted in the OP are the same as "me", "I" and "mine"... of course, in a subtle way. There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book. Keith
	Quote