Talk:Hinayana/Archive 5

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.

This article tends to swing from an anti-mahayana to a pro-mahayana stance. However we are attempting to find a fair NPOV for the article, which remains informative and encyclopaedic. If you wish to help, please do more than to criticise the current copy. Show good reasons, cite sources, and provide evidence - this way your arguments can be accomodated into the article. (20040302)

Readability
In general, this article is just not readable for someone who has no clue about Hinayana, please stay on topic. -- Solitude 19:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hopefully the new introduction should help this. Of course, the subject is quite technical, so it will never be completely readable to all. This is not atypical of Wikipedia - I invite you to have a look at the somewhat technical article on Manifolds. Regarding staying on topic - the article reasonably depends upon the definitions of Sravaka,Pratyeka, and Samyaksam Buddhahood - the articles for which are yet to be written. For the time being it seems best to keep the explanatory section. There are varying views on whether or not such an approach is correct - I leave such discussions to those higher powers.


 * I am still looking for guidance on extended quotations. Certainly the latter half of the article consists primarily of quotes. (20040302 22:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm Back
Well, I've been away. When 20040302 start to add section on top of my edit, I was quite sure he was going to change article back to his Tibetan (Hinayana was never projetive) line eventually. I came back and that pretty much seems to be the case. Distinction of Tibetan Vijrayana and Chinese(Oriental)Mahayanan is gone, obviously on this person's belif that Mahayanan tradition undestood by Tibetan is the correct one. I will again make it clear that Hinayana being projetive is a Tibetan viewpoint in accordance with this site policy to promote correct "attribution" of view. One can certainly express "Tibetan" interpretation of the term as long as it is attributed as such. Just don't try to censor other interpretation or for that matter try to present one view point (Tibetan)as the representation of entire category of philosopy (Mahayana)FWBOarticle


 * Welcome back. It also appears that you have still not read this article, and you still cannot spell. I suspect your purpose here is merely to cause an argument. I will not engage in a fruitless battle. And if you do wish to positively contribute, show some respect please. The article as it stands mentions every point of view that is currently available. It quotes from the Theravada, the Indian Mahayana, extensively from Mahayana sutras, from both the Asanga and the Nagarjuna branches of Mahayana, and it has been read by many scholars from both oriental and asian backgrounds and studies who did not see a need to make any major adjustments. Just what is your problem? If you wish to write an alternative article do so at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox, so we can discuss them in a sensible manner. If you are looking for a fight, I recommend you go over to Atheism or some other page. Moreover, I have not made a significant change to the article since 22 Sep 2004 - there has been nothing particularly slanted or devious in my intentions or direction. I hope that you can respect that. (20040302 00:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))


 * Hello, FWBOarticle, welcome back. 20040302, I wanted to say that when I read your first few lines above, I heard them in my head with a tone of sharp but good-natured wit.  I hope that was your intention.  I hope you guys can both keep in cool. - Nat Krause 03:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay - I guess I felt a bit defensive, and I apologise, FWBOarticle. Please note that I have kept in the definition of 'hina', under the 'Hinayana as a pejorative' section, which is why I wonder if you have actually read the article.

Just one point about the edits you made: You are claiming that the PTS states that "Hina" is derogatory - yet, you do not cite from them. I have no problem with keeping the definition of the term, yet your claim is an interpretation, or maybe just poor Engrish.

The other issue that I interpret from your edit is that I gather you feel the article under-represents the position that -if- the term Hinayana was meant to be categorative, -then- the Mahayanists would have coined the term "ksudrayana" instead. However, I'm not sure about that: Kshudra: "minute, diminuitive, tiny, very small, little, trifling, mean, low, vile, wicked, niggardly, avaricious, cruel, poor, indigent" (Monier-Williams) - so it appears that Kshudra has the same connotations that one finds with 'Hina'. Moreover, the Maha/Kshudra pair (not mentioned as apposite in MW) would indicate size rather than quality, which I doubt was the purpose of the authors of the term 'Hinayana'. It appears that the argument you use is not particularly strong. However, if you can show some literary or 3rd person documented support for the argument, then I am sure we can reflect the discussion in the article. (20040302 09:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Further Thoughts
One might wish that sectarianism and equivocation was exceptional. But if Robert Thurman's translation is to be believed, the Vimalakirti Sutra manages to take a swipe at the Hinayana after having expressed "reverence" to the sravaka. In contrast, the translation by Ven. Guo-go Bhikshu of the Perfect Enlightenment denies the sravaka can reach nirvana; the student in search of a teacher vows not to take instruction from a sravaka; apparently, that's because sravakas are inadequate as teachers, and implies that because the sravaka is so attached to quiescence that it is probably beyond the sravaka's ability to understand the subtlety of what is and isn't quiescent about meditation. If a certain version of the Lankavatara--said to be translated by D. T. Suzuki and Dwight Goddard--is trustworthy, the sravaka are "well meaning but" they have various defects and can't fully get over their egos (although they do get credit for not being entangled in theism, materialism, and atman).

The Amithaba seems to be kindlier toward the sound-hearers, at least in the version said to be translated by Dr. Ron Epstein of the Buddhist Text Translation Society. Multitudes of them have no trouble entering the "Buddhaland". I hope you will forgive me for wondering, however, whether the intent of the Pure Land Sutra was to admit all the sound-hearers, or only those who converted.

My point is not that the Mahayana are evil and the Theravada are innocent victims, patiently tolerating this abuse in accordance with Dhammapada I:3. Here's a quote from John McRae that I find helpul: "...the term Hinayana is legitimately used when working solely within the context of Mahayana doctrines, but not in reference to actual Buddhists of either ancient India or modern Southeast Asia." (cf Seeing Through Zen, p76. (Unfortunately, that quote leaves much to be explained re the Vajrayana tradition.) Frankly I'm not sure of the point because...


 * a) Do any of these texts actually truly use the sanskrit term hinayana?


 * b) Do disparaging remarks about sravakas constitute disparagement of anyone alive?


 * c) How about arahats/arhants...do they come out OK? Or, e.g., do they maybe get slighted in the Diamond Sutra?


 * d) What were the consequences of violating Asanga's silas, anyway? (The compiler of the page cited above indicates, without citation, that the consequences were rather dire; he does not indicate that the negative results would be limited to achieving mere sravakahood).


 * d) Now, about those Vajrayana schools. Do they acknowledge that the, uhm, I guess theg pa dman pa practices can, at least for some people, take them all the way, with no ifs ands or buts about it? Or are those practices generally seen as preparatory for other practices held in higher esteem? Or...? It would be particularly helpful to have some explicit, unambiguous, traceable references to Tibetan primary sources that vindicate practices and doctrines that translators describe as "hinayana", without setting up such practices for comparison to more "advanced" practices or whatnot. I'm looking for something that cannot reasonably be interpreted as "Buddhism on training wheels", or "Buddhism for people of lower capacity", or anything like that. Something that if I trouble myself to dig into, I'm not going to find the kind of condescension that lie under the surface of the cited versions of the Lotus (per Watson), or the Vimalikirti (per Thurman), etc. (The fact that those translators are eminent does not put them above suspicion. In other cases, I have found significant errors made by equally well-regarded translators.) user:munge 23 Dec 2004


 * These are valid concerns. I completely understand the difficulty of trying to sort the 'wheat from the chaff', especially when having to rely upon translation. I appreciate the energy and care for which you've taken on this thorny issue, and I am entertained by the way in which you constructed your links!


 * I think that (in general) the Mahayana traditions consider the Hinayana thought to be inferior; more specifically the thought of achieving Sravaka-Buddhahood (aka 'mere peace') or Pratyeka-Buddhahood is considered to be inferior to the thought of achieving Samyaksam-Buddhahood (or Buddhahood). I consider it fair to translate 'hina' as 'inferior'. As I recall, the term Hinayana applies to both the Sravakayana and Pratyekayana.


 * I reject any claims that suggest Mahayana traditions claim that the Hinayana Dharmas are not Buddha-Dharma, or that the Hinayana Dharmas should not be practiced (see the article's citation from the 18,000 Prajnaparamita).


 * Regarding the final nature of enlightenment, I accept that most Mahayana traditions consider that Sravaka-Buddhahood is not final: This is based on a subtle doctrinal distinction between the Mahayana and Theravadans concerning the issues of Nirvana-with-motion and Nirvana-without-motion. As I understand it the Theravadans consider that Nirvana-without-motion always follows Nirvana-with-motion (we achieve enlightenment before we die) and that Nirvana-without-motion is final, whereas the Mahayana consider that Nirvana-without-motion is always followed by Nirvana-with-motion (the state of Sravaka-Buddhahood is succeeded by the state of Samyaksam-Buddhahood). These issues are important doctrinal distinctions which are IMHO beyond the scope of the current article, though could be fleshed out in the Nirvana article at some point. The fact that the Theravadans find the Mahayana doctrine of the finality of Sravaka-Buddhahood to be unacceptable is certainly not surprising, but that the Mahayana traditions differ in doctrine cannot be said to be a slur, slander or pejorative in itself! The fact that this doctrinal distinction lies at the very  root of the meaning of the  "vehicles" of Mahayana should not be ignored.


 * Regarding your quotes and comments, the festive season has overtaken me - please be patient, and I will endeavour to answer you. I find our discussion very rewarding. Please continue to be patient and tolerant, and enjoy whatever holidays you may have. (20040302 10:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC))

About those Chinese characters...
...namely &#23567;&#20056; (log in as "guest") is only one of several Chinese renderings given by Charles Muller in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, notably including &#21155;&#20056; but also including &#19979;&#20056;, &#19979;&#21155;&#20056;, and &#23567;&#20056;&#20315;&#25945;.

Notably, the only Chinese characters that Muller actually cites to a primary source is &#21155;&#20056;, which (unlike &#23567;&#20056;) clearly carries the stigma of inferior, not just small, and which he cites to the Yogacara-bhumi sastra. Based on that cite, I suppose that when Asanga used the term hinayana, Xuanzang translated it into Chinese as equivalent to "inferior journey" or similar.

In other words, the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism as currently composed supports the idea that there was not a one-to-one correspondence between "hinayana" and the pair of Chinese characters given in the article. Hinayana was a more multivalent phrase than the current article allows. Very regrettably, citing only the two characters as given reflects a particular POV, and does not reflect the various POVs even of all Mahayanists. Specifically it apparently omits Xuanzang's interpretation, and as I showed several messages ago, it whitewashes the POV of Asanga. Not to mention the perspective of Nikaya Buddhists. And not to mention the scholarly perspective that holds (paraphrasing John McRae) that statements that use the term hinayana are statements of Mahayana doctrine. They presuppose belief in that doctrine. It's like saying that Bubba Free John is a necessary intermediary between people and enlightenment. Devotees hold that to be true. That's different from saying that it is true. This is an encyclopedia, not an evangelistic tract.

Notably, I have yet to see evidence one can always rely on the equation hinayana = sravakayana + pratekyabuddhayana. There seem to be too many variant uses by Mahayanists to support that claim, which the current article seems to assert. I note with interest Dogen's apparent use of hinayana to simply mean deluded practitioner, including deluded Mahayanists, including deluded Soto Zen Mahayanists; (see Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, Bieldefelt, p114; see also Hee-Jin Kim's book on Dogen).

Even within Tibetan Buddhism, perhaps there is not unanimity: I also note with great interest that one Ngak'chang Rinpoche is quoted as saying that "...Hinayana simply exists according to the Tibetan analysis of the range of Buddhist teaching...one should never confuse Hinayana with Theravada. No one practices Hinayana...No one practises Shravakabuddhayana and Pratyekabuddhayana these days in Tibet, or elsewhere for that matter...". It is still possible that I am making a mistake, but these notes and those at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox should make it clear that a wide range of POVs do exist and have existed, and that the current article is a particular POV.

--Munge 09:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As we increase our research into any term with as much history as Hinayana, it is invevitable that we will find new POV's that are not currently implemented within the current article. However, I think it is unfair to say that the current article reflects one particular POV alone.


 * Generally I applaud the work you (Munge) are doing in the sandbox, though I am concerned about your agenda and, to be fair, what you are (or anyone is) able to do about putting agendas to one side. FYI the text from Rahula that you seek is within the current article, which makes me wonder how much of the current article you have read.  The best to you.


 * Moreover, you have yet to comment on, or even mention Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, or the 18,000 verse Prajnaparamita Sutra, both of which predate Tibet, and indeed Chinese/Japanese sources. As nearly every existing Mahayana tradition acknowledges Asanga, Nagarjuna or both, your lack of citation from primary sources appears to be an oversight that cannot be ignored. (20040302)


 * The current article projects unqualified high regard by Asanga toward Hinayana. Yet as already noted in my previous remarks, apparently the same text as the one cited to Asanga in the article likewise prohibits "To discourage others from striving after Mahayana and encourage them to aim at Hinayana". Also, to repeat, according to Muller (cites above), Xuanzang translates Asanga's hinayana as &#21155;&#20056;, which some reasonable people might regard as being imperfectly respectful toward its intended referent. Both of these points suggest that Asanga's regard for the hinayana was qualified. Why the omissions?


 * Similarly for the article's quotes from the Lotus and the Vimalikirti&mdash;only nice things about sravakas, omitting quotes from the same sutras that stand in contrast&mdash;contrasting statements that I provided above in more than half-a-dozen links to primary sources in translation; do a Find... command on this Talk page and look for the first instance of "Thurman" for my cites on the Vimalikirti and "Watson" for my cites on the Lotus. In fact, you yourself remark above that you would get around to responding to those points. Perhaps you could reconsider your statement that I lacked citations from primary sources.


 * As for the 18000 verses, is there an English translation? I could start plowing through Taisho v220, 479-537. But given that I have already identified apparent selective quoting of primary sources, can you understand why I might well suspect that if/when I do delve into the Prajnaparamita literature I may find more mixed messages? Notably, Lopez indicates that's exactly what I'll find (detailed cite at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox). Can you understand why the current article might appear to someone as a case of selective omission? Can you imagine why someone might wonder whether selective omission could be a sign that the article has an agenda?


 * I'm not sure where you got the idea I was seeking some "text by Rahula". In fact, yet again, the current article seems to selectively omit Rahula's "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism". Notably, the contrast between that article and certain (but not all) Tibetan teachers (again, see Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox) suggests that indeed that the way people past and present use hinayana is far more multivalent than the present article indicates.  --Munge 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox now contains an extended quote from the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Verses, said to be the "earliest sutra" in the Perfection of Wisdom texts. The 8000 Verses clearly slams those who "prefer an inferior vehicle" and identifies them as those who "prefer the Sutras associated with the level of Sravaka, the Disciple or Pratyekabuddha". Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox now also contains quotes from the Brahma Net Sutra, which clearly predates and prefigures Asanga, and explains why Bodhisattvas are not to insult people, even those who follow the teachings of the so-called "Two Vehicles". --Munge 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)