Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The rôle of the different pages

message: 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)
thread_title: Categorization, proposed deletion, and related matters

message: 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, HsÃ¼an 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)
thread_title: References