Talk:Hinayana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1 Talk up till 17 July 2004

Suggestion for Format

Suggestion FWBOarticle 23:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(1) We start of by introduce linguistic meaning of the pali/sanskrit word "hina". Then show the use of hina in Tripitaka/Tipitaka.

I reject this. The context within which the prefix hina is used, is nearly always within the context of 'poor', 'average', 'excellent' or 'inferior', 'middling', 'superior', etc.. It is better to identify the usage in this stance, - which importantly is descriptive, rather than pejorative; it is involved in categorising people/things according to qualities, rather than dismissing or rejecting them.

(2) Show usage of "hinayana" and "hina" in Mahayana sutras (eg, Lotus, Vimalakirti, Lanka and so on). At the same time, we try to make NPOV presentation of Mahayanan contextualisation of "path of Arahat" in their system. I accept that depending of sutras, schools or periods this may vary. (3)Show how later Mahayanan and Vijyrayanan schools interpretated these heritage.

This is also not necessarily the best idea - it dilutes the core issues of the term Hinayana. Moreover, it is good to be able to show current recensions as well. A lot of the arguements on talk:hinayana are better than the current article.

Putting Tibetan POV in the begining without explaining the background would be confusing IMO. I totally agree that the idea that Hinayana is non-pejorative is 1) Tibetan and 2) POV is a complete mistake and a terrible flaw.

I totally assert that the idea that the term Hinayana was coined as a pejorative is also a complete mistake and a terrible flaw.

You haven't responded for a while so I will make several edit. In my view, it is appropriate to attribute all of your "evidences" to 300 CE.

I haven't responded for five days. This is because I am continuing research regarding the answers that you kindly posted to my questions. (20040302)

I have attributed different Mahayanan attitude toward Hinayana according to correct era. Also, when it is simply categorisation of different practice, Shravakayana or Hearer is used in place of Hinayana. Hinanaya is used to describe path which ought to be avoided. FWBOarticle 03:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also notice that you(Mahayanan/Tibetan) describe Hinayana not as a school or doctrine but as a type of practice which can be followed by people in any school. You know this is Mahayanan/Tibetan view, right. Theravadan do not consider their school as mere collection of practice. FWBOarticle 03:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have responded below, and wait for a reply.. There is good etymological reason to show that the terms Mahayana/Hinayana were coined as =vehicles= i.e. types of practice, rather than =schools= Indeed the clue is the term -yana. This is not Tibetan, (And "I" am not Mahayana/Tibetan), but it certainly belongs to the early Mahayana traditions - indeed the Theravadan's don't have much of a say as to the meaning of these terms - just as they don't have much of a say as to the meaning of clear light; because the terms do not exist within their tradition. (20040302)

ah, no. As I keep repeating, you can present your POV as long as proper attribution is made. However, one cannot present your POV as fact. "Yana" means vehicle. I'm fine with that. But "=vehicles= i.e. types of practice"? That is your POV. Wit that Mahayana also become type of practice and not a doctrine. I don't think anyone would agree with such sweeping generalisation. As of who have much of a say, Theravadan and "majority" of Mahayanans agree on this issue. To be honest, I so far fail to find Mahayana site which deny that Hinayana is projetive. All the site so far I have found denying this charge have been Tibetan. And with your logic, it appear that ethnic minority has no say in projetive words directed against them. I think you are bit confused. FWBOarticle 06:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have also reverted the main article. I thought we both agreed not to get involved in another edit war on Hinayana. (20040302)

I only said I do not wish to start edit war by changing the "format" of this article. You rewrote the entire article while ago from your interpretation of Mahayanan buddishm. So you certainly don't have right to complain when someone make small edits to the article. And certainly you don't have right to make blanket revert when you yourself rewrote the entire page. Otherwise, I should be reverting the article before you made your rewrite until we settle this dispute. I'm very happy to discuss each edit on case by case basis however. FWBOarticle 06:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough.

1) I have pulled "The old polemic was no longer dominant issue" as being unsubstantiatable POV.

2)"training and development of the trainee Bodhisattva by Asanga and his followers" has been re-edited to a more neutral "training and development of the trainee Bodhisattva, certainly by the time of by Asanga." There is no counter-evidence that suggests that Asanga is a special case, so it is fair to use the more general statement.

3) I have added the statement so would be an error to suggest that Asanga's text demonstrated a shift of opinion within the Mahayana movement at the time., justified by looking at the context of Asanga's rule, and applying the philosophy of the early Mahayana Wisdom traditions - "such an attitude is contrary to the Mahayana views of both the Yogacarya of Asanga, as well as the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna", relying upon what scholars (e.g. Williams, 1989) know about early Mahayana.

4) I have pulled "This might explain why Chinese and Tibetan translation of Hinayana is simply "small vehicle" rather than more derisive implication of the word hina. Regardless, many Buddhists now prefer to use the term", because it is factually inaccurate. The Tibetan translation of 'Hinayana' is THEG-SMAD, which means inferior vehicle. I have told you this more than twice before. (20040302)

5) I have pulled "However, when the term Hinayana is used, it is identified as path which ought to be avoided." As (1) You claim that Hinayana is not a path, and (2) I claim that at least one Mahayana tradition specifically tells us that it is not to be rejected.

6) I have rewritten "When the term "Shravakayana" or "Hearer" is used within the Mahayana texts, it is more within a context of categorising people or things into 'inferior', 'middling', and 'superior' groups. However, when the term Hinayana is used, it is identified as path which ought to be avoided. Theravadan school also argue that if one describe particular path by the term which mean inferior, vile, base, adject, comteptible, despicable vehicle, then the context of use in scripture is meaningless" to be less biased.

7) I have pulled the line "This view is currently accepted by majority of Mahayanan schools while Tibetan insist that the term is not projetive.", as it is factually untrue. What may be true is that Japanese (and the Korean schools influenced by Japan) Mahayana accept that the term is pejorative. However, the Korean schools influenced by China do not, nor do the Chinese schools, the Vietnamese mahayana schools, the Mongolians, the Tibetans, the Nepalese, etc. If you want to claim the majority of schools, just tell me, where is a list of Mahayana schools? Also, again and again, I have shown you that it is not merely the Tibetans who assert this. Secondly, Some Tibetans assert that the term is pejorative, so it is not down the line with the Tibetans either. Therefore it is a mistake to try and draw up some artificial line about what schools accept it as pejorative, and what schools do not. If we had clear statements from all the schools; if we could even enumerate all the schools, then we can start talking about majority this and that... But we cannot. So stop it. Just let it be 'some say this', 'some say that', and stop attempting to attribute everything that you don't want to hear to the Tibetans.

Finally, and I know that English is your second language, please could you learn to spell the word 'pejorative' correctly? It is not spelled 'projetive'. I used to spell it wrong (I used to spell it 'perjorative'), but I learned to spell it correctly. (20040302)

Edit changes 08/2004 cont.

I will try about my spelling. :) By the way, your attribution of your view to "some Mahayanan" schools has bit of problem. I so far fail to find a single school which claim that hinayana is not projetive. The best one I came up merely describe hinayana as inferior and do not discuss the issue about polemic. Thought this site allow presentation of different POV, it is not proper to allow presentation of every individual's POV. Otherwise, I might start claiming that hinayana was invented by devil to saw misdeed among buddhist. I really recommend you to clarifiy the position of Tibetan buddhism on this issue and clearly state their case. You appeart to be reluctant of this may be because you wish to present your argument as "Mahayanan" and not some sort of sectarian argument. But this is a bit of strech given that your view is clearly in minority. If you have different position from Tibetan, then you should find Buddhist group or scholars who back your assertion. FWBOarticle 16:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Some Mahayanan" schools: The schools that Asanga and Candragomin belonged to; those schools that accept Asanga and Candragomin, -including the entire Nalanda tradition of Mahayana, as well as many Chinese schools, most Tibetans (but not all), most Taiwanese, most Mongolians, some Koreans, most Russians (from Kalmykia), many Western Buddhist traditions (that are not derived from Japanses schools, or from the FWBO, or from Tibet). For scholars, try Williams, who wrote the current definitive work on Mahayana Buddhism, called "Mahayana Buddhism".

Concerning me. I am not Tibetan. I am British. I have taken refuge in the triratna, therefore I am a British Buddhist. I have also committed to the Bodhisattva vow according to Candragomin, so I can say I am a "British Buddhist trainee-Bodhisattva according to the system of Candragomin". If you want to say that I am a Tibetan Buddhist, because I accept ideas from Tibet, then I am an Indian Buddhist because I accept ideas from India. If you want to say that there is something uniquely different from the Tibetan and the Indian buddhist tradition, then you have to show it. Otherwise, the Tibetan tradition is the Indian tradition. If you say that Tibet is the sole remaining source of Indian Buddhism, then all other Buddhist schools are not Indian. This is also true of any other tradition. I do not need to belong to a group to have a POV. In wikipedia, scholars are identified has having a relavant view. They are not alone.

Now your turn. When you say the "majority of Mahayana schools", who are you talking about? Japan and the FWBO is not a majority. How is it the majority? Also, what evidence do you have that they assert that the term is pejorative?

You claim that my view is clearly the minority. I don't know if it is or not- and nor do you. That is why we have voting systems and surveys in the world. But, supposing you are right, that doesn't make my view wrong. It remains legitimate; and it may be more factually correct. The last time I argued this was regarding the term 'tantra'. The majority of the world think that the term 'tantra' means 'kinky indian sex'. They happen to be mistaken. Of course, we could argue that the term has been redefined by useage to mean that, but there is no historical basis for it. So, a majority opinion does not make something fact, right? I am not agreeing that I am in a minority- just hoping that you can agree with me that in principle: minorities are not factually wrong just for being in a minority.

20040302

Ah, firstly, did i ever say that you are a Tibetan national? From your writing, it is pretty obvious that you aren't. You and I both know that Tibetan Buddhism refer to a type of Buddhism. So stop trying to confuse the issue of nationality and religious school. I have been pointing out that your intepreation follows the Tibetan line which was quite obvious. And somehow, it took this long for you to make your affliation clear. There is nothing wrong to present POV Tibetan or otherwise. But it is highly problematic when someone with agenda is trying to proclaim his or his school's POV as universal truth. From now on, you should attribute your POV where it belong that is Tibetan "interpretation" of classical Indian Mahayana tradition. To assert that Tibetan embody the true Indian mahayanan tradition is Tibetan "claim" which is not at all shared by other Mahayanan schools. It is typical where subsequent school simply "presume" that they know the school preceeding it simply because they have the scripture. Chritian reading of old testament is not what Judaism is. Islamic understanding of Christian traidtion is not what Christianity is. The same goes with how Mahayana interpretated Hinayana and how that differ from what actual hinayana/Theravadan is. And Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhism do not represent Mahayana buddhism. It only represent one "interpretation" of Mahayanan buddism. And in general, the term Mahayanan Buddhism are applied to schools which has been transmitted to China and spread in the orient. It is highly problematic when Christian or Muslim write the article about Judaism from their interpretation, then somewhat forget to mention their religious affliation.

Secondly, as of difference between Tibetan buddism and classical Indian mahayanan tradition, where can I start. The existence of Lama system, theocracy where the temples are the state, not to mention about whole new tibetan scriptures which can't be found anywhere in Indian tradition as well as "Tibetan way" of interpretating classical indian scriptures not to mention about their emphasis on tantric meditation. Not even Tibetan deny that Tibet had it's own development after they inherited classical Indian tradition. And it appear that most of your reading/understanding of Mahayanan come from Tibetan and you don't know much about what is going on in Mahayana buddhism which is dominant in the orient. You appear to presume that simply because "the entire Nalanda tradition of Mahayana, as well as many Chinese schools, most Tibetans (but not all), most Taiwanese, most Mongolians, some Koreans, most Russians (from Kalmykia), many Western Buddhist traditions (that are not derived from Japanses schools, or from the FWBO, or from Tibet)" inherited Asanga and Candragomin's "writing", they somewhat all follow "Tibetan" doctrine. Firstly, Japanese, Korean, Chinese (Taiwanese) and Vietnamese shcool (i.e. all current Mahayanan) are derived from to schools originated in China. Zen/Chan, Pureland and Tiantai tradition as well as other minor school such as Shingon and others share common doctrine beyond national boundaries. You are definitely off when you try to present Japanese and Korean school to be somewhat unique from Chinese school. To add further, main characteristic of the Chinese school toward the scripture was that it was more academic and scholarly, i.e., most scriptures were not accepted as gospel. It appear that in Tibet, even Asanga and Candragomin's "commentary" are somewhat accorded semi-cannonical status and followed as rules. This is hardly the case in the East. In certain tradition such as Zen/Chan, even sutras are treated as mere guidebook. To question the authenticity of sutras or statement attributed to Buddah is very common in the East though that is not the case with all Mahayanan tradition.

I have no problem about you contributing this article from your Tibetan background. Just please stop presenting Tibetan POV as universal especially when you lack much knowledge of Mahayanan tradition outside Tibetan one. And it appear that your understanding of Hinayana/Theravada tradition is purly based on Tibetan context. As far as the reocord goes, the official position which was announed by Mahayan schools (from China, Korea, Japan and so on) in the international Buddhist conference is that the term hinayana is dericive and are to be replaced by Theravada. It is true that hinayana is still used because the entire doctrine of compassion and wisdome are derived in this hinayana-mahayana distinction. However, you so far fail to pull a single internet page or other writing belonging to Mahayana school in which it argue that Hinayana is not progative. On the other hand, there are plenty of Tibetan site which just do exactly that.FWBOarticle 20:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1) You continue to accuse me of what you are guilty of. There is a non-tibetan , Chinese link on the main article. I give it to you again:

 http://www.yogichen.org/chenian/bk43.html.  

(^_^) Do you know who the guy is? This really prove that you haven't got a clue in regard to Mahayanan tradition. Didn't you think it's a bit strange that he has the title "yogi". He is (in)famous because he is FWBO's founder's teacher. Denis Lingwood claimed that he has transmission of teaching from various teacher of different traditions. After someone pointed out that Denis Lingwood probably has only elementary understanding of these tradition because he has no understanding of Tibetan, chinese, Pali or Sanskrit and received no high initiation in Tibettan Trantraric tradition, DL then went on to claim that he has received such high initiation from Yogi Chen. But then this "Yogi" chen turn out to be actually like Denis Lingwood. The guy also claim that he mastered three different tradition, that is Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantric though he actually hasn't received any proper initiation in Tantric tradition or has recevied no certification from other traditional Buddhist schools. Oh, he is a chinese so he can read Chinese but that about it. His position is basically Tibetan. His claim about representing all three tradition is based on what he borrowed from Tibetan interpretation of Hinayana and mahayanan school. If he is considered as a Mahayanan tradition, I might as well start new Buddhist tradition which represent all three yana and Yogi Chen and FWBO and Christianity and Bahai and Aboliginal spirituality. The fact that only page you manged to pull is none other than Yogi Chen seem to prove that you are unable to find any Mahayanan school which claim that Hinayanan is not derogetory. FWBOarticle 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2) I do not accept your position that I am a Tibetan Buddhist; it is a flawed argument. There are many traditions within Tibet - some of them have definite features that are unique to Tibet, but for instance, the (original) Kadampa tradition does not. It does not accept Lamaism, or indiginous tantra; it is Indian in it's source materials and traditions. Meanwhile, your understanding of the Tibetan traditions appears to be both narrow and misinformed, and you appear to clearly discriminate against them. There are well over twenty separate Buddhist traditions within Tibet, and I certainly cannot claim to represent them, not even the Kadampas.

Do you happen to belong to New Kadampa? You being British and all. Anyway, for one thing, the fundamental characteristic of Tibetan Buddhism is their three wheel scheme developed by Je Tsongkhapa in 14th century. It is my understanding that Kadampa tradition still follow this fundamental Tibetan doctrine so it is not far off saying Kadampa is still a Tibetan Buddhism. With your argment there is no Zen, Pureland or Mahayana or Theravada buddhism because they all contain small sects each with different aspect or emphasis.

3) Regardless, I have worked hard not to represent my own views on this article, but to find reliable, historically verifiable sources, and works of academics. You do not mention Williams in your response. Are you now saying that his breed of academic are also Tibetan? I assure you, he has primarily focussed on the Chinese Mahayana traditions, which, as you point out, have affected Korea, large portions of Vietname, Taiwan, etc.

Sure, Asanga's quote is what Tibetan tradition put emphasis on not to mention that they appear to regard it as a commandment which ought to be followed. And ths guy William has different view similar line to yours. I certainly have no problem that some Western scholars expressed view similar to yours. You still hasn't come up with Mahayanan school arguing that Hinayana is not derogetory though. Moreover, it appear that William state that Hinayana in Chinese/Korean/Japanese mahayanan traditions is used in less derogetory manner. Sure. I come from the East. Most Oriental tradition hasn't come across Theravadan tradition for 1000 years. It's hard to keep up sectarianism when the opposing camp is absent for a millenium. But what that got to do with the charge that "Hinayana is coined for derogetory purpose" which is something 2000 years ago from now and 300-400 years before Asanga. As I said, you can't use the current examples to argue that racism didn't exist 300 years ago let alone 2000 years ago. FWBOarticle 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4) I also suggest you check your sources concerning the Chinese traditions. You may be aware of the Japanese traditions, but not so aware of the Chinese ones.

Ah, yes. I certainly will not confuse Yogi Chen for being Mahayana. He is a Chinese using Tibetan Buddhist teaching. As of Chinese Mahayanan tradition, they take far more respectful approach to sutra than Japanese and Korean one. Also, each temple might practice Zen and Pureland together so in china different teaching does not represent different sect. However, there are no major doctrinal dispute within Zen, Pureland or Tantien tradition. And you still fail to come up with what I'm asking. Chinese/Korean/Japanese Mahayanan source which argue in similar line to Tibetan. FWBOarticle 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5)The evidence I have given against a pejorative meaning to Hinayana predates the Tibetan adoption of Buddhism by about four centuries, while Asanga was translated and adopted in China well before Tibet became Buddhist. As you say, many schools of Mahayana Buddhism originated from China, and many of those accepted Asanga/Candragomin.

Ah, pretty much all schools of Mahayana Buddhism now come from Chinese origin. The also "inherited" Asanga/Chandragomin's writing. They also "study" it. However, as I said, it is accepted as "commentary". it seems bit different from how Tibetan "accept" it, which is to accept it as sort of commandment. It's to do with the fact that during the early history of Chinese buddhism, due to the huge distance between China and India, the problem of forged or non-authentic sutras were serious and Buddhist scholars/monks were forced to take critical/sceptical/academic approach to the authenticity of any Buddhist writing or sayings attributed to Buddah. As I said, it is highly inappropriate to simply transport Tibetan context into Oriental buddhism. And as I keep saying, you evidence is 300-400 years off the mark. And even you seems to admit that Asanga's writing actually prove that other (or previous) Mahayanan disperage Hinayana. Otherwise, ther is no need for Asanga to make such ruling. FWBOarticle

6)You talk about an assertion being made in an international Buddhist conference, but still have failed to provide a date, a place, or even a URL. This would be so easy for you to do. FWBOarticle

No problem. It's in 1950, The World Fellowship of Buddhists in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where representatives from 27 countries in Asia, Europe and North America (including Hawaii) met. Nearly every school of Buddhism in the Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana traditions was represented. In this meeting, it was unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped and replaced with Theravada. Most schools further accepted that calling other school as lesser or inferior is unbecoming of buddhism. The convention adopted in this meeting was followed by other inter Buddhist meeting. Tibetan on the other hand seems to have decided to reverse what they have agreed in recent period as can be seen from numerous Tibetan site. This I consider to be unfortunate. But then I have heard that Dalai Lama recently commented that use of Hinayana is no longer appropriate so I guess this is not settled matter even within Tibetan. I only came across this Hinayana isn't derogetory argument only after I came to the West. It did provide me with insight as to how important three wheel schime is to Tibetan. Anyway, here you have it. FWBOarticle

7)You have yet to provide any substantive evidence for your claims, though you continue to say 'everyone thinks this', or whatever. You have spent more than a month discussing this with me, and have yet to produce a textual citation, a URL, or any other verifiable record. The best so far is a first hand account of a conversation with a couple of Theravadin monks. Please do better than that.

Ah, well, I gave you an evidence. Do google search with the World Fellowship of Buddhist. It is like the UN for buddhist organiastions. At this moment I can't find it but they also adopted number of common doctrine for all three buddhist schools. I can't find it where it is. You might want to have a look. FWBOarticle

8) Here is the entry of the Asanga/Candragomin into China and Japan. The Wei Shih school founded by Hsüan Tsang (596-664 CE), emphasizing the Yogacarya teachings of Asanga. Introduced to Japan as the Hosso school in 660 CE. This school was independant of Tibet, and followed Asanga's texts. Both the 'Wei Shih' and 'Hosso' schools (as well as their derivatives) did not deprecate or criticise the Nikaya, or consider the term Hinayana to be pejorative.

Yes, they adopted the philosophical interpretation of Asanga. And then they also agree to drop Hinayana in this century. Just because they inherited Asanga's commentary doesn't mean they read it like Tibetan do. You really ought to learn that there are other way of looking at things. I'm not really here to argue that Tibetan teaching is wrong. Just that it is very wrong to proclaim Tibetan interpretation of Mahayana as Mahayanan interpretation when Tibetan is Vajyarayana, a separate category. FWBOarticle

20040302

Edit changes 08/2004 more

I have created a division, because we are both writing a lot.

You really should respond to each comment comment with ":". Ohterwise, it make it difficult for others to follow the flow of argument. I will try to respond to your comment but you are needlessly duplicating my comment as well as yours. FWBOarticle 03:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept that yogichen is not traditional chinese - I had not read through the site, but I do not accept that yogichen is Tibetan Buddhist. He does seem to be the head of some sort of modern school, so there is a counter-example to your assertion that the sole source of Hinayana as a non-perjorative is Tibet.

Well, if you knew anything about Mahayanan traidition, you wouldn't have brought him up as a Mahayanan example, when I was specifically challenging you to produce an example from mahayanan (not Chinese) source. He certainly "borrow" heavily from Tibetan doctrine and his meditation course follow Tibetan line at least in outlooks. Your view that his is not a Tibetan is very understandable. Anyway, when did I say Tibetan is the only one who hold this view. I certainly did state that Tibetan is the only major tradition which hold this view. I merely pointed out that Theravadan and (majority) Mahayanan schools as well as some European scholars and Pali/Sanskrit scholars hold view that Hinayana is derogetory expression. Tibetan is the major group of buddhist tradition which hold contrary view. Someone like yogi chen, William (or you for that matter) having different opinion is not really concern of mine nor I ever oppose to the fact that such assertion exist. The statement that "your assertion that the sole source of Hinayana as a non-perjorative is Tibet" is just your imagination.

I am not new kadampa, and have no affiliation with the movement. The new Kadampa appear to be sectarian, which I do not support. I support the role and activities of HH Dalai Lama, which the NKT appear not to. Regardless, your understanding of the original Kadampa tradition is not vast, so you may be mistaken regarding your views on the subject. I cannot hold it against you; trust me, the Kadampa tradition was deeply Indian, and was not prone to Tibetan innovation, though it was definitely influenced by an Indian tradition far more modern than those that travelled to China.

O.K. But I'm asking whether Kadampa tradition still adhere to three wheel principle exposed by Je Tsongkhapa.

It predates Je Tsongkhapa. It was founded by Dromtompa, who was a student of Atisha (a Bengali monk). 20040302

I certainly have no problem that some Western scholars expressed view similar to yours. Good. This is the first time that you acknowledge anyone other than me, as having any reason to be different from your views.

huh? I was telling you from the begining that Tibetan as well as you has opposing view. Plus, I only said Tibetan is the only major tradition which has opposing view. It was you who stated that number of Western scholars also expressed view that Hinayana is rude and I copied that remark. I prefer if you don't make up about what I said. I only criticised you because you were hell bent on imposing Vajrayana interpretation as Mahayanana which is highly misleading.

Friend, nothing that I have said on this discussion has been derived from the Vajrayana traditions. The Vajrayana depends upon the Mahayana, but it does not equate with the Mahayana; the Mahayana tradition stands on it's own within Tibet; and certainly not all Tibetans follow the Vajrayana. 20040302

I have repeatedly demonstrated with reason, and citation that Asanga (founder of the Yogacarya, therefore a Mahayana school) asserts that 'Hinayana' is not derogatory- he even encourages the trainee Bodhisattva not to think this way, in black and white. I don't know how good your English is, but there really isn't much space for interpretation.

yes, and that suppose to mean what? When did Asanga become the founder of Mahayana? And even you admitted that disparaging of Hinayana is likely to have occured which necessiated Asanga to make injunction. Moreover, you didn't seem to notice the glaring time difference of 300-400 years until I pointed out.

I noticed it - but consider it unlikely that it was an innovation of Asangas.

Most Oriental tradition hasn't come across Theravadan tradition for 1000 years. Let me deal with this in a minute, -- but essentially you are breaching the guidance given by the council that you mention by confusing the Theravadin tradition with the Hinayana schools.

ah, Hinayana refer to Nikaya schools is not disputed. As I already said before, disparaging someone's parent is rude enough. And this still don't avoid the issue of whether hinayana itself is disparaging remark.

If there is one quote that you have made, this is it: But what that got to do with the charge that: "Hinayana is coined for derogatory purpose which is something 2,000 years ago from now".

You have cited a quote here. Now, show the source. Show me a scripture that is 2,000 years old, or even better an epigraphic source, that says Hinayana is coined for derogatory purpose, and show me the proof this time. You spend hours writing on this discussion. Go find the proof, or shut up. I think you made it up.

Ah didn't I show you that Lotus Sutra are attributed to 100BC to 100CE and Vimalakirti Nirdesa sutra is attributed to 100 CE. Well, and didn't I tell you that calling other school as vile, bad, imcomplete, mean, inferor is pretty slanderous by anyone's standard that is why many Mahayanan school gave up using this expression except in reference to their doctrine because it is bit unavoidable. Obviously, you don't hold this view that vile/bad is right translation. As I keep reminding you again, this is not internet forum and I'm merely pointing out that Mahayanan and Theravadan POV should have at least equal presentation as your Tibetan one. I'm not planning to proclaim these POV as absolute truth. You also should stop trying to claim yours as truth and you should certainly not claim Vijyarayana view as Mahayanan. I'm simply pointing out that your attribution of POV is problematic in term of doctrinal difference as well as time period. Whether such POV is true or not is not what I expect both of us to come into agreement. FWBOarticle 03:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You missed my point. You typed a quote that states the term was coined in a pejorative manner. You state the quote is 2,000 years old, yet you cannot show me the source. ~~

You accept that the Chinese Mahayana traditions accepted Asanga. You agree that Asanga, tells us not to disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana. You seem to suggest that Asanga came up with this without any previous tradition (which would be very unusual, but I guess there is an outside chance), and you still ask me for sources? One of us is missing something here. It appears that you are trying to interpret Asanga as saying something equivalent to "Don't insult the N*gg*rs". I am sorry, but you think that it is my interpretation of his words that is suspect?!

You are using linguistic trick. Chinese Mahayanan certainly "inherited" the writing attributed to Asanga. This does not mean they consider Asanga's writing as if it is a holy revelation from God. In buddhism how they "agree" with commentary or sutras vary significantly among different schools. Just because someone read bible doesn't make them christian. You are simply presuming Tibetan way of "acceptance" to apply to Mahayanan schools which is grossly inaccurate. Zen doesn't even consider sutra as reliable so how do you think they read commentaries by buddhist scholars which they have accepted/inherited. It is much closer to how Philosophy professor treat Plato or Alistoteres' writing. Again, our task is to explain this difference of attitude among differen school with proper attribution. I don't have problem with you explaining Tibetan characteristic or interpretation and I'm quite sure that your inside knowledge of Tibetan far exceed mine. However, i have advantage of not being the true believer. I don't get upset because someone else has different view. You should stay away from describing Mahayanan tradition given that your version of "Mahayanan Tradition" is basically within tibetan three wheel scheme.FWBOarticle 03:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears that your understanding of my position remains in error. I shall not continue to restate it. But trust me- I am interested in the facts. However, I do not yet see any evidence to suggest that the term Hinayana was deliberately chosen to be pejorative. That may change. So far, I am not swayed by the dictionary argument; I can think of words in English (such as 'inferior') that are considered pejorative by some, but have many legitimate, pejorative-free contexts. I do not think that the word 'inferior' is essentially pejorative.

Tibetans also accept Asanga as commentary, though there is another text which is supposed to have been written/inspired by Maitreya, but that is not relavant here. They accept that what Asanga has said is in line with the Mahayana sutra tradition - that his commentary reflects the sutras. That is what accepting commentary means. This is exactly the same as how the early chinese accepted Asanga. There is no difference.

Well, yes, they accept that Asanga's commentary is his interpretation of Mahayana sutras. You also should take notice that there are about millions of commentary on Sutras produced within Mahayanan tradition even within Chinese tradition. Asanga is certainly one of the majory scholar. However this does not mean every line of Asanga is taken to be correct. They certainly decided to disagreee with him on the part of hinayana being rude or not rude. Asanga did not found mahayana. Asanga did not coined the term Hinayana. He however, after 300-400 years after the coining of the term, made commentary that hinayana is not to be desparaged and this has been followed by Tibetan which is fine by me. However, that say nothing about what happened several hundreds year before him. Oh, one mroe thing, one of commentary of Mahayanan Buddhism actually assert that Arahat and Pratyekayana can not become Buddah and they can't even fall into hell and they will forever tied to samsara with their Arahat or Pratyekayana state. It's in Japanese wikepedia so you might want to use translation programme. You might want to find out which commentary it is from Mahayanan monks. FWBOarticle 03:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

you seem to admit that Asanga's writing actually prove that other (or previous) Mahayana disperage Hinayana. No, neither. I am saying that Asanga is commenting on the Mahayana sutra, regarding ethical behaviour. It is clear that it is not acceptable for students of either Yogacarya or Madhyamaka philosophies to make disparaging remarks about other Buddhist schools or vehicles. It isn't even hard to see, if one understands the philosophical backdrop to the Mahayana tradition. This isn't something that requires sophisticated interpretation. However, it appears that the early Mahayana faced a great deal of ridicule from the non-Mahayana, and so less experienced Mahayana students must have had quite some temptation towards disparages the non-Mahayana in retaliation.

"1. Some trainee Bodhisattvas were mistakenly deprecating the Hinayana early on in the development of the Mahayana tradition. 2. Such an attitude was seen as misinterpretation of the training and development of the trainee Bodhisattva, certainly by the time of by Asanga." Your quote. FWBOarticle 03:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The quote does not detract from my statement above. I question your English on this.

In 1950, The World Fellowship of Buddhists in Colombo, Sri Lanka [...] unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped and replaced with Theravada. This is what your entire argument rests on. I trust you don't have any dirt to dig with the Ven. Dr. W. Rahula? Let me take an extract from his article on the Theravadin view of the Mahayana/Theravada split. The URL is http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html. His views are Theravadin, but the article suffices. Regardless, here is the text that is relavant to your assertion, and I hope you can see that the WFB did not say what you assert.

"Between the 1st Century B.C. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana and Hinayana appeared in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law.

About the 2nd Century A.D. Mahayana became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata and proved that everything is Void in a small text called Madhyamika-karika. About the 4th Century, there were Asanga and Vasubandhu who wrote enormous amount of works on Mahayana. After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of Mahayana and Hinayana were introduced.

We must not confuse Hinayana with Theravada because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka. Today there is no Hinayana sect in existence anywhere in the world. Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc. This is the brief history of Theravada, Mahayana and Hinayana." Dr. Rahula, Gems of Buddhist Wisdom

So, maybe you will agree now that you are wrong to claim the WFB made the decision that "the term Hinayana should be dropped and replaced with Theravada"

What WFB actually said was "the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc" This is not the same thing that you assert at all. Especially as the majority of our argument has been about the original purpose of the term. I like the quote from Rahula - I shall add it to the main article. Also, it was useful to me; Rahula gives us the source of the terms, and also the time period.

Now, it is important to find out what sort of mud is thrown against the early Hinayana in the Lotus, so I will do some more research there.

Yes, they (the 'Wei Shih' and 'Hosso' schools) adopted the philosophical interpretation of Asanga. And then they also agree to drop Hinayana in this century. Are you talking about your mistaken reading of the agreement made by the WFB, or are you talking about something else?

So, the WFB did not say what you thought. Please, either provide more evidence to back your assertions, or retract your assertion. (20040302)

He didn't say Hinayana is "not" derogetory. He merely commented that hinayana are not directed against Theravadan school which is correct and incorrect. Theravadan school certainly belong to one of Nikaya school tracing lineage to Sthaviravada school. You can read it [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism]. Also, my exact comment was "In this meeting, it was unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped and replaced with Theravada. Most schools (read Theravadan and Mahayanan here) further accepted that calling other school as lesser or inferior is unbecoming of buddhism." So I have properly made my case. You only missed/skipped my second sentence.

Please note that the Schools of Buddhism page has had several different layouts in the past and the information it contains, like anything else on Wikipedia, is subject to revision. That said, I think the current lay-out is valid. The meaning of Hinayana is disputed and it is not necessarily synonymous with Nikaya Schools. If we accept the argument that {"Hinayana Schools" = some Indian schools that developed in contrast to Mahayana Schools, and therefore Theravada is not a Hinayana school} then "Nikaya Schools" is a term which includes both Hinayana and Theravada. From this perspective, to say that Theravada is part of Nikaya is irrelevant to the issue of Hinayana (it's like saying, well, Canada is part of North America, and some people call the United States "America", therefore Canada is part of the United States). - Nat Krause 05:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we accept that the term Hinayana refers to a vehicle (a means of reaching the goal), rather than a school, then there is no problem regarding the idea of calling something inferior. The Sravakas are called inferior for not wishing to take on the path to Buddhahood. The Nikaya traditions could well have agreed with this in principle:- It is merely that the trainee-bodhisattva (such as Maitreya) is following a superior aspiration to the aspiration of a trainee-sravaka. (20040302)

Also I have a friend who attended Dalai Lama's conference in Scotland which happend several months ago, I was told that Dalai Lama actually did state that use of the term hinayana is inappropriate. Now whether that is because he consider hinayana's origin to be tainted (which I doubt to be his official position) or hinayana to be wrong attribution to Theravada (which is likely) or just more proper to avoid causing offence (which I think is part of reason), I don't really know. However, according to my hearsay, he did say that Nikaya or hearer's vehicle is the best word to use. Now, if it is second position, then there is no need to use Nikaya or hearer's vehcile in place of hinayana. You can simply claim that hinayana is not Theravada. Anway, Hinayana appeared to be used to refer to Nikaya schools of buddhism as well as a part of practice "within" Mahayana tradition (which is tibetan line). If you refer other school (or Arahat) as inferior, incomplete, selfish, conceited and stubborn, that is quite rude in my opinion. Anyway, my advice is for you to go and ask Mahayanan monks/priest. You don't have to agree with what they say but you at least will know that Mahayanan schools may not have the same POV as Tibetan. FWBOarticle

He said nothing like what you are asserting at the conference. He used the term 'Hinayana' when referring to Nikaya schools. There are recordings of the event. 20040302

So, I did the research. Pretty quick, huh? Lotus Sutra, chapter 14, "Peaceful Practices". (Remember, this is the sutra where the term 'Hinayana' is first identified; it predates Asanga by 3 centuries, so what does it say?)

Third is the way of practice by peaceful thoughts. A bodhisattva [...] does not hold other Buddhists in contempt, not even those who follow the Hinayana path, nor does he cause them to have doubts or regrets by criticizing their way of practice or making discouraging remarks. - (Japanese translation, http://etherbods.com/sutra/summaries/ls14.htm ) Basically, it appears that Asanga was commenting directly from the 14th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra.

So you are telling me this is like saying "Don't insult the N*gg*rs" again, right? But if this was coined to be classificatory, we can read it as saying "Don't insult those who follow an inferior path". Which reads better? Which sounds more to do with compassion? Which actually works according to Mahayana philosophy? So, now you say that the majority of Mahayana traditions didn't accept the Lotus sutra? It was written around the 1stC CE, it is the first instance of the term that is known, and it tells us not to hold contempt for the Hinayana. So, now what do you say? (20040302 01:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Yes, after they made great deal about Buddah will avoid following hinayana (which is insulting enough for people who follow this path), then it went on to say that bodhisattva is so virtuous that he does not hold other buddhists in contempt, "NOT EVEN" those who follow the Hinayana path.

Here is other quote

"Never do they use a lesser vehicle to save living beings and ferry them across."

"If I used a lesser vehicle to convert even one person, I would be guilty of stinginess and greed, but such a thing would be impossible."

"But because of the three sufferings, World-Honored One, in the midst of birth and death we undergo burning anxieties, delusions, and ignorance, delighting in and clinging to lesser doctrines. But today the World-Honored One causes us to ponder carefully, to cast aside such doctrines, the filth of frivolous debate."

"But the World-Honored One, knowing from past times how our minds cling to unworthy desires and delight in lesser doctrines, pardoned us and let us be, not trying to explain to us by saying, You will come to possess the insight of the Tathagata, your portion of the store of treasures!'

"Now in this sutra the Buddha expounds only the one vehicle. And in the past, when in the presence of the bodhisattvas he disparaged the voice-hearers as those who delight in a lesser doctrine, the Buddha was in fact employing the Great Vehicle to teach and convert us."

One should not associate with persons of overbearing arrogance or those who stubbornly adhere to the Lesser Vehicle and are learned in its three storehouses.

If he is asked difficult questions, he should not reply in terms of the Dharma of a Lesser Vehicle.

I don't know about you but I would be well pissed off if someone describe my religious belife in this way. FWBOarticle

Oh, since you asked, here is a quote from a non-tibetan tradition. The tradition is Japanese; Nichiren Shu. Here is what is said: "I think of these terms Hinayana and Mahayana not as sectarian designation but as states of mind." url: http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/Zen-LS-5.html Maybe you have some dirt on Ryuei Michael McCormick?

Ah, actually this page explain why hinayana is dropped by many mahayanan schools. Hinayana is clearely defined as pejorative.

"I do want to say one more thing about Hinayana. People mistakenly apply the term to SE Asia Buddhism, to the Theravadins. That is not really the right way to use it. When Mahayana first arose in the 1st century B.C.E. or C.E., it was those groups of monks who were compiling the Mahayana sutras or traditions who used that term as a pejorative way of referring to the sectarian Abhidharma schools. It was a way of disparaging the sectarianism and pettiness of the Abhidharma scholars. The idea was that they were so wrapped up in analytics and in pursuing their own enlightenment that they had forgotten about everyone else. The Theravada is one of the last surviving schools of those sectarian Abhidharma schools of ancient India. But when you read the Pali canon, they are not really Hinayana, because in them the Buddha clearly says to his disciples, "Go out for the sake of compassion and preach to others." To those monks who wanted to commit suicide he said, "No, that is not real nirvana. Nirvana is staying here and helping others by sharing this teaching. It is not just annihilating yourself." It is not really right to say that they are Small Vehicle Buddhists or Hinayana. They are just the School of the Elders. They are more conservative, but they have their teachings of compassion as well. I would venture to say that a lot of so-called Mahayana Buddhists, in Tibet, China and Japan are very small-minded themselves. I think of these terms Hinayana and Mahayana not as sectarian designation but as states of mind. In one case, one that we should be careful not to fall into, the small minded way, and the other is the great-minded way to aspire to. " FWBOarticle

Here is another Japanese explanation that the term hinayana represents a vehicle for those with less capability - in other words, the term is classificatory. "Shakyamuni next taught them the Agama sutras (Agon kyo). These represented the most elementary doctrines, and Shakyamuni addressed them to those who possessed the lowest capacity." This is from the Nichiren, url: http://www.nichirenshoshumyoshinji.org/LecturesData/2004/08_Gosho.htm

(It is inevitable that most urls will be found will be Nichiren, due to their evangelic stance, but this does not indicate that solely the Nichiren accept these ideas. Also, there is NO WAY that the Nichiren came to these ideas from Tibet)

---

The reason you pulled most urls from Nichiren is not because they have more website (which is not the case). It is because they are closer to the way Tibetan treat sutras (though Nichiren is only devoted to Lotus sutra). I have mentione that degree of acceptance of sutras and commentary vary among schools. Nichiren sects are opposite of Zen and they treat Lotus Sutra in a way similar to gospel. Therefore, they do tend to present line of argument similar to tibetan. Still, have you fond any nichiren page which assert that hinayana is not derogetory. It's your best shot.FWBOarticle

Response to suggestion

Firstly, I ackowlege 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 no longer intent to convert you into my line of argument. Also, it is pointless for you to assert your view as universal truth. So far, you seems to agree that

(1)Theravadan school universally consider the term to be derogetory.

(2)Majority of "current" Mahayanan schools follow the interpretation of Theravadan school

(3)Tibetan, in general, do not consider the term to be derogetory

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). 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.FWBOarticle

---

Reply to Response

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,

1. 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.
2. I hope you can agree that this is not merely a Tibetan POV, or Tibetan interpretation.
3. In light of the Bodhisattvabhumi, I hope you can agree that the term Hinayana was coined as a classificatory, rather than a derogative term.
4. 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.
5. I hope you can agree that, within Nikaya sutra, the Bodhisattva is considered to be superior to the Arhat.
6. 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)

---

Response to Reply

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)

---

20040302 to FWBOarticle

Asanga was born around 300 CE, the term hinayana was coined nearly two hundreds years before him.

Please provide evidence for your statement regarding the date that the term 'hinayana' was coined.

Please provide a list of mahayana schools that denigrate the Nikaya/Hinayana, with evidence.

Please provide the historic evidence for a pejorative stance that you claim the majority of Mahayana have had, which against your own criteria, is fact, and not merely your POV.

No problem. The Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra are said to be composed some time before 150CE. Saddharma-pundarika or White Lotus Sutra are said to be composed in the period 100BCE-100CE. Both sutras use hinayana. Asanga as you know were said to be born around 300. Nichiren, Zen, Tendai/Tien'tai, Pureland school now all recognised that Hinayana to be derogetory word. And this is the point you keep missing. What these school as well as Theravadan school say is that using hinayana in a sentence make the sentence derogetory remark. Therefore, your so called evidences which supposed to show that hinayana is used in neutral way doesnt say anything to them. And they do not agree with your assertion that hina-yaha should be separated from hina. I'm quite sure you disagree with this reasoning. Just accept that people has different POV. FWBOarticle 13:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions yet to be answered

You appear to think that I did not respond to your questions. I did.

I don't recall any of the below being answered in a manner which would be suitable against your own criteria of fact rather than statement. Please assist me. Most of them only require a yes or a no, though any reasons would be very helpful.

I think you really ought to learn that your view is POV and not universal truth. I've told you this is not an internet forum. But it appear that you are determined to keep it that way. Just to humour you I will reply. It appear that you are not bothered with me cutting into your writing. Plus it is impossible to answer without it So here I go. FWBOarticle 13:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Are you asserting that the Hinayana article should concern itself only with current Buddhist traditions? If so, what is your justification?

Well, any POV expressed here, whether it is current mahayana school or yours is current view, isn't it. You seem to be under delusion that you are incarnation of classical Mahayanan school.

1. Do you agree that in Buddhist sutra, "'hina-' is always used in combination of hiina-majjhima-pa.niita", and that this is accurately translated as "inferior-middling-superior"?

No. in other occasion, it is translated as bad-o.k.good, linguistically both are correct translation and both cannot be translated in exclusion of others..

1. Do you agree that the context of usage in Sutra of the phrase Hina- does not allow for a translation of 'vile' or 'despicable', in that it is used in the sense of inferior/middling/superior?

No, why should one assume that sanskrit is different when it is in buddhist writing. Buddah engaged in debate with non buddhist and at his time he was a minority group. You have no case or evidence to assert that Buddhist writing ought to be removed from Sanskrit/Pali linguistic

1. Do you agree that "bad" is a poor translation of "hina-"?

It's a part of correct simultaneous translation. For example dictionary state that the word "vile" means loathsome, disgusting, unpleasant, objectionable, degrading, ignoble, wicket, etc. You appear to clami that it is possible to transalte loathsome but not objectionable. The fact is that simultanenous listing of all these word is correct method to understand the meaning of vile. Same goes with hina.

1. Do you agree that the prefix Hina- is best translated as 'inferior' or 'low'?

No, it should be translated simultanenously to understand the original meaning, that is inferior,bad,low,base,vile,mean,small,meager.

1. Do you agree that the term Hinayana may have been coined merely as a classificatory, rather than a derogative or pejorative term?

Then they should have used the word Cuula. Somewhat they picked something much much worse.

1. Do you agree that words require a pejorative context to be called pejorative?

No, the term such as N**** require no perojative context to be recognised as perjorative, a point you keep missing.

1. Do you agree that some words are objectively pejorative by nature?

If you mean by the word like "N****" or "Ho" yes. And Hinayana is categorised in this group by many, you not included

1. Do you agree that if one wishes to say that the word 'Hinayana' was coined as pejorative, that it is necessary to provide sources (original, primary sources) that factually (without interpretation) demonstrate that the term Hinayana was indeed coined to have a pejorative stance?

Yes, linguistic origin of the term hina as well as usage of hina in sutra is often quoted to assert that people who joined hina and yana to create the word hinayana could not had been ignorant of the implication.

1. How do you respond to the claim that the pejorative interpretation of Hinayana may be nothing more than a Fundamental attribution error?

You mean Hinayana is not aimed at Theravada. Actually, it is correct. It is aimed at school(s) which Theravada originate. Most people find it offensive if someone call their mother by name. So this line of defence only works up to a point.

1. Do you agree that although the word 'Hinayana' was coined as pejorative, Indian buddhists such as Asanga were trained so that their attitude towards the Nikaya/Hinayana was not to be pejorative?

If you mean hinayana become the standard term so that, by the time of Asanga, he could not avoid using the term, yes I agree. It is mirrored by the current Mahayanan situation. Even though they make effort to use Theravada, it is impossible sometimes not to use the word hinayana. You also seems to admit that pre-Asanga period might had lot of polemic against hinayana.

1. Are you saying that Asanga did not use the word 'Hinayana'?

No

1. Do you agree that according to Nikaya canon, Buddha was distinct from an Arhat?

A classic confusion. Buddah was an Arahat.

1. Do you agree that the Nikaya canon accept that Buddha was a bodhisattva?

Nikaya cannon "state" the supposed reincanation of Buddah's previous lives. I have asked two Theravadan monks whether they are true of not. They both categorically stated that such is a matter of "faith". One then went on to tell me that he "believe" it to be true. The other gave much more agnostic answer. I find both answers to be intellectual honest. I also should mention that as far as scholastic study of scriptures goes, Jakata story is considered as later addition to the collection.

1. Do you agree that the Nikaya canon accept Buddha was superior to the arhats when he was a bodhisattva?

No. Buddah was a Arahat. Do you meant to imply Bodhisattva is superior to Buddah.

1. Do you agree that, within Nikaya canon, Bodhisattvas are considered to be superior to Arhats?

No. Buddah was a Arahat. If you meant by capability to teach. Then that is something else. As of achievement of enlightement, bodhisatva hasn't and Arahat has. Leave it at that.

1. Do you agree that the Nikaya canon accept that arhats are inferior to Buddha when he was a bodhisattva?

No, Buddah was a Arahat. It appear that your reading of Nikaya cannon is coloured by Mahayana teaching.

1. Do you agree that the Mahayana traditions claim they represent the path of the Bodhisattva?

Oh, certainly.

1. Do you agree that the Nikaya/Hinayana tradition is the path to Arhathood, and that therefore Arhats are representative of the Nikaya/Hinayana?

That is the view held by Mahayana. And that is another projetive claim. In Manayanan definition, it is implied that Arahat (never mind that Buddah is an Arahat by definition) is not capable of leading other to enlightenment. Then obviously, hinayana schools cannot lead people to enlightenment. Theravadan school simply consider that their teaching produce Arahats (which include Buddah type) with different degree of teaching capability. Buddhism, by definition, is Arahathood. It consider that Mahayanan school spined/distorted the original meaning.

1. The Vimalakirti sutra (along with the Lotus) is the most often cited text for a pejorative stance against the Hinayana; do you continue to claim that when arhats are mentioned in the Vimalakirti, it is solely concerned with the status of an arhats, and not with the Hinayana?

It mentions both.

1. Do you agree that the training (or perfection) of wisdom is central to the Mahayana?

You mean attaining bodhisatva wisdom (teaching/salvation skill). Yes. Implying that the other school doesn't was a part of polemic.

1. Do you agree that the training (or perfection) of wisdom (Madhaymaka/Cittamatra) of the Mahayana cannot accept that Mahayana traditions are objectively 'better' than the Nikaya/Hinayana traditions?

It accept that both path lead to enlightenment then went on to make great deal about it's superior ability to lead others to enlightenment. The justification of such claims is not accepted by Theravadan school. And I would say, many of these justification relied heavily on misrepresenting hinayana, including the coining of the term itself.

1. Do you agree that the Mahayana reject that words can have an objective nature?

It was huge debate in classical (Indian) Mahayanan school. To present that Mahayana had one single view on this matter is incorrect.

1. Do you agree that the evidence (from Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi) shows that the lack of polemic against the Nikaya/Hinayana in Indian Mahayana is a fact and not POV?

You have only shown that Asanga wasn't into polemic very much. One of the legend is that when his brother was converted from Hinayana to Mahayana by Asanga, he chopped off his ears because he has been listening to useless teaching. Asanga, though an towring figure in development of Mahayana doctrine in 4th century, can not be the sole representation of Mahayana. And he certainly can't be used for representation of Mahayana in 2nd century when the term, hinayana was coined.

1. Do you 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?

yep, which explain Tibetan attitude which inherited his line of Mahayanan school, which developed 200 years after the original coining of the world hinayana. I also should point out that this school's presentation of Hinayana school is scewed but it isn't really his fault given that he merely inherited all Mahayanan teaching which included the term Hinayana.

1. Do you agree that the Tibetans inherited the Mahayana commentarial tradition from India from Indians such as Sangharakshita and Atisha, and therefore that these ideas are not natively Tibetan?

Tibetan inherited mahayana from india and had it's own development afterward. It's both. Plus, Indian Mahayan changed and evolved itself in India before being transmitted to Tibet.

1. Do you agree that just beccause there is an official position stated by the Theravadin school in an inter-Buddhist conference, it is not necessary for that position to be universally accepted by all Theravadins?

Sure, and all you need is to produce just one quote in which a theravadan monk say hinayana is not derogetory word, which you failed to do so far.

---

Initial comments to answers

Sorry for the delay - this has been to try and work out the meaning of some of your answers. Thank-you very much for your informative replies. I have begun reply to some of your answers. There were a lot of questions, so please be patient with some of this. I have removed snide remarks where I have found them. 20040302

Are you asserting that the Hinayana article should concern itself only with current Buddhist traditions? If so, what is your justification?

FWBOarticle: Well, any POV expressed here, whether it is current mahayana school or yours is current view, isn't it.

20040302:Do you insist that it is completely impossible to discuss views that have been held in the past, especially when those views have been written down?

20040302:Also, do you not accept that what Candragomin wrote is not a point of view? It is not necessary to interpret his work, when he tells us not to degrade the Sravakayana (and by implication, the Nikaya) - or do I need to demonstrate to you that Candragomin does not indicate the Nikaya when he speaks of the Sravaka? If you do not accept that he is indicating the Nikaya, who do you think he is indicating?

Presenting quotes is fine. And we should indeed "discuss" those quotes. But interpretating of quotes are POV. The main charge is that "Hinayana is coined for projetive purpose". And I fail to see much of relevance to views 300-400 years after the period concerned. I mean I'm quite sure we are in less racist society now compared to 300 years ago. But using the current examples/quotes to say that there weren't racism 300 years ago? That I fail to see the logic. But as I keep saying, that doesn't mean I can stop you from presenting this logic (and quotes) in support of your assertion. Just make sure that you present it as a POV. However, quotes being written 300-400 years after the coining of the term is a fact. So you shouldn't stop me from stating this fact. The reader will make up their own mind. I also should point out that when categorisation of different practice are made, Sravakayana or Hearer is the term of choise in the scripture. When the term, Hinayana is used, it is refered as path to be avoided. It is much similar to the distinction between Negro (which is mere categorisation of race) and N**** (racial reference with projetive intent). FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[...]

Do you agree that the prefix Hina- is best translated as 'inferior' or 'low'?

FWBOarticle: No, it should be translated simultanenously to understand the original meaning, that is inferior,bad,low,base,vile,mean,small,meager.

20040302:I think that this question (and the others concerning the prefix) should be re-phrased as follows: Do you agree that within the context of the term 'Hinayana', Hina- is best translated as 'inferior' or 'low'?

20040302:I am very concerned with your assertion of how to translate.

20040302:First of all, I am not sure that we can accept the Pali Dictionary as a correct source, as most people agree that the Mahayana (and therefore Mahayana terms) originated in Sanskrit; the generally accepted dictionary is the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, where we find a translation for 'Hinayana', as :-

n. "simpler or lesser vehicle. Name of the earliest system of Buddhist doctrine (opp. to %{mahAyAna} ; see %{yAna}).".

20040302:If you continue to assert that we need to examine the -root- of each word, and translate every meaning simultanenously, then you will have to agree that as one of the meanings of 'Hina' is 'female mouse', so 'Hinayana' must also be translated simultanenously as "female mouse vehicle".

20040302:If you claim that the original word 'Hinayana' was coined in Pali, and not Sanskrit, then you will need to show a Pali source.

20040302:It appears that we definately differ regarding the issue of how to translate regarding dictionaries, and if we do differ on this, I suggest we call in a second opinion. Anyone else reading this?

Ah, firstly, Pali and Sanskrit are both dialect and "hina" means the same for both. Secondly, you only shown translation of "hinayana". Sanskrit translation of hina give you the same reslut as Pali. Secondly, there are indeed words which have "unrelated" multiple meaning. For example, the word "mean" could be interpretated as, (1)average (noun)(2)intent (verb) (3) hursh (adj). And the reason for this are often to do with the fact that each meaning are derived from different roots or words which ended up having the same spelling. It is absolutely correct to distinguish different meaning for different context. On the other hand, let see the translation of the word vile in dictionary.com. It say, loathsome, disgusting, unpleasant, objectionable, offensive, contemptibly low in worth or account, second-rate, of mean or low condition, miserably poor and degrading, wretched, morally depraved, ignoble or wicked. Now it would be incorrect for me to translate "vile" only as "second rate" in Japanese. In fact, only by knowing all these different meaning, one can comprehend the total nuance of the word "vile". And as far as Sanskrit and Pali usage of the word "hina" goes, it can't be simply translated as small. What people who know pali/sanskrit are saying is that hina is much derogetory meaning than small or inferior and it is clear from its root as well as how it is used in sanskrit literature even outside of buddhism as well as within. I have asked Pali/Sanskrit scholar on this. Translating hina as small is inaccurate translation. But I'm quite happy to state this as POV. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree that words require a pejorative context to be called pejorative?

FWBOarticle: No, the term such as N**** require no perjorative context to be recognised as perjorative, a point you keep missing.

20040302: Indeed, I do keep on missing this point, because I cannot accept it.

I don't have problem with the fact that you can't accept this interpretation. As I said, all is well as long as proper attribution is made. I can attribute it to Theravadan and (current) Mahayana shcools. Question is where would you attribute your view to? FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree that some words are objectively pejorative by nature?

FWBOarticle: If you mean by the word like "N****" or "Ho", yes.

20040302: It appears that you are asserting that words can have intrinsic properties. Interestingly, it appears you still have not read the article on wikipedia at 'N-word', which (and I quote) ... is almost always pejorative. Importantly, there is the word 'almost' in the quote. Secondly, if we read the article at pejorative, I can quote ... pejorative expressions may also be used in a non-pejorative way .... So, it appears that you have wikipedia to argue against, not just me. What do you say?

Yes, black may use N**** in self depricating way. Also no one (whether blacks or white) would deny that the word is intrinsicly projetive. However, it is possible to use such word in friendly manner. For example, my flatmate (an African) would call my friend (a Pakistani) "Yo, Paki" in which my pakistanin friend respond "Yo, N****". The point is that the word is indeed intrinsically projetive and they are friends enough to be rude to each other (and there is a bit of bonding thingy for both of them not being white.) And "hina" is intrinsicly derisive word to describe something. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree that according to Nikaya canon, Buddha was distinct from an Arhat?

FWBOarticle: A classic confusion. Buddha was an Arahat.

20040302:I wasn't asking whether or not Buddha was an Arhat. I was asking whether or not Buddha is distinct from an Arhat (I.E. a fully realised Sravaka). I suggest you read the Khandhasamyutta, which forms part of the Pali canon. It tells us clearly that the Buddha is distinct from a fully realised Sravaka, and also tells us how. But as you may not have a copy of the Pali canon at hand, let me help you. According to the Nikaya canon, the distinction between a Buddha and a fully realised Sravaka (called, in the canon, 'a bikkhu liberated by wisdom') is similar to the distinction between the original discoverer of any new concept and those who learn and understand the concept based upon the discoverer's teaching or notes. For instance, it is much easier to understand relativity now that Einstein has come up with the idea.

What makes Buddha distinct from the his followers is that he discovered it. I hope that you can see that this is a difference? Moreover, I hope you can see that, even though the final result may be the same, it is actually a superior achievement? (It is also why Buddhists take first refuge in Buddha).

20040302:As I can understand the confusion between an 'arhat' and a 'fully realised Sravaka' in my earlier questions, so I will restate them.

1Do you agree that the Nikaya canon accept Buddha was superior to the 'trainee Sravakas' when he was a bodhisattva?

2Do you agree that, within Nikaya canon, Bodhisattvas are considered to be superior to 'trainee Sravakas'?

3Do you agree that the Nikaya canon accept that 'trainee Sravakas' are inferior to Buddha when he was a bodhisattva?

Sure. That distinction is made. However, in mahayana, they further streched this distinction. "In very early Buddhist texts (such as the Dhammapada, or Sutta Nipata) an Arahant (ie one who has achieved the goal, is enlightened, completely liberated from suffering) is seen as second to the Buddha only in the sense that he led them to the goal. Their 'state' is ontologically undefinable, but is equivalent to that of the Buddha, ie both the Buddha and the Arahant have achieved Nirvana or final liberation. But even before the Mahayana came into being there were attempts to redefine the status of the Arahant as falling short of the goal, and capable of error. By the time the early Mahayana Sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, the Arahant is portrayed as conceited and stubborn. The Perfection of Wisdom sutras, which span the entire development of the Mahayana, portray Arahants such as Subhuti and Sariputra as being instructed by mythic Bodhisattvas, whereas the Pali suttas have these two being the ones giving instruction." The thing Mahayana made great deal was that Arahat lack ability to teach. Now, I think you agree that some physics professors are equally capable or even better at teaching the theory of relativity to students than Einsein. But by describing Arahat (professor) as conceited, stubborn and selfish who is only interested in own enlightenment (research), Mahayana implied that hinayana/Arahatship is incapalbe of leading people. Obviously, this logic is bit of a strech. So the idea of inferior/smaller vehicle is slander enough to Theravadan. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Nikaya/Hinayana tradition is the path to Arhathood, and that therefore Arhats are representative of the Nikaya/Hinayana?

FWBOarticle: That is the view held by Mahayana. And that is another pejorative claim. In Mahayanan definition, it is implied that Arahat (never mind that Buddah is an Arahat by definition) is not capable of leading other to enlightenment. Then obviously, hinayana schools cannot lead people to enlightenment. Theravadan school simply consider that their teaching produce Arahats (which include Buddah type) with different degree of teaching capability. Buddhism, by definition, is Arahathood. It consider that Mahayanan school spined/distorted the original meaning.

20040302: Once again, I shall restate the question as:

Do you agree that the Nikaya tradition is the path to 'fully realised Sravakahood' (which is Nirvana), and that therefore 'fully realised Sravakas' are representative of the Nikaya/Hinayana?

20040302:You are mistaken in your answer concerning the views of the Mahayana. The assertion you make is pretty much meaningless, as you point out. It would be more fair to say that the Mahayana agree with the Theravada regarding the distinction between a Buddha and a fully realised Sravaka - both of them have 'achieved' Nirvana, but a fully realised Sravaka depends upon the teachings of a Buddha, whereas a Buddha does not. I think everyone agrees that a fully realised Sravaka may enlighten others; however, it appears that within the Nikaya canon, Buddha has a special propensity (omniscience?) which was lacking in even his highest of students. For instance, 'little wayman'.

20040302:There are many differences of opinion on this, but I have yet to see (or hear of) a Mahayana monk being quoted as saying "Arahats are not capable of leading other to enlightenment".

"Arahats are not capable of leading other to enlightenment" yep, that is the problem. This Mahayana claim is absent in Pali scriptures. Theravadan are not disputing that Buddha was unique because he was the first. Problem is that, for Theravadan, this has nothing to do with Arahats leading the people. To add further, not all mahayanan school read sutras as if those are gospels.FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you agree that the training (or perfection) of wisdom is central to the Mahayana?

FWBOarticle: You mean attaining wisdom. Yes. Implying that the other school doesn't was a part of polemic.

20040302:FYI, No Mahayana ever said that the Sravakayana does not teach wisdom. It would be impossible to say that. Wisdom is the third of the three high trainings.

Then what is the point of making emphasis that perfection of wisdom is central to the Mahayana. Theravada aim to achieve arahathood. And once you are Arahat, you are supposed to have achieve the perfection of wisdom. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lastly, most Mahayanas schools no longer bothered with this great/big/superior vehicle issue which is 2000 years old polemic. They have moved on 1000 years ago. In fact, as your evidence/quotes suggest, Mahayanan moved on from the issue 1700 years ago. Well, 300-400 years is a looooong time afterall. It's bit silly if you think about it. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I seriously advice you to make comment immediately under mine. You somewhat prefer to copy my comment and make reply again. But it is absolutely pain to follow the debate. Even I have to go back to find out which comment of mine is made in response to yours. This debate is becoming nearly impossible for someone else to follow because it skips. I have made reply "immediately under" your comment so that you can easily identify which comment I'm respondint to. I strongly advice you to do the same. FWBOarticle 08:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Arguments that Hinayana is not pejorative

The definition of Hinayana is not merely that of what Buddhists believe today. Hinayana was coined for a purpose, by early Mahayanists. There remains an open debate as to whether or not the term was coined in a pejorative manner. The axis of this debate can be found in the archive. Sorry for the wipe/purge but we were going way too far off. This isn't a internet forum. It is my view that we have gone quite far off from the main Wikepedia policy. that is "the aim is not to write articles from a single objective point of view — this is a common misunderstanding of the policy — but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way."

It is an error to delete someone elses comments in Wikipedia - you can be banned for doing that. I have archived the old talk. Regardless, I disagree with your stance, and also with your action. (20040302)

Oh, sorry about that, I'm new(ish) and I have assumed that restriction on text size mean the people have to constantly re-edit their comments. I won't do it again. FWBOarticle

We seems to agree on few thing

Mahayana consier path of Arahat to be path of enlightenment. Linguistically translating hina as small isn't correct. There is Culla which just means small. Usage of hina in Pali and Sanskrit are inferior/mean/base/bad and so on.

The rest, just make sure to POVs are attrbuted in the correct way. Bye. FWBOarticle 02:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am interested in uncovering fact, not merely stating POV. I identify your actions of deleting my arguments without discussion as being the act of a poor loser. (20040302 04:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC))

or a sign that someone is mature enough to avoid flaming. (^_^) FWBOarticle

No flame at all.. You persist in not answering my arguments, and merely re-asserting your position, without any strong line of reasoning.

Anyway, my reply was going to be in line of something like, something could be "valid", "inferior" and "pejorative" at the same time. Black/Negro/African/N***** may point to the same thing. Most would accept that Black/African culture/language/art/music to be equally valid as, say, Caucasian one. One might still consider "tribal" nature of African culture to be "backward" (inferior), and obviously using "N*****" to refer to black/african would be perojative. What is important is how each words are used. Just because Mahayana accept "path of Arahat" to be valid is not sufficient reason to accept the term "hinayana" to be non pejorative.

Well, Indeed. As you say, terms must be taken into context. We are given plenty of guidance in Nikaya (as well as Mahayana) literature that the prefix 'hina-' is used merely to classify groups of people according to their capabilities.. Do you really think that Buddha was insulting the 'hina-' class of people? See below for an expansion of this thought.

I can continue this debate. However, I realised that it is not conductive to the purpose of this site. The purpose of this site is to present different views with proper attribution. Trying to assert one particular view over another as truth is not what this site is about. There are plenty of internet forum for this kind of thing. As fun as this debate has been, this type of debate should be carried out somewhere else. If you started a thread elsewhere, let me know. I will be happy to get involved. FWBOarticle 20:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arguments that Hinayana is pejorative

Etymology

1) Hinayana cannot mean just small vehicle in sanskrit. Pali/Sanskrit word for small is "Cuula". The word, hina, is from the root , hā: to cast off, discard, shun. Hina means inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned. Hence small is only derivertive implication.. While it is possible to use hinayana in cotext of vile/inferior/poor vehicle without meaning small vehicle, the reverse does not work.

Please read my comments a little more carefully! I have said this single point at least twice before: It remains the case that I am asserting that the most appropriate translation of hina- in the context of hinayana is 'inferior', or 'low', not 'small', and also certainly not 'vile', 'bad', 'base', etc. (In fact, 'bad' is never a good translation of 'hina-', though you seem to favour it). I am asserting that such an interpretation is mistaken and is done so on the basis of bad reason and poor evidence. So far I have seen nothing that counters my assertions.

Etymology: 'bad' versus 'inferior'

2) In his famous first sermon recorded in Tripitaka, Buddha says: "These two extremes, monks, are not to be practised by one who has gone forth from the world. What are the two? That conjoined with the passions and luxury, low (hiina), coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful ...". The usage is exactly the same in Mahayana version in Lalitavistara. In Tripitaka, hina is always used in combination of hiina-majjhima-pa.niita, that is: bad - medium - good but never as small. In Mahayanan Mahayanasutralankara, Asanga says: "There are three groups of people: hiina-madhyama-vishishta ...(bad – medium – excellent)."

NOT 'bad'. NOT!! 'Inferior', yes. 'Low', yes, even 'poor', yes. 'Bad'... NO!

Actually, 'Low', 'Middle', and 'High' (or 'Inferior', 'Middling', 'Superior') (or 'Poor', 'Average', 'Excellent') is a more appropriate way of translating these assertions, - just as the way in which teachers classify the intelligence of students in education. When a modern teacher classifies a group of children of being inferior, or low, or poor intelligence, she is not using this in a pejorative sense - The stance is not politically motivated, but merely indicates the differing qualities of the individuals concerned. This is an essential point that you seem not to grasp.

If you agree that such an approach is not pejorative, then you can also agree that the Mahayana school can also use the same distinction in a non-pejorative stance, to talk about the qualities of practitioner, just as Buddha does in the Nikaya sutra mentioned above!

If you disagree that such an approach is not pejorative, then you are saying that teachers are being pejorative when they classify the capabilities of their students. Which one? I am curious!

The current western academic approach (that you seem to back) concerning the term 'Hinayana' appears to be that there was an early split between the Nikaya and the Mahayana traditions which was both divisive and politically motivated, but I deny this, on the basis that the only substantial evidence seems to be extracted from asserting that the categorisation of capabilities is a value judgement that is purposely pejorative, rather than merely descriptive, that there is no scriptural evidence to support a schism, (and much evidence to detract the theory), there is no archeological or historical evidence to support it, and that even the etymological basis is, at best, very weak indeed.

Non-pejorative interpretation oh 'Hinayana' as solely 'Tibetan'

The root vows of the bodhisattva (as implied by Asanga, and spelled out by Candragomin) insist that the Bodhisattva must not criticize or even de-emphasise the (Hinayana/Nikaya) Buddhist tradition. It is very hard to argue your case that this is:

1. Solely tibetan, when such vows were encoded in Sanskrit around the 4th Century CE. (Well before Tibet became Buddhist)
2. That the term Hinayana is pejorative, when the root vows as indicated in the Yogacaryabhumi (Asanga) explicitly prohibit the Bodhisattva from adopting a pejorative stance towards the Nikaya/Hinayana schools. This is interesting, in that the early Mahayana obviously saw the necessity to make sure that the relationship towards Nikaya was peaceful and non-elitist, but reinforces the argument that the term Hinayana was to be used in a classificatory, rather than pejorative stance (as you yourself argue).

Asanga is the basis of what it is that you call the 'Tibetan' recension of the Hinayana interpretation. There is no doubt that the middle and late Indian Mahayana tradition specifically and explicitly denied any pejorative stance toward the Arhat paths, schools and texts. Candragomin wrote a 20 verse summary of Asanga's Ethics chapter of the Bodhisattvabhumi, that was key to the Chinese, (as well as Indian, and then later the Tibetan) Mahayana traditions.

So the idea that the non-pejorative stance of Hinayana is solely Tibetan is extremely poorly based. We find Candragomin's 15th Verse (derived from Asanga's chapter on ethics) saying:

Rejecting the Sravakayana

As being a root downfall of the Bodhisattva vow, which destroys the practice of the perfection of Wisdom. As I argued before, we find plenty of evidence to suggest that the development of the Mahayana tradition was not a schism, but rather an extension of the Buddhist tradition, and was so from a very early date.

Sutra sources

3) Use of the term Hinayana in Mahanayan sutras. VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA Run Text Find with "hinayana" Lotus Sura Run text find with "lesser"

I don't deny the use of the term Hinayana in sutra - what I deny is that it is used in a pejorative sense. It is used as a means of classifying students into lower and higher capabilities. (Or, inferior and superior capabilities).

Actually, it is clear even within Nikaya sutra that the Bodhisattva is considered to be superior to the Arhat. The distinction made between Nikaya and Mahayana is whether or not Buddha explicitly taught the Bodhisattva path. (The Nikaya deny it, the Mahayana assert it) - neither group denies that Buddha taught the Bodhisattva path implicitly - (no school denies that Buddha was not previously a Bodhisattva!)

Um...

Is "categorative" a word? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Haha! Good Question. Google returns the Hinayana article as the first link to the word, so I guess it is a neologism, synonymous with classificatory. Time for a find/replace! .. Done. (20040302)

Hehehe. (^_^). FWBOarticle

I rewrote the entire article. Hopefully, my attribution of view is more netural. I do confess that I ripped off lot from other Wikepedia articles. Feel free to correct my Engrish. FWBOarticle 11:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)