Raitanator wrote:Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?
To describe buddhist practices in conversations?
You mean one by one?
Raitanator wrote:Cittasanto wrote:Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum?
Sorry, I didn't get this.
Cittasanto wrote: As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
Raitanator wrote:Cittasanto wrote: As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
Exactly where did I use term hinayana? Seems like you just want me to bugger off instead of conversation...
Cittasanto wrote:but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
Raitanator wrote: Theravada is the basis of all the lineages.
Raitanator wrote:Cittasanto wrote:but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
Well, I feel theravada and hinayana can be both in some cases a bit misleading. And I don't want to be one of those arrogant mahayana-guys who are disparaging pratimoksha practices. Root-yana is somewhat good term imo, because it points out that Theravada is the basis of all the lineages. Without it they would just fall. What do you think?
Cittasanto wrote:Theravada is not the basis of all lineages. nor has the patimokkha got anything to do with other schools sets of rules.
Sharavakayana is a Mahayana classification that refers to the same thing as does the term hinayana. There is no need for, nor justification for, Mahayana classificatory terms as being normative defining terms for the whole of Buddhism.Raitanator wrote:Yes, that's why some Lamas, too, are saying that Hinayana term should not be used, because it's vulgar and doesn't fully respect what it has to offer. Other term, what I've seen people use is Sharavakayana, but I don't know how Theravadins react to that.
tiltbillings wrote:Reginald Ray states in his Indestructible Truth:
In fact, as we shall see presently, "Hinayana" refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahayana historical traditions such as the Theravada are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of "Hinayana" would allow. ...The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.." Page 240.
Raitanator wrote:Cittasanto wrote:Theravada is not the basis of all lineages. nor has the patimokkha got anything to do with other schools sets of rules.
I don't know. I think Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche would disagree with you. He's quite infamous for sending those, who aspire to be monks in tibetan buddhist tradition, at Thailand etc, in Theravada monasteries, because it's more close to the original vinaya what Siddhartha taught thousands years ago.
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala and 32 guests