Talk:Hinayana/Archive 2

message: Firstly, I apologise if you feel that I 'chopped up' your response - I merely wished to answer each point as it occured. I have repeated your original statement as was, and then italicised it and responded to each part as I saw fit.  Hopefully you will understand this more clearly. (20040302)
Firstly, I acknowlege your rejection for my suggestion.  If I impose the change without your consent, we will end up in meaningless edit war so I will simply agree to disagree.   However, I hope you agree with this point, that is, the correct action would be to present available POV with proper attribution.
 
:I feel that the correct action is to attempt to provide the facts; I also think it is relevant to talk meaningfully about the historic development of the term, not just the current POV.  It helps to put such terms into context.
I no longer intent to convert you into my line of argument.
:If you were to do so, you would have to answer my queries - which you did not do.  As such, it would be hard for you to begin to convert me.  Instead, I thank you for providing me with the stimulus to enhance my studies and research on this crucial issue.  Indeed, my original view has been deeply reinforced - especially as I have learned that the source of the Mahayana vows is being Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi; so where there may have been a little doubt concerning how Tibetan these ideas are,  I am now very sure that the ideas belong to the Mahayana of Asanga's Indian Buddhism.
Also, it is pointless for you to assert your view as universal truth.
:What is universal truth?  I am merely to clarify a factual position.  When we look at early Mahayana scholars such as Asanga and Candragomin, we see that they invest time and energy towards opposing any polemic (real or intuited) between the Mahayana and Hinayana - this may not be 'universal truth', but it is fact.
So far, you seems to agree that 
:(1)Theravadan school universally consider the term to be derogatory.  
::No - though I agree that some Theravadins claim that the term is derogatory.
:(2)Majority of "current" Mahayanan schools follow the interpretation of Theravadan school
::No. My arguments are primarily focussed against the development of the term as some putative Hinayana/Mahayana schism in early Buddhist development. 
::Secondly, that the term 'Hinayana' was coined (during the development of the Mahayana movement) in a classificatory, rather than derogative sense.  
::I assert that the Indian Mahayana, and most subsequent Mahayana schools did not and do not follow the interpretation of Hinayana as being derogatory. 
::I propose that influential C19th/C20th european scholars do follow the interpretation (that hinayana is a pejorative), and may well have coined it when attempting to construct a rationale for their theory of an early Mahayana schism. I assert that such theories may have affected some or many modern Buddhist schools, including the FWBO and the Mahabodhi society.
:(3)Tibetan, in general, do not consider the term to be derogatory
::As mentioned above, I assert that the Indian Mahayana, and most subsequent Mahayana schools did not and do not follow the interpretation of Hinayana as being derogatory. This would include the Tibetans, but the Tibetans are not unique in the position.
Would you not agree that the statement, "Mahayana did not coin the term as a pejorative" is your POV based on your interpretation of Mahayanan writing (which, I might add, is much in line with Tibetan interpretation).
:It may be interesting to spend time debating the distinction between fact and POV, but this is not the place.  It is a fact that Asanga explicitly instructs the trainee Bodhisattva not to reject or dismiss the Sravakayana.  This is not my POV, and requires no interpretaton. We can find the explicit instruction in his work, the Bodhisattvabhumi, in 'Eight Mulapattis of Entering into the Mahayana', where trainee Bodhisattvas are instructed not to 'Disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana'...
Please be careful to note that I no longer intend to argue whose view ought to be considered as truth. I'm stating that to assert one way or another as truth would contradict the NPOV policy of this site. 
:NPOV is always interesting - all statements may be read as being politicised. However, e.g. Is the statement that Buddha taught the four noble truths a POV? Similarly, if Asanga instructs the Bodhisattva not to reject or dismiss the Sravakayana, is that POV?
In conclusion then, 
#I hope you can agree that evidence from the Bodhisattvabhumi, (which predates Tibetan Buddhism by 400 years) demonstrates that the Indian Mahayana (of Asanga and his followers) rejected any polemic against the Nikaya/Hinayana schools, while asserting that the Hinayana was a legitimate path for those who were not suited to the Mahayana. 
#I hope you can agree that this is not merely a Tibetan POV, or Tibetan interpretation.
#In light of the Bodhisattvabhumi, I hope you can agree that the term Hinayana was coined as a classificatory, rather than a derogative term.
#I hope you can agree that the prefix Hina- is best translated as 'inferior' or 'low', mistranslated as 'bad', and context does not allow for a translation of 'vile' or 'despicable', in that it is used in the sense of inferior/middling/superior.
#I hope you can agree that, within Nikaya sutra, the Bodhisattva is considered to be superior to the Arhat.
#I hope you can agree that the evidence (from the Bodhisattvabhumi) shows that the lack of polemic against the Nikaya/Hinayana in Indian Mahayana is fact and not POV.
 20040302 08:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Response

message: It is just a bad way of presentation because it is very hard to tell who said what.  It is better to write response after FWBOarticle.  Anyway, here is my response. Didn't I tell you that it is pointless trying to convert someone to your version of truth.  This isn't an internet forum.  I can easily respond to your claim.  You appear to think that I did not respond to your question. I did.  You simply failed to see logic of my response. For example, you refer to the case "Asanga instructs the Bodhisattva not to reject or dismiss the Sravakayana." I agree that this is not POV.  However, your inference about this statement is a POV.  Say if someone said, "black" people ought to be respected.  Is it evidence to prove that the word "n*****" is not derogetory because black=N****?  Certainly not. Moreover, if someone said "black should not be dismissed as non human", is it evidence that black are "respected". I don't think so. However, whatever the correctness of your logic, I accept that it is your interpretation of the quotes.  I don't have problem with you presenting "quotes".  However, I have problem if you present your inference of such quotes as truth.  
Secondly, I disagree with your "factual" assesement that only some Theravadan school consider the term to be derogetory.  It is official position stated by Theravadan school in inter-Buddhist conference.  So please supply evidence to back up your claim in regard to this "fact". You only need one sigle link/quote of Theravadan school stating that "we don't think hinayana is derogetory". Then you can prove that not all school of Theravada consider the term derogetory.  As of "Majority of "current" Mahayanan schools follow the interpretation of Theravadan school", your objection is noted.  You appeared to agree that it is indeed the majority opinion of current Mahayanan and European scholars.  I also understand that you view such interpretation to be incorrect.  However, this does not allow you to censor such view or present opposing interpretation as fact.  
In conclusion
I only agree that you hold your POV to be truth. I have also pointed out the difference between quotes (fact) and infrence derived from quotes (POV). It also appear to be the case that you accept that Theravadan and the current majority of Mahayanan schools do not agree with you. Only notable group which back your interpretation is Tibetan. This actually put you in minority.  That doesnt mean you are incorrect.  But it is wrong for you to present your view as fact. Oh by the way, Asanga is born around 300 CE, the term hinayana was coined nearly two hundreds years before him.  What relevance he has with the intention of people who existed 200 years before him is beyond me.  But as I said, not everyone think alike. FWBOarticle 18:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Reply