That's true. Any ego identification, including the identification as "non-secular", is something to be let go of...Pannapetar wrote:That's your interpretation, not mine...mikenz66 wrote:Are you implying that Theravada is for "beginners" and Mahayana for the "more developed" practitioners?
"Being a Theravadin" or "being a Mahayana practitioner" is just one more useless ego identification, in my view. Who cares?
I'm not averse to getting some inspiration from non-Theravadin sources. I spent an interesting weekend with a lay (former monastic) Tibetan teacher a couple of months ago. But, as I tried to illustrate with my quote from meindzai's post, there are some rather fundamental differences in approach between different teachers. [There's some rather large differences even between various Theravada practise schools. Again, I'm not averse to spending some time sampling them.]
Of course, some of these differences would be less confusing if I had an encyclopaedic grasp of the literature of all of the traditions, but who has time?
In my opinion it's much more efficient to have a firm grasp of one or two approaches within a particular tradition. And especially to have teachers to whom I can confidently entrust my mind-stream...