[mensforyouthis]

From page 8:


2. Two Dhammas taught by Lord Buddha, which lead to welfare and
happiness

Gentle speech and courtesy (sākhalyañca paṭisanthāro in Sangiti Sutta, Digha Nikaya) are
two Dhammas taught by the Buddha that lead to welfare & happiness. They are universal
qualities esteemed by wise people of all religion, race and creed, because they promote
mutual respect, harmony and peace among mankind.

So it is ironic that there are Buddhist teachers today, who don’t use polite words when
referring to the Conservative schools, but still label them “Hinayana”, a derogatory term that will hurt the feelings of its followers. Yet these teachers go around preaching compassion, kindness and peace to everybody but act with disdain towards their co-religionists of the Conservative schools for no other reason than the fact that the latter followed the Arahantship ideal taught by Lord Buddha and did not accept their new doctrine!


3. Discard derogatory term ‘Hinayana’ to promote Harmony and Unity

In Akkosa Sutta of Samyutta 7. 2, Lord Buddha shows the proper way to respond to insults,not by keeping silent, but by teaching the abuser thus: “In the same way, brahmin, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahmin. It's all yours.”

“Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahmin. It's all yours."

All Buddhists are advised to stop using the term “Hinayana”, a false derogatory term, which
is defamatory. Today, information is so easily and freely available that it is ironic there are
still modern writers and speakers who continue to use this term “Hinayana” when referring to the early Conservative schools. These writers and speakers may not have any intention to be derogatory. But they did not stop to consider that the use of such language might hurt the feelings of devotees of the Conservative schools. They simply followed what their own teachers or writers had said or written without verifying the meaning.

.
.

[giturbewan]

Hi Aloka,

While I agree that the term Hinayana should be dropped, I notice that the booklet's authors indulge in some fairly blatant sectarian propaganda of their own -- in particular, they trot out the highly disputable claim that the Mahasanghikas (precursors of the Mahayana) were the first group to split from the unified sangha, and that the Sthaviras (proto-Theravadins) represented "the original sangha from which the other schools seceded".

In actuality, many scholars now believe it was the Sthaviras who broke away, due to a dispute over vinaya rules. Also, contrary to the authors' claim on page 11, the Buddha's language was not Pali.

[Singukil]

While I agree that the term Hinayana should be
dropped....

Absolutely, LazyEye. It is an unnecessary and pejorative term which is still used both offline and online.

..... I notice that the booklet's authors indulge in some fairly blatant sectarian propaganda of their own-- in particular, they trot out the highly disputable claim that the Mahasanghikas (precursors of the Mahayana) were the first group to split from the unified sangha, and that the Sthaviras (proto-Theravadins) represented "the original sangha from which the other schools seceded".

From a different source - the respected Access to Insight website where we are able to read Pali Canon suttas online :

100 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins.

At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism, which would come to dominate Buddhism in northern Asia (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea).

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html

[DoniandaCoado]

Access to Insight is wonderful, I agree, but the author here is uncritically repeating a sectarian myth. Theravadin, Sarvastivadin and Mahayana sources have differing (and equally self-serving) accounts of what exactly happened at the Second Council. Scholarly examination, though, has yielded the consensus that the Mahasanghika Vinaya was the more orthodox, with the Sthaviran version containing additions and deviations.

If you're interested, there's a discussion of the whole convoluted story in Andrew Skilton's "A Concise History of Buddhism," pages 47-49. Here's a link to the relevant section.

The problems posed by these contradictory accounts may be solved by a Mahasanghika text, preserved in Chinese translation, called the Sariputrapariprccha. It is the earliest surviving account of the schism to have been compiled, and it describes this Council in a rather different light. This text is concerned with a debate over matters of Vinaya, and explains that the schism resulted from the greater party (later to become the Mahasangha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the smaller party (later to become the Sthaviras)...

It could be objected that this is only another partisan account of the first Schism, but at least we can see that the Theravada and the Mahasangha are both agreed that there was a dispute concerning the observance of the Vinaya, the only basis technically possible for sanghabeda. Its story is supported by the fact that the Vinayas affiliated to the Sthaviras do contain more rules than the Mahasanghika Vinaya, and it is generally agreed that the Mahasanghika Vinaya is the oldest. Theravada as a distinct school got its start around the time of King Asoka, and it picked up state sponsorship. It seems there were purges of monks from other sects, and no doubt certain parts of early Buddhist history were retrofitted to make them favor Theravada's claims to greater authenticity.

[Yb4bulVR]

Hi Aloka,

While I agree that the term Hinayana should be dropped, I notice that the booklet's authors indulge in some fairly blatant sectarian propaganda of their own -- in particular, they trot out the highly disputable claim that the Mahasanghikas (precursors of the Mahayana) were the first group to split from the unified sangha, and that the Sthaviras (proto-Theravadins) represented "the original sangha from which the other schools seceded".

"Highly disputable"...? -- Perhaps it is seen as such in circles where it is advantageous to claim it as such.

In actuality, many scholars now believe it was the Sthaviras who broke away, due to a dispute over vinaya rules. Also, contrary to the authors' claim on page 11, the Buddha's language was not Pali.
What scholars believe this, and on what evidence? "Many scholars believe..." sound a whole lot like "studies show...", which is usually the precurser to a big fat whopper.

[Lictimind]

Access to Insight is wonderful, I agree, but the author here is uncritically repeating a sectarian myth.

On what evidence are you basing this assertion?

Theravadin, Sarvastivadin and Mahayana sources have differing (and equally self-serving) accounts of what exactly happened at the Second Council. Scholarly examination, though, has yielded the consensus that the Mahasanghika Vinaya was the more orthodox, with the Sthaviran version containing additions and deviations. About the Mahasanghikas:

The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the fallibility of arhats.[14] They held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principle levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt. saṃvṛti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt. paramārtha) truth.[14] For the Mahāsaṃghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words", and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma.[15]

A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the buddhas is unlimited."[16] According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through skillful means.[17] For the Mahāsaṃghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha is equated with the Dharmakāya.[18] This is hardly an "orthodox view", and hardly in line with the Buddha's teachings.


If you're interested, there's a discussion of the whole convoluted story in Andrew Skilton's "A Concise History of Buddhism," pages 47-49. Here's a link to the relevant section.


The problems posed by these contradictory accounts may be solved by a Mahasanghika text The proto-mahayana "mahasanghika" are hardly an unbiased source.

Theravada as a distinct school got its start around the time of King Asoka, and it picked up state sponsorship. It seems there were purges of monks from other sects, and no doubt certain parts of early Buddhist history were retrofitted to make them favor Theravada's claims to greater authenticity. That is merely your own conjecture.

[Goksiodiffeli]

Andrew Skilton's "A Concise History of Buddhism" Andrew Skilton also known as 'Sthiramati' appears as though additionally he might be a Mahayana author .

[cinggooft]

Seems he is ex-FWBO. Not sure where that puts him in terms of the Mahayana-Theravada divide. Plus, of course, a scholar's choice of religious practice doesn't necessarily affect the validity of his/her scholarship.

His name came up here on BWB a few months ago:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...mer-FWBO/page2

If I'm not mistaken, the major work on this topic was by Jan Nattier and Charles Prebish, and Skilton is probably referencing them.

[RogerButton33]

review of "A Concise History of Buddhism" from Amazon.com:
By
Eric Van Horn (Colchester, VT United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: A Concise History of Buddhism (Hardcover)
I have a great respect for books, and I have at least as much respect for the Buddha Dharma, so it shocks even me to say that in my entire life I have only thrown away one book - and I mean into the trash - and this is it. One of the dark aspects of Buddhism is the pejorative way in which the Mahayanna traditions of Buddhism - Zen and Tibetan Buddhism - treat their Theravadan brothers. This book is full of just such treatment. For example, at one point in the book, the author states that one school of Theravadan Buddhism emphasized the four "Brahma Viharas" (the "noble qualities" of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity), even though - as he puts it - "there is no canonical evidence to support such a practice." This is simply not true. The Pali Sutthas are full of discourses on the Brahma Viharas. At one point they state that in a previous lifetime, the Buddha "became one with Brahma" by practicing the Brahma Viharas. This is just one modest example of the completely misleading way in which this book is written, and it doesn't begin to capture the negative tone it has toward Theravadan Buddhism. If you want to learn Buddhist history, do not read this book. It will give you a completely misguided impression of what that history really is. It is primarily Mahayana propaganda.
Yeah...

[oraltyrap]

my opinion is the Mahayana & Hinayana dichotomy is valid, despite many who claim to be Mahayana not understanding it

Mahayanans that run around urging others to practise, meditate, realise emptiness, etc, are just Hinayanists

Mahayana is to impart great love upon others in a tantric (Vajrayana) relationship, such as the Dalai Lama and Ajahn Brahm do, where people feel greatly loved & healed in their presence

where as Hinayana is the traditional teaching of the Buddha, where one "points the way" to others so others can practise the path in self-reliance

Mahayana vs Hinayana particularly exists in Christianity, where Catholicism is more Hinayana and Protestant/Evangelism is more Mahayana

imo, Hinayana is to encourage self-reliance as refuge whereas Mahayana is to encourage a personal loving relationship with the loving guru as refuge

regards

[RorieSorNearop]

That is an interesting twist, interpretation and take on the issue Element .... not sure I agree with you about several of the points you raise. It is really good to read a new idea about what seems to me to be really old news though - as always, thanks.

[ppaelkos]

It is really good to read a new idea about what seems to me to be really old news though

Hi Andy,

The booklet in the OP was written last month.

Its also worth noting that in spite of complaints and observations regarding the use of this term being "really old news'.... it still goes on being used in Vajrayana.

I can give links to Kagyu, Shambala ("a union of the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages" ) and Rigpa sources as required. I've no doubt a google search will show its use in the other 2 Tibetan schools also.

Kind regards,

Aloka

[tpdirorg]

No doubt, some people hold on tight - don't they? Fortunately, I do not hear the term used, at all - although I do see it online, in publications first written pre 1990 and in current forums and I will be raising Element's creative twist with my little circle, who know me well and understand my intent - I like the fact that by his definitions I could be considered in both camps - a comfortable spot for me if I allowed labels to define me at all.

[elektikakass]

No doubt, some people hold on tight - don't they? Fortunately, I do not hear the term used, at all - although I do see it online, in publications first written pre 1990 and in current forums
Try looking for transcripts of teachings by well known tulkus after 1990.

I heard the term used offline up until I stopped going to Tibetan centres in the the 2000's.

You can also find the term used on the regularly updated websites of lineages and specific teachers.

[MineOffedOvex]

I do not doubt it, although I also do not have any interest in looking for evidence of the same. My point was that anything I have any interest in since 1990 does not have such references unless in context ... I really like Element's take though and will be able to discuss, albeit on skype, shortly

[9mm_fan]

Can we agree that the inadequacy of language to grasp the reality of experience is ineffable? And it seems by Element's suppositions, I am both Hinayana as well as Mahayana, which kinda proves it, yeah?

[Klissineopar]

Can we agree that the inadequacy of language to grasp the reality of experience is ineffable?

.... ermm.....I'm really sorry but I'm afraid you've completely lost me there on the relevance of that comment to my previous post, or to the OP, Andy, lol !

[somamasoso]

Just delete the comments please, then ... it is not important.

[JulieSmithXIV]

review of "A Concise History of Buddhism" from Amazon.com:

By
Eric Van Horn (Colchester, VT United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: A Concise History of Buddhism (Hardcover)
I have a great respect for books, and I have at least as much respect for the Buddha Dharma, so it shocks even me to say that in my entire life I have only thrown away one book - and I mean into the trash - and this is it. One of the dark aspects of Buddhism is the pejorative way in which the Mahayanna traditions of Buddhism - Zen and Tibetan Buddhism - treat their Theravadan brothers. This book is full of just such treatment. For example, at one point in the book, the author states that one school of Theravadan Buddhism emphasized the four "Brahma Viharas" (the "noble qualities" of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity), even though - as he puts it - "there is no canonical evidence to support such a practice." This is simply not true. The Pali Sutthas are full of discourses on the Brahma Viharas. At one point they state that in a previous lifetime, the Buddha "became one with Brahma" by practicing the Brahma Viharas. This is just one modest example of the completely misleading way in which this book is written, and it doesn't begin to capture the negative tone it has toward Theravadan Buddhism. If you want to learn Buddhist history, do not read this book. It will give you a completely misguided impression of what that history really is. It is primarily Mahayana propaganda.

Yeah... Hardly. As other Amazon.com readers have pointed out, Eric Van Horn misquotes and misrepresents Skilton's work.

Here is what Skilton actually wrote about the Brahma Viharas:

"The Theravadin School developed a rather austere orthodoxy, epitomized in the works of the 5th century scholastic Buddhagohosa, especially in his Visuddhi-magga, which on a theoretical level tends to exclude doctrines and practices incompatible with its preferred preoccupations. An example of this exclusion might be the meditational practices called the brahma-viharas, which in its Abhidamma and commentarial literature are relegated to an ancillary function only, whereas its own canon records instances which substantially refute this role. Canonical passages frequently contain editorial additions "demoting" the brahma-viharas but, where parallel texts survive from the Mahasanghika canon, it is interesting to note that the latter did not feel any need to qualify such practices in that way."

Also, Skilton is not (or was not, at the time the book was published) a Mahayana Buddhist -- he was until recently part of FWBO/Triratna, which is ecumenical in its approach.

[imawlBoli]

Just delete the comments please, then ... it is not important.

Hello again Andy,

You are able to edit or delete your own posts within 12 hours of posting them.

If you remember Woodscooter also mentioned this 3 days ago and gave all the details in his post "Deletes" in the Technical Help forum.

Thanks

My apologies for the interruption - and back to topic again