Talk:Hinayana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Note to Editors

Welcome to those who are interested in the Hinayana article, especially if you are new to wikipedia. Please remember to strive for a Neutral Point of View, and that we are writing an encylopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Please read the archives above, as there are many issues which have been covered in some manner or another. Moreover, there is a collaborative replacement article championed by Munge at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. Discussion below focusses as much on that as it does the current article.

[edit] Sandbox - opening para.

Amended to indicate what the inferiority actually applies to. I am also aware of the more subtle implication - that the followers of an "inferior" path are also somehow inferior. This is why it's important to indicate exactly what the inferiority is concerned with. In the Pali, IIRC the only being currently engaged in the path to Samyaksambuddhahood is Maitreya.

The statement that Hinayana is a "term coined by Mahayana Buddhists applied to the doctrines, practices, and texts which are concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravaka-Buddha or a Pratyeka Buddha as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksam-Buddha" is a statement that is not accepted as factual by many Theravada Buddhists. In fact, it is a statement of Mahayana doctrine.
If a statement is accepted by one sect but rejected by another, an impartial encyclopedia cannot present that statement as fact. The statement is therefore not encyclopedic.
--Munge 07:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Munge; I contend your point. First of all, (IIRC) traditionally, the Theravada do not make a statement regarding 'Hinayana'; it is a Mahayana (coined and used) technical term. The current Theravada position regarding the term 'Hinayana' is a reaction to the term: many people have established that the Theravada moved to Sri Lanka before the Mahayana (and thereby the term 'Hinayana') arose. So, the statement that 'Hinayana [is] applied to the doctrines etc... does not have an equivalent within the Theravada. It is therefore completely fine, as long as it is qualified, which in this case it is - where we say "coined by the Mahayana". As you point out, the statement is one of Mahayana doctrine, which is correct.
Your point about impartiality would be true if the statement were saying that "Buddhists assert that Hinayana ...", but the claim is solely that of the Mahayana, as is evidenced by stating "coined by the Mahayana". If you feel that such an issue needs to be strengthened - for instance, for those whose first language isnt' English, we could amend the sentence to: "...is a controversial term coined and used by Mahayana Buddhists applied to the doctrines, practices and texts..." - I have no particular issue with that. I shall amend accordingly.
The original statement was factually wrong, certainly in the context of Mahayana doctrine. Maybe, if you see it has value, we could put it back in as: Whereas, the Theravada consider the phrase refers to those (doctrines, etc) that possess inferior capacity to carry people to the "other shore" (nirvana), compared to the Mahayana "great vehicle" - but I don't think that it is a good idea.
At least some traditional Mahayana schools (e.g. from Bengal, and late North India - as represented by Atisha, Santideva, etc) accept the Sravakayana as being foundational to the Mahayana - so, far from being inferior, or unnecessary, it is the bedrock that the Mahayana rests on (for instance, see Lamp of the Path, by Atisha - and the entire Lam Rim tradition made famous by Tsongkhapa). Here, the meaning of "Hina-" (inferior) solely applies to the idea that a Sravakabuddha is inferior to a Samyaksambuddha (IIRC, something which is not opposed by the Theravada) and in no way is to be considered as applicable to the Sravakayana methods, traditions, or traditions.
I found the second paragraph more difficult. I have copyedited it accordingly. (I have attempted to keep the same basic assertion) (20040302 09:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] In relation to Munge's changes to the Sandbox paragraphs

I think I get where you are coming from, but I don't like "contemporary" - after all Candrakirti and Atisha were hardly contemporary! I also understand the more neutral proposal of "Buddhists who reject the provenance of the Mahayana Sutras", but this possibly opens up a huge can of worms - there are many Mahayana schools who only accept some Mahayana sutras, and there may well have been non-Mahayana schools who accepted some Mahayana sutras also. Moreover, it focusses on the usage of 'Hinayana' as referring to schools/doctrines, rather than practices, whereas the emphasis of Hinayana in Mahayana sutras is on practices, rather than schools. Lastly, there is an inconsistency of numbers in the Lotus sutra - the 'haughty monks' that walk out of the discourse are far less in number than the Sravakas etc. present: To me, this indicates that the early Mahayana knew many followers of the Sravakayana that did not reject the Mahayana sutras: Something that I consider eminently feasible. After all, IIRC the initial assertion of the Mahayana is that it is worthwhile walking the longer journey of a Bodhisattva than it is to take the swifter journey of a Sravaka, albeit developments of Mahayana (Ch'an, Tantra etc.) talk about 'lightning' paths to Buddhahood.

I am not sure of any scriptural evidence AGAINST the statement that Hinayana is "concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravakabuddha or a Pratyekabuddha, as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksambuddha", maybe you could be more explicit in describing your objections to it? (20040302 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 8,000 Verses on main article

In the main article I've posted a cite that suggests that the term was not coined simply to refer to the paths leading to those two achievements. Rather, the passage refers to bodhisattvas who reject the provenance of the 8000 Lines. The passage doesn't consider them sravs or prats. Similar to Conze. See esp. Lopez. --Munge 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your contribution. I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The long-standing Mahayana (and it is a Mahayana text) interpretation of this excerpt makes it clear that it is addressed to Bodhisattvas, for Bodhisattvas. The point being made is that once he has chosen it, a Bodhisattva should not reject or belittle the path to Samyaksambuddhahood. However, I believe that you were attempting to make the claim that Buddha was saying that the Sravakayana is objectively inferior - a reading which I consider contrived, in light of historic interpretation. Note that the sutra is clear to identify just what sort of person qualifies for this discourse: a Bodhisattva.
In light of the above, I have shortened the citation, and kept the immediate point of reference, and moved the external link down to the external links section.
I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The title of the section is "Origins of Hinayana: Vehicles and Paths". The cite may be the actual origin of the term. That sounds like context to me. This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara. Think about that. --Munge 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not. What it says is that Bodhisattvas who doubt Mahayana sutras are afflicted by Mara. It says nothing about those who are not Bodhisattvas. Therefore, your emphasis is misplaced. I thought about it. Now it's your turn! (20040302 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
The chapter starts off: "Subhuti: The Lord proclaims virtues of sons and daughters of good family. Are any obstacles here which arise in such ones?
The Lord: Many obstacles are here, and are seen and thought of as the deeds of Mara.
Which is understandable, and not remarkable. The sutra is using Mara as is normally used: obstacles to the path of a Bodhisattva are seen as the deeds of Mara. What is not understandable is when we think that the sentence regarding a Mahayana practitioner doubting his/her own practice pertains to a wider audience, or casts aspersions of any sort on the Hinayana (outside the obvious fact that actions which lead away from Samyaksambuddhahood are inferior when one is walking the path to Samyaksambuddhahood - if Maitreya were to give up his path to Samyaksambuddhahood, and become a Sravakabuddha, it would be a fall –because he is on the path to Samyaksambuddhahood). Munge, just for a moment, why don't you reconsider your conviction? Maybe I am right - at least be gracious and show me how I am not right. (20040302 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
I wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." You wrote "No it does not". I think the passage speaks for itself, and it lets readers decide for themselves. The author indicates that Mara influences unintelligent bodhisattvas toward hinayana. This occurs in what may be the first instance the word ever occurs in a Buddhist text, perhaps any text. I don't know what you're refuting. This section needs to establish the origin of the word. --Munge 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the cite is good, I feel that you are broadening the scope of the cite in a manner which is misdirecting. This is how: You wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." This does not indicate the restriction to Bodhisattvas. I am happy with: "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with Bodhisattvas who are afflicted by Mara." The context that I have been referring to is that of the scope of the text, not the text itself. Most importantly, the text does NOT claim that 'those who follow Hinayana are afflicted by Mara'. I have amended the article accordingly (20040302 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
It is all very well to talk of the PP8000 as an early example of the use of the term "Hinayana", but there is a difficulty here when one talks about the completed text as we have it now that makes it difficult to determine whether the use in that Mahayana text or any other candidate text is "early". The difficulty is, of course, the question of stratification. Most Mahayana sutras are heavily stratified, both in terms of interpolations of sentences and paragraphs into pre-existing materal and the insertion of additional whole chapters which then in turn have their own interpolations at the sentence level. The earliest PP8000 to which we have access is the Chinese version attributed to Lokaksema. A Dutch scholar, Aad Verboom, did his Phd reconstructing the likely form of the original PP8000 from this Lokaksema version. One suprise, that is relevent to this whole discussion, is the likelihood that the term "bodhisattva" was not used at all -- the PP8000 originally being written in quasi-Prakrit language -- but "bodhisakta" (one who cleaves to bodhi).--Stephen Hodge 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small Pull

I pulled the following Attachment to the view of self contravenes the teachings of no-self (anatman), non-attachment (viraaga), and right view (sammaditthi) attributed to the historical Gautama Buddha, and accepted throughout history by nearly all Buddhists.

Of course I accept this, but I don't think that this is the place to start having to comment cites. The article is getting long enough already, and I trust that most people who have got this far into reading the article know enough about Buddhism (or can use hyperlinks to wiki articles) to understand this. I do get your point, so added a wikilink to anatman. I have made several other edits, primarily to reduce the bulk of your comments, without losing their purpose (except of course where you broaden the scope of the text to indicate that non-Bodhisattvas are also subjects of the text) (20040302 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Spelling

The hyphenation of samyaksambuddha as "samyaksam-buddha" is wrong, both in terms of spelling and as a guide to etymology. It wrongly implies that there is an element "samyaksam". Actually there are two layers of compounding here:

  1. Sam+buddha = "perfectly enlightened" (from sambudhyate "know perfectly") = sambuddha
  2. Samyañc+sambuddha = "thoroughly perfectly enlightened one" = samyaksambuddha

A prefix like "sam" is normally considered an integral part of the word it is attached to. So you could hyphenate "samyak-sambuddha", but not "samyaksam-buddha". It is better not to have any hyphen at all, though.RandomCritic 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Sutra cite

Why does the article contain text (in parentheses) indicating that the Diamond Sutra cite refers to bodhisattvas? i didn't notice the word "bodhisattva" in that chapter of the Sutra. Muller does use the phrase "any person" in the relevant paragraph. And why does the article say that "..the Diamond Sutra associates the term hinayana with practices and doctrines that lead to Sravakabuddhahood or Pratyekabuddhahood"? I didn't notice any reference to those categories in theDiamond Sutra. --Munge 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article contain text (in parentheses) indicating that the Diamond Sutra cite refers to bodhisattvas? I agree that in this case, it does not.
However, I'm not convinced by this translation. Compare, for instance, with Cowell, Muller, Takakusu or Buddhist Text Translation Society or A. F. Price, The Plum Village or Roach (page 48) - the Tibetan of which is a good translation directly from Sanskrit. (Tibetan is much closer to Sanskrit than Chinese).
Taking Roach for example: O Subhuti, those who are attracted to lesser things are incapable of hearing this presentation of the Dharma. Neither is it something for those who see some self, or for those who see some living being, or for those who see something that lives, or for those who see some person. the Tibetan (translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan by Shilendra Bodhi and Yeshe De) reads: "དམན་པ་ལ་མོས་པ་རྣམས...", which is "those who attracted to lesser things". Moreover, it is not those who are attached to the view of self - the Tibetan says OR those who are attached to the view of self, etc.
Therefore, I feel that the whole supposed Diamond Sutra reference to the Hinayana is weak. The term Hinayana is not used in translation (Tibetan, this would be "ཐེག་དམན་") - though the term hina- is. The Tibetan translators had a strict manner for translating from Sanskrit, and they would have used ཐེག་དམན་ if Hinayana were present. I am going to pull the entire cite as suspicious. (20040302 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Lotus Sutra cite: Why?

Diamond Sutra...would have used ཐེག་དམན་ if Hinayana were present.

For that matter, I'm not aware of any passage from the Lotus Sutra that uses the word hinayana. Perhaps you can clarify that, or perhaps we should delete those paragraphs as well. --Munge 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Williams: hinayana "abusive", sutras' "antagonism"

A long time ago in a Talk: page not so far away, 20040302 wrote:

I also refer you to Paul Williams' book

Some months back, I bought Buddhist Thought by Williams,. From p96:

...the undoubted antagonism found in some Mahayana sutras toward those who fail to heed the message of the text. These people persistently continue to follow what the Mahayana sutras themselves term--using an intentionally polemical and abusive expression--an ˈInferior Wayˈ, a Hinayana...In some cases, perhaps increasing as time passed, this Great Way is contrasted with an Inferior Way (Hinayana) and sometimes this contrast is marked by the use of rather immoderate language. Followers of the Inferior Way are, as one Mahayana text puts it, ˈlike jackalsˈ...

The "like jackals" thing is footnoted so anyone can chase that down if they like. The reference is to Williams' Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, p21

Sure, there are apologias. Sure, you can argue the insulted parties are all dead. Sure, M vs. H is fundamentally different kind of opposition, unlike Protestant v. Catholic. What is clear, though, is that Williams perceived the term as "polemical" and "abusive". A term containing a value judgement, not simply a category. --Munge 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure - this is something stated by Williams. But that doesn't make it true. It makes it a statement by Williams. I will get back to you on this. Work is particularly busy right now. (20040302)

[edit] Conze: hinayana "pejorative"; Lotus "polemics"

"...Hinayana, inferior or lesser vehicle: pejorative for those Buddhists who did not accept the new Mahayana teaching..." from the glossary of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & its Verse Summary, translated by Edward Conze, 1973, Four Seasons Foundation, San Francisco, p324.

Also, the title of Chapter 5, section 2 of Conze's Buddhist Scriptures is "Mahayana polemics against the Hinayana". What's in that section? It's the chapter of the Lotus Sutra that includes the parable of the carts. Munge 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. I remain unconvinced. (20040302)

Still, if there's no explicit use of the word hinayana in the Lotus, I support deleting the Lotus cite and all the interpretive text currently there. We could revisit that later. It's pretty low priority, considering what needs to be done here. --Munge 05:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from similar epithets, the term "hinayana" itself appears 3 times in the Lotus Sutra.--Stephen Hodge 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I will explain the import of the Lotus regarding hinayana later. see above. However, I agree that the cite from the lotus is extensive and could be reduced. - but though it may not explictly use the term 'hinayana', describes and typifies the triyana. The Vajracutter/Diamond cite was not typifying or describing the triyana, so it is much harder to identify hinayana as being the subject, regardless of the use of 'hina-' - which is found in contexts other than the triyana. (20040302)
Actually, you've made your position clear. So how about a cite? You seem to defend a view that the term was coined with complete objectivity and perfect respect for the people and scriptures it refer to. Other than Wikipedia, what source ever put forth such an idea? --Munge 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lotus: Do not associate with sravaka aspirants

To amplify what I linked to last year, the Lotus Sutra (e.g. see this page translated by Burton Watson) also discourages or forbids contact between bodhisattvas and those who aspire to be sravakas (which Watson translates as "voice hearers"). True, bodhisattvas are also discouraged or forbidden to associate with non-Buddhists, hunters, and so on (including wrestlers, actors, heretics, and so on). But those in training to be sravakas are singled out for special extra avoidance measures, e.g. bodhisattvas aren't supposed to stay in the same room or attend the same talk.

If we decide that the Lotus is truly relevant to the Hinayana wiki, the part about keeping their distance from sravaka aspirants seems just as important as the parable of the carts. --Munge 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in making generalizations about Mahayana, especially early Mahayana, is that there seem to have been unconnected, different Mahayana communities dotted around Indian, working within or affiliated with existing non-Mahayana groups. The possible dynamics and implications of this situation are described by Joseph Walser in his recent book "Nagarjuna in Context". One might surmise that the use of the term Hinayana only arose in the texts belonging to Mahayana followers who had reached critical mass in terms of dominance. In situations where they were still in the minority, the terminology would have been less pejorative, hence the use of Sravaka. But an interesting feature of some early Mahayana sutras is that they even speak of bodhisattva sravakas and at times the two terms are even used as synonyms. The case of the Lotus Sutra is interesting. It suggests a situation of considerable conflict -- both towards Sravakas and also towards other Mahayana groups of which it does not approve. One might even imagine that when it was being compiled, its protagonists were holed up in just one or two small beleaguered communities. The millenarian undertones may be diagnostic of this. In any case, all the Mahayana groups in India were very small in number wherever they were. Gregory Schopen suggests that in the early medieval period there were probably more Mahayanists in China than in India.--Stephen Hodge 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to say what are the attitudes expressed by the Nirvana Sutra toward sravaka and hinayana? Elsewhere I noted wide variations in attitudes toward sravaka as expressed by different Mahayana sutras. --Munge 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the Mahaparinirvana-sutra (MPNS) is one of the texts to which I was alluding above. First, it should be noted that the MPNS is a stratified text, so the overall situation is a bit fluid. Nevertheless, the MPNS tends to slice up the territory differently. The term "hinayana" is never used, although "Mahayana" does occur, as does "bodhisattva". I have not done a full stratification of the text, but my impression is that for the initial compilers there were just shravakas and shravakas -- some of whom are praised for being bodhisattvas or even bodhisattva-shravakas. At a later stage, there is a contrast in certain contexts between the shravakas and the bodhisattvas -- the latter having a better or more mature understanding of the intention of the Buddha's teachings. But there is no outright hostility or invective against the immature shravakas -- the idea is that they are capable of growth. The main division of individuals in the MPNS revolves around two topics: i) those who properly maintain the authentic Vinaya contra those who follow a false and indulgent Vinaya, and ii) those who accept the tathagata-garbha teachings contra those who reject and denigrate them. The first theme is the earlier. But, in both cases, those who are here vehemently criticized are termed "icchantika" -- those who can never be liberated because they have destroyed their wholesome roots. Interestingly, the early Madhyamikas are clearly included among the icchantikas of the second category. So the overall division in the MPNS = (bodhisattva contra shravaka) contra icchantika, where the contrast between bodhisattva and shravakas is less important than that between them and the icchantika false monks.--Stephen Hodge 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Read also my comment above under the 8000PP heading.--Stephen Hodge 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occurrences of hīnayāna in the Lotus Sutra

I formerly thought there were no occurrences of 'hīnayāna in the Lotus but thanks to S. Hodge for correcting me.

Elsewhere, links to The Lotus Sutra, translated by Burton Watson, 1993, Columbia University Press, are now broken. Here are the excerpts that I believe correspond to the occurrences of the word or word part hinayana:

  • Chapter 2: "there is only the Law of the one vehicle,
there are not two, there are not three...
The Buddhas appear in the world
solely for this one reason, which is true;
the other two are not the truth.
Never do they use a lesser vehicle
to save living beings and ferry them across
The Buddha himself dwells in this Great Vehicle...
If I used a lesser vehicle
to convert even one person,
I would be guilty of stinginess and greed,
but such a thing would be impossible."
  • Chapter 6: (Subhuti and two other monks say in unison)
"...whenever we recall the errors of the Lesser Vehicle,
we do not know what we should do
to gain the Buddha's unsurpassed wisdom.
Though we hear the Buddha's voice
telling us that we will attain Buddhahood,
in our hearts we still harbor anxiety and fear..."

Sanskrit is here two occurrences in chapter 2, verses 55 and 57; one occurrence in chapter 6, verse 13.

In identifying Mahayana with ekayana, it seems to say that teachers who do not accept the authority of this sutra commit a serious error; perhaps due to cowardice or even greed. And maybe the parable of the prodigal son in Chapter 4 implies a pathetic quality to the error. --Munge 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fundamental attribution error"—attribution?

Those who assert that the term was coined in a merely classificatory manner, generally consider the pejorative accusation to be a Fundamental attribution error.

Preciesely who asserts that the term was not coined in a pejorative manner?

According to Fundamental attribution error article, a person makes such an error occurs when making incorrect assumptions about someone else's disposition. In what case do those who criticize the usage of hinayana criticize the disposition of Mahayanists, authors who commit errors, or anyone else?

I have occasionally read statements by Mahayanists asserting hinayana practices are upaya for those of inferior disposition. That, my friends, just might be a fundamental attribution error. --Munge 07:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/n/Talk%7EHinayana_ad5f.html"