[cheaploans]

I will comment on the use of the term "Hinayana."

I still think it is a problem of symantec's and wording, but one teacher from the Sakya lineage preferred to translate it as "root vehicle". It was actually part of a teaching in which he discussed that especially for one who considers themselves a Mahayana practitioner it is nonsense to look upon this term with anything other than the highest respect. A tree needs a strong root, and many miss the point that this kind of foundation is very important.

Case in point, even monks in the Tibetan lineages must first and foremost take the "individual liberation vow"- which comes from the "so-called" Hinayana. In a text of a teaching given by a prominent Gelug lama in the 20's, he clearly lays out why it is considered "disparaging the teachings" to have a narrow view of the "so-called" Hinayana. I would like to take the time to find it and then post it here. It may clarify things for some people.

In his Madhyamakavatara, Chandrakirti even holds the Arhat in a higher view than one who has not yet achieved (I think) the seventh Bodhisattva level (Bhumi).

Unfortunately for a lot of Mahayana practitioners, they tend to separate the vehicles- one being better then the other for example, and this is not good. But I have seen the reverse on numerous occasions too. On both sides of the coin, I always try to remind and promote a better attitude towards all traditions and vehicles.

I think the more we ingrain our own beliefs and judgements, the further away we are from our goal as Buddhists...



Terma