What needs to be done so that Theravada is never called Hinayana

[Sam Vara]

For decades, Theravadins have been upset about the name “Hinayana,”

I don't know any such Theravadans, and the Buddha said that we ought not to get upset. So I'm not upset. As far as I'm concerned, you are trying to solve a non-existent problem.

Theravada is a Buddhist school of Mahaviharavasin, a religious and philosophical tradition, a commentary tradition. It arose in the 3-4th century AD, standing out from the Tamrashatiya.

Resentment of the erroneously used term "Hinayana" generates a stream of articles, discussions on forums, etc., which has been going on for decades. Obviously, for theravadin, the problem of the term is real. An example from the link in this thread (page 8):

Some reading material .....
No Hinayana in Buddhism
By Chan Khoon San and Kare A. Lie
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/NoHinayana.pdf

"All Buddhists are advised to stop using the term “Hinayana”,a false derogatory term, which is defamatory." (Chan Khoon San and Kare A. Lie)

OK, let's stop using the term Hinayana.

"Nibbana exists during and beyond the Sasana is permanent (nicca), durable (dhuva), and eternal (sassata) ... Nibbana can be known only by the consciousness associated with magga-nana and phala-nana and manovinneyya = it is to be comprehended only by mind." (Agga Mahapandita Bhaddanta Tejaniyabhivamsa, "Enlightenment on Nibbana", p. 40 http://www.kbrl.gov.mm/book/details/002 ... egoryId=58)

Theravada teaches about the self-existence of dharma: the Nibbana dharma exists after the dissolution of khandh independently, separately from any experience. The Mahayana, on the other hand, considers Buddha’s Teaching only such a teaching in which (according to the Four Seals of Dharma) all dharmas are devoid of self-existence. Since Theravada is not the Teaching of the Buddha, from the point of view of the Four Seals of Dharma, the Theravada school cannot be called Hinayana.

This solves the problem. Using the term "which is defamatory" becomes impossible. So why the Theravadins do not want to tell the Mahayanists that Theravada directly contradicts the Four Dharma Seals ?!

I suspect that you might be happier with hyper-literalism than metaphor, Germann, but you are asking me to scratch an itch that I don't feel. I have no interest in how other refer to practices and traditions, and the "Four Seals of Dhamma" are criteria that other people might hold, but not me. If Chan Khoon San and Kare A. Lie feel badly about someone else using a term, then you might want to email them to suggest your solution. Lets us know how you get on. Kare used to post here on DW, so you might try PMing him.

Your strategy is about as compelling as a proselytising Christian posting here to tell me that I ought to be born again in the spirit. Something in their tradition and practice might tell them that is so, but that's their problem, not mine.

In fact, the Christian's motivation for doing that might be quite endearing, because s/he might have a concern for my welfare. But your rather daft attempts to recruit others to a mental game you are playing doesn't even have that redeeming factor.

[SDC]

Germann, I just ask that you don't transition into any proselytizing or evangelizing once you get done with this increasingly discrepant attempt to backhand Theravada. It seems clear that you understand you'll be suspended if you said how you truly feel, but this campaign is still one of the more bizarre things I've ever seen.

What exactly is the contradiction? Theravadins Nibbana is a self-existent dhamma: this dhamma exists independently, separate from any experience, after the collapse of khandhas.

There is absolutely no way to speak of Theravada in any unified fashion. You didn't know that?

[Germann]

Germann, I just ask that you don't transition into any proselytizing or evangelizing once you get done with this increasingly discrepant attempt to backhand Theravada. It seems clear that you understand you'll be suspended if you said how you truly feel, but this campaign is still one of the more bizarre things I've ever seen.

What exactly is the contradiction? Theravadins Nibbana is a self-existent dhamma: this dhamma exists independently, separate from any experience, after the collapse of khandhas.

There is absolutely no way to speak of Theravada in any unified fashion. You didn't know that?

You can talk about the Mahaviharavasin school, this is a specific tradition. The fact that the word "Theravada" is called, besides this, a conglomeration of the latest cults and movements, I certainly know.

[SDC]

You can talk about the Mahaviharavasin school, this is a specific tradition. The fact that the word "Theravada" is called, besides this, a conglomeration of the latest cults and movements, I certainly know.

If you know then I'm not sure how you can take just one specific interpretation and apply it to everything else under the ambiguous umbrella of "Theravada". That's sloppy.

[Germann]

You can talk about the Mahaviharavasin school, this is a specific tradition. The fact that the word "Theravada" is called, besides this, a conglomeration of the latest cults and movements, I certainly know.

If you know then I'm not sure how you can take just one specific interpretation and apply it to everything else under the ambiguous umbrella of "Theravada". That's sloppy.

If you mean Theravada school, then the school is a religious and philosophical commentary tradition. There is such a tradition, it is called the Mahaviharavasin school (since 1950, Theravada school). If Theravada is understood only as the Vinaya tradition, only as a monastic ordination, then Theravadin = monk of the Pali Vinaya can be a representative of any of the schools, not only Mahaviharavasin.

[SDC]

You can talk about the Mahaviharavasin school, this is a specific tradition. The fact that the word "Theravada" is called, besides this, a conglomeration of the latest cults and movements, I certainly know.

If you know then I'm not sure how you can take just one specific interpretation and apply it to everything else under the ambiguous umbrella of "Theravada". That's sloppy.

If you mean Theravada school, then the school is a religious and philosophical commentary tradition. There is such a tradition, it is called the Mahaviharavasin school (since 1950, Theravada school). If Theravada is understood only as the Vinaya tradition, only as a monastic ordination, then Theravadin = monk of the Pali Vinaya can be a representative of any of the schools, not only Mahaviharavasin.

It's neither of your criteria. You're trying too hard to identify the most generic and superficial tenets, which disqualifies much of what would be considered part of the Theravada tradition - as ambiguous as that designation may be.

What about commentaries that are not in agreement with one another? That would put you in a position to choose one interpretation over another, would it not? Right there you are without grounds to critique Theravada as a single tradition. Because it isn't. It lacks the specific criteria to be so broadly referenced for your purposes. It is a multitude of different approaches with the Pali Canon as its most principle point of reference.

Your telling me that there are no such disagreements in Mahayana?

[cappuccino]

arguing isn't the way


if you figure it out, then apply it


if you won't apply it, then it doesn't matter

[binocular]

Yes, for those prone to doubt, anything can be problematic. Luckily I'm not so prone and therefore would be hard to engage in Germann's rather pointless Gedankenexperiment.

The dispute between Mahayana/Vajrayana and Theravada goes back a long time, and concerns many people.

- - -

This solves the problem. Using the term "which is defamatory" becomes impossible. So why the Theravadins do not want to tell the Mahayanists that Theravada directly contradicts the Four Dharma Seals ?!

Oh, the irony of pointing out to someone that they aren't listening to you ...

- - -

If you know then I'm not sure how you can take just one specific interpretation and apply it to everything else under the ambiguous umbrella of "Theravada". That's sloppy.

No, it's confident.

[Sam Vara]

Yes, for those prone to doubt, anything can be problematic. Luckily I'm not so prone and therefore would be hard to engage in Germann's rather pointless Gedankenexperiment.

The dispute between Mahayana/Vajrayana and Theravada goes back a long time, and concerns many people.

Yes, as I said, it doesn't concern me. My advice, as it was sought, would be for them to abandon such concerns rather than nurture them, or expect me to do anything for them.

[binocular]

I think this ties in neatly with your thread on Mainstream or Outsider, Mike. If one does take the Dhamma as a Dogma, as the set of scriptures rather than a living breathing tradition of practice, then one runs into all kinds of issues of consistency, absurdity, values scarily incompatible with our modern mindset, etc. But if one tried to put Dhamma instruction into practice, these egoic battles recede in their importance and the Dhamma takes on an entirely different form.

Ever the master of false dichotomies! Just how do you do it?!

[binocular]

My advice, as it was sought, would be for them to abandon such concerns rather than nurture them,

Who sought your advice??

or expect me to do anything for them.

Oh, dear, you think too highly of yourself.

[Dan74]

I think this ties in neatly with your thread on Mainstream or Outsider, Mike. If one does take the Dhamma as a Dogma, as the set of scriptures rather than a living breathing tradition of practice, then one runs into all kinds of issues of consistency, absurdity, values scarily incompatible with our modern mindset, etc. But if one tried to put Dhamma instruction into practice, these egoic battles recede in their importance and the Dhamma takes on an entirely different form.

Ever the master of false dichotomies! Just how do you do it?!

I just try to put what I've experienced into words. I guess it falls under Case 1: runs into all kinds of issues..

[Sam Vara]

My advice, as it was sought, would be for them to abandon such concerns rather than nurture them,

Who sought your advice??

Germann.

Oh, dear, you think too highly of yourself.

Not developing an unpleasant mental state is something to congratulate myself on, but it's all relative, I guess...

[binocular]

Maybe the problem is sometimes taking ourselves too seriously, taking our opinions too seriously.

On the contrary. The problem is in _not_ taking the Dhamma, nor our opinions, seriously enough.

[cappuccino]

The problem is in _not_ taking the Dhamma seriously enough.