Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Attempt to re-factor Hinayana

(This is an attempt to summarise the discussion somewhat, in order to shorten the page size. Apologies if I have missed or omitted crucial points. Please restore them from the history if needs be.)

What is clear is that there are differing views concerning the term 'Hinayana'. I have adopted (and in the process subsumed) Mahabala's earlier summary of today. Forgive me if it offends thee.

Editing Hinayana: A request for harmony

Can we agree not to revert the page without some discussion? we all agree that I could develop a more appropriate editorial style!

can you? see abovemahābāla 16:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


OK - could we apply it to this page as well please! mahābāla 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) OK - But we need to trim (carefully) or summarise accordingly.

Early Schools of Buddhism

IMHO, we need a separate article that covers the ancient schools of Buddhism. The advantages:

  • We can discuss them under a title which nobody finds perjorative.
  • We can deal with issues of ancient history and Hinayana separately.
  • We can also then talk at length about heritage and descendancy of modern schools such as Theravada.

We will have a wonderful and important resource that supplies readers with information about ancient Indian schools of Buddhism that are now mostly extinct We should also definately link to it from here for those who expect to find it here. I suggest Shramana or Early Buddhist Schools. Thoughts?

Agreed. I like Early Buddhist Schools. Shramana has advantages (like being more accurate), but I think for the uninitiated reader it's best to avoid Sanskrit/Pali words as article titles where possible. mahābāla 15:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.

The new page

When I first saw the Early Buddhist Schools page, I noticed myself beginning to object to it. But, after some thought, I can't really see a problem with it. I think all of this discussion of Buddhism is starting to make a reflexive Mahayanist out of me. Anyway, there is one thing I wanted to bring up. I think that my involvement in the discussion over "Hinayana" arose out of an attempt to describe the modern Buddhist schools on the "Buddhism" page. Now, the way this is conventionally done is to talk about Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana (or Theravada/Sutric Mahayana/Tantric Mahayana if you prefer). This is fine, but it's a little awkward because it's like a biologist comparing a class, an order, and a genus. Theravada is a much more specific term than Mahayana is. So, I was attempting to use "Hinayana" as a broader term to encompasses Theravada and certain other now-defunct schools (this is the traditional Western usage which both March 2 and Mahā critique for different reasons). So it turns out that the term "Hinayana" is maybe not a very good one for that purpose. Some people say "Shravakayana" instead, but this meets only Mahā's criticisms and not March 2's.

So, the question is, is it even worthwhile to have any term to use as an umbrella covering both Theravada and various historical schools that are not Mahayana? If so, what term to use? I've seen suggested ramanera suggested, but I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that modern Theravada is more or less ramanic than modern Mahayana. The more I think about it, the more I see the merits of the expression "Nikaya Buddhism," which was originally suggested on wikipedia by, I think, that guy a c muller. Judging by the Nikaya article (which maybe is not really a good idea, I don't know), this expression is used as a positive by both Theravadins and Mahayanics: by the former to mean a subschool or sect of orthodox buddhists, which is agreeable for our purpose, and by the latter to mean the sutras of the Pali Canon. This last is especially agreeable because it seems to me that the easiest way to distinguish a Nikaya school is that they accept the validity of the Nikayas/Agamas/Sutta Pitaka and nothing else. - Nat Krause 08:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting post, Nat. Your point about the value of 'umbrella-ing' Theravada with the early schools is interesting. Nikaya seems okay to me if we need that, but why not keep it English and say "Theravada and the Early Buddhist Schools" ?

(20040302 09:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well, "Theravada and the Early Schools" doesn't really sound like a category, one could just as well say "Mahayana and the Early Schools." I suppose we could think of it as "Theravada-Early" like "Indo-European". But I don't think that Early is synonymous with "Nikaya" or what is conventionally called "Hinayana" in the west. Even leaving aside religious claims and assuming that Western scholarship indicates that the early schools were non-Mahayana, this is an empirical fact, not a category. It may or may not come to light in the future that some Early schools were not Hina/Shravaka/Nikaya. - Nat Krause 17:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough Nat - I leave it in your capable hands! (20040302 17:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Hinayana

Introduction to the term Hinayana

(Mahabala, I cannot accept an assertion of the use of Hinayana as a polemic in key Mahayana Sutras, but I agree that there is other views on the issue, and that an overview of the different arguments can be highlighted in the Hinayana article.)

We can examine etymology, and general usage in a context-neutral position. Introduce history and modern usage, leading to following sections. We can actively help to discourage a perjorative sense of the word. We can re-assert the meaning according to Mahayana usage.

I really like Mahas ideas about using it to a reciprocated link to the discussion of the Yanas as a group.

  • The 1,3,5 and 6 yanas
  • the historical development of the terminolgy
  • it's use a taxonomy for teachings,

(IMHO, it's uses as a polemical device should go under a different title called Buddhist Polemics

OK. I'll work on something for Buddhist Polemics. I would think I can move most of the 'ultraism' stuff to BPS. Yana is a bit cryptic for the lay reader, but I notice that vehicle already has a cross reference to the Buddhist use of the word so I figure we can build on that. I can, if you like provide specific examples from the White Lotus Sutra, The Vimalakirti Nirdesha in which the word is used as a Polemic - because it is there and needs explaining within the context of what you are saying. mahābāla 15:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Mahayana History of the term Hinayana

Could explain how the arisal of the concept of non-Mahayana practice led to the term. Could also explain current usage as a technical term to indicate practitioners who have fallen from Bodhichitta.

I think this series of sections sound a bit too much like an apologetic for using the term. If you don't think of it as perjorative, then why apologise? I think it will be better to just state the 'facts' of how the term is used. I do concede that few Mahayanists are actually attacking the Hinayana these days - the whole thing has become fossilised.
User: 20040302 Well, it depends on whether we can reconcile the 'facts'! If we can, then there is no need to labour over different POV, but where we currently are there still appears to be a difference of view concerning facts.
When you say things like practitioners who have fallen from Bodhichitta it just rings alarm bells in my head. There is no sense in which the Arahants could be described as having fallen from the Bodhicitta - so we have some explaining to do yeah?
User: 20040302 Yes - The point here is that the sutras were addressed to those wishing to follow the Mahayana path; therefore Arhats are not fallen from Bodhichitta. Indeed the Ekayana suggests that Arhats will 'wake up' as Arya Bodhisattvas and continue on to Buddhahood in many eons hence. (This is an extension of the Nirvana-with/out-remainder debate).
We need to show how it was that the idea that someone previously thought to have attained "final nibbana" could fall away from that. Maybe a section on the way the title of Arahant was applied. I think we need to explain for instance how Sariputta became the butt of jokes in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha, when he was previously an Arahant (in the full sense of that term). mahābāla 16:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Mahayana definition of Hinayana

Allows us to offer an edifying re-statement about the development of the term within it's own context. This should possibly include noting (with citation) that:

  • Mahayana traditions acknowledge that the Hearer sutras were spoken by Buddha and are therefore not to be criticised.
  • Mahayana traditions do not condemn Hinayana literature (at least sutra)
  • Mahayana traditions do not condemn Hinayana practice
  • Mahayana traditions do not assert that Hinayana practice is unnecessary
  • Mahayana traditions do not deny the enlightenment of Hinayana practitioners
  • etc.

A Scholastic History of the term Hinayana

It would be really great to find out just how the definition arose. If there is a good source that its modern usage is derived from early Mahayana, I would accept (as citation) a Mahayana primary source that categorically defines Hinayana to be a "term used to identify ancient Indian schools of Buddhism that are now mostly extinct." Could explain how the arisal of the requirement for a term referring to 'ancient buddhist schools' led to current usage.

  • scholars realized that there were old, extinct (sub)schools which were not exactly Theravada, but were still part of the same general phylum, and wished to use a label for them.
  • etc.

A Scholastic definition of Hinayana

Allows us to demonstrate the contrast between original contexts and current scholastic uses. We can possibly then demonstrate how this has led to interpretations of e.g. Lotus suggesting early friction.

Hinayana as a Mahayana term vs. Hinayana as a scholastic term

This remains an interesting issue, and warrants some discussion or explanation. This can be kept separate from the above articles.

Theravada/Scholastic views of Hinayana as perjorative

This is on-topic, and relevant. (Maybe we split or subsume the Theravada/Scholastic component) Accusations towards Mahayana that rotate around the word Hinayana. A distinct Scholastic view is not necessary, but may be interesting alternative to Theravada in some contexts.

  • coined as a way of lampooning and denigrating followers of the Shravakayana
  • 'Hinayana' is unquestionably negative
  • etc.

Mahayana defenses of Hinayana as pejorative

This remains a fascinating area to me. I don't want to sit on a fence about this one.

  • NOT coined as a way of lampooning and denigrating followers of the Shravakayana
  • Hinayana refers to the falling (from the grace) of Bodhicitta.
  • In Mahayana literature, Hinayana does not represent the Theravada (or other schools)
Ah, only school which try to defend usage of hinayana as non-pejorative is Tibetan. FWBOarticle
Actually, this is not the case, FWBOarticle. The late Indian Nalanda tradition established, with many reasonings, that hinayana was not coined in a pejorative manner.
You mean Indian Nalanda tradition preserved in Tibet. :D FWBOarticle
The Nalanda tradition is Indian, not Tibetan. the Nalanda tradition has been preserved (to some degree or another) in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh, Bengal, Vietnam, and other places. But Nalanda was Indian. Therefore, it is not a Tibetan issue. However, it appears you aren't interested in discussion, but a mere re-iteration of your convictions. (20040302)
So this entire section is pointless unless you switch it to Tibetan defence.
Currently, the main article does indeed indicate that this stance is Tibetan.
Well but we are talking about Mahayana defence here. I can't recall a single existing Mahayana school which try to argue that Hinayana is not pejorative. FWBOarticle 15:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It appears your recollection is not that vast. I suggest you spend more time studying the vast number of late Indian mahayana scripture. Maybe, start off with Asvagiosha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, Santideva, Atisha, and Sangharakshita (the original one). Nalanda was not in Tibet. (20040302)
The reason Tibetan schools try to defend use of hinayana is due to their three wheel scheme which consider all nikaya, mahayana and tantric as valid.
Well, there are some knotty issues here - most Mahayana traditions (other than some pure land schools) accept that most of the Sutras are 'valid' - or spoken by the Buddha- there are no schools that accept all Sutras as valid, including the Tibetan schools. The discussion of the validity of Sutras is an ancient one, and certainly could be dealt with elsewhere in more detail.
Mahayana school accept Pali sutra to be valid. But that doesn't stop them from call other schools which follow Pali as inferior/heretic based on their practice. Very common in Islam. :)
Islam is a straw man, FWBO- give me evidence to support that e.g. the Indian Mahayana school was pejorative towards Hinayana.
In Tibet, pejorative implication of Hinayana has been transformed into something else due to their three wheel synthesis doctrine. I also suspect that Tibetan translation of Hinayan only means small wheel and devoid of prjorative implication in Sanskrit lingo. FWBOarticle
I think you misunderstand the relationship between India and Tibet. Regardless, you must do better than merely re-state what you have already said. I disagree with your thesis that the 'three-wheel synthesis' is Tibetan. Show me that it originated in Tibet, and when, and by whom. Or do you think that Atisha was Tibetan, rather than Bengali? (20040302)
This entry would improve so much if you simply treat hinayana as Mahayanan perojative against Nikya schools, then trace the development of Mahayanan sutras in regard to this polemic. Afterward, you can have a section explaining how Tibetan alter the pejorative meaning of hinayana in their system.
If you read the extensive discussion on this page, maybe you will agree that things are not as clear as you may believe. The Vimalakirti Sutra is often cited as being en example of pejorativity, - however, if we read the the sutra, we find:
It is not clear because we start off from tibetan. Mahayanan schools no longer dispute? We don't need to make Hinayana non projective for Mahayana. Mahayana buddhism accept hinayana to be projetive and use Theravada whenever they can. The issue is entirely tibetan. The fact that this does not sit well with Tibetan buddhism's mahanayan heritage is not the concern of mahayanan buddhism.
Para 1: "[...] Of bhikshus there were eight thousand, all arhats. They were free from impurities and afflictions, and all had attained self-mastery. Their minds were entirely liberated by perfect knowledge [...]"
This is debate about status of Arahat, not the term Hinayana.
Haha - the Vimalakirti (along with the Lotus) is the most often cited text for a pejorative stance, and now you claim that it is solely concerned with the status of an Arhat!! So, tell me friend, where is the pejorative stance that you claim the Mahayana have had? Show me primary literature. Show me the verses in the Vimalakirti which are so pejorative against Hinayana: Not bhiksus! Nor arhats! According to you, that would be about the status of Arhats- I am not aware of the mention of 'Hinayana' being present who were not Bhikshus! And of course, Para 1 says that all the 8000 Bhikshus present were Arhats. (20040302)
Similar paragraphs are found in the Lotus and other sutras. The issues that are discussed in these sutras are primarily concerning the development of Bodhicitta, and are quite clearly focussed towards a Mahayana audience. For a Bodhisattva - to lose one's commitment to achieve Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings (to lose Bodhicitta) - would indeed be a downfall. There are plenty of Nikaya sutras (and Nikaya Jataka) that distinguish between the Bodhisattva and the Arhat - remember that NO-ONE disputes that Sakyamuni Buddha was a Bodhisattva Buddha - and NO-ONE disputes that a Buddha is distinct from an Arhat. I agree that there are differences of opinion concerning the state of Nirvana, but that belongs to another article. So, in order to demonstrate that 'hinayana' was coined in a pejorative sense, you will need to find primary source material that demonstrates it. Not an easy task.
This is again debate about status of Arahat, not the term Hinayana. One can debate, say, whether every Caucasians in 19th century considered black as inferior. Also, the term black may have been inappropriately applied to Australian Aboliginies or Dravidian Indian. But when the word N***** is used, every one know what it mean and there is no point debating whether N word is a projetive word or not.
Aha! Once again, you do not check your sources. Try going to Nigger, where you will be told '"Nigger" is almost always pejorative' - see? NOT always, but ALMOST always. Even the term Nigger requires context to be pejorative. There are times, contexts, and circumstances where it does not have a pejorative implication. Now, let us examine the philosophy and purpose of the Mahayana schools - they cannot hold an ultraist position (because of the middle-way philosophy), and they wish to use Upaya - skill-in-method - to benefit all beings, on the grounds of the beings themselves - the basis of the Bodhisattva practice is to completely relinquish slef-centredness - to continually be aware of the needs of all beings, without judgement or discrimination. The bodhisattva listens to the words of Lord Buddha, but also looks at his own actions - and sees Lord Buddha's greatest teachings in terms of an example to follow. I would be fascinated for you to explain how such a selfless stance can be interpreted in the manner of deciding to damn those who wish to tread the path of the Arhats! Motive? Purpose? Evidence? All I hear is an ongoing accusation, based upon glossed interpretations of the various potential meanings of the hina- prefix. (20040302)
A different argument against the term Hinayana being pejorative is that Mahayanists do not consider any word to be inherently derisory or non-derisory. Words serve a purpose, and the sole purpose of the Bodhisattva is the acceptance of the responsibility of enlightening activity.
Huh, they do and that is why they have decided to change it to Theravada. I hear that kind of arguments from Tibetan quite often but not from Mahayanan schools.
Huh - they don't. What has happened in recent years is that certain Theravadins and Westerners (e.g. the FWBO) have interpreted the word to be pejorative - a Fundamental attribution error. This NOT being the intent of the Mahayanists, the Mahayana have done what they can to restate the meaning of the term in a manner that is NOT pejorative for those who wish to interpret it as such. Be careful. (20040302)
Another argument against the term Hinayana being pejorative would be that there is a Fundamental attribution error on behalf of the Theravadins (and the FWBO) - they have simply missed the point.
Oh, you mean Theravadan is not Hinayanan line of argument. That is slightly better argument. Still doesn't change the word hinayana itself being projetive though.
See above. (20040302)
Also, to requote - One of the core aspects of the Mahayana can be found in the development of the ideas of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna's ideas (especially as developed in the Madhyamaka tradition) could not and would not accept a position of ultraism, and therefore the very idea of being pejorative is an anathema - why? Because the very notion of being 'better' than something else requires an assertion from a non-contextual stance - something which Nagarjuna does his best to avoid. Therefore, the Mahayana could not (and do not) accept that they are non-contextually 'better' than the Hinayana, and certainly would not go so far as to ridicule or dismiss the Hinayana thoughts or traditions as being unimportant, non-valuable, poor or inferior. (20040302 08:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC))
Yes, that is why Mahayanan schools now a day find the whole existence of the word, hinayana, to be rather embarassing and ditched the word and replaced it with Theravadan. I come across the above kind of argument only after I got here in the West. I was going "WTF".
No - the Mahayanist do not find the term embarrasing - they became aware of the attribution error, and so, accordingly, have been looking for alternatives that will not produce such a violent reaction from those who consider the Mahayanists are being elitist. Think.. My argument of Nagarjuna is hardly modern. It goes back nearly 2000 years, to the dawn of Mahayana. Please give me sources (original, primary sources) that show that the term Hinayana was coined to have a pejorative stance.. You have not done that. You just continue to restate your opinion; show me sutra, show me Indian source texts that unequivacably use 'Hinayana' in a pejorative stance. (20040302)

Here are the the reason.

1. Hinayana cannot mean small vehicle in sanskrit. Pali/Sanskrit word for small is "Cuula". The word, hina, is from the root , hā: to cast off, discard, shun. Hina means inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned. Hence small is only derivertive implication.. While it is possible to use hinayana in cotext of vile/inferior/poor vehicle without meaning small vehicle, the reverse does not work.
Interesting idea, but poor examination - and once again a straw man. The term 'Hina-' does not have to mean 'small' for my arguments, -it only has to mean inferior. The Arhat path is recognised as being inferior to the path of the Bodhisattva within Nikaya sutra. Remember, no-one ever disputed that Gautama was a Bodhisattva. No-one disputed that his qualities were greater than those of the Arhats. Inferior is not necessarily pejorative - it is a relative term, and in this case, relative to the Bodhisattva path. There are many, many contexts where the term 'inferior' is not pejorative. I claim, with reason, that this is one of them. (20040302)
2. One do not have to go to Mahayan source for projective implication. Hina being projetive is already clear in Tripitaka. Famous first sermon of Buddah, Buddha says: "These two extremes, monks, are not to be practised by one who has gone forth from the world. What are the two? That conjoined with the passions and luxury, low (hiina), coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful ...". The usage is exactly the same in Mahanana version in Lalitavistara. In Tripitaka, hina is always used in combination of hiina-majjhima-pa.niita, that is: bad - medium - good but never as small. In Mahayanan Mahayanasutralankara, Asanga says: "There are three groups of people: hiina-madhyama-vishishta ...(bad – medium – excellent)."
Neither of us dispute the ambiguity, of the prefix Hina-, but its useage is not merely pejorative. It has different contexts, and different meanings according to context. Also, I dispute your gloss on translation - it is not "Bad, Medium, Excellent", So much as 'inferior, medium and excellent' - For instance, if we wish to divide the intelligence of the population into three groups, we may say low height, medium height, and tall height - We would not normally say 'Bad' -- and of course you know there is a sanskrit word for 'Bad'. And it is not 'Hina-'. While we are talking of this, is it pejorative to state that some people have low height? is it? (20040302)
3. When the term hinayana is used in any Mahanaya scripture such as Lotus Sutras and Vimalakirti Sutra it is always used as inferior to Mahayanan way. Hina is used as bad in Sanskrit scriptures and when small is meant cuula is used.
Not merely these sutras, but also the Nikaya sutras and the Jatakas. There are many instances where the distintion between Arhats and Lord Buddha are made in Nikaya sutra. The Bodhisattva path does not solely belong to the Mahayana schools. The Nikaya sutras accept that Buddha was a bodhisattva, and also accept that he was superior to the arhats because he was a bodhisattva. What the Nikaya schools reject is that the paths as interpreted by the Mahayana schools are valid Bodhisattva paths– (or, if they are considered by Nikaya to be valid, the nature of Nirvana does not differ between the path of the Arhat, and the path of the Bodhisattva - merely that the path of the Bodhisattva takes much longer to fulfil). Be very careful. This is a subtle issue. (20040302)

The people who composed Mahayana sutras spoke Sanskrit. They were not like Tibetan, Chinese Korean or Japanese who relied on translated text. They knew exactly what Hina means in Sanskirit when they coined the term Hinayana. I can't recall single Mahayan school which try to defend this. So why do we bother to debate it? Such thing can be done in Tibetan section but I don't see a point doing it in Mahayanan section. when such attempt. FWBOarticle

It appears that your entire argument rests on the basis that the prefix Hina- is necessarily pejorative, regardless of context. I dispute that, on the grounds that the Mahayana schools have always rejected assertions of objective truth - which entails that NO word, term, or phrase has any inherent qualities to it, including the 'Hina-' prefix.
Therefore we can say without doubt that the Mahayana schools did not, could not and would not agree that the prefix Hina- is objectively pejorative. As this appears to be the sole basis of your argument, - a position that we know the Mahayana disputed - we can safely say that the Mahayana did not coin the term Hinayana as a pejorative against the Nikaya traditions. You have done my work for me. (20040302)
I will be away for 3 weeks. I am interested in continuing this discussion, and I propose that we both go away and do more study regarding this knotty issue. I will not be impressed by the mere assertion that the prefix 'Hina-' is objectively pejorative. You also need to show that the ideas that you attribute to the Tibetans are indeed Tibetan. I do not think that they are. Keep well, and be happy. (20040302)

Other Issues

(OT) Theravada view of the Mahayana largely as heresy, along with Mahayana defenses

This is an interesting area that warrants attention, but which is mostly off-topic. It can also include a nice section on the authenticity (or otherwise) of Mahayana sutras. We need an article title for it- Maha suggests Buddhist Polemics which seems good to me. We cn then possibly link to it from Hinayana, but more appropriately Mahayana

(OT) Mahayana and Hinayana views of Nirvana

Once again, a fascinating discussion, with plenty of scholarship (both occidental and oriental) behind it. It seems much more appropriate under the article Nirvana.

(OT) Buddhist Ultraism

Once again, a fascinating discussion, but we all agree it is off-topic here (except in respect to the subtitles above) It seems much more appropriate under some other article though. (Nat suggested the rather long-winded Ultraism in Buddhist Apologetics)


The remaining discussion is left for Nat, if you are interested. Delete it if you do not wish to continue the discussion. Or move it somewhere else if you want!

It may well be true that this concept originates in Western thought, but I fail to see how this makes it particularly less valid.

User: 20040302 Interesting. For example though, take Tantra by far the most common meaning in English is 'kinky indian sex', with the emphasis placed on sex. Does this mean that the wikipedia article on Tantra should reflect the common meaning? Or should we attempt to be edifying and help to move people away from such an attribution? Seriously. If we were always to accept that popular understanding should be reflected in an encyclopedia, then words such as 'opaque' would mean transluscent! Again, the majority of the human population does not know that the earth orbits the sun. Does this mean that it is not so, or should not be reflected in an encyclopedia. Please.
Krause An interesting philaletic (or somesuch) topic. First, is the most common use of the word "Tantra" as a type of sex (a google search indicates that you may be right), and do most of the people in the world think that the sun orbits the earth? I don't know. Second, the sun does orbit the earth, per Einstein's theory of relativity, although this is starting to get afield of our purpose. Third, why doesn't the dictionary describe "opaque" as meaning "translucent"? If that is the way most people use the expression, it probably does (at least as a secondary definition)! Along the same lines, the entry on Tantra does talk about sex; it gives a whole section-heading to the subject.
Krause I think that we should look at what distinguishes the examples you mention from the example of Hinayana. Frankly, you are talking about rather trivial and half-formed opinions. Very few people, having devoted even a limited amount of serious thought to these subjects, would see "tantra", "opaque", or "the movement of the spheres" in the light you describe -- most of them would probably admit that they know very little about the subject. "Hinayana", on the other hand, is used in the sense of a school or class of schools frequently by people who are genuinely attempting to understand what it is.
User: 20040302 Be careful here not to fall into academic elitism (or ultraism) here. Also, If we create a term to describe a preconception we have about something, it does not necessarilly legitimize either the term or our preconception. Phlogiston was all the rave once - and at least it was a neologism. That was used by people who were geunilly attempting to understand what it was. We have alternatives to describe the ancient sangha schools (terms such as Shramana), which are neither insulting, nor misapplied. Why do you see a need to perpetuate a misapplied term?
Krause In either case, this seems like a matter of degree rather than of kind. Even a mistaken opinion is worth mentioning at least briefly in order to show how it compares to reality. In the case of "tantra" and "opaque" the popular understanding is (or should be) addressed -- it is not actually wrong but simply incomplete. Likewise, the Hinayana article should mention all senses of that term. I would argue, on the grounds I mentioned above, which are that it will be more informative and meaningful to most of our readers, that the "Hinayana school" sense should take precedence.
User: 20040302 Well, up until the last sentence, I agree totally. Indeed, there is an issue of incompleteness, and yes, there are Mahayana references (at least in secondary literature) that talk about Hinayana schools - but I would 'still' argue that the references are not talking about the ancient schools in particular, but rather schools that are solely concerned with the atttainment of the Hearer objective: namely Arhatship.
User: 20040302 I am aware that I am attempting some form of linguistic conservatism here. We already have seen words like Yoga come to represent just Hatha Yoga or even Physical Fitness with a touch of Indian mystique thrown in. Also terms such as Meditation are now so ambiguous that anyone can claim to be teaching it - even golf coaches. The issue of Hinayana though is that it implies that the Mahayana traditions have something against the non-Mahayana schools. I don't think that they do. I think such an attitude has arrived from second-hand scholarship and pre-conception leading to poor translation. I may be wrong. It is just hard to see the suggested criticism in any active Mahayana lineage that I have had contact with, (Primarily Tibetan, Korean and Zen) both in texts and from teachings. The 18 root Bodhisattva vows (a lineage that goes back at least 1200 years, which are solemnly taken and recited daily by all Gelukpa practitioners and many others) have as the 14th vow "I shall not discredit the Listener's Vehicle". This includes criticizing, rejecting or discrediting either the Sravaka or Pratyeka traditions. It is a grave root downfall to suggest that the Hinayana path does not lead to Nirvana. Moreover, the 6th root vow "I shall not give up the Dharma" is broken by having the attitude that the Mahayana is the highest and most suitable Dharma and that the Hinayana teaching is inferior and not suitable to practice. (So many texts talk about this - but in English, there is Lobsang Tarchin ISBN 0-918753-16-3) with extensive primary and secondary indian souces cited).
User: 20040302 Therefore, there must be some misconception about the term and the use of the term, and the attribution of criticism placed by Western academics who appear to re-apply their definition onto primary material. Or can you see something that I am missing?
So look at:Nirdesha
  • Well there is the dictionary defn of the word Hīna which is less than charitable as I think you'll agree.
  • section 6 at the beginning.
  • section 7 The Goddess. The incident of the flowers sticking to the Arahants but not the Bodhistattvas - is saying that the Arahants are not enlightened.
  • At the begining of the White Lotus 500 Arahants are depicted as walking out on the Buddha because they don't believe there is a higher teaching. Can't find this on the net, but there are plenty of available translations.
User: 20040302 Yes, it appears that way for many readers. But the general commentary on this from lineage holders involves understanding that the venerable Sariputra was magically influenced by the Buddha for the entire duration of the Sutra; regardless, he appeared in the way he did (and all the other attributed effects happened) as a mechanism of Buddha's Upaya (skill in means), for the purpose of allowing the conversation to be held. The justification for this is found in line one, and the whole of paragraph one of the sutra.
Line 1: "Reverence to all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Aryasravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, in the past, the present, and the future" Indicates nothing but reverence
Para 1: "[...] Of bhikshus there were eight thousand, all saints. They were free from impurities and afflictions, and all had attained self-mastery. Their minds were entirely liberated by perfect knowledge [...]"
(translation as cited).
Similar rationales are found in the White Lotus etc.
These activities are solely a part of skill-in-means.
The key word here is rationale. The Pali commentaries are full of eel wriggling in order to make the Suttas fit the pattern of later, Theravada, biases. I don't think anything you have written refutes that fact that 500 Arahants walk out of the Sutra! But I'm finding following this discussion on the format of these pages very difficult to read. I suggest that we switch to email, or perhaps one of the Buddhist ngs. What do you say? mahābāla 17:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


So there is a discrepancy between the Vajrayana book which you are quoting, and the Mahayana Sutras I am quoting. I think we need to make a distinction between Mahayana and Vajrayana approaches. It is not true to say that Tibetan Buddhism is representative of Buddhism outside Tibetan - extensive citing or not - and this is as true of Vajrayana as Mahayana. If you start looking at websites that come up under "Mahayana Arahant" on Google you will find many of them (all that I looked at) repeating the various polemical attitudes that I have described. I've yet to see one that upheld the view which you are describing. mahābāla 16:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User: 20040302 Well, actually the Bodhisattva vows do not come from the Vajrayana. Also, the Vajrayana (bar a couple of tiny schools in Vietnam and Nepal) is a subset of the Mahayana. The Bodhisattva vows that I am familiar with come directly from the late Nalanda tradition (like around the 10thC). (thnx for sig. mention!) 20040302 17:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually I'm reading Kukai a lot at the moment and he went to a lot of trouble to distinquish exoteric from esoteric, and he definitely considered all forms of Mahayana to be exoteric, and thereby merely provisional. So Japanese Vajrayana certainly does not consider itslef as a subset of the Mahayana!
User: 20040302 I read quite a bit of Kukai last year- interesting stuff. I query this exoteric, and thereby merely provisional. My understanding of exoteric in this context is that it means 'not secret', as opposed to 'secret'. I would like to read your views on this.
User: 20040302 On reflection, I guess my use of the term subset is misleading - what I was attempting to imply was that (generally) you need to be Mahayana in order to practice Tantrayana. I think there is a reference to this in the Mahavairochanatantra - I shall have a look soon.


Etymology

I'm taking a look at my Monier-Williams (the definitive Sanskrit-English dictionary), as etymology, while not utterly decisive, often sheds some light not issues:

hīnayena from hīna+yena. The latter part is "vehicle; the former part...

In the Rigveda: "left, abandoned, forsaken" In the Menavadharmaśestra and Mehabherata, "&c.: "left behind, excluded or shut out from, lower or weaker than, inferior to" According to a Yejñavalkya: "defeated or worsted (in a lawsuit") In the ṣatapatha Breḥmana: "deficient, faulty, insufficient, short, incomplete, poor, little, low, vile, bad, base, mean...

The term is derived from √he, meaning to leave, abandon, or forsake.

So, etymologically speaking, the term clearly has a pejorative connotation, and I think it's fair to assume that it had that meaning when it originated in Mahāyāna sutras, though in the interim the Mahāyāna folks may well have toned the rhetoric down and adopted a more neutral stance.

We risk being persuaded by dictionary rather than context. Although there are many different uses to the word, (some of which can be read as perjorative), we have to examine purpose. The Tibetan translations are almost invariably 'THEG CHUNG' (ACIP translit.), which is literally 'small path'. Sometimes they translate it 'THEG SMAD', - the SMAD can be read as inferior, but generally is not understood to mean that here. 'BU SMAD' is the Tibetan for girl (whereas 'BU' is boy), and this is not meant in a pejorative or dismissive tone.
Here is an argument (and why I disagree about 'clearly' above!) against it's pejorativeness: One of the core aspects of the Mahayana can be found in the development of the ideas of Nagerjuna. Nagerjuna's ideas (especially as developed in the Madhyamaka tradition) could not and would not accept a position of ultraism - why? Because the very notion of being 'better' than something else requires an assertion from a non-contextual stance - something which Nagerjuna does his best to avoid. Therefore, the Mahayana could not (and do not) accept that they are non-contextually 'better' than the Hinayana, and certainly would not go so far as to ridicule or dismiss the Hinayana thoughts or traditions as being unimportant, non-valuable, poor or inferior. Plenty of Mahayana writers of Nalanda have stated that the Hinayana sutras are valuable and useful, stating that only the component that concerns itself with sole liberation is to not to be accepted by a Bodhisattva, as it is not appropriate to the Bodhisattva path. (20040302 13:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))
First off, just because mh of Buddhism rejects absolute truth-claims in linguistic form (including, you're quite right, Nagarjuna's eloquent elaboration of the two-truths doctrine), does not mean that it cannot make value judgments. As you say, it can make no non-contextual value judgments; but nothing stops it from making contextual ones. (i.e., Your doctrine isn't as useful as ours for achieving enlightenment.)
Also, Nāgārjuna is not at all representative of the Mahāyāna. I won't assert, as David Kalupahana does, that he's a Theravedin, but he's different. I like to think of him as "proto-Mahāyāna." In any case, while he does reject the possibility of taking any position, this is (a) not as strongly asserted in the rest of Buddhism as it is in certain Madhyamaka writings (and a couple of other places), and (b) not automatically exclusive of polemics, as Nāgārjuna still recognizes more and less worthwile doctrines. He simply recognizes them as better or worse "common practice," and not representing ultimate reality.कुक्कुरोवाच 14:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank-you very much for your insights, Kukku. My small argument remains that there is an argument for saying: The term Hinayana is not clearly pejorative, which I hope you appreciate (in light of this discussion).
The larger argument (concerning value judgments) is probably more interesting for discussion.
`rejects absolute truth-claims in linguistic form` This seems to be an apparent gloss. AFAIK there is little in any texts that distinguishes between the linguistic and the experiential. Also, such dichotomies appear to descend from cartesian philosophic concepts: Do you not agree that Nagarjuna's work would be less powerful at removing self-grasping if we were to accept that he was solely talking about the linguistic components of truth claims?
(I assert that Nagarjuna is first of all a practitioner. His purpose is to eliminate self-grasping and to assist his readers to eliminate the same. So the efficaciousness of his work in this manner is of deep import).
Secondly, I feel that the Mahayana can make claims of absolute truth, -even the existence of a soul and a god- as long as the claims themselves are what is most efficacious at the time of their use. What this means though, is that they cannot be stuck onto the Mahayana as a set of facts about what the Mahayana think; they remain what they are - statements in the contexts within which they were used. This is Upaya. I disagree completely that Upaya was developed as a legitimisation of badmouthing! Instead, it is a necessary consequence of Madhyamaka; that any action is done according to circumstance, and that there is no real scale against which actions may be measured. So, yes, the Mahayana may say "This is better, this is worse", but the statement itself has nothing to do with what is truly better, and everything to do with what is relevant to the audience at the time.
Upaya also allows for scholarship- we can build castles, but we must remember that the castles are still just that. Being able to know that a castle is just a castle prevents us from getting attached to one set of views or concepts, and allows us to identify the usefulness of them according to the situation at hand.
So, back to my earlier point- The very notion of being 'better' than something else requires a belief in a non-contextual scale of betterness, therefore the Madhyamaka Mahayana cannot believe that they are better, though in specific circumstances they may assert it.
Anyway, there is so much to say on this and so little time! (20040302 09:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))
Most of this of course demonstrates the distinct difference of Buddhism from the Ibrahimic tradition - the very idea of any absolute scale (of quality, rightness or what-have-you) is an anathema, and it is for these reasons that I disagree with contributers when they assert that the Mahayana (and Vajrayana) traditions claim to hold a 'better' or 'more accurate' truth. Instead, I favour the position that these traditions identify that there are people for whom each path is relavant, that there is no 'ONE TRUE PATH', but that individuals must find the path that suits them best. AFAIK, there is plenty of evidence (e.g. multiple objects for Samatha, and the message of beating Buddha's words like a gold assayer) in the earliest of sutras to support this plural, non-final message of Buddhism. The greatest evidence IMHO being the Mahayana interpretation of Anatman. (20040302 13:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))
I tend to agree with you on this point as regards Buddhism de jure, but de facto the polemics exist and they're serious. In fact, my historical reading of the concept of upeya (the central underpinning of the view that there is no one true path in Buddhism) is that it began precisely as a way of badmouthing other schools without inciting a schism; you called them inferior ways designed for the dim-witted as concessions to stupidity. I have a paper where I discussed some of these issues for a class on Asian mysticism...::rifles through web:: here: [1] Two excerpts I used from the Lotus sutra:
These people of few qualities and little merit
Are afflicted by various sufferings.
They enter into the jungle of sixty-two false views
Such as: “This does exist,” or “This does not exist.”
They are so firmly and deeply attached to false teachings
That they cannot get rid of them…
That is why, O Shariputra, I devised the method of teaching
The way to extinguish all suffering through nirvana.…
All phenomena have the tranquil character
Of the Dharma:
This could not be expressed in words,
So I taught the five monks
Through the power of skillful means.
This I named: “Turning the Wheel of the Dharma,’
And immediately the word nirvana appeared in it
And the different designations for Arhat,
Dharma and Sangha.
From a great many kalpas ago
I have always taught like this:
I have praised and illuminated
The teaching of nirvana,
Saying that it ends the sufferings
Of birth and death.
(Tsugunari and Yuyama, 41, 48, emphasis added.)

and

“Having openly set aside skillful means,/I will teach only the highest path/To all the Bodhisattvas.” (Tsugunari and Yuyama, 49

Well - I confess I have always had a bit of a struggle with the Lotus sutra; and I find the idea that one can set aside Upaya deeply suspicious, (except of course as Upaya itself!) (20040302 09:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))


If I can scrounge up a copy of Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, I can probably provide more information. I wish I owned a copy...

https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no34753.htm $60 Reprinted this year.
Mar. 2 writes: One of the core aspects of the Mahayana can be found in the development of the ideas of Nagerjuna. Nagerjuna's ideas (especially as developed in the Madhyamaka tradition) could not and would not accept a position of ultraism - why? Because the very notion of being 'better' than something else requires an assertion from a non-contextual stance - something which Nagerjuna does his best to avoid. Therefore, the Mahayana could not (and do not) accept that they are non-contextually 'better' than the Hinayana, and certainly would not go so far as to ridicule or dismiss the Hinayana thoughts or traditions as being unimportant, non-valuable, poor or inferior.
Does this mean that we would not consider any term used by a Mahayanist to be derisory? What about "detestable", "weak", "idiotic", "ugly", or even words like "nigger" or "gook"? - Nat Krause 13:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would agree with the assertion. This is because a Mahayanist does not consider any word to be inherently derisory or non-derisory. Words serve a purpose, and the sole purpose of the Bodhisattva is the acceptance of the responsibility of enlightening activity. You yourself (and now I) have just used the word nigger in a way which is non-derisory. We have used it to show how some words involve strong emotional reactions. So it is not the word, but the context of the word. It is not merely the context (in text), but also the purpose of the author. The purpose (by definition) of the Mahayana is enlightening activity. So, rather than saying "Oh, the Mahayanist was being derisory in such-and-such a place", we can ask ourselves "So, what was the situation of this statement that required the Mahayanist to behave in a manner that appears to be derisory?" (20040302 09:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))