Is there a big or small difference between a Buddha? How is size defined in Buddhism?

Since the Buddhas have fully realized all the Dharma and the truth, there is no difference between the Buddhas and the Buddhas, so how can there be a difference between levels and sizes? Therefore, Shakyamuni Buddha in the Vimala Sutra

It says: "All the Buddhas' bodies, powers, castes, precepts, concentrations, wisdom, liberation, liberation perceptions, powers, fearlessness, and uncommon dharmas, great compassion, great compassion, majestic deeds, and their lifespans, Dharma teachings, attainment of sentient beings, pure Buddha land, and all Buddhadharmas are equal. It can be seen that there is no difference between the Buddhas in all aspects, and there is no such thing as a big Buddha or a small Buddha.

Of course there is, whether it is the size of the shape or the size of the level, there are. If you come to the Buddha, you will be bigger than other Buddhas.

In fact, if you look at the Buddha with a very pious heart, the Buddha does not have a size, if the Buddha has a size, it is the human heart that has a size first.

There is no big or small Buddha, and sincerity is spiritual.

I don't think there's a big or small difference, and there's no hierarchy.

The so-called size is only relative.

Having a level is just a process that a mortal spends.

Already a Buddha **Do you still need these?

There is no difference between big and small, just different stages of practice, just like our primary school, middle school, and university.

There should be none, but it is artificially divided into several levels.

Arhats, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas.

1.Look at the sitting lotus. The one that is almost one is stone, and the one in the middle is a real lotus. The good ones are of gold.

2.Look at the Buddha's light. There is no almost, the middle is a circle. The good thing is that a little light shines in all directions.

For reference, I hope that all Buddhas will not blame.

Theravada in Buddhism is generally a guide to Buddhism. Mahayana refers to Chinese Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism (collectively known as Northern Buddhism). However, it seems that this is not necessarily the case.

For example, the "Yang Di Moluo Sutra" in the "Ahama Sutra" of Southern Buddhism is a Mahayana classic. So I don't agree with this division. To be precise, Hinayana should refer to the Shravaka, the Dependent Enlightenment and the Buddha Vehicle, i.e., the Arhat Vehicle.

Mahayana refers to the bodhisattva vehicle.

The monks of the Great Compassion Temple walked on their feet.

That being said, both Hinayana and Hinayana are an integral part of the entire Buddhist system. They are one and the same, and they are just pretended names for the purpose of distinguishing and revealing each other. Just like an apple has a green side and a red side, but they are all part of the apple, and they do not exist separately from the apple.

For example, although our country is divided into dozens of provinces and municipalities directly under the central government, it is still fundamentally a whole.

Hinayana is like a small boat, it can only seat a few people, and it can't carry more. And Mahayana is like a cruise ship or even an aircraft carrier, capable of carrying thousands of people. Therefore, Hinayana is only a stage on the road to Buddhahood, and there is still a long way to go before becoming a Buddha.

Just like the Buddha's metaphor in the Lotus Sutra, the "city" is to first resolve the fatigue of the long journey, take a break and recuperate, and then set off on the road until you become a Buddha.

But we should not belittle Hinayana because Hinayana is the foundation of Mahayana, and without Hinayana there would be no Mahayana. If Buddhism is compared to a complete education system, then the Buddha is the doctoral supervisor, the Bodhisattva is the university student, and the Arhat is the primary and secondary school student. We must first learn from elementary school, to middle school, and then to university.

It's the same with spiritual practice. Some people say that I want to study Mahayana instead of Hinayana is like teaching a university course to elementary school students, and I can't understand it at all. Maybe you can practice Mahayana directly, but it must have been practiced by the resident students, so that you can directly enjoy Mahayana in this life.

That is to say, Mahayana contains Hinayana and Hinayana. Just like a college student, he must have learned all the knowledge in primary and secondary school, and he can only be admitted to university if he has learned it well.

The above is the relationship between Mahayana and Hinayana in Buddhism.

The nuns of Daoyuan Temple walk on their feet.

Some will say that the metaphor is inappropriate. You describe Hinayana as a primary and secondary school, and Mahayana as a university, but the practice of Mahayana Bodhisattva also starts from scratch? That is, from ordinary people who have gone through the dry wisdom land, the three gradual stages, the four preliminaries, the ten beliefs, the ten dwellings, the ten elements, the ten dedications, the ten grounds, the equal enlightenment, and the sixty stages of the wonderful enlightenment, they will become the Buddha.

Could it be that from Hinayana to Mahayana means that you have to study primary and secondary school twice? How do you explain this?

For example, you (metaphor Hinayana practitioner) studied in primary and secondary school in a small city, and another person (metaphor Mahayana practitioner) studied in primary and secondary school in the primary and secondary school attached to Tsinghua University. If you are admitted to Tsinghua University, it is natural to continue to study at the university instead of going to its affiliated high school.

For details, you can refer to the Hundred Dharmas of Wisdom, and the concepts of time and space, such as the height of the size and the speed and slowness, all belong to the inappropriate actions of the mind, and the pervasive attachment. That is, an abstract concept that arises when sentient beings are confused. Although it belongs to the mind, it does not correspond to the mind, and it is established by the difference in the number of divisions in the previous three dharmas (mind, mind, and color).

At first, when studying Buddhism, we should not pay too much attention to these views of time and space, and the first thing is to break the mind and not correspond to the "gain" in the practice, and the gain and loss of gain. This is an example that is often used in the theory of consciousness, and this example is easy to understand, for example, we get money, and money belongs to the material: color, so I get it, what about me?

This is the law of the mind, if I value this money very seriously, there is greed here, greed is the law of the heart, it is the law of the heart, what way do we think of to get this money, so it is related to the law of the heart, the law of the heart, and the law of color, but the concept of "get", which law does it belong to? You say that you really got it, if you say that this money has changed, it has changed into your heart, and it has been combined with your heart to become one, then it is considered that you have obtained it, and it has not been combined with your heart, and it is really not corresponding. If you don't get it, you think you have one, and after you get it, you rejoice; After losing, you are annoyed, but there is no gain or loss.

If you can break through this level, this is called seeing through, and after seeing through, you can let go, what can you put down? Putting down twenty-four categories of incorresponding. Why?

Because these 24 categories are all pervasive and persistent, they are completely illusory, and there is no such thing at all, if this level is not broken through, there will be endless disasters.

Mustard Na Sumeru.

In Buddhism, size is relative.

The definition of size in Buddhism is the same, that is, they are equal.