Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator »

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.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by tiltbillings »

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
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

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

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator »

Thank you tiltbillings. I won't use Shravakayana term again, now that you pointed out what it is.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto »

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.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by cooran »

Some articles about the inappropriate linking of Theravada to the insulting term Hinayana linked in the OP:

The Myth of the Hinayana by Kare A. Lie
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha140.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mahayana, Hinayana, Theravada
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha091.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mahayana and Hinayana Ven. Abhinyana
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha188.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Yana
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:45 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Yana »

:offtopic: omg...i' saw my name..am pleasantly surprised

this is so off topic but i can't believe my devout christian parents gave me a name that actually meant something in Buddhism!!ahh YES!makes me just wanna practice harder grrr :focus: :woohoo: :tongue:
Life is preparing for Death
plwk
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by plwk »

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.
Maybe Rinpoche would like to re-visit his sources...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthavirav%C4%81da" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Sthaviras later divided into other schools such as the Sarvāstivāda school and the Vibhajjavāda (Sanskrit: Vibhajyavāda) school.
The resultant Vibhajjavāda branch gave rise to a number of schools such as the Tāmraparnīya (later called Theravada), the Dharmaguptaka school, the Mahīśāsaka school, and the Kāśyapīya school.

The Theravāda school of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia has identified itself exclusively with the Sthaviravāda, as the Pali word thera is equivalent to the Sanskrit sthavira. This has led early Western historians to assume that the two parties are identical.

However, this is not the case, and by the time of Ashoka, the Sthaviravāda school had split into the Sammitīya, Sarvāstivāda, and the Vibhajyavāda schools.
The Vibhajyavāda school is believed to have split into other schools as well, such as the Mahīśāsaka school and the ancestor of the Theravāda school.
According to Damien Keown, there is no historical evidence that the Theravāda school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occurred at the Third Council.

According to the Mahāvaṃsa, a Theravādin source, after the Second Council was closed those taking the side of junior monks did not accept the verdict but held an assembly of their own attended by ten thousand calling it a Mahasangiti (Great Convocation) from which the school derived its name Mahāsāṃghika.
However, such popular explanations of Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika are generally considered folk etymologies.
The Theravādin Dīpavaṃsa clarifies that the name Theravāda refers to the "old" teachings, making no indication that it refers to the Second Council.
Similarly, the name Mahāsāṃghika is in reference to those who follow the original Vinaya of the undivided Saṃgha.

Andrew Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts are solved by the Mahāsāṃghika Śariputraparipṛcchā, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism. In this account, the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the minority (Sthaviras). The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya.

Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. Modern scholarship therefore generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest. According to Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school.
And of course, anyone familiar with the case of the great Nalanda Pandita Atisa would know that he was unable to transmit the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, to which he belonged to, upon the request of the Tibetan king during his time who was firm on the established single system of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya which was already transmitted by another earlier and reknown Nalanda Pandita, Santaraksita...

Now, if only their present day Elders would speed up work on the issue of establishing the Siksamana and Bhiksuni ordinations...
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator »

plwk wrote:Maybe Rinpoche would like to re-visit his sources...

Now, if only their present day Elders would speed up work on the issue of establishing the Siksamana and Bhiksuni ordinations...
Sorry, I didn't get your point from that wall of text. Could you elaborate a bit, in your own words, why he should re-visit his sources. Dalai lama, and other lamas, are doing lot of work to establish bhikkuni-order back to tibetan buddhist tradition.
plwk
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by plwk »

Sorry, I didn't get your point from that wall of text. Could you elaborate a bit, in your own words, why he should re-visit his sources.
That firstly, the Theravada Vinaya may not be what he thinks 'the closest to the original' as is the Mulasarvastivadin or the Dharmaguptaka Vinayas.... hence the 'wall of text' explaining at some length...

So secondly, it may not be necessary to send any Tibetan Buddhist monastic novitiates or aspirants to another 'camp', except just as an educational visit, as what they have already is functional and ongoing valid Vinaya. Is Rinpoche implying that the Mulasarvastivadin monastics are not on par with their Theravadin 'cousins', in terms of Vinaya letter or practice?

Perhaps, the practice part? What they may want to look at are perhaps ongoing stuff like how strictly do they maintain the Vinaya and the many 'concessions' made under the additional superceding Bodhisattva and Tantric Vows/Precepts...

Some of the most common examples I have heard, read and seen are like issues on re-educating the laity and themselves on what are the proper dana requisite items for monastics when offering to the them, re-looking into the traditional monetary dana given by the laity to the monastics directly, whether in envelopes or without. Producing blessed amulets like chakras, roos, pendants, blessed strings? Doing divinations, oracles, astrological calculations and what not? And another one, monastics partaking of full meals at 'unseeming hours', dinner for instance? Wearing of lay clothing by some, fully or partially with robes? And the sticky issue of taking of consorts by some?

To be fair, places like Thailand, Myammar, Sri Lanka and the Indo China countries where Theravada has a traditional stronghold also manifest some of the listed but surely, Rinpoche is aware of these issues and concerns as well when he wants to expose the aspirants to the 'cousins'? The objective letter of the Vinaya vs the realities of daily affairs? And you are aware that in Theravada there's the monastic dhutanga/ascetic practice, which is more austere than the common monastic practice, right? Does he want them to learn about this too? Perhaps, he can recommend them also to experience the Chinese Dharmagutaka side who have this monastic dhuta practice kept alive by a minority?

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

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator »

plwk wrote:
Sorry, I didn't get your point from that wall of text. Could you elaborate a bit, in your own words, why he should re-visit his sources.
That firstly, the Theravada Vinaya may not be what he thinks 'the closest to the original' as is the Mulasarvastivadin or the Dharmaguptaka Vinayas.... hence the 'wall of text' explaining at some length...

So secondly, it may not be necessary to send any Tibetan Buddhist monastic novitiates or aspirants to another 'camp', except just as an educational visit, as what they have already is functional and ongoing valid Vinaya. Is Rinpoche implying that the Mulasarvastivadin monastics are not on par with their Theravadin 'cousins', in terms of Vinaya letter or practice?

Perhaps, the practice part? What they may want to look at are perhaps ongoing stuff like how strictly do they maintain the Vinaya and the many 'concessions' made under the additional superceding Bodhisattva and Tantric Vows/Precepts...
Well, the thing is that when tibetans adopted monastic system, they had to make compromises here and there, because of the society and harsh enviroment. For example, daily dana-rally had to be changed to one big alms-round in autumn, just after when barley was harvested. This way they filled their supplies for the winter. In Thailand, it's pretty much the same what Siddhartha and fellows practiced in India at ancient times.

And what comes to Tantric vows, it's really a shamefur dispray for tibetan buddhist: if one has taken vinaya, one must follow it, no matter what. Lamas are also quite strict about this. However, some become disillusioned with tantric vows and use them as an excuse to do whatever they want (display whole variety of attachments) instead of using it as method to get free from judgements during meditation. Add some more cultish groups to that and you have can of worms ready to be opened. So, I guess, yes. And what comes to consorts, monks are not allowed to have them, no matter what some crazies might say, in tibetan buddhist tradition, just like in Theravadan. However, to be a lama, you don't necessarily have to be a monk/nun. And just like every other laypeople out there, they're free to have girlfriends.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto »

Raitanator wrote:
plwk wrote:
Sorry, I didn't get your point from that wall of text. Could you elaborate a bit, in your own words, why he should re-visit his sources.
That firstly, the Theravada Vinaya may not be what he thinks 'the closest to the original' as is the Mulasarvastivadin or the Dharmaguptaka Vinayas.... hence the 'wall of text' explaining at some length...

So secondly, it may not be necessary to send any Tibetan Buddhist monastic novitiates or aspirants to another 'camp', except just as an educational visit, as what they have already is functional and ongoing valid Vinaya. Is Rinpoche implying that the Mulasarvastivadin monastics are not on par with their Theravadin 'cousins', in terms of Vinaya letter or practice?

Perhaps, the practice part? What they may want to look at are perhaps ongoing stuff like how strictly do they maintain the Vinaya and the many 'concessions' made under the additional superceding Bodhisattva and Tantric Vows/Precepts...
Well, the thing is that when tibetans adopted monastic system, they had to make compromises here and there, because of the society and harsh enviroment. For example, daily dana-rally had to be changed to one big alms-round in autumn, just after when barley was harvested. This way they filled their supplies for the winter. In Thailand, it's pretty much the same what Siddhartha and fellows practiced in India at ancient times.

And what comes to Tantric vows, it's really a shamefur dispray for tibetan buddhist: if one has taken vinaya, one must follow it, no matter what. Lamas are also quite strict about this. However, some become disillusioned with tantric vows and use them as an excuse to do whatever they want (display whole variety of attachments) instead of using it as method to get free from judgements during meditation. Add some more cultish groups to that and you have can of worms ready to be opened. So, I guess, yes. And what comes to consorts, monks are not allowed to have them, no matter what some crazies might say, in tibetan buddhist tradition, just like in Theravadan. However, to be a lama, you don't necessarily have to be a monk/nun. And just like every other laypeople out there, they're free to have girlfriends.
It is my understanding that the actual vinaya itself was not changed in tibet, but practices (as have happened in the west) were altered so that it was practicable while still within the rule.
I have only seen a comparison of the vinaya used in China so if you know of a comparison between the pali and tibetan vinayas I would be interested.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by daverupa »

Cittasanto wrote:a comparison between the pali and tibetan vinayas I would be interested.
It'd be a Mulasarvastivada - Theravada Vinayapitaka comparison, basically. Here are some related works; I'm unaware of any large-scale comparative analyses (or really, of even small-scale ones), but these may be pertinent:

Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism by Jonathan A. Silk

Buddhist monastic discipline: the Sanskrit Prātimokṣa sūtras of the Mahāsāṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins by Charles S. Prebish
  • "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]
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by lojong1 »

Cittasanto wrote:...if you know of a comparison between the pali and tibetan vinayas I would be interested.
New Kadampa doesn't consider itself Tibetan, but here it is. They have completely erased whatever vinaya and pratimoksha the Tibetan lineages were using, and replaced it with these ten commitments:

" Throughout my life I will abandon killing, stealing, lying or cheating, sexual activity, taking intoxicants and engaging in meaningless activities. I will practice contentment, reduce my desire for worldly pleasures, maintain the commitments of refuge, and practice the three trainings of moral discipline, concentration and wisdom."

I've read in their scripture, by Buddha Kelsang Gyatso, that they still recognize the five anantarika-kamma (i.e, creating a schism in the sangha is as bad as killing an arahant). This might indicate changed meanings in their vow content.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto »

daverupa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:a comparison between the pali and tibetan vinayas I would be interested.
It'd be a Mulasarvastivada - Theravada Vinayapitaka comparison, basically. Here are some related works; I'm unaware of any large-scale comparative analyses (or really, of even small-scale ones), but these may be pertinent:

Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism by Jonathan A. Silk

Buddhist monastic discipline: the Sanskrit Prātimokṣa sūtras of the Mahāsāṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins by Charles S. Prebish
Not so much an analysis rather a simple spot the difference similarities between, similar to this http://cittasanto.weebly.com/7/post/201 ... cepts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply