Talk:Nikaya Buddhism

message: I'm uncomfortable with some of the edits you added recently, FWBOarticle.  You introduced a new definition, "a general term for those schools of Buddhism that arose out of dispute in 2nd Buddhist council (383 BC). In time, up to 18 schools arose, the only remaining one today being Theravada school."  The problem with this is that not all of the Nikaya schools arose out of the second council.  Theravada didn't appear until around the time of the third council.  (as for there being 18 of them -- we list 27 on schools of Buddhism -- maybe there were 18 in ancient India)  One could say that Theravada came out of the second council indirectly, but, given that there is clearly some connection between Mahayana and the Mahasamghaka and probably also with Sarvastivada, one might make the same claim for the Mahayana schools, as well.  I think it would better to stick with a functional definition -- i.e., which sutras they use.
As for the historical material you added, I'm not sure how much of that is necessary to have here instead of in Early Buddhist schools. I'll leav it, but I'm open to further suggestions. - Nat Krause 09:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits from FWBOa

message: According to The Emptiness That is Compassion: An Essay on Buddhist Ethics, Robert A. F. Thurman, 1980, as available on his Web site, 
:"Nikaya Buddhism" is a coinage of Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University who suggested it to me as a usage for the eighteen schools of pre-Mahayana Indian Buddhism, to avoid the term "Hinayana Buddhism," which is found offensive by some members of the Theravada tradition.
--Munge 04:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prof. Masatoshi Nagatomi 

message: I am seriously concerned to see so much mythology being posted on such a reputable site as Wikipedia.  I am a student at the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University, studying Buddhism and Tibetan, and I can tell you that the material on this page that relates to early Buddhism, Asoka and the Buddhist Councils is just perpetuating the assumptions and bad scholarship of an earlier period.  There are some modern scholars still writing this sort of stuff, but it is now being seriously criticised, and a lot of it is simply not true.  I haven't time to correct the article now as I'm studying for my end of year exams, but as you ask for sources so others can check work, I suggest anyone interested consults my lecturers at SOAS, Dr Sean Gaffney and Dr Douglas Osto, or re Asoka for example, reads the work of KR Norman.
Karen Williams, 5th April 2005
:Yes, I was not happy with the state of the article, which I wrote the initial version of, when I reviewed it just now. I have moved some information around and have qualified some statements previously presented as historical. We would very much appreciate as much of your input on this as you are willing to give. - Nat Krause 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahistorical

message: FWBOarticle asked for confirmation of this; I am glad to confirm. In Progressive Stages Of Meditation On Emptiness, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rimpoche identifies the first stage as the Sravaka Meditation on No-Self (emptiness of self-nature). As a type of meditation on emptiness, one might argue that it is a mahayana practice. But the practice described is (as far as I'm aware) straightforward vipassana meditation.
Also: I have been taught that the difference between mahayana and hinayana concerns the aim of the practitioner, not the details of their technique, nor the source of the texts they rely on. A practitioner might apparently be doing vajrayana sadhanas; but if his aim is the removal of his own personal suffering, then his practice is actually hinayana. Similarly a meditator might be inspecting the skandhas, looking for traces of a permanent, truly-existing self; but if his aim is really the attainment of full Buddhahood, in order liberate all beings, then his practice is mahayana.
Also: I have an ancient photocopy of a detailed description of a set of 18 bodhisattva silas for upsakas (laymen), and one of those silas requires of the aspiring bodhisattva "Not to disparage the hinayana". I don't know what their origin is. They are a wonderful list; some of them are a little obscure, and need expanding (for example "Not to burn villages").
The term "hinayana" is sometimes glossed as "narrow path", in contradistinction to the "broad path" gloss for "mahayana". But I like this term for referring to the schools that follow the Pali suttas, never having come across it before; I think I shall adopt this usage. Good article.
--MrDemeanour 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahayananan can follow Hinayanan practice 

message: Second, according to Mahayana and subsequent Vajrayana doctrine, "Hinayana" refers not to a sect or school of Buddhism but to a type of path to liberation which is contrasted with the path of the Bodhisattva. 
This is a gentle issue - we use the term 'Hinayana' here to identify .. what? I don't think people consider 'Hinayana' generally as a sect or school, as much as a category, or division of Buddhism (remember the old 'Northern Buddhism'/'Southern Buddhism' terminology?!) So - (bear with me) let's rephrase the above to:
Second, according to Mahayana and subsequent Vajrayana doctrine, "Hinayana" refers not to division of Buddhism but to a type of path to liberation which is contrasted with the path of the Bodhisattva. 
Now, the problem here (which is what I was getting to) is that we are now using two terms (Mahayana, Vajrayana) that popularly divide Buddhism, and then we appropriate 'doctrine' to those terms - both of which are also types of path to liberation or more specifically, vehicles to liberation - according to etymology! So IMO, this specific argument against Hinayana needs to be rewritten or dropped. 
I feel it may be more strong to argue that the terms Hinayana/Mahayana/Vajrayana as divisions of Buddhism have been traditionally used on the basis of what texts are accepted and what texts are not (this is how many schools of Buddhism are identified too, IIRC). The primary challenge/problem facing with this classificatory terminology is not so much that they are terms that refer to the path, but that the term Hinayana is not used reflexively - ie., by the division of Buddhists who accept only the Nikaya texts - the Pali canon ( to the point that they believe there is an inherent and explicit slur and bias when dividing Buddhism with these terms), which is half-wrapped into the first point of the paragraph in the article. IMO the divisions of Buddhism are better named Nikaya/Mahayana/Vajrayana as these terms are used reflexively. 
Many commentors on Buddhism have used the term Hinayana to refer to Nikaya Buddhism. However, that term is now generally seen as flawed:
* Hinayana, (literally "inferior vehicle"), is often regarded as an offensive or pejorative term.
* Hinayana was coined by the Mahayana, and has never been used by Nikaya Buddhists to refer to themselves. 
* Hinayana as a technical term, indicated the vehicles of both the Sravakabuddha and the Pratyekabuddha, whereas as a division of Buddhism, it refers solely to the individuals who follow the former vehicle, towards the achievement of Sravakabuddhahood.
* It is sensible to use a terms for a division of population which is ideally used by themselves, and failing that, at least not offensive to them.'
 Nikaya Buddhism, which appears to have been coined by Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University, is an attempt to find the most neutral and accurate way of referring to this division of Buddhists. Note that Nikaya is also a term used by Theravadins to refer to a school or sect.
The term Sravakayana (literally, "hearer vehicle [or disciple's vehicle]") is also sometimes used for the same purpose.
Enough for the mo.. (20040302 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semantic contradiction in content? 

message: I removed the last paragraph, because it gave a wrong interpretation on the nature of the second council and the origin of the Mahasanghikas. It is a common mistake on the origin of the Mahasanghika. Greetings, Sacca 07:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what specific error you believe there was, but I think most of that paragraph was written by Dr. Hodge, so it probably doesn't contain any gross factual mistakes. That said, I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not that paragraph actually belongs in this article, so I'm not going to add it back myself. I have taken out the paragraph that you have replaced it with because it has the unfortunane tone of an editorial written by Sacca.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, playing on the person is indeed one strategy which can be used. If you really don't like the tone, you're very welcome to change it to your own tone while at the same time leaving the contents in the article. my regards and Greetings, Sacca 07:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage that Sacca removed was not writen by me although it contains a rephrasing of something I wrote elsewhere about the etymology of "Mahasanghika".  It is inaccurate as the MahaS/Sthav schism did not occur at the 2nd Council, so I am happy for Sacca to remove it.  However, I agree with Nat, the replacement passage below is not well written reads as though it should be on a Talk Page somewhere, not in an article.--Stephen Hodge 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I actually see now that it is not very well written. I will look at it and try try reformulate and rephrase it. Greetings, Sacca 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last paragraph 

message: although it was probably done with a wholesome intention, still I need to point out that both Thurman and Dr. Nagatomi are Mahayanist. Turman was looking for the term (he's more Vajrayana - which nicely fits with the softer tone (but still belittling) of the Vajrayana. Nagatomi was the successor to a Buddhist Temple in Japan,a nd descends from a Buddhist family; his father was a Buddhist missionary in the USA. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/02.24/16-mm.html   Greetings, Sacca 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record; Mahayana scholastic origin of Nikaya Buddhism

message: I think this section should be deleted.  As it stands, it is apologistic editorial opinion: it is blatently not NPOV.  To meet Wiki standards, it should include citations for each of the assertions.--Stephen Hodge 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original intention in starting this article was, as you say, that we would decide on this one term and redirect the others. However, at the time I started it, we didn't really have a lot of material for a general article on so-called mainstream Buddhism, so I wrote a bit about the naming issue. The article was never expanded to include a discussion of the various schools, and so it has remained an article about the term. In hindsight, I'm not sure anybody ever wanted this to be that article other than me, anyway. Generally, I don't think we need a separate article about each of the terms. An article on Nikaya Buddhism would pretty much overlap with the content of Early Buddhist schools, which seems to be the title Wikipedia is more comfortable with for this subject.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some disadvantages of the term Nikaya Buddhism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nikaya Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318131023/http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm to http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified