beautiful breath wrote:
There is also evidence in the Theravada that the Pali Canon is the first recordings of what the historical Buddha taught - am I right??
No not really, the sutras were authored by various people from different lineages all over the expanding Buddhist world from about the Second Council. Mahayana did develop (as did the Sravakayana schools) but the elements of the lineages were in place from the beginning.
Tibetan Buddhism however is effectively the opposite. There is little in the Mahayana teachings (particularly in Tibetan Buddhism) that resembles the above.
No, non-tanric Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism do indeed support non-esoteric practice.
The problem I have is that like the song says "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them has to be wrong".
Really? The Christian world went through centuries of legitimate argument over Jesus and his teachings. Is Jesus different between, a devote Amish, a Thomas Christian (Indian Christian from St. Thomas's mission to Kerala), an English liberal Christian, and an Eastern Orthodox Christian?
If the teachings re the Bardo and the managing of the post mortem state are valid then we should surely ALL be concentrating on them as a priority. We should ALL be striving towards Vajrayana and the Mahamudra. If however, they are the products of the acid heads of 'Buddhism' (a friends description not mine - but I like it anyways) then we had best steer clear and follow the breath.
The Buddha gave different teachings for different people. He really did this. He even did this in the Pali (even if most of our Theravadin friends say otherwise).
How about, Vajrayana is filling the mind with more 'stuff' and Satipatana is the opposite. Two completely contradictory practices.
Vajrayana does not fill the mind with stuff. Satipatana is also practiced in Tibetan Buddhism.
_________________Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche