Talk:Hinayana

Untitled

• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1 Talk up till 17 July 2004
• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 2 Talk up till 26 August 2004
• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 3 Talk up till 21 September 2004
• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 5 Talk up till 17 May 2005

Note to Editors

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

Sandbox - opening para.

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

The statement that Hinayana is a "term coined by Mahayana Buddhists applied to the doctrines, practices, and texts which are concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravaka-Buddha or a Pratyeka Buddha as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksam-Buddha" is a statement that is not accepted as factual by many Theravada Buddhists. In fact, it is a statement of Mahayana doctrine.

If a statement is accepted by one sect but rejected by another, an impartial encyclopedia cannot present that statement as fact. The statement is therefore not encyclopedic.

--Munge 07:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Munge; I contend your point. First of all, (IIRC) traditionally, the Theravada do not make a statement regarding 'Hinayana'; it is a Mahayana (coined and used) technical term. The current Theravada position regarding the term 'Hinayana' is a reaction to the term: many people have established that the Theravada moved to Sri Lanka before the Mahayana (and thereby the term 'Hinayana') arose. So, the statement that 'Hinayana [is] applied to the doctrines etc... does not have an equivalent within the Theravada. It is therefore completely fine, as long as it is qualified, which in this case it is - where we say "coined by the Mahayana". As you point out, the statement is one of Mahayana doctrine, which is correct.

Your point about impartiality would be true if the statement were saying that "Buddhists assert that Hinayana ...", but the claim is solely that of the Mahayana, as is evidenced by stating "coined by the Mahayana". If you feel that such an issue needs to be strengthened - for instance, for those whose first language isnt' English, we could amend the sentence to: "...is a controversial term coined and used by Mahayana Buddhists applied to the doctrines, practices and texts..." - I have no particular issue with that. I shall amend accordingly.

The original statement was factually wrong, certainly in the context of Mahayana doctrine. Maybe, if you see it has value, we could put it back in as: Whereas, the Theravada consider the phrase refers to those (doctrines, etc) that possess inferior capacity to carry people to the "other shore" (nirvana), compared to the Mahayana "great vehicle" - but I don't think that it is a good idea.

At least some traditional Mahayana schools (e.g. from Bengal, and late North India - as represented by Atisha, Santideva, etc) accept the Sravakayana as being foundational to the Mahayana - so, far from being inferior, or unnecessary, it is the bedrock that the Mahayana rests on (for instance, see Lamp of the Path, by Atisha - and the entire Lam Rim tradition made famous by Tsongkhapa). Here, the meaning of "Hina-" (inferior) solely applies to the idea that a Sravakabuddha is inferior to a Samyaksambuddha (IIRC, something which is not opposed by the Theravada) and in no way is to be considered as applicable to the Sravakayana methods, traditions, or traditions.

I found the second paragraph more difficult. I have copyedited it accordingly. (I have attempted to keep the same basic assertion) (20040302 09:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

In relation to Munge's changes to the Sandbox paragraphs

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

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

More nuanced English definitions of Hīnayāna needed in the opening paragraph?

Giving "Inferior Vehicle", "Deficient Vehicle", the "Abandoned Vehicle", or the "Defective Vehicle" as the only English equivalents of Hīnayāna in the prominent opening sentence of the article (particularly without a citation) seems rather extreme and over the top to me. Was the editor who wrote this trying to push a particular, non-neutral, POV (i.e. that the term is always used in a derogatory sense)?

No doubt, in some (perhaps many) cases, the term Hīnayāna may have been deliberately used in such a manner - but not always so. If, as this sentence suggests, the term was always used in the derogatory sense implied by the only English definitions currently given, are we implying that all the authors of all the texts where the term Hīnayāna is used were breaking the fundamental Bodhisattva/Mahāyāna precepts "not to disparage the Hīnayāna", or "not to abandon the Hīnayāna"?

In many cases "lower vehicle" would seem to be a much better translation than any of those given- and by "lower" it seems the sense "basic" or "foundational" vehicle was often intended.

In many Mahāyāna texts it is clearly stated that practice of the Hīnayāna is a necessary basis for the practice of the Mahāyāna - and that one a person enters the Mahāyāna, one must not abandon the practice of, or keeping the pledges of, the Hīnayāna (indeed that doing so would be a fundamental downfall). Just as a firm foundation is the necessary basis of a building, the Bodhisattva regards the Hīnayāna as the necessary "lower" basis or foundation for his or her Mahāyāna practice. Does a good architect or builder disparage a firm foundation?

Of course "lower vehicle" still implies that there is something above it - so it is not strictly neutral. But lower vehicle does not necessarily imply "Deficient" or "Defective" - and, according to the Bodhisattva precepts of the Mahāyāna, that "lower vehicle" or Hīnayāna is never a vehicle to be "Abandoned".

A second, more minor, point: The opening paragraph currently reads that the term "applied to the Śrāvakayāna" - with no mention that in Mahāyāna commentaries the term Hīnayāna is generally explained as being inclusive of (or shorthand for) both the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabuddhayāna. I think this needs to be mentioned.

Chris Fynn (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What is Hinayana?

While on the topic of the opening paragraph, this article does a great job of saying what it is not to be confused with, but WHAT ARE THE CORE CONCEPTS OF THIS TAKE ON BUDDHISM? I came here to find out, and instead of a clear concise description of this sect, I get a comparison to other sects I haven't ever heard of. In the interest of a clear encyclopedia, I feel this should be addressed. Thank you, 96.226.243.86 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

8,000 Verses on main article

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

Thank-you for your contribution. I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The long-standing Mahayana (and it is a Mahayana text) interpretation of this excerpt makes it clear that it is addressed to Bodhisattvas, for Bodhisattvas. The point being made is that once he has chosen it, a Bodhisattva should not reject or belittle the path to Samyaksambuddhahood. However, I believe that you were attempting to make the claim that Buddha was saying that the Sravakayana is objectively inferior - a reading which I consider contrived, in light of historic interpretation. Note that the sutra is clear to identify just what sort of person qualifies for this discourse: a Bodhisattva.

In light of the above, I have shortened the citation, and kept the immediate point of reference, and moved the external link down to the external links section.

I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The title of the section is "Origins of Hinayana: Vehicles and Paths". The cite may be the actual origin of the term. That sounds like context to me. This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara. Think about that. --Munge 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. What it says is that Bodhisattvas who doubt Mahayana sutras are afflicted by Mara. It says nothing about those who are not Bodhisattvas. Therefore, your emphasis is misplaced. I thought about it. Now it's your turn! (20040302 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

The chapter starts off: "Subhuti: The Lord proclaims virtues of sons and daughters of good family. Are any obstacles here which arise in such ones?

The Lord: Many obstacles are here, and are seen and thought of as the deeds of Mara.

Which is understandable, and not remarkable. The sutra is using Mara as is normally used: obstacles to the path of a Bodhisattva are seen as the deeds of Mara. What is not understandable is when we think that the sentence regarding a Mahayana practitioner doubting his/her own practice pertains to a wider audience, or casts aspersions of any sort on the Hinayana (outside the obvious fact that actions which lead away from Samyaksambuddhahood are inferior when one is walking the path to Samyaksambuddhahood - if Maitreya were to give up his path to Samyaksambuddhahood, and become a Sravakabuddha, it would be a fall –because he is on the path to Samyaksambuddhahood). Munge, just for a moment, why don't you reconsider your conviction? Maybe I am right - at least be gracious and show me how I am not right. (20040302 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." You wrote "No it does not". I think the passage speaks for itself, and it lets readers decide for themselves. The author indicates that Mara influences unintelligent bodhisattvas toward hinayana. This occurs in what may be the first instance the word ever occurs in a Buddhist text, perhaps any text. I don't know what you're refuting. This section needs to establish the origin of the word. --Munge 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the cite is good, I feel that you are broadening the scope of the cite in a manner which is misdirecting. This is how: You wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." This does not indicate the restriction to Bodhisattvas. I am happy with: "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with Bodhisattvas who are afflicted by Mara." The context that I have been referring to is that of the scope of the text, not the text itself. Most importantly, the text does NOT claim that 'those who follow Hinayana are afflicted by Mara'. I have amended the article accordingly (20040302 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

It is all very well to talk of the PP8000 as an early example of the use of the term "Hinayana", but there is a difficulty here when one talks about the completed text as we have it now that makes it difficult to determine whether the use in that Mahayana text or any other candidate text is "early". The difficulty is, of course, the question of stratification. Most Mahayana sutras are heavily stratified, both in terms of interpolations of sentences and paragraphs into pre-existing materal and the insertion of additional whole chapters which then in turn have their own interpolations at the sentence level. The earliest PP8000 to which we have access is the Chinese version attributed to Lokaksema. A Dutch scholar, Aad Verboom, did his Phd reconstructing the likely form of the original PP8000 from this Lokaksema version. One suprise, that is relevent to this whole discussion, is the likelihood that the term "bodhisattva" was not used at all -- the PP8000 originally being written in quasi-Prakrit language -- but "bodhisakta" (one who cleaves to bodhi).--Stephen Hodge 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Small Pull

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

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

Spelling

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

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

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

Diamond Sutra cite

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

Why does the article contain text (in parentheses) indicating that the Diamond Sutra cite refers to bodhisattvas? I agree that in this case, it does not.

However, I'm not convinced by this translation. Compare, for instance, with Cowell, Muller, Takakusu or Buddhist Text Translation Society or A. F. Price, The Plum Village or Roach (page 48) - the Tibetan of which is a good translation directly from Sanskrit. (Tibetan is much closer to Sanskrit than Chinese).

Taking Roach for example: O Subhuti, those who are attracted to lesser things are incapable of hearing this presentation of the Dharma. Neither is it something for those who see some self, or for those who see some living being, or for those who see something that lives, or for those who see some person. the Tibetan (translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan by Shilendra Bodhi and Yeshe De) reads: "དམན་པ་ལ་མོས་པ་རྣམས...", which is "those who attracted to lesser things". Moreover, it is not those who are attached to the view of self - the Tibetan says OR those who are attached to the view of self, etc.

Therefore, I feel that the whole supposed Diamond Sutra reference to the Hinayana is weak. The term Hinayana is not used in translation (Tibetan, this would be "ཐེག་དམན་") - though the term hina- is. The Tibetan translators had a strict manner for translating from Sanskrit, and they would have used ཐེག་དམན་ if Hinayana were present. I am going to pull the entire cite as suspicious. (20040302 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Lotus Sutra cite: Why?

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

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

Paul Williams: hinayana "abusive", sutras' "antagonism"

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

I also refer you to Paul Williams' book

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

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

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

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

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

Conze: hinayana "pejorative"; Lotus "polemics"

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

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

See above. I remain unconvinced. (20040302)

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

Apart from similar epithets, the term "hinayana" itself appears 3 times in the Lotus Sutra.--Stephen Hodge 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I will explain the import of the Lotus regarding hinayana later. see above. However, I agree that the cite from the lotus is extensive and could be reduced. - but though it may not explictly use the term 'hinayana', describes and typifies the triyana. The Vajracutter/Diamond cite was not typifying or describing the triyana, so it is much harder to identify hinayana as being the subject, regardless of the use of 'hina-' - which is found in contexts other than the triyana. (20040302)

Actually, you've made your position clear. So how about a cite? You seem to defend a view that the term was coined with complete objectivity and perfect respect for the people and scriptures it refer to. Other than Wikipedia, what source ever put forth such an idea? --Munge 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotus: Do not associate with sravaka aspirants

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

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

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

Care to say what are the attitudes expressed by the Nirvana Sutra toward sravaka and hinayana? Elsewhere I noted wide variations in attitudes toward sravaka as expressed by different Mahayana sutras. --Munge 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

PS: Read also my comment above under the 8000PP heading.--Stephen Hodge 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Occurrences of hīnayāna in the Lotus Sutra

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

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

• Chapter 2: "there is only the Law of the one vehicle,

there are not two, there are not three...

The Buddhas appear in the world

solely for this one reason, which is true;

the other two are not the truth.

Never do they use a lesser vehicle

to save living beings and ferry them across

The Buddha himself dwells in this Great Vehicle...

If I used a lesser vehicle

to convert even one person,

I would be guilty of stinginess and greed,

but such a thing would be impossible."

• Chapter 6: (Subhuti and two other monks say in unison)

"...whenever we recall the errors of the Lesser Vehicle,

we do not know what we should do

to gain the Buddha's unsurpassed wisdom.

Though we hear the Buddha's voice

telling us that we will attain Buddhahood,

in our hearts we still harbor anxiety and fear..."

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

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

There are a number of occurrences of hīnayāna in the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā but on the whole they do not refer to "the Hīnayāna". I've written about some of them here: Hīnayāna reprise. So for example we see the phrase: ekaṁ hi kāryaṁ dvitiyaṁ na vidyate | na hīnayānena nayanti buddhāḥ || ||55|| "For there is only one method, not a second. The Buddhas do not lead by a defective way". This says that the Buddha's do not teach a hīnayāna and we must conclude that the idea of śravakayāna or theravāda as a hīnayāna is not plausible. Jayarava (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fundamental attribution error"—attribution?

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

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

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

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

Asanga's strong language criticizing hinayāna

By the 3rd Century CE, in the ethics chapter of Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the Hīnayāna texts or traditions, where Trainee Bodhisattvas are instructed not to "disparage the Hīnayāna, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana". (from current version of article)

At Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox I've arranged some quotes and translations from Asanga's Mahayanasutralamkara and Vasubandhu's commentary on that work. Most notably, Asanga compares hinayāna with things that are best avoided, namely "poison, weapons, lightning bolts, and enemies" (from a translation edited by Robert Thurman). In another passage, strategically located in Chapter 1, verses 3-4, Thurman et al apparently agree with articles by Samuels and also by Cohen, who translate Asanga as saying that Mahayāna and hinayāna are mutually contradictory in terms of their goals, teachings, and practices (and these translators substantially concur, despite their different attitudes toward the subject, and despite the fact that the passage in question doesn't explicitly use the word hinayāna. In part, they agree because surrounding passages make the context quite clear).

Vasubandhu's commentary identifies sravakayāna as "only for the individual's ultimate liberation, instruction is for that purpose only". Tradition holds that Vasubandhu was Asanga's half-brother, and was converted from Sarvāstivādin to Mahayāna dharma by Asanga. Though he might have had a convert's fervor, still, Vasubandhu's interpretation carries substantial weight if only because he was a contemporary of Asanga.

Bottom line: Asanga strongly amplified preexisting criticism against hinayāna. Citing a quote from him as an example of goodwill toward "hinayānists" is unjustified. --munge 09:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

who are the many's and the some's??

For those that view the term as being relevant to traditions, some hold the view that Hīnayāna is cognate with solely the Early Buddhist Schools, while others hold the view that Hinayana is also cognate with the modern Theravada tradition. Moreover, many hold that the term was coined to be purposely pejorative, while others do not

I don't know how this article should be tagged, it needs some template on the top. could anyone who knows put it there? Greetings, Sacca 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made quite a few edits to balance the article. The issue of the Many's and some's remains. It needs some references to publications.Greetings, Sacca 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vimalakirti Sutra

In the section headed "Origins of Hīnayāna: Vehicles and Paths", there is a quotation puportedly from the VS. However, the form given in the recently published Sanskrit edition (Institute for Compreghensive Studies of Buddhism Taisho University 2004) is different. It merely has namaḥ sarva-buddha-bodhisattvebhyaḥ, with no reference to anybody else. The salutation, as given in the article, derives from the Tibetan translation. Furthermore, it is not foound in any of the three Chinese translations. Therefore, I suggest that this quote has little probative value for the situation in India -- it seems more likely that the salutation was expanded by somebody in Tibet.--Stephen Hodge 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Classificatory"

There remains an open and active debate regarding the issue of whether Hīnayāna was coined to be pejorative or merely classificatory.

I see someone deleted the uncited use of the phrase "fundamental attribution error". I support that deletion. But the above statement also appears to be incorrect. I am not aware of any such debate except on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, nobody in history, except the author of the statement, asserted that Hīnayāna was coined in any other way but as a term of disparagement.

Somewhat OT, tonight I made some forward motion on Hinayana/Article Sandbox--munge 08:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinayana Sandbox (draft article) moved

The rough draft article formerly at Hinayana/Article Sandbox is now at Talk:Hinayana/Sandbox. My understanding is that some people supported the move because they believe that the draft should not be in the main namespace of Wikipedia, but that it's OK to be in the Talk: namespace.

There are still some extensive notes at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. Considering that I seem to be the only one who makes contributions of substance to that page, maybe I should move those notes, maybe to User talk:Munge/Hinayana Notes. Comments? --munge 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Add 'According to the Mahayana Sutras, the Mahayanist believed that" might help

The points were quite ironic and contradicting. This article seemed to be pro-mahayāna. If a Theravadians(Striving mainly for Arahantship) were not Hīnayāna, yet striving for any attainments other than the Samma-sambodhi is a Hīnayāna, isn't that pointing directly to beings who strive for arahantship and Paccekabodhi, which includes Theravadas?

Maybe by adding this sentence "According to the Mahayana Sutras, the Mahayanist believed that..." before all definations of 'Hīnayāna', in context to attainments, that will neturalise the whole article.

The term "Hīnayana" does not exist in the Pāli Tipiṭaka. In the eyes of Theravada, Arahantship is not Hīna at all.

Furthermore, in the eyes of Theravada Suttas regarding the difference between a Buddha and a Arahant was:

"So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?"

... ...

The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path.

"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released."[[1]]

Thus, respecting the viewpoints of different tradition, it is beneficial to state the points clearly, that such views and defination about Hīnayāna is purely a Mahayāna idea.

Buddhosavaka (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paths & goals

There's often confusion between these. Perhaps things could be clarified. In Theravada they are

• mahabodhisatta on the path to become a sammasambuddha
• paccekebodhisatta on the path to become a paccekabuddha
• savakabodhisatta on the path to become a savakabuddha

In Theravada the term arahant covers all 3 goals, as in theory does buddha, tho' that is usually confined to sammasambuddha.

Mahayana normally, if not exclusively, uses bodhisattva to refer to mahabodhisatta & arhant to refer to savakabuddha. It often seems to use savaka to mean savakabuddha, & perhaps sometimes to mean savakabodhisatta. As far as I know it uses Buddha only in the sense of sammasambuddha. It uses pratyekabuddha to refer to both path & goal (see intro to the Waymans' translation of the Srimala for this). Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana pulled from 'brief'

In the Vajrayana practice tradition of Buddhism the Hinayana is seen as one of the three major yanas (or 'vehicles') of Buddhism, alongside the Mahayana and Vajrayana. According to this view, there were three 'turnings of the wheel of dharma'. In the first turning, Shakyamuni Buddha taught the dharma as the Four Noble Truths at Varanasi which led to the Hinayana schools, of which only the Theravada remain today (although they object to the term 'Hinayana'). In the second turning, the 'Perfection of Wisdom' sutras were taught at Vulture's Peak and led to the Mahayana schools. The teachings which constituted the third turning of the wheel of dharma were taught at Shravasti and expounded that all beings have Buddha Nature. This third turning is described as having led to the Vajrayana.

I pulled this for several reasons - first of all, it's not about Hinayana but about the Yogācāra interpretation the turnings of the wheel of Dharma - so it shouldn't be in the 'in brief' section. Secondly, the structure of the three turnings of the wheel does NOT belong to Vajrayana, but to the Yogācāra tradition. There are many Vajrayana traditions which are Madhaymaka rather than Yogācāra (such as the Gelugpa school), so there is no entailment that Yogācāra means Vajrayana. It maybe that the cited reference states what is written above - in which case the structure of the paragraph needs to qualify that. To be clear, the Gelugpa accept Asanga and Vasubandhu as valid and significant teachers, but they maintain that regarding Sunyata, the Madhaymikas got it right.

Another problem that I have with this inclusion is that it ignores the contents of the preceding paragraphs - as the article states, the term 'Hinayana' is not about schools as much as it is about doctrines, practitioners or thoughts. (20040302 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Wouldn't adherents of the Gelugpa school consider that they practice both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; and that their Mahāyāna teachings include teachings of both the Yogācāra and Madhyamaka traditions? Otherwise why did Tsongkhapa and hid followers write such lengthy commentaries on Yogācāra as well as Madhyamaka texts as well as the teachings of the vinaya - which they regard as "Hīnayāna"? And why do the Gelugpa spend do much time on debate which is rooted in the teachings of Dignāga and Dharmakirti - whom they assert followed the Yogācāra? Although as you say the Gelugpa "maintain that regarding Sunyata, the [Prasaṅgika] Madhaymikas got it right" - I think that, in common with most other Tibetan schools, the Gelugpa generally regard themselves and their teaching as being inclusive of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna (the later which they say also includes the Vajrayāna or Mantrayāna) - and also inclusive of Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, and some other schools.

Chris Fynn (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Longer Etymology pulled

I'm not totally convinced that pulling out entire dictionary sections is a good idea - and I believe that the article is mature enough not to need the following. Likewise, as mentioned in the edit, we should have just one etymology section on the article, not two. If we are to have one higher up, it needs to be brief. If we are to have a lengthy one, then we should remove the one at the top. (20040302 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899), gives a translation of 'Hīnayāna' as: Proper Noun: "simpler or lesser vehicle. Name of the earliest system of Buddhist doctrine (opposite to Mahayana; see Yana)."

Hīna is defined in the same dictionary as follows:

hīná mfn. left, abandoned, forsaken RV.

• left behind, excluded or shut out from, lower or weaker than, inferior to (abl.) Mn. MBh. &c.
• left out, wanting, omitted MBh.
• defeated or worsted (in a lawsuit) Yājñ.
• deficient, defective, faulty, insufficient, short, incomplete, poor, little, low, vile, bad, base, mean ŚBr. &c. &c
• bereft or deprived of, free from, devoid or destitute of, without (instr., abl., loc., acc., or comp
• prāṇair hīnaḥ, 'bereft of breath or life'
• mantrād or mantrato h○, 'devoid of sacred knowledge') MuṇḍUp. KātyŚr. Mn. MBh. &c
• lost or strayed from (a caravan) Pāṇ. i, 4, 23 Kāś.
• brought low, broken down in circumstances ŚrS.
• m. a faulty or defective witness (of five kinds, viz. anya-vādin, kriyā-dveṣin, nôpasthāyin, nir-uttara, āhūsa-prapalâyin) Yājñ. Sch.
• subtraction (= = vyavakalana) MW.
• Mesua Ferrea L.
• (ā), f. a female mouse (wṛ. for dīna) L.
• (am), n. deficiency, want, absence (velā-hīne 'before the right time', unseasonably') VarBṛS. Yājñ.

Pali Text Society Dictionary

According to Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (1921-25), the word 'hīna is defined thus:

Hīna:

1. inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable
2. deprived of, wanting, lacking

Normally I would agree, but because the usage and meaning is so contentious I think the longer etymology section is justified and adds something. Perhaps it could be reincorporated a little more elegantly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to have a go? Personally, I feel that the article expresses the fact of the contention in a reasonably balanced manner without needing the dictionary submission. 20040302 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would do to included just a bit more of the PTS version. I'll work it in.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the way in which the etymology has been handled. Thanks, Sylvain 20040302 (talk)

References

Nattier quote

In a footnote in A Few Good Men: the Bodhisattva Path According to The Inquiry of Ugra (pg. 173), Jan Nattier provides an interesting summary of the argument for the derogatory nature of the term hīnayāna:

It is important to point out that the term hīnayāna does not mean "small vehicle". The Indian epithet hīna, from the root √hā "discard, shun; be deficient", carries a range of strongly negative associations, including "lower, weaker, deficient, defective, low, vile" and "mean" (see MW 1296b-c); the standard Tibetan equivalent theg-pa dman-pa "low vehicle" accurately captures this negative connotation, as does the express lieh-sheng 劣乘 "inferior vehicle" used by Dharmarakṣa and some other early Chinese translators. In fact, the English expression "small vehicle" is not based on the Indian term at all, but on the Chinese expression hsiao-sheng 小乘 "little vehicle" used by Kumārajīva and others. It may well be that Kumārajīva (whose own background was originally Sarvāstivādin) deliberately chose a less offensive, though technically inaccurate, expression to translate hīnayāna.

Perhaps some of this material would be appropriate to quote in the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with interpreting Mahayana

I think in addition to the various issues that have been talked about here, there are some fundamental problems with trying to analyze the Mahayana sutras. That is to say, they usually take transcendent stances and often use seemingly-contradictory language in an attempt to communicate higher truths. For example, in the Lotus Sutra, we have quotes about the Buddha saving people however they need to be saved: as a shravaka, bodhisattva, tirthika, or anything else. In the 16th chapter, the Buddha tells a parable about a doctor saving his sons, providing the various vehicles as skillful means, to return them to their health when they refuse the highest teaching. Then there is the parable of the carts, which people are very quick to interpret, and often wrongly in my opinion. Mahayana sutras are often quite difficult in this way to use for scholarly purposes because they require substantial interpretation.

My main feeling, after reading many Mahayana sutras, is that a consistent position is that shravakas are at times criticized for being interested in their own salvation. However, successful shravakas who have reached the arhat stage are very revered for their accomplishments, although they are still viewed as not being at the end goal (buddhahood). Bodhisattvas are not criticized in the same way, because in Mahayana, it is viewed that a bodhisattva is moving closer to buddhahood by letting go of everything and not grasping samadhi or any other attainments. Therefore, the Mahayana sutras don't worry about bodhisattvas not reaching the supreme vehicle, because the bodhisattva vehicle will eventually lead there by cultivating samadhi through prajna, rather than just going into higher and higher samadhi stages, and becoming stuck in the nirvana with remainder.

As for the term "hinayana", I don't believe it refers to any one fixed thing, but rather is a label for any path that is viewed as clinging, especially to ideas about suffering. That is, if someone thinks "I'm suffering and I need to be saved", a bodhisattva might scorn this thinking as the hinayana because there is a sense of self. Whereas a shravaka sees suffering, a bodhisattva aims to realize the equality of all things by letting go and disengaging the five skandhas. This is very clearly communicated even in the tiny Heart Sutra by negating each of the Four Noble Truths. At its core, Mahayana has a very different way of interpreting the Sutra Pitaka, which often aims what it views as the highest interpretation.

We should also remember that Mahayana monks in India (and still today in Mahayana countries) use vinayas from the early Buddhist schools. That means that technically all Buddhists monastics who follow the precepts are in fact from the early Buddhist schools. Also, in India, monks would have first studied the Sutra Pitaka, which is referenced commonly in the Mahayana sutras. Therefore, the teachings of the Sutra Pitaka formed a basis for the Mahayana teachings. It seems problematic to me that there could then be a simplistic Hinayana / Mahayana dichotomy, given the common traditions and common textual basis.

I just wanted to provide a few things to consider, even if you read them and disagree with me. Tengu800 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What were the Hinayana criticized for?

What exactly did the Mahayana, or Bodhisattvas, criticize the Hinayana for? I've always thought that it was because the Hinayana did not seek the liberation of others, but only for themselves. Is this accurate? This paragraph was the most I could find which clearly specified what the Mahayana were critical of (though it is often said that they were indeed critical),

"The Mahayanists were bothered by the substantialist thought of the Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas, and in emphasizing the doctrine of emptiness, Kalupahana holds that they endeavored to preserve the early teaching.[21] The Theravadins too refuted the Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas (and other schools) on the grounds that their theories were in conflict with the non-substantialism of the canon. The Theravada arguments are preserved in the Kathavatthu.[22]

yet that paragraph is not very clear to the uninitiated. I feel like others may have the same difficulties in understanding when I have when they read this page, and may benefit from a clear explication on this topic on this page. makeswell (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In later times that became a criticism -- that they were only interested in liberation for themselves. However, in earlier sutras such as the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, the aspiration to become an arhat is criticized as simply being a lower goal than that of buddhahood, and it is considered that those who aspire to it lack the wisdom to aim for buddhahood. In the Lotus Sutra, they are criticized for believing they had reached the final goal, and the idea that they have reached final nirvana is rejected, because they have not also reached buddhahood. Rather, it is considered to be a deep and empty state of cessation, which is compared to a drunken stupor -- arhats only developing samadhi with cessation in a one-sided way. It is considered that their samadhi is pure, but they still have obstructions to wisdom. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha says that they can stay in this samadhi until they are roused from it, and then they will proceed to buddhahood as a bodhisattva. The Lankavatara Sutra describes arhats as being masters of samadhi, but still having outflows, and lacking the nirvana of the buddhas. Most Mahayana sutras that do mention it (and not all do by any means) will mention it in passing for clarification, and each time they will hilight some aspect of the issue. However, the basic idea that they all conform to, is that arhatship is a limited and impermanent state that does not represent the final truth in Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that you make a great point that the actual reasons for the use of the term "Hinayana" are never really discussed in Buddhist scholarship. It seems like they just attribute it to sectarian antagonism and gloss over the actual philosophical matters involved, which are related to the two main vehicles and their practice methods. Maybe this stems from the early misunderstanding that "Hinayana" and "Mahayana" were two schools of Buddhism, rather than terms for two different paths of practice which we know often coexisted in the same monastery and in the same nikaya (Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivada, Sthaviravada, etc.). Tengu800 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the word "Hinayana" found in the Pali Canon?

The article starts with the statement: "Hinayana is a Sanskrit and Pali term...". Where in the Pali Canon is the term Hinayana used? 02 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.178.141 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good question. As far as I know, hinayana is not used in the Pali Canon. In fact, I'm not sure if any classical Pali literature uses that term. In that case, it would make sense to change the text to identify Sanskrit as the primary language for this term, with the caveat that it was probably also current in some prakrits as well. Tengu800 05:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Individual doctrinal differences

From the article: "To identify entire schools as "Hīnayāna" that contained not only śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, but also Mahāyāna bodhisattvas as well, would be attacking the schools of their fellow Mahāyānists as well as their own. Instead, what is demonstrated in the definition of Hīnayāna given by Yijing, is that the term referred to individuals based on doctrinal differences with the Mahāyāna tradition"

That is good to know. But a section describing these actual differences individual "Hīnayāna" figures had with the Mahāyāna tradition would be a real nice addition to all this etymology :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:441A:BF6C:2288:ACE1 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)