Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox

The rôle of the different pages

In the past, I've used Talk: pages for staging purposes, but have been looking for a better way. So let's try this. There are going to be a bunch of moving parts here. Here is what I see as the role of the different pages.

• I propose to write a new version in Hinayana/Article Sandbox that eventually becomes the new Hinayana article.

• On this page, first I propose to discuss issues directly related to the wordcrafting of the new version, including suggested language/outline for the upcoming Sandbox article

• I may continue using Talk:Hinayana to address issues in the current article.

If there is some other structured way to stage articles/revisions that aren't ready for prime time, perhaps using some of the Category:Wikipedia maintenance tags, I'd like to know about it.

user:munge 05:20 UTC 26 Dec 2004

I would suggest doing this under your userpage or your user talk page. Right now, it shows up when people doing maintenance stuff, like me, do searches for articles in the main namespace. You probably don't want that. -- Hongooi 08:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wish more people would find it and contribute. Serious controvery on the topic. Lots of archived talk pages in the main article. Potential for RFAs. "You probably don't want that." ;> I wish people would help with this draft. There's more interest in uncited axe grinding and writing robots or whatever to change role to rôle. Two good reasons why the world outside criticizes Wikipedia, IMO. No, I'm not immediately convinced it's such a great idea to hide it as a user talk page. Other ideas? Note I didn't create this page, just started working it at the creator's suggestion. --munge 05:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorization, proposed deletion, and related matters

User:Postcard_Cathy inserted a dated prod template containing the text "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." I object to this article's deletion, and will remove the template.

The reason the user gave for proposing deletion was "sandbox that never should have made it onto the list of uncategorised articles. Should have been deleted before then." At this time, I too see no reason for the article to be on the list of uncategorized articles. But that appears to be an excellent reason to remove the Uncategorized template (recently added by User:Alaibot). For this reason I am also removing the Uncategorized template.

I am not aware of a Wikipedia policy that requires articles to be categorized, nor of a policy for articles that are not members of a category to be tagged with an Uncategorized template. I am not aware of a Wikipedia policy that forbids or discourages the existence of article sandboxes. Feel free to cite policies to the contrary.

As for the criteria for inclusion, the topic of the article is obviously notable, as indicated by the first ten or twenty cites. --munge 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some suggested language

Hinayana (Sanskrit: "inferior vehicle"), is a controversial term coined by Mahayana Buddhists to refer to the doctrines, practices, and texts of other Buddhists who reject the provenance of the Mahayana Sutras.

According to Mahayana Buddhist doctrine, hinayana refers to the doctrines, practices and texts which are concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravakabuddha or a Pratyekabuddha, as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksambuddha. Over time, Mahayana texts used various euphemisms for Hinayana such as the two vehicles or sometimes Shravakayana.

However, in popular western-language books and articles about Buddhism, probably the most common usage of Hinayana is when dividing Buddhism (and Buddhists) into the categories Hinayana and Mahayana (and sometimes Vajrayana). This division is often used naīvely, in that it is considered to be an objective division, and does not recognise that in history such divisions are used solely by the Mahayana. These divisions imply that the Theravada belong to the Hinayana category.

To refer to non-Mahayana Buddists past and present, proposed alternatives to Hinayana include Conservative Buddhism, Foundational Buddhism, Southern Buddhism, and Nikaya Buddhism.

A range of views about the meaning of Hinayana

The various ways the term is used can make it very difficult for even the informed person to know the intent of the person using the term. In addition to meanings mentioned above, some people use the term is to refer to certain extinct schools of Buddhism, such as the Vaibhashaka and Sautrantaka versions of Sarastivada. Yet another usage refers to the extinct schools plus Theravada. Other uses combine the different senses given here—implying that the Theravada way and/or that of the extinct schools aim only at levels of attainment sometimes said to be inferior—namely, the attainment of sravakabuddha and sometimes at the attainment of pratyekabuddha. Some Mahayana Buddhists use the phrase two vehicles to refer to practices leading to these two kinds of attainment, as distinguished from the bodhisattva, which all Buddhists generally consider to be the ideal.

Nevertheless, a good many Mahayana Buddhists consider that practices they associate with the term Hinayana may in principle serve as useful expedients (upaya). Alternatively, some Mahayanists consider that Hinayana practices are preliminary to more mature practices. Some Mahayanists also assert that one cannot understand Buddhism without fully grasping the philosophical concepts associated with Hinayana. Even so, in the words of Ngak'chang Rinpoche "no one practices Hinayana".

Some scholars have expressed the view that statments containing the word hinayana are necessarily statements of Mahayana doctrine—that is, statements about what Mahayana Buddehists believe—rather than verifiable statements about the persons, beliefs, and texts referred to. In the view of such scholars, a sentence such as "The Hinayana believe thus-and-so" should always be interpreted as meaning "According to Mahayana doctrine, the Hinayana believe thus-and-so".

Is Hinayana a Term of Disrespect?

Obviously, if one considers that some person's practices and doctrines are inferior, that person may well have a different point of view on the matter. A person whose practice is labeled Hinayana may well have reason to call into question whether the one using the term is being perfectly respectful. Theravada Buddhists rarely if ever use the term hinayana, and when they do so, they are clearly referring to the Mahayana perspective rather than their own. Apparently, the extinct schools also did not use the term hinayana.

Buddhists and scholars express a wide variety of attitudes, ranging from the attitude that common uses of the hinayana are legitimate and innocuous, to the attitude that use of the term inevitably reveals sectarian bias and/or ignorance of the term's sense of "inferior". Various people have staked out a middle ground, holding that Hinayana refers only to extinct Buddhist schools and thus cannot possibly disparage any living person. Some scholars consider that hinayana originated as a disparaging term, but still use the term, apparently feeling it no longer is disparaging, having been sanitized by being adopted by the scholarly community. Another middle-ground view holds that Tibetan Buddhism sanitized the word when it translated hinayana as theg pa dman pa, which can be construed to mean a "small vehicle" that can lead some but not others to the other shore of nirvana. However, even in this sense, hinayana is said to not have the capacity to lead to awakening or enlightenment and thus, while not necessarily disparaging, is still seen as enabling an inferior level of attainment.

Remarkably, there is no consensus even about whether hinayana is insulting when used as an equivalent for Theravada Buddhism. Some scholars recognize the bias inherent in the term but feel there is no better substitute for refering to all non-Mahayana sects of Buddhism. In an attempt to redress the situation, in 1950, the World Fellowship of Buddhists, composed of Buddhists from many sects, declared that hinayana is not an appropriate term to refer to the Buddhists of Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand, or elsewhere in South and Southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, many Buddhists and scholars persist in use of the term to refer to or include Theravada. A 1998 statement attributed to the Dalai Lama, in which he briefly reviews the history of Buddhism and the role of various doctrines, omits to use the word Theravada and makes the statement that "Hinayana and Mahayana represent two schools of thought by which we discern this path". A 1997 document published by the Tibetan government in exile states that "People with a propensity to follow these two Hinayana vehicles take them up for the sake of merely their own emancipation, because they turn their backs on bearing the burden of the aims of others." The latter document outlines a common attitude, that Hinayana Buddhists, unlike the Mahayana, are concerned with their "own emancipation" and are little concerned with the well-being of others.

Defenders of this type of usage hold that the Dalai Lama (or anyone using the term this way) was not referring to any particular sect, but to practices and doctrines considered inferior to those of the Mahayana. Critics of this type of usage hold that contrasting "Hinayana" with "Mahayana" in a discussion of Buddhist history and doctrine, without mention of the Theravada, at a minimum slights the Theravada by omission, but—more likely—effectively expresses the sectarian view that Theravada is an inferior version of Buddhism. (As explained below, Theravada Buddhism, like Mahayana Buddhism, does not recognize the existence of a self and hence does not recognize the idea of one's "own emancipation". Theravada also includes a rich history of texts and meditations on the theme of loving kindness toward other beings.)

Scholars and many Buddhists (but not Theravada Buddhists) also often use the term Hinayana to refer to the texts of the Tripitaka and the Pali canon. Scholars agree that the Pali Canon pre-dates the emergence of the Mahayana. The 1950 declaration did not address this usage, which is obviously controversial. In a further (and not yet successful) attempt to redress the situation in the scholarly community, Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University coined the term "Nikaya Buddhism" to refer to the non-Mahayana Buddhist tradition. (source: Robert Thurman).

Etymology of Hinayana

Definition of hinayana in Pali and Sanskrit

Entry for hina in the [http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ Pali Text Society's Society's Pali-English dictionary, apparently by Thomas William Rhys Davids et. al., Pali Text Society, London, 1921-1925; excerpt: "1. inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable...Often opposed to ukkattha (exalted, decent, noble)...or in graduated sequence hina (>majjhima)>panita (i. e. low, medium, excellent)...2. deprived of, wanting, lacking..."

Entry for hina from the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon version of the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (alternatively, see the 260 kByte image scan of page 1296 at ibiblio.org; excerpt: "...left, abandoned, for saken...left behind, excluded or shut out from, lower or weaker than, inferior to...left out, wanting, omitted...defeated or worsted (in a lawsuit)...deficient, defective, faulty, insufficient, short, incomplete, poor, little, low, vile, bad, base, mean..."

In 小乘 (xiăoshèng), the first character xiăo stands in place of hina and the second character shèng stands in place of yana (and is the same character found in 大乘 [dàshéng], the Chinese equivalent of Mahayana). According to the Unihan database, xiăo translates as "small, tiny, insignificant". But according to the Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms by Soothill and Houdous, it translates as "Small, little; mean, petty; inferior"

Yana in Hinayana typically refers to vehicle, although yana can also mean going or path. With respect to Buddhist tradition and literature, the various yanas (including hinayana) often refer to the metaphor of a spiritual journey. See yana for more information.

Translation into Tibetan and re-translation into English Summarize from Kar Lie.

Similar connotations to khudra. But hina used perjoratively in Pali canon, while khudda used innocuously.

Use of hinayana in canonical Mahayana texts

The term first appeared in Prajñāpāramitā literature. The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) comprises an early example, believed by scholars to have been composed some time during the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE. As translated by Richard Babcock, Chapter 11 ("Mara's Deeds") of the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines depicts a conversation between Buddha and the Bodhisattva Subhuti, wherein Buddha admonishes those who disavow this sutra in favor of certain unnamed Buddhist sutras. In the following passage translated by Babcock, Mara is the demon that Gautama Buddha was said to subdue just prior to his awakening.

Subhuti, do these Bodhisattvas appear to be very intelligent who, having obtained and met with the irreversible, the great vehicle, and then again abandon this, turn away from this, and prefer an inferior vehicle?

Subhuti: No, Lord!

The Lord: If a starving man refuses superior and excellent food, and prefers to eat inferior and stale food, is he using the full potential of his intelligence?

Subhuti: No, Lord!

The Lord: Just so, Subhuti, in the future some Bodhisattvas still refuse this perfection of wisdom, and prefer the Sutras associated with the level of Sravaka, the Disciple or Pratyekabuddha, and still seek all-knowledge through Sutras which welcome the level of Disciple or Pratyekabuddha. Do these Bodhisattvas use the full potential of their intelligence?

Subhuti: No, Lord!

The Lord: Also, this is -seen as- being done to these ones by Mara.

The Diamond Sutra comprises another, slightly later, but very prominent example of a text from the Prajñāpāramitā literature that refers to Hinayana. Section 15 of the Diamond Sutra reads "須菩提、若樂小法者、 著我見人見衆生見壽者見"; Charles Muller, renders this and the subsequent sentence as "Subhūti, those who are contented with inferior teachings are attached to the view of self, the view of person, the view of sentient being, and the view of life span. Such a person is not able to hear, understand, recite, and teach this scripture to others." While the most commonly used Chinese characters for hinayana are not present here or elsewhere in the Diamond Sutra, the very passage regarding "inferior teachings" describes itself by asserting that "this scripture carries inconceivable, immeasurable, limitless merit, and the Tathāgata teaches it to those who have entered into the great vehicle, and to those who have entered into the supreme vehicle" (ibid) indicating that those who reject the provenance of the Diamond Sutra are identified therein with those who are "contented with inferior teachings".

Thus certain Prajñāpāramitā sutras appear to be the earliest references that associate Hinayana with certain texts and the rejection of other texts; identify Hinayana with sravakas and pratekyabuddhas but not bodhisattvas; portray the hinayana as an inferior variety of Buddhism; and assert that hinayana teachings contravene the Buddha's teaching of anatman (no-self).

Were the Prajnaparamita sutras calling the sutras of the Pali Canon inferior? The 8000 Verses does not make perfectly clear which are the "Sutras associated with the level of Sravaka, the Disciple or Pratyekabuddha". The remark in the Diamond Sutra to the effect that "those who are contented with inferior teachings" cannot "hear, understand, recite, and teach this scripture to others" also suggests, but does not prove, that the author of the Diamond Sutra used the term Hinayana to refer to persons who did not accept the authenticity of the Mahayana texts. At least, those who doubt the Diamond Sutra are among those who the Sutra brands as one "contented" with Hinayana. Despite these uncertainties, there is little question that a great many of the Mahayana faithful throughout history considered that the Tripitaka is inferior—that is, the sutras that roughly corresponds to the canonical writings of the Nikaya Buddhist tradition. Nevertheless, because it is unclear exactly what the authors of the prajnaparamita literature were thinking, it remains possible they were referring to Buddhist texts and practices that are no longer extant.

The Vimalakirti Sutra (which must have been written before the early 3rd century according to this source) reads (as translated in this version by Robert Thurman) "To turn people away from the Hinayana and to engage them in the Mahayana, he appeared among listeners and teachers of the Dharma." The Vimalakirti therefore implies that its author perceived that the listeners (sravaka) may have been swayed by inferior teachings. However, the text does not appear to establish a one-to-one correspondence between sravakayana and hinayana, and therefore may leave room for the Mahayana religion to include listeners among its practitioners—as may also be the case for the Amithaba and Pure Land sutras, which seem to express relatively positive attitudes about the sravakas.

The Brahma Net Sutra, translated and/or authored by Kumarajiva (circa 400 CE) apparently does not mention Hinayana directly, but refers to the "Two Vehicles", widely interpreted as sravakayana and pratekyabuddhayana. The sutra contains the ethical precepts sworn to (or similar to those swotn to) by Mahayana Buddhist monks of several traditions. Twice per month, Mahayana Buddhist clerics recite or listen to these precepts in their entirety. According to this translation by Minh Thanh and P.D. Leigh, The Sixth and Seventh Major Precepts have a bearing on the question of Hinayana. The Sixth Major Precept forbids discussing "the Faults of the Assembly...the misdeeds or infractions of Bodhisattva-clerics or Bodhisattva-laypersons, or of [ordinary] monks and nuns -- nor encourage others to do so. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of discussing the offenses of the assembly. As a Buddha's disciple, whenever he hears evil persons, externalists or followers of the Two Vehicles speak of practices contrary to the Dharma or contrary to the precepts within the Buddhist community, he should instruct them with a compassionate mind and lead them to develop wholesome faith in the Mahayana.If instead, he discusses the faults and misdeeds that occur within the assembly, he commits a Parajika offense." Notes to the text make clear that a Parajika offense is a major offense that can result in expulsion from the sangha. In the Sixth precept, followers of the Two Vehicles are classed with "evil persons" and "externalists" (the notes clarify that the latter refers to non-Buddhists). These are apparently subject to committing "Faults", and the Sixth Precept forbids discussing those faults.

This, plus the Seventh Precept clearly indicates that rules forbidding the disparagement of hinayana have their origin in a classic vinaya rule, that of not discussing the faults of others. The Seventh Major Precept "On praising oneself and disparaging others", makes this clear. A disciple "shall not...speak ill of others, or encourage others to do so. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of praising himself and disparaging others. As a disciple of the Buddha, he should be willing to stand in for all sentient beings and endure humiliation and slander -- accepting blame and letting sentient beings have all the glory. If instead, he displays his own virtues and conceals the good points of others, thus causing them to suffer slander, he commits a Parajika offense." Perhaps significantly, rgarding the "Two Vehicles", the translators consider that "Together they constitute what is called Theravada, Southern or Monastic Buddhism."

(note several minor precepts in the Brahma Net further single out the Two Vehicles for criticism, namely 8, 15, and 34; and the verses of praise asociate the Two Vehicles with "abiding in quietude", a new wrinkle that can be seen as misrepresenting the Tripitaka, referring (or misrepresenting) only to certain parts, or referring to some other kinds of texts no longer extant.)

Classical Mahayana Treatises

Nagarjuna did not explicitly establish correspondence between hinayana and the sravakas and pratekyabuddhas. However, he did provide further justification for later authors to do so. Nagarjuna denied that the "sravakayana" outlined the path to becoming a Bodhisattva—apparently (but not certainly) using the term sravakayana to refer to the Tripitaka.

(I am not certain that the Sanskrit passages below correspond exactly to the English translations, but have made some effort toward quality control. Help would be appreciated ---munge 08:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

Asanga (c. 300 CE) also equated the sravakayana with "hinayana". Tradition holds that he established the Mahayana monastic rules, including prohibitions against disparaging hinayana practitioners. Nevertheless, tradition also holds that Asanga criticized hinayana doctrine and practice. Chapter 15 of the Mahayanasutralamkara reads:

yathā viṣācchastramahāśanād[ne] ripornivārayedātmahitaḥ svamāśrayaṃ

nihinayānadvividhājjinātmajo nivārayetkarma tathā trayātmakaṃ

An edition edited by Robert Thurman translates this as:

Just as in self-protection one should keep one's body away from poison, weapons, lightning-bolts, and enemies, just so the victor-offspring should keep their three actions away from both individual vehicles

per Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature (subtitle) Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra By Maitreyanātha/Āryasaṅga Together with its Commentary (Bhāşya) by Vasubandhu, translated from the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese by L. Jamspal et al, editor-in-chief Robert A. F. Thurman, American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Center for Buddhist Studies/Tibet House US/Columbia University Press, 2004, Chapter 15, verse 4, p190

Regarding this passage, Asanga's half-brother Vasubandhu commented "Action associated witht he individual vehicles is compared to poison and so on because it leads to the development of the inferior dedication of that vehicle, severs virtuous roots on the universal vehicle, fails to produce future virtuous roots, destroys the crops of virtuous roots already produced, and hinders the attainment of the perfection of buddhahood" (ibid)

Asanga makes other references that tradition considers as being in regard to hinayana (without explicitly using the word hinayana). Notably, near the beginning of Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (chapter 1, verse 3-4),

yathā bimbaṃ bhūṣāprakṛtiguṇavaddarpaṇagataṃ viśiṣṭaṃ prāmodyaṃ janayati nṛṇāṃ darśanavaśāt

tathā dharmaḥ sūktaprakṛtiguṇayukto 'pi satataṃ vibhaktārthastuṣṭiṃ janayati viśiṣṭāmiha satām

āghrāyamāṇakaṭukaṃ svādurasaṃ yathauṣadhaṃ tadvat

dharma[rmo] dvayavyavasthā[stho] vyañjanato 'rtho na ca[rthataśca] jñeyaḥ

Translated as (ibid p9-10; see also Samuels; see also Cohen)

This (teaching of the) disciple vehicle is not (properly) called the "teaching of the universal vehicle" because it is incomplete, would be contradictory, lacks liberative art, and does not give such instructions

The individual (vehicle) is just individual (in its aim), since it contradicts (the universal vehicle) in terms of aspiration, instruction, practice, support, and time

Vasubandhu's commentary reads "...the disciple vehicle lacks the art for buddhahood...the disciple and universal vehicles are mutually contradictory...In the disciple vehicle, aspiration is only for the individual's ultimate liberation, instructions are for that purpose only, and practice is for that purpose only." The subsequent verse MSA 1.5 paraphrases DN XVI 4.8, the Mahaparinibbanasutta, further supporting the reasoning that suggests that MSA 1.4 and its commentary criticize hinayana and identify it with the Nikayas.

Chapter 10 of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and its commentary contain another key passage relevant to contemporary use of the term hinayana by Mahayanists and scholars.

Just as merit grows in giving food to others, but not in eating it oneself, so it is with the great production of merit spoken of in the scriptures. It is obtained by teaching the altruistic Dharma, but it is not obtained by teaching the individualistic dharma (Thurman op. cit, p109)

Regarding this passage, Vasubandhu comments that the great merit is not achieved "through teaching the Dharma of the disciples which has the individual's aims as its basis". Hence, although Asanga did not explicitly mention hinayana or sravakayana in the passage, his half-brother contributed this interpretation to posterity: Those who preach the dharma but who reject the Mahayana sutras—namely, those who Vasubandhu labeled as teaching the sravakayana—were concerned with accumulating "individualistic" merit for themselves, unlike those who teach the dharma of the Mahayana, implying that the latter exhibit a comparatively greater concern for the welfare of their students.

The author of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana explains that the reason he wrote it (possibly Paramartha, possibly in 553) was in part (as translated by Yoshito S. Hakeda) "so that followers of Hinayana can cure their minds of error"; or to deter (as translated by D. T. Suzuki) "mental tresspasses due to inferiority of mind"; or alternatively (as translated by Timothy Richard) to correct the "errors of the two inferior schools". However, it remains unclear whether the Awakening of Faith clearly identifies Hinayana as being equivalent to the "two inferior schools".

Candrakirti (c. 600 CE) explicitly equated hinayana with the combination of sravakayana and pratekyabuddhayana. He may be the earliest author of a text still in existence to make that specific correspondence. Candrakirti arguably devoted most of his polemics toward refuting the Yogacarins (or at least, what he believed to be the Yogacarin position). However, he did not wholly spare so-called hinayanists from criticism. (See http://www.shantideva.net/guide_ch9.htm).

Tonghkhapa...Milarepa...Shantideva...

Hinayana as an inappropriate synonym for Theravada

Followers of the Nikaya tradition historically consider that the Pali Canon denies the existence of a self, and does indeed outline a path to bodhisattvahood (see Samuels and also Rahula).

Text of the 1950 declaration (somebody has it? may have to go to library)

Theravada Bodhisattvas See references to Jeffries and Rahula below. Ironically, remarkable reference in the Pali Khuddakapaatha chapter 8

The fallacy of selfish lack of compassion Anatman and metta in the Pali canon. Ironically, another remarkable reference in Pali Khuddakapaatha chapter 9, namely the Metta Sutta.

Persistence of use to mean Theravada despite the 1950 declaration Examples by scholars and specialists of non-Theravada Buddhism. Berzin's objection to "politically more correct" terms. The Shambhala Dictionary, Christmas Humphries...Ironically, remarkable examples by Jeffries, Epstein, and others who were apparently aware of the 1950 declaration.

Tolerance of insult Quote Dhammapada 1:3 to explain relative lack of complaints by Theravada practitioners. Note the abundance of irony vividly illustrates how scholars overlook the justification for overcoming sectarian bias.

Hinayana in Mahayana Doctrine and Practice

In some Mahayana sects, the term Hinayana seems to have little or no significance. Chan and Zen priests use the term occasionally to refer to those whose practice is deficient, without necessarily referring to sravakas or pratekyabuddhas; some passages in Dogen use the term Hinayana to discourage certain breathing techniques that are common elsewhere in Chan and Zen.

In other Mahayana sects, Hinayana appears frequently in doctrine and in vows recited regularly by monks. Beginning practitioners are said to lack bodhicitta, that is, they are alleged to have insufficient motivation to become enlightened and to act for the benefit of others. Hinayana practices are said to be vital to inspire bodhicitta. Examples? See Kagyu-Asia Web site references below? Or will this turn out to be entirely theoretical and not goerning actual practices of beginners?

Vows mentioning Hinayana claimed to have been penned by Asanga and others, see Yogi Chen's site. Equivocal attitudes. One must not disparage the Hinayana, but tolerance is circumscribed. Charitable up to a point; reasonable people may perceive condescension. Non-disparagement of anyone is in fact a conventional monastic vow in Buddhism. Cf Brahma Net Sutra which doesn't mention Hinayana but which similarly equivocates about the Two Vehicles.

Three vehicles paradigm The paradigm of three types of Buddha (excerpt summarize existing article)

'Ekayana in the Lotus Sutra (which also apparently doesn't mention Hinayana)

Note various condescending remarks regarding sravaka and arhants. (See Samuels and also Rahula references below.) (excerpt, summarize from existing article) But qualify with notion of ekayana.

Ekayana. Roots in Pali canon. Ironically, emphasized by the Lotus sutra but often overlooked. Ecumenicalism in Tao Sheng, Tsung Mi, Dogen (remarkable quote criticising both Hinayana and Mahayana in Kim), Hsuan Hua

Coexistence with the Vinaya, Abhidharma, and other schools Secondary-source indications that the Mahayana coexisted with so-called hinayana in India as well as China. Can we do better than citing Sanders quoting Harvey, see below? See also pre-Mahayana school origins for leading Buddhist thinkers e.g. Tao Sheng (see Lai in Gregory p175). Pre-Mahayana Vinaya origins of the Mahayana monastic system (can be do better than Berzin, below?). Lasting influence of Vinaya on Mahayana via Baizhang (noncontroversial, I think).

Separate sections on these?

• Hinayana as a term for extinct schools of Buddhism. What is the relationship between contemporary Theravada and the ancient Stharviradin?

• Hinayana as the vehicle for becoming an arhant. Texts that respect, and texts that disrespect the arhant. Permutations, e.g. the Diamond Sutra, which respects arhants but disrespects the Hinayana.

• Hinayana as an indicator of selfishness, lack of compassion, and similar attitudes Origins of Mahayana redefinition of "compassion" as evangelism. Cf contemporary Mahayanists who seek to undo the redefinition via the path of "engaged Buddhism".

• Hinayana as a label for lesser abilities. I have seen this in contemporary references. Any historical ones?

• Hinayana: Which category? Seems to equate schools/doctrines/text collections with practices, persons, and even national cultures. The logical independence of these categories.

Hinayana as an inevitable indicator of ignorance and/or bias

Some celebrated observers have indicated that all uses of hinayana indicate a sectarian bias and/or a poorly-informed view. Quote from Walpola Rahula on pxii of What the Buddha Taught 1959/1974 ("...no longer used in informed circles"). Evidently, however, he spoke too soon. Paraphrase John McRae from p76 of Seeing Through Zen ("The term Hinayana is legitimately used when working solely within the context of Mahayana [and Vajrayana -ed.] doctrine, but not in reference to Buddhists of either ancient India or modern Southeast Asia"). From this perspective, all statements containing the word "hinayana" are biased by religious doctrine. Alternatively, such statements are assertions about Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism rather than about the (living or dead) sects they purport to characterize. Buddhists who appreciate the ekayana perspective apparently agree: Quote from Hsuan Hua ("In Buddhism there shouldn't be any Great Vehicle and Small Vehicle; there is only the Buddha Vehicle").

A remarkable example of ignorance and bias appears in "Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about Buddhism", Ron Epstein, Vajra Bodhi Sea: A Monthly Journal of Orthodox Buddhism, February 1999, pp41-43. Even though the author acknowledges that "Theravada...should not be called 'Hinayana'" he nevertheless propagates the idea that "Mahayana emphasizes compassion more than the Theravada...Mahayana also advocates the goal of a higher level of wisdom, that of the Buddha." Readers should therefore take note that efforts to "clear up some misconceptions" have the regrettable potential to both create further misconceptions and propagate religious bias. However, since that publication, the author apparently changed his perspective, and published the quote from Hsuan Hua above in his book Buddhism A to Z, to the great benefit of this encyclopedia article.

References

Add existing references and links plus

The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada, Jeffrey Samuels, Philosophy East and West, v47, n3, July 1997, pp399-415

"Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" Walpola Rahula, from Gems of Buddhist Wisdom, Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1996; The article mentions a number of Bodhisattvas in the Nikaya tradition. Dr. Rahula takes the position that Theravada "did not come into the scene of the Hinayana-Mahayana dispute that developed later in India. It seems therefore not legitimate to include Theravada in either of these two categories" and that "the state of a Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddha is inferior to that of a Bodhisattva. This is quite in keeping with the Theravada tradition". Therefore "anyone who aspires to become a Buddha is a Bodhisattva, a Mahayanist, though he may live in a country or in a community popularly and traditionally regarded as Theravada or Hinayana. Similarly, a person who aspires to attain Nirvana as a disciple is a Sravakayanika or Hinayanist though he may belong to a country or a community considered as Mahayana." Dr. Rahula therefore seems to say that some Theravadans are also Mahayanists while others are Hinayanists.

"There is only one Buddha Dhamma", Walpola Rahula, The Young Buddhist, Singapore : Buddha Yana Organization, 1982, p.161 -163; as late as 1982, apparently, Dr. Rahula was quoted as saying that "There are still some outmoded people who use the term Hinayana." He also says that "Theravada cannot be included in either of these two divisions" (Hinayana and Mahayana). Note how his opinion apparently changed on these two points as indicated by the 1996 cite immediately above.

Walpola Rahula, "L'ideal du bodhisattva dans le Theravada et le Mahaayaana," Journal Asiatique, 1971, p. 69

The Terms Hinayana and Mahayana, Alexander Berzin, 24 February 2002; Berzin defends the use of the term hinayana against "politically more correct" terms; asserts hinayana first appeared in the Prajnaparamita sutras.

Hinayana–The "N-Word" of Buddhism Article by Kirby Sanders (Fa Dao Shakya / Director, Zen Bddhist Order of Hsu Yun - www.hsuyun.org), not dated but html signature file indicates date last modified 18 February 2004; article contains extended quote from Peter Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism indicating that early Mahayana practitioners coexisted in the same "fraternities" along with the groups later identified as "hinayana"

Kagyu Asia Web site; Google site:kagyu-asia.com hinayana for more than 10 articles by Tibetan lamas who use the word hinayana to refer to the curriculum and regimen for practitioners who have just begun their study of Buddhism, as distinct from more advanced practitioners.

The Myth of Hinayana, Kåre A. Lie, 2000; Lie takes the position that the Tibetan tradition assigns a "mild" meaning to theg pa dman pa, but that even if such use by Tibetans may be justified, when western-language publications and speech translates theg pa dman pa back into Sanskrit hinayana, the result is inevitably "derogatory".

Mahayana and Hinayana Compared Ronald? Epstein, excerpt from draft of Buddhism A to Z including extended quote (labeled with only the abbreviation ["LY" apparently from Listen to Yourself, Think Everything Over, Hsüan Hua, 2003?, Buddhist Text Translation Society (but not specified whether volume 1 or volume 2

Khuddakapatha, "The Short Passages", translated from the Pali by Piyadassi Thera, Thanissaro Bhikku, Acharya Buddharakkhita, and members of the Amaravati Sangha

Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, HH The 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, not dated but html signature file indicates date last modified 28 December 2002; HH expresses the typical Mahayana view that "To attain nirvana, wu must follow a prescribed path: the true path, or the Four Noble Truths. Hinayana and Mahayana represent two schools of thought by which we discern this path. According to Hinayana, the so-called Smaller vehicle, whose practitioners seek nirvana for their own sake, the mind should be trained to exercise a will strong enough to renounce samsara...Followers of Mahayana, the so-called Greater Vehicle, aim at attaining the highest stage of nirvana-buddhahood. They do this not only for themselves but also for all sentient beings. Motivated by the aspiration of Enlightenment and by compassion for all sentient beings, Mahayanists follow almost the same path as Hinayanists, but they also practice other expedient means such as the Six Perfections." (Theravadans consider that there are Ten Perfections; roughly, a superset of the Mahayana Perfections.)

Definition of hinayana according to A Glossary of Buddhist Terminology, adapted from The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen, Michael S. Diener, Franz-Karl Erhard, Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, Translated by Michael H. Kohn, Shambhala Publications, 1991; excerpt: "Hīnayāna Skt., “Small Vehicle”; originally a derogatory designation used by representatives of the Mahāyāna (“Great Vehicle”) for early Buddhism. The followers of Hīnayāna themselves usually refer to their teaching as the Theravāda (Teaching of the Elders), although strictly speaking, Theravāda was one of the schools within the Hīnayāna ; it is, however, the only one still existing today". Note therefore that this glossary both identifies Hinayana as "derogatory" and equates Theravada as a subset of Hinayana. I include it here as an example of a typical use in contemporary English-language materials on Buddhism.

Definition of Hinayana as provided by Sokka-Gakkai International-USA, the US affiliate of an organization of Nichiren-inspired Buddhists claiming some 12 million members worldwide. The glossarist for the Sokka-Gakkai explicitly says that "The designation Hinayana was derogatory".

According to the Sokka-Gakkai organization, Nichiren himself taught that "the Nirvana Sutra states that those who accept only the Hinayana sutras, declaring that the Buddha is characterized by impermanence, will have their tongues fester in their mouths."

The Story of Buddhism (subtitle) A Concise Guide to its History & Teachings, Donald Lopez, p69 reads: "The earlier tradition—at least those elements within it at odds with a particular Mahayana sutra and those who may not accept a particular Mahayana ustra as authentic—is thus dismissed and sometimes referred to (although not in the Lotus Sutra) as the Hinayana, a word often daintily rendered in English as the "Lesser Vehicle." But hina is a pjorative term in Sanskrit, meaning base, discarded, mean, and low. And Hinayana came to be used as a term of derision; it did not refer to any historically identifiable school or sect, even by another name. It is therefore most definitely not some kind of equivalent for the modern Theravada school of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, nor does it function adequately as a general term for as many as thirty-four defunct Indian Buddhist schools. It was an insult available to be hurled at any number of apparent opponents, a term particularly vitriolic perhaps because it arose within rather than between communities." Also, from the glossary of the same book, p259: "Hinayana (Sanskrit): literally, "low vehicle," a pejorative term used by proponents of the Mahayana to describe those who do not accept the Mahayana sutras as authentic words of the Buddha. In Mahayana texts, those who follow the Hinayana seek to become arhats by following the path of the sravaka or pratyekabuddha rather than by following the superior path of the bodhisattva to buddhahood. In modern scholarship, Hinayana is also sometimes used in a nonpejorative sense to refer to the many non-Mahayana schools of Indian Buddhism."

An Introduction to the Kalachakra, Geshe Wangdrak (Losang Tenzin), Namgyal Monastery, translated from the Tibetan and edited by John Newman, page dated 10 November 1997; note page is posted on Tibet.com, which is "maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London". The essay opens with "The Buddha's Dharma, can be divided to two vehicles, the Hinayana and the Mahayana. The Hinayana itself can divided into the vehicle of the shravakas and the vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas. The shravakas and pratyekabuddhas can be differentiated according to the relative inferiority and superiority of their faculties and the results they obtain, but the doctrinal features of the paths they follow are basically the same. People with a propensity to follow these two Hinayana vehicles take them up for the sake of merely their own emancipation, because they turn their backs on bearing the burden of the aims of others." While on the surface the quote seems to indicate that orthodox Tibetan Buddhists consider the Theravadans (and any other non-Mahayana Buddhists) to be Hinayanists, an alternative reading might convey the message somewhat similar to Dr. Rahula's above—namely, that anyone who aspires toward Buddahood is a Mahayanist, even including some Theravadans. The author apparently leaves this point ambiguous. A Theravadan would of course point out that Theravada cannot help anyone attain "their own emancipation"; nor can Theravadans attain any emancipation by "turning their backs" rather than cultivating metta or goodwill.

"The Defeat of Vijnaaptimatrataa In China" (subtitle) "Fa-Tsang On Fa-Hsing And Fa-Hsiang", Whalen Lai, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, v13, 1986, pp1-19; This article details the criticism of the Yogacara teaching in China—including the charge that Yogacara is a "Hinayana" teaching, made by the founder of the Huayen school in "Treatise Distinguishing and Harmonizing the Import of the Teachings in [the Spirit of] the Ekayaana of the Avatamsaka," a.k.a. Wu-chiao chang ("Treatise on the Five Teachings"). The sense of the word used clearly refered to "inferior" and apparently had nothing to do with sravakas or pratekyabuddhas. According to Lai, a modern work even "rationalized" the idea that Yogacara was "pro-Hinayana", cited in notes 1 and 5 as The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, Takakusu Junjiro, 1947, University of Hawaii press, pp82, 93-94; also according to Lai, the Chinese equivalent of the term " Hinayaana is being used as a blanket term depreciating the opponent's position. No one in Indian Buddhism would consider Yogaacaara Hinayanist". But evidently an eminent teacher of Chinese Buddhism as Fa-Tsang did so.

The Heart Sutra, Red Pine, 2004, Shoemaker & Hoard; excerpt from p45: "Shravaka means "one who hears" and originally referred to those disciples who actually heard the Buddha speak. Later, it was extended to include the members of such early sects as the Sarvastivadins. And later still, it was used pejoratively by Mahayana Buddhists in reference to those who sought nirvana for themselves without concern for the liberation of others. It should be noted, though, that this depiction of the Hinayana was a Mahayana invention and doubtlessly included a certain amount of distortion of the actual practice of those at whom it was aimed...a shravaka was often described as one who merely heard the teachings of the Buddha but did not put them into practice." Although Pine does not specify specific sources to justify this remark, Pine has certainly produced a good number of English translations of Buddhist primary-source materials.

The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa, translated and annotated by Garma C. C. Chang. 1962, University Books (current 1999 Shambhala edition seems to have the same page numbers; there is also an abridged version that has some but not all of the material quoted here); excerpts: "The expedient truth of Hinayāna may be illusive; It is indeed hard to subdue the passions due to Karma!...That kind of Guru who strays from the Dharma, Will not help himself, and merely incurs hatred." (p51); "There are seven dangers yous should watch: Falling into the blissful Hinayāna peace..." (p185); Regarding the term "expedient truth" that described Hinayana in the passage quoted above from p51: "Deceptive are the teachings of Expedient Truth; the Final Truth is that on which I meditate." (p285). For the last passage, a long footnote appears (note 2, p239) concerns the phrase "Expedient truth" or "Expedient Teachings" (Dran^.Don.) ""Expedient Teachings" are those doctrines arranged and preached for the unevolved or not-yet-ripened devotees who are not ready to receive the higher form of teaching...various approaches, teachings, or steps appropriate to different groups and individuals are necessary because all sentient beings do not share the same dispositions, capacities and Karmas...Because of this all-embracing attitude, Mahayana Buddhism is impregnated with an extremely inclusive and tolerant spirit..." Chang's reference to the "unevolved" and citing "dispositions" as a reason for expedient teaching might be construed as itself being at odds with "an extremely...tolerant spirit", and may even correspond to what some call a "fundamental attribution error". As for Milarepa, his text speaks for itself.

The Gelug/Kagyü Tradition of Mahamudra, HH the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, translated by Alexander Berzin, 1997, Snow Lion, 1997; see Part Three: "A Discourse on A Root Text for Mahamudra"; excerpt: "As Tsongkhapa has explained in A Grand Presentation of the Graded Stages of the Path, "Hinayana practices are a necessary preliminary for developing a dedicated heart of bodhichitta. Training yourself with extensive mahayana actions of generosity and so forth is the commitment from generating bodhichitta and bonds you closely to it. Bodhichitta motivation makes you keenly interested in developing shamata and vipashyana. It moves you to achieve all states of samadhi, absorbed concentration, explained in the tantras.""

"The Meaning of Hînayâna in Northern Ch'an.", Robert B. Zeuschner, The Eastern Buddhist Volume 11 Number 1, 1978, pp37-49

"What, If Anything, Is Mahāyāna Buddhism" (subtitle) "Problems of Definitions and Classifications", Jonathan A. Silk, Numen International Review for the History of Religions, Volume 49, Number 4, November 2002, pp355-405

"The oldest Mahāyāna Sūtra" (subtitle) "its significance for the study of Buddhist development", Lewis Lancaster, Eastern Buddhist, Volume 8 Number 1, 1975, pp30-41; according to Paul Williams in Mahayana Buddhism (subtitle) The Doctrinal Foundations, p28 "...lack of opposition to non-Mahayana traditions as such in the very earliest proto-Mahāyāna is borne out by Lewis Lancaster's examination of the earliest Chiense versions of the Aşţasāhasrikā (8,000 verse) Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, in which he shows that a number of key Mahāyāna concepts are missing from the earliest versions although present in later texts." On that page Williams also points out that unlike "most other early Mahayana sutras", the very earliest ones (including the Ajitasena Sūtra) convey "lack of antagonism toward the Hearers, Arhatship, and the monastic tradition", obviously implying that such antagonism did develop in "early Mahayana sutras"; Williams makes reference to "opposition to those who denied the authority of the relevant sūtra. For what it's worth, Williams unequivocally translates the word Hinayana on that page as "Inferior Vehicle".

"Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna", Satischandra Vidyabhusana, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1900, pp29-42

"The Hermeneutics of Polemic: The Creation of 'Hinayana'" and 'Old Testament'", Roger J. Corless, Buddhist-Christian Studies, 1991, Vol. 11, pp. 59-74

"Discontented Categories: Hinayana and Mahayana in Indian Buddhist History", Richard S. Cohen, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Spring 1995, Vol. 63, No. 1 , pp. 1-25

Record of Buddhist Practices, Yijing (I Ching, 635-713 CE) translated by Takakusu Junjiro, 1896, p. 14; cited in Hinduism And Buddhism (subtitle) An Historical Sketch, Volume II (of 3), Charles Eliot, 1921 download; Yijing is quoted as writing "Those who worship Bodhisattvas and read Mahayana Sutras are called Mahayanists, while those who do not do this are called Hinayanists." Eliot continues, "Many characteristics could be added to I-Ching's description but they might not prove universally true of the Mahayana nor entirely absent from the Hinayana..." (Eliot's omissions here suggest that other statements of Yijing's may have been a vector by which Indian Mahayana POV regarding hinayana entered the Chinese mainstream. --munge 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC))