Talk:Hinayana/Archive 3

• Talk:Hinayana/Original Article Sandbox Original Article
• Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox Proposed Article

What happened, and why

Below is the proposed revised article. I have moved it to here, as it needs substantial copy-editing. I agree with the structure of the article in principle. FWBO, please don't revert. I have agreed to work with the new article, but I disagree with some of the content as completely erroneous, and most of it needs a lot of copy-editing. Maybe the proto-article should go to a new page.. Anyone with experience know about this? (20040302 13:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Well, I first agree my article makes it looks like there was Theravadan teaching (sutra) first then Mahayanan added/edited/distorted that teaching in their favour. From Mahayanan perspective, Nikaya as well as Mahayana sutra were revealed by Buddah and Mahayana sutras actually contain higher principle. Only that Pali Cannons were committed in "writing" first (which is several hundreds years after Buddah's death) but all those sutras existed equally, which is Mahayana position. Secondly, I do admit that my knowledge of three path principle is grossly insufficient and Tibetan interpretation of meaning of Hinayana within Mahayanan literature should definitely be explain by more than few sentnecess. Unfortunately, Tsongkhapa article in Wikipediat is grossly short (and turned out to be a copy from other website). Maybe you could work on that article. That would be a definite contribution. I do grant that in "path to liberation" section, my emphasis is much more in line with Oriental Mahayanan interpretation which place emphasis on the "intent" of the practioner. With this interpretation, Hinayana simply become a sect different from Mahayana and it is impossible for mahayanan to follow hinayanan path at the same time. Obviously this is not Tibetan reading of Mahayanan tradition which consider hinayana as practice which mahayanan can follow. It is likely that sutras support both interpretation. Probably, the best course is to present different interpretation which place emphasis on different aspect of hinayana path. Also, I have left discussion of Sutras until Nikaya but this is also confusing because of overlap of meaning. Nikaya schools can be characterised by their Pali Cannons but Hinayana Buddhism in term of Mahayanan is much more about the attitude of these schools rather than what Sutra they picked.

Can you list part of contents which you disagree and explain to me why? It is more likely that both you and my contents will be included with attribution as opposing/alternative/complementary POV. FWBOarticle 19:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another thing I think some improvement can be made is Nikaya section. I think just to characterise Hinayana sect as school which follow Pali cannon is insufficient. Hinayana sect also stand for conservatisim. It may be wise to trace the origin of Nikaya schools to the Split in the second council.　FWBOarticle

Ah there is a bit of problem. "Disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana" is attributed to Asanga. However, with google, I failed to find this attribution. The one I found is actually to Yogi Chen's book where there is exact quotes "'Disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana'" Can you actually souce the quote to Asanga's writing? FWBOarticle

Did bit of minor edit. The previous version appeared to imply that Mahayana is later "innovation" which is not at all agreed by all Mahayana. According to Mahayana tradition, their teaching and sutras is traced to Buddah. So I presented two teaching from different perspective and avoided historical reference about Mahayana sutras being later than Pali sutras. As of Tibetan/Oriental perspective, I hope I done something similar but again I appreciate if Tibetan Buddhist can do bit more fine tuning. FWBOarticle 00:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Update on editing 01-SEP-2004

I have just begun editing the revised article. I have left a marker up to the position I have got. So, please comment on only the first part! (up to and including Vehicles and Paths )

Also, Three Principal (aspects of the) Paths - this is not related to the Triyana at all. Tsongkhapa wrote a very influential work, called "The Three Principal Aspects of the Path", which were Renunciation, Bodhicitta, and Wisdom. The text is not Vajrayana, but Mahayana, and was written as a letter to a friend who wanted a short text on the path to enlightenment. The quote from Tsongkhapa you have comes from another one of his Mahayana texts, and here he is commenting on a verse from the 18000 Prajnaparamita sutra, which is one of the earliest mahayana sutras. The early sutra says: "Bodhisattvas should practice all paths - whatever is a path of a sravaka, a pratyeka or a Buddha - and should know all paths." Some people had pointed out a contradiction that appears to be in the sutra, which is that it appears that the sutra is saying that one must practice all the paths of the sravakas etc. If this were the case, then one must also diligently seek blissful peace for ones-self alone, which is in conflict with the Mahayana path. Because of this apparent conflict, Tsongkhapa was pointing out that there is a lot more to the Sravakayana (such as being tired of the suffering of samsara, etc.) than merely seeking nirvana for ones-self.

If you really want to say "However, in the early Mahayana Sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, the Arahant is portrayed as conceited and stubborn.", you will have to cite the entry or entries, not just name the sutra. I cannot find such a portrayal as you describe in either the Lotus, or in the Vimalakirti. It is true that some of the sravakas (5,000) get up and leave the assembly during the teaching of the Lotus sutra, but the majority of the sravakas remain (7,000+). It appears to me that this is actually not referring to the inferior vehicle at all, but refers to those monks who rejected the early Mahayana movement in a prejudicial manner. If it were to refer to the hinayana then all of the sravakas would have walked out. I am fascinated by your opinion on this. (20040302)

I'm sorry but it is impossible to revise an article without discussion page. I have copied your edit into the main page. I will explain some of the edit I have made.

Introduction

"Hinayana" Sanskrit inferior vehicle) is a term coined by the Mahayana around the 1st century CE. There are differing views on the use and meaning of the term in both modern scholarship and in Buddhism.

Fair points.

We can also say that scholars agree that the term appeared around the 1st C. CE. We can also say that the sutras began to appear around 1st C. CE, (though some Mahayanas say they were hidden, all agree that they were not publically known until the 1st C CE.)

Also, the fact that the term is disputed among both scholars and within Buddhism is indeed a fact.

What do you think? (20040302)

appeared around the 1st C.E. is fine. May be we should explain how Mahayana regard revelation of sutras bit more. and yes, true. scholars and within buddhism. So yep, go ahead.

I like the idea of talking about rvelation of sutras, but probably it should go onto the Mahayana article! (20040302)

Not so sure, without it, we may imply that Pali Cannon takes "precedent" over Mahayana Cannon. But the current version seems o.k.

Etymology

Firstly, hina=inferior is POV and you cannot state it as fact. Sorry, NPOV thingy. Secondly, strictly from Mahayana point of view, hinayana was not coined in 1.CE. Mahayana sutras was as old as or as authentic as Pali Cannons. Threfore, it is much better to say that Hinayana is a term "used" by the Mahayana. And forget about 1st century. from Mahayana point of view, Mahayana sutras were put into writing around that period but the sutras existed way before according to Mahayana POV, which I should add that not all modern Mahayana accept this assertion.

However, it is rare to find a translation of Hinayana which is not "inferior vehicle", so we can change to 'often translated as', if you prefer. Also, I can cite the MW Sanskrit dictionary for a translation of the term, if you don't want POV.

sure, "often translated as" sounds o.k. [User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]] 12:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I split your comment so we can discuss etymology here. As far as I am concerned, the current Etymology is NPOV. I wish to examine the other translation issues that you bring up later on, and I also wish to discuss the POV conerning the term being pejorative. I hope to do this in an NPOV manner, which should meet your approval. (20040302)

Three types of Buddha

Buddhism (both Nikaya and Mahayana traditions) accepts that there are three type of Buddha, and generally accept their definitions as follows:

Samyaksam-Buddhas (Pali:Samma-Sambuddha): (also known in the Mahayana as Bodhisattva-Buddhas) gain Nirvana by their own efforts, without a teacher of the entire path, and they then lead others to enlightenment by turning the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before.

Bit nitpicking but "wheel" symbolism is not so popular in Oriental Mahayana. I know it is to some extent Theravada use it and it is huge in Tibetan. Just to be neutral, I think use of "path" and "vehicle" would be more appropriate.FWBOarticle

I disagree a little bit. What is meant by turning the wheel of Dharma, is initiating the teachings for the first time. Buddha turned the (first) wheel of Dharma at Sarnath, with the Sutra on the four noble truths. Of course the Mahayana say that there were 3 or 4 turnings of the wheel. But we cannot replace the terminology with something that means something else, right? (20040302)

O.K. just don't make it into tantra=third turning of wheel thingy. We can explain the difference in later section. FWBOarticle

I wasn't about to mention tantra! Promise! (20040302)

• Pratyeka-Buddhas (Pali:Pacceka-Buddha): are similar to Samma-Sambuddha, in that they attain Nirvana by themselves, but they remain silent and keep the discovered Dharma to themselves.

• Sravaka-Buddhas (Pali:Savaka-Buddhas): gain Nirvana, but attain Enlightenment by hearing the Dhamma as initially taught by a Samma-Sambuddha. After attaining enlightenment, Savaka-Buddhas also lead others to enlightenment; however, they are not able to turn the wheel of Dharma - they depend upon the (re)discovery of the path by a Samyaksam-Buddha.

In you background, difference between Buddah and Arahat is huge. And obviously Theravada takes opposite stance. Just mention that this class of buddah atain nirvana by hearing dharma, which everyone agree. What teaching capacity or their concern of salvation of others or how many buudahs are here to revive dharma is disputed topic which is much better to be expalined in detail.

The distintion is not 'huge', but it is a distinction. The distinction is as I mentioned in these paragraphs, which is in accordance with the Nikaya as well. What may make it appear huge is that there is a strong emphasis on the difference of motive, rather than on result. Regardless, the definitions as I wrote them are not contradictory to either Nikaya or to the Mahayana in general, so why stir mud? (20040302)

That is the problem. "Turning the wheel of the dharma" could simply means "to teach". That is why Arahat could turn the wheel, just that they weren't the first one. Obviously, if you translate it as to "discover dharma" then it get into Mahayana realm. And you know this is the point of dispute. So, arahat not turning wheel have to come down. As of emphasis, I think there are emphasis on the different motive as well as the ability to teach.

Okay, I have rewritten this to avoid the wheel terminology. I am relying on the Pali source I quoted before for the distinction between a Samyaksam-Buddha and a Sravaka-Buddha, so this should not be contentious - The Nikaya school does agree that the Sravaka-Buddhas might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma where (or when) it has not been taught before. This distinction can be found in the Pali canon, in the Khandhasamyutta. Okay? (20040302)

firstly, can you actually quote it. Secondly, I'm bit susicious of this "where (or when)" thingy. Can you be more accurate. If where acutally refer to this entire world, the argument become bit irrelevant. If not feel free to revert my deletion. FWBOarticle 11:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I have amended the 'where' - which represents other planets, or other universes where there has not been a previous Buddha in memory. The distinction is quite clear in both Nikaya and Mahayana - a Buddha cannot discover the path where it has already been discovered; but the discovery can be lost in time, and it can also be discovered where the teachings have not been already discovered.

Here is the quote from the Khandhasamyutta:

Question: "What is the distinction, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdome?"

Answer: "The Tathagatha, bhikkhus, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the discoverer of the path undeclared before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path. His disciples now dwell following that path, and become possessed of it afterwards."

So, this definition is based on good Nikaya ground, accepted by the Theravada. It also fair to state that being a discoverer, he is superior to his disciples.(20040302)

Vehicles and Paths

It appears that the distinction between vehicles and paths arises in early Mahayana sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, where it is stated that there is one path - the path to Nirvana -, but there are different vehicles. In this sense, the vehicles are described as representing the fruit of three types of Buddha found in Nikaya sutras, as mentioned above. For instance, in Chapter three of the Lotus Sutra, there is a parable of a father promising three carts to lure sons out of a burning building, where the goat-cart represents Sravaka-Buddhahood; the deer-cart, Pratyeka-Buddhahood; and the bullock-cart, Samyaksam-Buddhahood.

I don't really have objection to thise section itself. It is interestion section to understand how different interpretation/emphasis of Mahayana/Hinayana has developed. I just think that it is somewhat badly placed in the entire article. My article has structure based on the presumption that there are three meaning of hinanaya. i don't really know how this section fit in with this arrangement. My suggestion is to put this section in the last and expand it as another major section in the future. Hope you don't FWBOarticle

Please leave it in for the time being. I will place it as I finish editing. By deleting it, it appears that you do have an objection. It is also relevant to put things into context, which I am convinced you agree with me about.

Also, by spending too much time making nit-picking edits on the first 3 paragraphs, you are slowing down my editing process. Why not make comments as you see fit, and then we can adjust the article accordingly, once the central editing has taken place. On my behalf, I promise to listen carefully and fairly to what you have to say. I appreciate the issue of "turning the wheel" as being not only non-oriental, but also rather Buddhist in it's terminology, so I have replaced it. That was a good point. (20040302)

My apologies - you moved it to the bottom of the article.. I did not see that! I wish to keep the two sections separate for the time being, so either let's keep it at the top, or put it at the very bottom! I don't want to end up being confused about what is where, that is all! (20040302)

Yes, the reason I moved it to the bottom is that I believe we can settle much of POV in the first three section soon and leave it. However, if we keep expanding this special section and they are placed ahead of these three sections, it might possibly alter the context of these three section which might require re-edit. So I thought it is much more prudent to keep it at the bottom and see how it turn out. FWBOarticle 12:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(FWBO's article moved to Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox.)

I'm bit uncomfortable as to where you are taking your section. Firstly, you appear to "define" the meaning of hinayana as "inferior", the whole dispute about POV. If you do this, I have to provide quotes in sutra in other section as well as commentary in which hinayana is bit more than "lesser vehicle". We are restarting the whole debate again and it is extremly futile attempt. My three hinayana implication was an attemp to distance the article from it but your section is reviving the whole controversy. FWBOarticle 11:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not defining Hinayana as inferior, I am pointing out a section of the Lotus sutra which states that the Sravakayana and the Pratyekayana are inferior to the Mahayana. It is quite clear about that. I am planning to quote from the Lotus and other sutras to talk about the attitude that is given those monks who walk out of the discourse, etc. And I am also going to talk about the way in which there appears to be a defensive attitude on the side of the Mahayana. But also, for the sake of NPOV, I will be mentioning the admonition in the Lotus sutra not to disparage the Hinayana, and how that has played out in the Mahayana traditions of Asanga and Nagarjuna.

I also plan to talk about current POV, on the fact that the council made an effort to separate Theravada, etc.

I currently object strongly to this that you have written: " However, in the early Mahayana Sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, the Arahant is portrayed as conceited and stubborn." Please requalify, and provide quotes.

This remains POV: "'Hinayana' represents those practitioners whose "selfish" motive is to achieve enlightenment (or Nirvana) for themselves alone and their "inferior" teaching capacity result in fewer people led to englightenment." I don't know where that claim comes from, and it is certainly disputed by the Nikaya and at least some Mahayana!

I also object to this without the dictionary attribution: "Hina in Sanskrit (or hiina in Pali) means inferior, less, low, base, mean, incomplete, deficient, wanting and so on";

Anyway, enough for the moment! (20040302)