Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1

message: (This is an attempt to summarise the discussion somewhat, in order to shorten the page size.
Apologies if I have missed or omitted crucial points.  Please restore them from the history if needs be.)
What is clear is that there are differing views concerning the term 'Hinayana'. 
I have adopted (and in the process subsumed) Mahabala's earlier summary of today. Forgive me if it offends thee.
== Editing Hinayana: A request for harmony ==
Can we agree not to revert the page without some discussion?
we all agree that I could develop a more appropriate editorial style!
: can you? see abovemahābāla 16:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to re-factor Hinayana 

message: Can we agree not to revert the page without some discussion?
we all agree that I could develop a more appropriate editorial style!
: can you? see abovemahābāla 16:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Hinayana: A request for harmony 

message: IMHO, we need a separate article that covers the ancient schools of Buddhism.  
The advantages:
* We can discuss them under a title which nobody finds perjorative.
* We can deal with issues of ancient history and Hinayana separately.
* We can also then talk at length about heritage and descendancy of modern schools such as Theravada. 
We will have a wonderful and important resource that supplies readers with information about ancient Indian schools of Buddhism that are now mostly extinct
We should also definately link to it from here for those who expect to find it here. I suggest Shramana or Early Buddhist Schools. Thoughts?
:Agreed. I like Early Buddhist Schools. Shramana has advantages (like being more accurate), but I think for the uninitiated reader it's best to avoid Sanskrit/Pali words as article titles where possible. mahābāla 15:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.
==The new page==
When I first saw the Early Buddhist Schools page, I noticed myself beginning to object to it.  But, after some thought, I can't really see a problem with it.  I think all of this discussion of Buddhism is starting to make a reflexive Mahayanist out of me.  Anyway, there is one thing I wanted to bring up.  I think that my involvement in the discussion over "Hinayana" arose out of an attempt to describe the modern Buddhist schools on the "Buddhism" page.  Now, the way this is conventionally done is to talk about Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana (or Theravada/Sutric Mahayana/Tantric Mahayana if you prefer).  This is fine, but it's a little awkward because it's like a biologist comparing a class, an order, and a genus.  Theravada is a much more specific term than Mahayana is.  So, I was attempting to use "Hinayana" as a broader term to encompasses Theravada and certain other now-defunct schools (this is the traditional Western usage which both March 2 and Mahā critique for different reasons).  So it turns out that the term "Hinayana" is maybe not a very good one for that purpose.  Some people say "Shravakayana" instead, but this meets only Mahā's criticisms and not March 2's.
So, the question is, is it even worthwhile to have any term to use as an umbrella covering both Theravada and various historical schools that are not Mahayana?  If so, what term to use?  I've seen suggested Sramanera suggested, but I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that modern Theravada is more or less Sramanic than modern Mahayana.  The more I think about it, the more I see the merits of the expression "Nikaya Buddhism," which was originally suggested on wikipedia by, I think, that guy a c muller.  Judging by the Nikaya article (which maybe is not really a good idea, I don't know), this expression is used as a positive by both Theravadins and Mahayanics: by the former to mean a subschool or sect of orthodox buddhists, which is agreeable for our purpose, and by the latter to mean the sutras of the Pali Canon.  This last is especially agreeable because it seems to me that the easiest way to distinguish a Nikaya school is that they accept the validity of the Nikayas/Agamas/Sutta Pitaka and nothing else. - Nat Krause 08:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Interesting post, Nat. Your point about the value of 'umbrella-ing' Theravada with the early schools is interesting. Nikaya seems okay to me if we need that, but why not keep it English and say "Theravada and the Early Buddhist Schools" ?
(20040302 09:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Theravada and the Early Schools" doesn't really sound like a category, one could just as well say "Mahayana and the Early Schools."  I suppose we could think of it as "Theravada-Early" like "Indo-European".  But I don't think that Early is synonymous with "Nikaya" or what is conventionally called "Hinayana" in the west.  Even leaving aside religious claims and assuming that Western scholarship indicates that the early schools were non-Mahayana, this is an empirical fact, not a category.  It may or may not come to light in the future that some Early schools were not Hina/Shravaka/Nikaya. - Nat Krause 17:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Nat - I leave it in your capable hands! (20040302 17:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Schools of Buddhism 

message: When I first saw the Early Buddhist Schools page, I noticed myself beginning to object to it.  But, after some thought, I can't really see a problem with it.  I think all of this discussion of Buddhism is starting to make a reflexive Mahayanist out of me.  Anyway, there is one thing I wanted to bring up.  I think that my involvement in the discussion over "Hinayana" arose out of an attempt to describe the modern Buddhist schools on the "Buddhism" page.  Now, the way this is conventionally done is to talk about Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana (or Theravada/Sutric Mahayana/Tantric Mahayana if you prefer).  This is fine, but it's a little awkward because it's like a biologist comparing a class, an order, and a genus.  Theravada is a much more specific term than Mahayana is.  So, I was attempting to use "Hinayana" as a broader term to encompasses Theravada and certain other now-defunct schools (this is the traditional Western usage which both March 2 and Mahā critique for different reasons).  So it turns out that the term "Hinayana" is maybe not a very good one for that purpose.  Some people say "Shravakayana" instead, but this meets only Mahā's criticisms and not March 2's.
So, the question is, is it even worthwhile to have any term to use as an umbrella covering both Theravada and various historical schools that are not Mahayana?  If so, what term to use?  I've seen suggested Sramanera suggested, but I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that modern Theravada is more or less Sramanic than modern Mahayana.  The more I think about it, the more I see the merits of the expression "Nikaya Buddhism," which was originally suggested on wikipedia by, I think, that guy a c muller.  Judging by the Nikaya article (which maybe is not really a good idea, I don't know), this expression is used as a positive by both Theravadins and Mahayanics: by the former to mean a subschool or sect of orthodox buddhists, which is agreeable for our purpose, and by the latter to mean the sutras of the Pali Canon.  This last is especially agreeable because it seems to me that the easiest way to distinguish a Nikaya school is that they accept the validity of the Nikayas/Agamas/Sutta Pitaka and nothing else. - Nat Krause 08:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting post, Nat. Your point about the value of 'umbrella-ing' Theravada with the early schools is interesting. Nikaya seems okay to me if we need that, but why not keep it English and say "Theravada and the Early Buddhist Schools" ?
(20040302 09:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Theravada and the Early Schools" doesn't really sound like a category, one could just as well say "Mahayana and the Early Schools."  I suppose we could think of it as "Theravada-Early" like "Indo-European".  But I don't think that Early is synonymous with "Nikaya" or what is conventionally called "Hinayana" in the west.  Even leaving aside religious claims and assuming that Western scholarship indicates that the early schools were non-Mahayana, this is an empirical fact, not a category.  It may or may not come to light in the future that some Early schools were not Hina/Shravaka/Nikaya. - Nat Krause 17:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Nat - I leave it in your capable hands! (20040302 17:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The new page

message: (Mahabala, I cannot accept an assertion of the use of Hinayana as a polemic in key Mahayana Sutras,  but I agree that there is other views on the issue, and that an overview of the different arguments can be highlighted in the Hinayana article.)
We can examine etymology, and general usage in a context-neutral position. 
Introduce history and modern usage, leading to following sections.
We can actively help to discourage a perjorative sense of the word.
We can re-assert the meaning according to Mahayana usage.
I really like Mahas ideas about using it to a reciprocated link to the discussion of the Yanas as a group.
* The 1,3,5 and 6 yanas 
* the historical development of the terminolgy
* it's use a taxonomy for teachings,
(IMHO, it's uses as a polemical device should go under a different title called Buddhist Polemics
:OK. I'll work on something for Buddhist Polemics. I would think I can move most of the 'ultraism' stuff to BPS. Yana is a bit cryptic for the lay reader, but I notice that vehicle already has a cross reference to the Buddhist use of the word so I figure we can build on that. I can, if you like provide specific examples from the White Lotus Sutra, The Vimalakirti Nirdesha in which the word is used as a Polemic - because it is there and needs explaining within the context of what you are saying. mahābāla 15:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to the term Hinayana 

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