Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:55 am

So, what do you guys think?

viewtopic.php?f=12&p=223825#p223807

I found it a bit misleading to say, for example, ordination found in Tibetan buddhism a Theravadin practice. More accurate term would be imo Root-yana, or something else.
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:17 pm

and what would it be applied to?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:20 pm

Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?


To describe buddhist practices in conversations?
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:24 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?


To describe buddhist practices in conversations?

why not just use the name of the practice?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:28 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?


To describe buddhist practices in conversations?

why not just use the name of the practice?


You mean one by one?
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:36 pm

Raitanator wrote:
You mean one by one?

Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum? Dharma Wheel - our sister site - is there for such discussions.

specific practices may be useful to talk about but superfluous detail is not.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:00 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum?


Sorry, I didn't get this.
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:17 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum?


Sorry, I didn't get this.


Yes when talking about specific practices. As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:23 pm

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...
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:57 pm

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...

that's quite an assumption!
you link to your use here viewtopic.php?f=12&p=223825#p223807
but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:18 pm

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?
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby daverupa » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:37 pm

Raitanator wrote: Theravada is the basis of all the lineages.


This isn't accurate, however. Theravada is one of a number of early scholastic groups; it's due to some of the other ones (Mulasarvastivada [Tibetan], Dharmaguptaka [East Asian], etc.) that the Dhamma made it north via modern Afghanistan. Striking Nikaya similarities, though their Vinayas and especially Abhidhammas become largely divergent.

Theravada in toto is simply one historical product, among many, of the pre-scholastic Sangha.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4195
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:47 pm

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?

Theravada is not the basis of all lineages. nor has the patimokkha got anything to do with other schools sets of rules.
Theravada refers to one school and is quite clear as to what it means by those who follow Theravadan Buddhism. and is not a umbrella term like Mahayana.

Root (mula) yana would refer to pre-sectarian Buddhism and is already called early or pre-sectarian Buddhism.

Hinayana (hina = low; despicable; inferiour; base; + Yana = vehicle; going) in some cases can be used as a derogetory term for the early schools that came before Mahayana, or as hina is originally used within the Suttas, for practices which are not beneficial for the path.
In the former use (here) it has sometimes been used for Theravadins without any real knowledge of what Theravada teaches or practices, and as a means to try and belittle adherents of Theravada by writing off what they have to say without any knowledge of what they are actually saying.
In a more specialised use of the term it refers to certain foundational practices, or initial scope of practice, (as I understand its use). However in this latter usage, there is a mistaken perception that this refers to Theravadin practice, when all it refers to is a scope of practice within Mahayana/Vajrayana.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:52 pm

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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19631
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:07 pm

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.

:juggling:
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:09 pm

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.
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:15 pm

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.

:juggling:
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.


As Mahayanist Red Pine states:

    Shravaka means “one who hears” and originally referred to those disciples who actually heard the Buddha speak. Later, it was extended to include the members of such early sects as the Sarvastivadins. And later still, it was used pejoratively by Mahayana Buddhists in reference to those who sought nirvana without concern for others. It should be noted, though, that this depiction of the Hinayana was a Mahayana invention and doubtlessly included a certain amount of distortion of the actual practice of those at whom it was aimed, namely monks and nuns who followed the letter and not the spirit of the Dharma. Thus, a shravaka was often described as one who merely heard the teachings of the Buddha but did not put them into practice. – THE HEART SUTRA, page 43.

    . . .the earlier teachings, which Mahayanists refer to disparagingly as the Shravakayana, the Pupils Vehicle, as if its followers were mere laymen and not true shramanas, when they are being polite, and as hinayana, 'inferior vehicle,' when they wish to be rude. . . INDIAN BUDDHISM A.K. Warder, pg 355

    As Theravadins we do not have to accept the Mahayana framework when referring to the savaka. Our framework is such that the savakas are given the most exalted position as one of the three refuges. The term 'savaka sangho' is often used in the Pali text. As great as the bodhisatta may be, according to the Theravada framework, he/she is still not a noble one (ariya) like the savaka is. Strictly speaking the title savaka can only be given to the Buddha's closest disciples who have reached ariyahood. Which is also why as much as a Theravadin will give much respect to bodhisattas, a Theravadin usually does [not] take refuge in a bodhisatta. -- astroboy on E-Sangha
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19631
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:22 pm

Thank you tiltbillings. I won't use Shravakayana term again, now that you pointed out what it is.
Raitanator
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:29 pm

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.

I will note that I have seen a similar use as described here (underlined) in Korean Zen Books also. So I would say its use is wider than just within Tibetan Buddhism, yet still in line with its use therein.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:51 pm

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.

and he is potentially accurate in that the Theravadin Patimokkha (which is only the 227 rules not the rest of the vinaya) is older. however one reason asserting that the Theravada is the root of other traditions is wrong is that it is itself formed by a split within a group known as the Sthaviravāda. who are not the exact same thing as Theravada.
please look at this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests