Do you find Hinayana offensive?

[Cittasanto]

Because then one would have to say either "Buddhists" - but the Mahayanists are Buddhists, too, so it doesn't make the necessarily distinction; or say "Theravadins-Sarvastivadins-Vatsiputriyas-Mahisasakas-Dharmaguptas-Kasyapiyas-Bahusrutiyas-Aparasailiyas-Purvasailiyas-Prajnaptivadins-Lokottaravadins" all the time, and that is a huge mouthful!

Unless you have some other term we could use?

Maybe you are just thinking of "Theravadins", but my point is, the two categories of "Theravadins" and "Mahayanists" does not exhaust all of the Buddhists, there are still a heck of a lot more. How do we refer to all the non-Mahayanists?

Mahayana is an umbrella term itself for several different schools, if one is being referred to specifically then that name is used! other possibility for non-Mahayana schools could be early Buddhist schools.

that would be place/group specific wouldn't it? say mainstream Buddhism here it automatically refers to Theravada, say it anywhere else mainstream refers to the majority group, or group the forum is about!

I am not sure what you mean by "here", on DhammaWheel Forum?

Here or anywhere, mainstream indicates the norm, the main current of accepted thought or behaviour, and majority, but would always be within a context when referring to something, and would change when in a time and place. at one time Sri Lanka was a mahayana country, so the context or mainstream would change when refering to the history of Buddhism there, and be confusing when it is so closely related to Theravada today.

As Tilt has pointed out, for most of Buddhist history up until maybe the Pala period, after which Buddhism went into decline in India, all the non-Mahayana groups were the "majority". Hence, it is an appropriate term in general.

If the place had some particular school, out of the many non-Mahayana schools, as it's majority, then in that case, one could just use the name of the school. eg. the Sarvastivada in Kasmir / Gandhara, the Theravada in Sri Lanka.

But I am referring to Indian Buddhism in general. Hence, not one single school with it's "own name".

in context of history that would be correct, but we don't always talk in the historical context. mahayana being a term which can be used in both present and historical context and understood accurately, and 100 years after the Buddha there started being recognisably different schools so mainstream would be different even in the pre-schism period to after the splits.

[Paññāsikhara]

Good points.

The whole "hinayana" vs "mahayana" argument came up at an historical point in time, so I (and quite a few others) thought that "mainstream" was appropriate for the non-Mahayana groups at that time. As you say, that may not work all the time. How are we do deal with this now?

Also, some of those schools are no "earlier" than the Mahayana (eg. a lot of Theravada theory - the "teachings of the Elders" is about co-temporal with the start of the Mahayana), so "early Buddhist schools" won't work either.

So, having rejected "hinayana" (obviously!) and "mainstream" as terms to describe non-Mahayana groups as a whole, do you have any other terms that will work? I think that this is an important question. If we are keen to drop the nasty terms as long gone history, how are we to proceed in the present?

[Mawkish1983]

I might be underthinking this, but what's wrong with the term 'non-mahayana'?

[Paññāsikhara]

I might be underthinking this, but what's wrong with the term 'non-mahayana'?

hmmmm, well, then do all the other schools, which during the real boom-time of Buddhism in India were the majority, get to be defined merely in terms of what they are not?

eg. for Americans, could we get away with calling the Democrats (etc.) (at present) simply the "non-Republicans"?

"Welcome to Dhamma Wheel: A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the non-Mahayana!"

Okay, okay, I'm just being silly now. Time to shut up for a bit!

[catmoon]

the words "hina" or "hinayana" are so unpleasant to my ear I just don't want to hear them.

well here's an odd thing. I have always found the word "hinayana" to be exceptionally beautiful in sound. It is rhythmic, soft and lofty.

Or is it? Certainly if you feel the way you do, that proves my perception is far from universal. So where is this beauty found? What are it's causes?


In any event, the CONTENT of the word, the thing it refers to, is pretty awful so I'm avoiding it anyhow.

[Mawkish1983]

do all the other schools ... get to be defined merely in terms of what they are not?

But isn't that exactly what we're doing? If we're talking about all schools that are not mahayana then non-mahayana is the obvious choice of word. All sensitivities aside, the Theravada isn't the only non-mahayana school and this forum is for Theravada, not non-mahayana. If we are to discuss the Theravada we'll call it Theravada. If we're to discuss all schools that are not mahayana then why not call them non-mahayana schools? I don't see the problem.

[Mawkish1983]

eg. for Americans, could we get away with calling the Democrats (etc.) (at present) simply the "non-Republicans"?

... and third party candidates. The comparison doesn't really work because American politics is not binary but of course the Democrats are included in the non-republican umbrella, as are other third party and independent groups. In the case of discussing all traditions defined as being 'not mahayana' the term 'non-mahayana' is the only one I can see that makes sense.

[Mawkish1983]

I wonder if 'amahayanayana' would be prefered? Or if non-mahayana schools want to 'sound better' how about 'sammamahayana'? <shrugs> I don't think I like either names!

edit: Isn't 'Northern schools' normally used for mahayana schools and 'Southern schools' used for non-mahayana schools already? I don't know, I give up. This all seems a little pointless anyway

[adeh]

I think "Theravada" sounds just fine....and we should keep on insisting that the other traditions use it and stop using the term "hinayana".

[SamKR]

the words "hina" or "hinayana" are so unpleasant to my ear I just don't want to hear them.

well here's an odd thing. I have always found the word "hinayana" to be exceptionally beautiful in sound. It is rhythmic, soft and lofty.

Or is it? Certainly if you feel the way you do, that proves my perception is far from universal. So where is this beauty found? What are it's causes?

In any event, the CONTENT of the word, the thing it refers to, is pretty awful so I'm avoiding it anyhow.

For me it is unpleasant to hear because of its meaning (or "the content of the word, the thing it refers to") not because of any particular sound rhythm it produces.

[Cittasanto]

Good points.

The whole "hinayana" vs "mahayana" argument came up at an historical point in time, so I (and quite a few others) thought that "mainstream" was appropriate for the non-Mahayana groups at that time. As you say, that may not work all the time. How are we do deal with this now?

Also, some of those schools are no "earlier" than the Mahayana (eg. a lot of Theravada theory - the "teachings of the Elders" is about co-temporal with the start of the Mahayana), so "early Buddhist schools" won't work either.

So, having rejected "hinayana" (obviously!) and "mainstream" as terms to describe non-Mahayana groups as a whole, do you have any other terms that will work? I think that this is an important question. If we are keen to drop the nasty terms as long gone history, how are we to proceed in the present?

Early Thera Schools (All the schools on this side of the original split plus less likely to be confused with theravada as an existing school) & Mahasanghika (talking about the extinct group from the first split whos teachings line still exists in mahayana but vinaya line is gone) or early buddhist schools (general for all schools before Mahayana & Vajrayana).
the theories of any particular school would need that school to be named specifically so not really a reason not to use early Buddhist schools in a general way.

[LauraJ]

I think "Theravada" sounds just fine....and we should keep on insisting that the other traditions use it and stop using the term "hinayana".

If someone has to be repeatedly told, I wonder what's up with that
It's a simple thing to avoid a pejorative term. Or so I thought.

[mikenz66]

Hi adeh,

I think "Theravada" sounds just fine....and we should keep on insisting that the other traditions use it and stop using the term "hinayana".

Obviously, if someone is actually talking about Theravada.

However, the key point that Paññāsikhara has made many times is that it is misleading to use the term "Theravada" for pre-Theravada Buddhism, or to use it as a collective label for the numerous (non-Mahayana) schools that existed alongside it. There were significant doctrinal differences, some of which are presented in the Theravada Canon and make interesting reading...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

V. Kathavatthu ("Points of Controversy").
Another odd inclusion in the Abhidhamma, this book contains questions and answers that were compiled by Moggaliputta Tissa in the 3rd century BCE, in order to help clarify points of controversy that existed between the various "Hinayana" schools of Buddhism at the time.
English translations:
* Points of Controversy, translated from the Pali by S.Z. Aung and C.A.F. Rhys Davids (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1915).

Metta
Mike

[adeh]

I was only talking about Theravada.....if you are talking about the other now non-existent groups then they should be referred to by their particular names....

[mikenz66]

Hi adeh,

I was only talking about Theravada.....

In that case "Theravada" is fine.

However, "Theravada" often seems to be used as a synonym for all early and/or non-Mahayana Buddhism, or for "Buddhism based on early Suttas/Sutras", etc...

Metta
Mike