Do you find Hinayana offensive?

[Sanghamitta]

No indeed Wittgensteinian acrobatics cannot..

I think the key here is how Theravadins feel about the term "Hinayana" (if anything ) rather than how Mahayanists think that Theravadins should feel.

[Anders Honore]

It is not a matter of linguistic ignorance, but on the contrary of linguistic philosophy, ie what is the meaning of words. If we don't have meaning, then any word is indeed little more than 'a random collection of letters or sounds'.

Language isn't owned by any particular nationality, (although it is certainly used by such), so that there are modern languages who has preserved that meaning locally has no necessary bearing on how that word is used in Buddhist language. In Wittgenstein's terminology, 'hina' has one meaning and usage in the 'language-game' employed by modern Indian languages (which abides by one 'family' of rules for that language), another in ancient India, which we can constitute, very broadly, as another language game, and another in modern Buddhism.

Its usage, and hence its meaning, is entirely dependent on whatever 'language-game' it is used in.

Or to put it another way - there is no such thing as a word which has a universal meaning (except perhaps in the most extreme of coincidences, but that is hard to imagine and easily changed). The meaning of words is entirely contextual and determined by usage in any given context.

My point is that one might critisise the ancient Indians for their usage of the word. And that has some relevance to the extent that we still read their texts. But it does matter in what manner modern teachers use the word because that very manner gives the word a different meaning (I will anticipate tilt and say that such usage might of course still not be very appealing to theravadins for other reasons).

[tiltbillings]

No indeed Wittgensteinian acrobatics cannot..

I think the key here is how Theravadins feel about the term "Hinayana" (if anything ) rather than how Mahayanists think that Theravadins should feel.

It is not so much the word, itself, but the baggage carried by the word, and none of it is appropriate to the Theravada.

[Sanghamitta]

One day I am going to start frequenting Roman Catholic sites in order to convince them concerning my understanding of transubstantiation. I think the world needs that.

I will of course use a sig proclaiming myself to be a proud unbeliever. If and when I find the time for such activity that is.

[Anders Honore]

No indeed Wittgensteinian acrobatics cannot..

I think the key here is how Theravadins feel about the term "Hinayana" (if anything ) rather than how Mahayanists think that Theravadins should feel.

I am not arguing for the blanket acceptance of the word Hinayana, but rather for recognising contexts in which to ask where it is appropriate.

As for my particular opinion based on this, in dialoguing with Theravadins, I quite agree. That is a context that gives the word an undesirable meaning that is not easy to ferret out, even with the best of intentions. Especially so, if one were talking to someone who does attribute 'piss poor vehicle as the meaning of the word.

I don't agree that it is universally so. If mahayanins today were quite literally using the word amongst themselves as Kåre attributes to the ancient Indians, that might be the case. But in my experience, few do. It is not used like that and hence, it does not have that general meaning among mahayanins.

[Sanghamitta]

My meaning is far less sophisticated than that Mr Honore, it is to do with the fact that this is a Theravada Website, and this is a forum called " Discovering Theravada" Which is a subforum of a wider forum called " Modern Theravada". But its a free world.

[Anders Honore]

My meaning is far less sophisticated than that Mr Honore, it is to do with the fact that this is a Theravada Website, and this is a forum called " Discovering Theravada" Which is a subforum of a wider forum called " Modern Theravada". But its a free world.

Well, you are right then, our purposes differ. In regards to a Theravada website, its usage is inappropriate. But that is in itself also rather uncontroversial. I look at the larger question of intersectarian dynamics beyond dedicated theravada fora because that is where the issue gets more complicated and the answer less likely to be as categorical.

[Sanghamitta]

Some of us Mr Honore are members of a Theravadin website by choice, having examined alternatives, and because we see ourselves not as pan- Buddhists but as Theravadins. It might even be that we see ourselves as not needing saving from ourselves.

[tiltbillings]

My point is that one might critisise the ancient Indians for their usage of the word. And that has some relevance to the extent that we still read their texts. But it does matter in what manner modern teachers use the word because that very manner gives the word a different meaning (I will anticipate tilt and say that such usage might of course still not be very appealing to theravadins for other reasons).

I have seen enough modern Mahayanists, highly educated within the Mahayana, use hinayana not much differently than ancient Indians, but modern teachers who might use hinayana when referring to the Theravada are likely to be making assumptions, while seemingly far more benign, that are no less problematic. It is along the lines of the bodhisattva vow of needing to respect, not disparage, the hinayana/Theravada, as if these two terms are coterminous.

Obviously you could easily tell us why I would not find that sort of usage "appealing." It could be that it is still a matter of the Mahayana defining the Theravada solely in Mahayana terms and all the problems that go with that. it could be that.

As I have said, within a strictly Mahayana context, the ugly word hinayana has its place and function. One would hope that the Mahayanists would, however, not think that they get to define other schools without regard as to how the other schools understand and define themselves, but, alas, why there often is not good dialogue among the various Mahayanists and the Theravadins is that (far more than the Theravadins) the Mahayanists think they know what the truly true truth about Theravadin is based upon Mahayana polemics. That is built into the Mahayana. While the Theravada may be smug in thinking they have the true word of the Buddha, that is far less a problem in that they have not put into the Buddha's mouth those polemical, sectarian notions one finds, ever so benignly espoused by the Mahayana, that the Theravada is a preliminary, provisional teaching, a necessary basis for the ultimate teachings of the Mahayana.

[tiltbillings]

My meaning is far less sophisticated than that Mr Honore, it is to do with the fact that this is a Theravada Website, and this is a forum called " Discovering Theravada" Which is a subforum of a wider forum called " Modern Theravada". But its a free world.

Well, you are right then, our purposes differ. In regards to a Theravada website, its usage is inappropriate. But that is in itself also rather uncontroversial. I look at the larger question of intersectarian dynamics beyond dedicated theravada fora because that is where the issue gets more complicated and the answer less likely to be as categorical.

It is a problem, and given that Mahayanists are going to range from extemely liberal to extremely literal in how they understand and want to use the term (and it baggage), I am not sure what one does. On the now defunct trhere were Mahayanists who insisteed that their notions about hinayana were quite correct, and never mind what the Theravadins had to say about themselve. With folks like that, there is no dialogue.

It is quite possible to look to things we have in common without getting trapped in the hinayana tar-baby.

[Cittasanto]

I wonder if it is appropriate to call a legitimate legal organisation, illegal whether it is to their face or not?

I wonder what the point would be in calling a group something they don't call themselves?

I also wonder if it would be appropriate for Canadians to start referring to Hungarians as $h17forbrains ($h17 for brains) instead of Hungarians, then for every other country to follow suit?

[Anders Honore]

I have seen enough modern Mahayanists, highly educated within the Mahayana, use hinayana not much differently than ancient Indians, but modern teachers who might use hinayana when referring to the Theravada are likely to be making assumptions, while seemingly far more benign, that are no less problematic. It is along the lines of the bodhisattva vow of needing to respect, not disparage, the hinayana/Theravada, as if these two terms are coterminous.

Obviously you could easily tell us why I would not find that sort of usage "appealing." It could be that it is still a matter of the Mahayana defining the Theravada solely in Mahayana terms and all the problems that go with that. it could be that.

The problem as I see it is that once you strip away all other issues such as whether it is meant demeaningly or respectfully, doctrinal issues concerning emptiness, selflesness, and any number of tertiary issues concerning the status of arhats etc. If we strip it down to a view where we might agree on all such matters (mahayana is diverse enough that this could probably be done), Mahayana supposes two paths of liberation where the Theravada only supposes one. And for the Mahayana, that of course necessitates distinguishing between the two and outlining the merits of each path.

That leaves hinayana/mahayana in a very curious pseudo-meaningful fog where, even though we might both understand the path of liberation (let us call it here 'the path of the arahant') to be the same, and even though what the Theravadin say about the path of the arhat is meaningful to the mahayanin, the meaning that a mahayanin would impute to that path becomes to some extent meaningless for the Theravadin. Not because they necessarily differ in regards to how they understand the path of the arahant to be, or the merits of it (compared to worldly merits at any rate), but because mahayana almost by necessity must view from the pov of two paths, where theravada views it from the perspective of one.

It is quite curious (speaking as a philosophy nerd into linguistics) that it is possible to talk about something that both parties have identified as being the same thing, and that one party's references to that is meaningful, yet the presence of something else in the other party's implied context makes that persons references to it largely meaningless.

The answer to that issue that I have come to so far is that for such two parties to discuss liberation in a meaningful way, the mahayanin must either disregard the premise of the Bodhisattva path in doing so, or the Theravadin must accept the mahayana conception of a bodhisattva career. I think the former is preferable in such situations as the latter opens up a host of different issues to iron out.

As I have said, within a strictly Mahayana context, the ugly word hinayana has its place and function. One would hope that the Mahayanists would, however, not think that they get to define other schools without regard as to how the other schools understand and define themselves, but, alas, why there often is not good dialogue among the various Mahayanists and the Theravadins is that (far more than the Theravadins) the Mahayanists think they know what the truly true truth about Theravadin is based upon Mahayana polemics. That is built into the Mahayana.

Well, as I have tried to show above, this tendency for defining it is indeed built into the Mahayana and unavoidably so. I would argue however that it is so by necessity of design rather than intent. Just as the same is necessarily the case for the Theravadin view of Mahayana. Where it gets tricky is that while the Theravadin response is rather straightforward (you are wrong. let us part on this issue), the Mahayana response subsumes Theravada (or any early buddhist school for that matter) into itself and thus keeps the divide alive as part of its own system.

[tiltbillings]

Anders,

I am off to lay in the lap of Nxy to be visited by Morpheus, but having read through your long missive, I like a lot of what you said. And when I have I'll read it again with more care and back to you. Thanks for a really thoughful response to this issue.

[Sanghamitta]

There is another alternative Mr Honore, let us just agree to differ. When the concept of Pan Buddhism is allowed to simply drift of into the wind it might be that we have more in common than an artificial and imposed unity will ever make possible. I think Buddhism is currently having a Margaret Meads moment.

[Anders Honore]

There is another alternative Mr Honore, let us just agree to differ. When the concept of Pan Buddhism is allowed to simply drift of into the wind it might be that we have more in common than an artificial and imposed unity will ever make possible. I think Buddhism is currently having a Margaret Meads moment.

It is a possibility, but that won't change the fact that whatever dedicated Theravadins may think about Mayahana, I am not liable to change my view of Theravada as a viable vehicle of liberation, worthy of paying respect to and associating with and something I would be glad to see spread and others to understand. And likewise, fascinating and thoughtful enough to engage in, in online fora like these.

[Sanghamitta]

I rather thought that this thread is about what Theravadins think about what Mahayanists think about the Theravada. personally I dont think about what Mahayanists think about the Theravada at all. I find trying to actualise the teachings of the Theravada more than enough to occupy me.

[tiltbillings]

The problem as I see it is that once you strip away all other issues such as whether it is meant demeaningly or respectfully, doctrinal issues concerning emptiness, selflesness, and any number of tertiary issues concerning the status of arhats etc. If we strip it down to a view where we might agree on all such matters (mahayana is diverse enough that this could probably be done), Mahayana supposes two paths of liberation where the Theravada only supposes one. And for the Mahayana, that of course necessitates distinguishing between the two and outlining the merits of each path.

If this two path business is a bottom line for the Mahayanist upon which everything is judged, then there is no basis mutual discussion. Also, the "status of the arahant" I would not see as tertiary.

Not because they necessarily differ in regards to how they understand the path of the arahant to be,

But the Mahayana does differ - variously - in regards to what the arahant is, never referring to the arahant as tathagata, as do the Pali suttas

because mahayana almost by necessity must view from the pov of two paths, where theravada views it from the perspective of one.

Must it view things in terms of two paths? If so, it then is a serious failing of the Mahayana. Also, the two paths has a history; it shows a development, from very early bodhisattva sutras onwards and it reaches back to a time before the rise of the Mahayana to the after the death of the Buddha question which the various schools wrestled with. And the looking at the "two paths" historically, these were doctrine developed - given their intial impetus - in terms of opposition, as a way of defining onself as being better than one's opponent. Because of that I cannot see these "two paths" as THE necessary defining characteristic. Maybe it possible to look for something a bit more fundamental.

It is quite curious (speaking as a philosophy nerd into linguistics) that it is possible to talk about something that both parties have identified as being the same thing, and that one party's references to that is meaningful, yet the presence of something else in the other party's implied context makes that persons references to it largely meaningless.

Sure

The answer to that issue that I have come to so far is that for such two parties to discuss liberation in a meaningful way, the mahayanin must either disregard the premise of the Bodhisattva path in doing so, or the Theravadin must accept the mahayana conception of a bodhisattva career. I think the former is preferable in such situations as the latter opens up a host of different issues to iron out.

I agree

Well, as I have tried to show above, this tendency for defining it is indeed built into the Mahayana and unavoidably so. I would argue however that it is so by necessity of design rather than intent.

Given that once the hinayana distinction, which is an us-versus-them distinction, was introduced into the Mahayana, the bodhisattva doctrine became a doctrine as a basis for defining one's oppopsition to the dreaded "them."

Just as the same is necessarily the case for the Theravadin view of Mahayana. Where it gets tricky is that while the Theravadin response is rather straightforward (you are wrong. let us part on this issue), the Mahayana response subsumes Theravada (or any early buddhist school for that matter) into itself and thus keeps the divide alive as part of its own system.

The Mahayana, having its much of its intial impetus in terms of us-versus-them assumed a subsumptive, triumphalist and supersessionist stance, which, far more than the Theravadin stance, gets in the way of dialogue.

It is possible, if we can bracket some things, to talk with each other in an interesting way. I do appreciate you remarks.

[Anders Honore]

If this two path business is a bottom line for the Mahayanist upon which everything is judged, then there is no basis mutual discussion.

I think that's a hasty conclusion.

But the Mahayana does differ - variously - in regards to what the arahant is, never referring to the arahant as tathagata, as do the Pali suttas

Surely the question of titulation - in particular one (being the Buddha's personal epitaph) that Theravada is itself fairly reluctant to apply to arahants in general - is a most secondary matter.

Must it view things in terms of two paths? If so, it then is a serious failing of the Mahayana.

What makes this a failure, and a serious one at that? Is it any more serious than how Buddhism in general distinguishes between worldly paths and the path of liberation?

Also, the two paths has a history; it shows a development, from very early bodhisattva sutras onwards and it reaches back to a time before the rise of the Mahayana to the after the death of the Buddha question which the various schools wrestled with. And the looking at the "two paths" historically, these were doctrine developed - given their intial impetus - in terms of opposition, as a way of defining onself as being better than one's opponent. Because of that I cannot see these "two paths" as THE necessary defining characteristic. Maybe it possible to look for something a bit more fundamental.

Although I won't deny that there are texts that show this characteristic, I think insisting on this may constitute what I have come to name 'agenda clouding'. It's a bit like when bloggers start complaining about racial issues in Avatar - when clearly the intended, and relevant, issues are different. Yet it can be made to fit the bill and hence cloud the actual themes of the movie.

I am naive enough to believe it was developed in recognition of a compassionate desire to help living beings and looking for the way to best help accomplish that aim, with Buddhahood being the answer they came up with (or made up, or realised, or were taught by Buddhas or Mara - whatever narrative fits the reader's conviction in their authenticity) for that question. This is, imo, the fundamental distinguishment, since from there, Mahayana starts to branch out in different directions even from the earliest scriptures (the ugra presenting this as a very much optional choice, the ratnakuta characterising shravakas as akin to jackals) and then it becomes a question of which viewpoint to address, subscribe to or refute.

Given that once the hinayana distinction, which is an us-versus-them distinction, was introduced into the Mahayana, the bodhisattva doctrine became a doctrine as a basis for defining one's oppopsition to the dreaded "them."

I don't think sectarian triumphalism is the driving force for the idea of a hinayana. I have posited before that when you study the earlier sutras, prior to the Mahayana becoming an established and stable presence, the image of the Bodhisattva career was a very precarious one. We have analogies of how the Bodhisattva needs to don the great armour of courage to support his vows, the dangers that may cause a bodhisattva to abandon his vows and so forth - the lends itself to the image that most bodhisattvas never actually make it all the way to Buddhahood before opting for cessation (an opinion that is in fact made explicit by Nagarjuna).

I would argue that if we are to understand this divide, we need to understand its purpose. And in this regard, I think it needs to be recognised that, whatever sectarian ambitions the hinayana/mahayana dichotomy may and has been used for, both later on and concurrent with its earliest origins, it is an idea that serves a purpose quite besides any sectarian consequences of it - Namely to deter and discourage Bodhisattvas from opting for the path of cessation, something that was considering a strong risc for any would-be-buddha.

It is unfortunate of course, that this ploy has such obvious sectarian application (though given the nature and atmosphere of Buddhist sects in India in general, I doubt it would have stuck in their noses the same way it does to modern Buddhists).

I don't mean to trivialise the sectarian elements of the hinayana/mahayana dichotomy with this, but I do wish to argue that the issue is more nuanced and complex than the onesided malignant intentions you ascribe to it above.

[Prasadachitta]

Hi All,

I think the issue is one of making a concerted effort to be specific about what one means. If the term hinayana has become clouded and unreliable in how it is understood I believe it would be best to internalize the various impressions and delineations which any of us have associated with the term. If we then have the desire to express those impressions or delineations then we have a wide variety of ways to communicate which are less likely to be misunderstood. For example if you wish to express that some Theravada teachings strike you as giving the impression that awakening involves a sort forsaking of all those who remain unawakened then explain it and be willing to look further to see if your impression changes. In my opinion this kind of communication is stunted if not blocked by confusing language like hinayana. If you just want to speak about a tendency within a practice that looks towards the personal benefits of the path then do so in your own way. Even if you are used to being taught about such tendencies with the use of the word hinayana you dont need to use that word to express yourself.

Personally I dont understand why so much has to be said about so little.

with Metta

Gabe

[Paññāsikhara]

I don't think sectarian triumphalism is the driving force for the idea of a hinayana. I have posited before that when you study the earlier sutras, prior to the Mahayana becoming an established and stable presence, the image of the Bodhisattva career was a very precarious one. We have analogies of how the Bodhisattva needs to don the great armour of courage to support his vows, the dangers that may cause a bodhisattva to abandon his vows and so forth - the lends itself to the image that most bodhisattvas never actually make it all the way to Buddhahood before opting for cessation (an opinion that is in fact made explicit by Nagarjuna).

I would argue that if we are to understand this divide, we need to understand its purpose. And in this regard, I think it needs to be recognised that, whatever sectarian ambitions the hinayana/mahayana dichotomy may and has been used for, both later on and concurrent with its earliest origins, it is an idea that serves a purpose quite besides any sectarian consequences of it - Namely to deter and discourage Bodhisattvas from opting for the path of cessation, something that was considering a strong risc for any would-be-buddha.

It is unfortunate of course, that this ploy has such obvious sectarian application (though given the nature and atmosphere of Buddhist sects in India in general, I doubt it would have stuck in their noses the same way it does to modern Buddhists).

I don't mean to trivialise the sectarian elements of the hinayana/mahayana dichotomy with this, but I do wish to argue that the issue is more nuanced and complex than the onesided malignant intentions you ascribe to it above.