[vqIo7X2U]

What does "Hinayana" mean?

Hīnayāna (हीनयान) is a Sanskrit and Pāli term literally meaning: the "Deficient Vehicle", the "Abandoned Vehicle", or the "Defective Vehicle". The term appeared around the 1st or 2nd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana
and an article here:

The myth of Hinayana

Kåre A. Lie

"In the centuries around the birth of Christ there was a radical development going on in Buddhism. A new school was born, and its adherents called it Mahayana. How this new school differed from the earlier schools, can be found in any history of Buddhism. Here we will concentrate on one of the results of this schism: the term Hinayana."

continued :

http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm

also :

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.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html

[Mr Andrews]

Is this term still in use? Yes, we can see it used here:



"But in order to break from samsara, it is necessary to understand samsara. That is what the arhats have done, those who have completed the Hinayana path of personal liberation. Those of us within samsara would view them as incredible, heroic beings, because they have dared to look at samsara fully. They have not just dared to leave it; they have dared to stop and really see what is going on. It takes tremendous courage to do that, because when we look at samsara we are looking at ourselves-it's hard not to take it too personally. It takes a strong mind, a courageous mind, to look at samsara and say, "I will learn this lesson. I will not flinch. I won't try to manipulate it. I will just look at it."

However, from the point of view of the Mahayana, the path of the bodhisattva, the arhats are taking only a small step. Certainly it is a heroic step, like the first step of a child, and a very important step that one has to take. But it is still said to be only a small step towards liberation.

The bodhisattva is different from the Hinayana practitioner in several ways. First, the understanding of truth, of reality, is very different in the Mahayana. According to the bodhisattva, the Mahayana teachings are the real words of the Buddha. Because of the students' capacity the Buddha mostly taught Hinayana-and very sensibly so, because people were suffering-but he also asked, "Do you just want a release from suffering, or do you want to understand the truth?"

When we get to Mahayana, it is the truth. The truth of the Mahayana is the most profound truth there is. When the Buddha-the one who sees the whole of the truth-speaks, he speaks about emptiness and luminosity, form and emptiness, emptiness and form. As practitioners, we find ourselves going back and forth between Hinayana and Mahayana view.

The other key aspect that separates Mahayana from Hinayana is motivation. The Hinayana practitioner feels the pain of samsara and says, "I can't take it anymore. What can I do about it?" And having understood what samsara is, we can all sympathize with the Hinayana practitioner. It is a worthy approach. We are not belittling it.

But the Mahayana practitioner takes a much more radical approach. The Mahayana practitioner wakes up one morning and realizes, "Sentient beings from endless time have been roaming in samsara." Here, we not only understand the pain of samsara and how we have been involved in it; we are also able to see what samsara is doing to all sentient beings."

source:

http://shambhala-europe.org/index.php?id=1423

[HunterM]

Now I can undersand the why of that sense of pride and superiority of Mahayanism.

What does "Hinayana" mean? From what has been quoted... seems to mean an inferior level of achievment.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

The term "Hinayana" is used often in Mahayana sutras and is also used by Mahayana authors, such as Red Pine and ZM Seung Sahn, among others. Of course, it seen as a derogatory term, fairly so. It's probably best to put it in the "sticks and stones" category and let it go. There is plenty of sect bashing that goes both ways. On this forum, Mahayana Buddhism was described as "speculative". Try to start a conversation about Bodhisatva's among Theravadan practitioners and watch the sect bashing fire up. It's probably better to focus on the commonalities (which are much greater) than the differences. But, I will admit that is not as fun.

Round and round...

[Cogebrego]

When one gets into the teachings of the historical Buddha (the discourses of the main Nikaayas), into what the Buddha really taught, one can find both or neither: the Bodhisatva and the Arahat. So there is no need to get meshed with the presumptuous achievement of the "glorious Bodhisatva" who in contrast looks, with a hint of contempt, "at the barren Arahat" when one follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. Traditions understood as quoted in the OP are the same as "me", "I" and "mine"... of course, in a subtle way.

You must know that the Buddha spoke of just one thing and nothing else: dukkha (pain, dissatisfaction) and the quenching of dukkha. The Buddha taught only the disease and the cure of the disease; he didn't talk about anything else. When people asked questions about other matters, the Buddha refused to waste his or their time with such things. Nowadays, we spend our time studying all kinds of other things. It's a pity how our curiosity is aroused by matters such as: After death, will I be born again? Where will I be reborn? How will it happen? Please don't waste your time on those things. Instead of reading lots of books, take what time you have to focus on dukkha and the complete, utter quenching of dukkha. This is the knowledge to store up, this is the studying to do. Don't bother studying anything else!

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

[Smabeabumjess]

The term "Hinayana" is used often in Mahayana sutras and is also used by Mahayana authors, such as Red Pine and ZM Seung Sahn, among others.

...another Appeal to Tradition here...?


Of course, it seen as a derogatory term, fairly so. It isn't just seen as a derogatory term, it is a derogatory term. Nowhere is it used that is not sect-bashing and derogatory.

It's probably best to put it in the "sticks and stones" category and let it go. And allow a derisive lie to proliferate further. Doesn't seem like such a great idea. Especially coming from a so-called "mahayanaist" (the other half of the derisive lie). Rather like a Caucasion suggesting that African-Americans simply ignore their use of the word "nigger'.


There is plenty of sect bashing that goes both ways. On this forum, Mahayana Buddhism was described as "speculative". That is not "sect bashing". That is a simple statement of fact, pointed out in reference to specific doctrines or beliefs that are clearly speculative and/or superstitious.

Try to start a conversation about Bodhisatva's among Theravadan practitioners and watch the sect bashing fire up. Again pointing out the differences between what the Buddha taught and what various sects have devolved to is not "sect bashing". "Hinayana" is sect-bashing from start to finish.

It's probably better to focus on the commonalities (which are much greater) than the differences. ...are they much greater, really? I am not convinced. Better to focus on what the Buddha taught (we are supposedly Buddhists, right?), rather than trying to herd the cats of the various sects who ignore his teachings.


But, I will admit that is not as fun.

Round and round... How "fun" is it, really? Looks more like dukkha to me...

[Caregrasy]

rather than trying to herd the cats of the various sects who ignore his teachings.

...or worse stuka, those who, knowing them, look down on the [Buddha] teachings because of holding the ones of their "tradition". We know... the appellatives of "the greater vehicle, the needed further elaboration, it was not clearly enough, it was not well exposed", and the like...

[Lerpenoaneway]

Indeed, Kaarine.

[ENGINESSQ]

'Hinayana' is in the eye of the beholder

[marketheal]

...another Appeal to Tradition here...?




It isn't just seen as a derogatory term, it is a derogatory term. Nowhere is it used that is not sect-bashing and derogatory.



And allow a derisive lie to proliferate further. Doesn't seem like such a great idea. Especially coming from a so-called "mahayanaist" (the other half of the derisive lie). Rather like a Caucasion suggesting that African-Americans simply ignore their use of the word "nigger'.




That is not "sect bashing". That is a simple statement of fact, pointed out in reference to specific doctrines or beliefs that are clearly speculative and/or superstitious.



Again pointing out the differences between what the Buddha taught and what various sects have devolved to is not "sect bashing". "Hinayana" is sect-bashing from start to finish.



...are they much greater, really? I am not convinced. Better to focus on what the Buddha taught (we are supposedly Buddhists, right?), rather than trying to herd the cats of the various sects who ignore his teachings.




How "fun" is it, really? Looks more like dukkha to me...

No worries, Stuka. I know your stance very well. Unfortunately, what we think of as the "truth" is usually just a view. I was just offering a different view. Please feel free to disregard it.

Keith

[hitaEtela]

When one gets into the teachings of the historical Buddha (the discourses of the main Nikaayas), into what the Buddha really taught, one can find both or neither: the Bodhisatva and the Arahat. So there is no need to get meshed with the presumptuous achievement of the "glorious Bodhisatva" who in contrast looks, with a hint of contempt, "at the barren Arahat" when one follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. Traditions understood as quoted in the OP are the same as "me", "I" and "mine"... of course, in a subtle way.

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Keith

[C7JjVczP]

No worries, Stuka. I know your stance very well

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Hi Keith,

No offence intended friend, but it might be worthwhile remembering that this is BWB's Theravada forum that you're posting in !


with kind wishes,

Aloka-D

[reaciciomarep]

No worries, Stuka. I know your stance very well. Unfortunately, what we think of as the "truth" is usually just a view. I was just offering a different view. Please feel free to disregard it.

Keith

Which is why we are advised by the Buddha to investigate rather than speaking and acting out of ignorance, such as parroting harsh words because our guru told us that it is OK becaise the Buddha's teachings of liberation are inferior to his own, and that those a who look to the Buddha's teachings are inferior.

[JAMES PIETERSE]

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Keith

OK, let say yes... If one takes a honest try it can be seen that the teachings of the historical Buddha are about that many useful teachings. Indeed the historical Buddha teachings include all them. The problem I have seen with people attached and entangled into their tradition is that the teachings of the historical Buddha do not offer them amusement of mind... adornments, rites, and the such...

The other important issue with traditions is how far away are from what the Buddha taught and they tell themselves "Buddhism" when what has to be said is "Mahayanism", "Theravadism", "Tibetanism", "Chinese Zen", "Lamanism" and the like... Then it is right to say that there are many other useful teachings because they surely are for themselves, in their own right.

If one believes in Rebirth... say it! But please, do not come and say... the Buddha taught it because that is dishonest. Do not hide behind the Buddha to tell that. Many useless discussions can be avoid if one states "I believe in Rebirth and I was taught about it by the Tibetan Religion.

The problem comes when, like in the case of the best sellers of Thich, for example, he tells people that the Buddha taught that Consciousness is the root of Fabrications and is an Alaya with seeds of Consciousness, when explaining the Aggregates, and when you go deeply into the teachings of the historical Buddha you do not find such things. The Buddha never told that... Do not say the Buddha told that... It is better to say that Thich told that, and then there will be no problem. Each one will be at peace with her or his particular teacher.

The only common language that can put together traditions is around what the Buddha taught. If Mahayana and Theravada and Zen all are teaching Not Self as taught by the historical Buddha, then we can talk about Buddhism, and, paradoxically, there will be no need for Mahayana, Theravada or Zen.

Also, to be hooked into the particular view of such and such tradition leads us into fundamentalisms...

As in the quote you selected from the [my] post... to think that the Boddhisatva is the only way to be compassionate toward others and deny the achievements of the Arahat... or the other way... that is fundamentalism... To know the teachings of the historical Buddha well enough, deeply and mastering them will... one day... vanish in our heart the need to be meshed into a particular tradition... to leave it in a secondary site and its proper place and to go toward the goal: The cessation of suffering; deliverance of mind.

[sauppyshurb]

There are many useful teachings, Kaarine. No reason to take a fundamentalist approach and throw them all away because they aren't contained in a certain book.

Keith

Wow, the ad homs fly...

The idea of "fundamentalism" originated as a description of bastardizations of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth into right-wing political movements that had nothing at all to do with what Jesus of Nazareth taught.

"Because they are not contained in a certain book" is a red herring. we do not reject these things merely because "they aren't in a certain book". We reject them because we have investigated them and found them to be unskilful, inauthentic, and false.

The Buddha taught:

7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. [37] Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
What you are claiming directly contradicts the Buddha's teaching.

[Affiltavajefe]

Well said, Kaarine.

[soitlyobserty]

Thank you for your replies folks. I will respect the fact that this is the "Theravada" forum and I won't push the issue. If I have caused you any trouble, please accept my apology.

Good luck,
Keith

[RotsLoado]

If I have caused you any trouble, please accept my apology.

No need to apologise Keith... there is no trouble at all.

[ananciguinter]

Thank you for your replies folks. I will respect the fact that this is the "Theravada" forum and I won't push the issue.

You've already hung it out there, and the delusion remains a delusion whether you "push the issue" or not.

[Lymneterfeiff]

You've already hung it out there, and the delusion remains a delusion whether you "push the issue" or not.

Yes sir, you are correct. And that was my mistake. Thank you for pointing out my delusion.