Difference between revisions of "Hinayana as a pejorative"
(Created page with " Hinayana as a pejorative; There remains an open and active debate regarding the issue of whether or not Hinayana was coined to be pejorative or merely classifica...") |
m (Text replacement - "self-mastery" to "self-mastery") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{DisplayImages|361|3025}} | |
[[Hinayana as a pejorative]]; There remains an open and active [[debate]] regarding the issue of whether or not [[Hinayana]] was coined to be pejorative or merely classificatory. Those who assert the [[idea]] tend to be among those who subscribe the [[idea]] of an early [[Mahayana]] {{Wiki|schism}}, and who believe that there was a strong history of {{Wiki|polemics}} between the early [[Mahayana]] and other [[early Buddhist schools]]. Those who assert that the term was coined in a merely classificatory [[manner]], generally consider the pejorative accusation to be a Fundamental attribution error. | [[Hinayana as a pejorative]]; There remains an open and active [[debate]] regarding the issue of whether or not [[Hinayana]] was coined to be pejorative or merely classificatory. Those who assert the [[idea]] tend to be among those who subscribe the [[idea]] of an early [[Mahayana]] {{Wiki|schism}}, and who believe that there was a strong history of {{Wiki|polemics}} between the early [[Mahayana]] and other [[early Buddhist schools]]. Those who assert that the term was coined in a merely classificatory [[manner]], generally consider the pejorative accusation to be a Fundamental attribution error. | ||
The arguments for the term as being pejorative largely depends upon the {{Wiki|etymological}} [[roots]] of the prefix 'Hina': Hina- is defined as such: "{{Wiki|inferior}}, less, low, base, mean, incomplete, deficient, wanting and so on." | The arguments for the term as being pejorative largely depends upon the {{Wiki|etymological}} [[roots]] of the prefix 'Hina': Hina- is defined as such: "{{Wiki|inferior}}, less, low, base, mean, incomplete, deficient, wanting and so on." | ||
| − | Most agree that the usage of 'hina-' as a prefix represents those "{{Wiki|inferior}}", -{{Wiki|inferior}} because they do not lead to the [[attainment]] of [[Samyaksam]] | + | Most agree that the usage of 'hina-' as a prefix represents those "{{Wiki|inferior}}", -{{Wiki|inferior}} because they do not lead to the [[attainment]] of [[Samyaksam Buddhahod]]; so, the [[hinayana]] vehicles are those vehicles that lead to [[Sravaka]] [[Buddhahood]] or [[Pratyeka]] [[Buddhahood]]. |
The difference of opinion is whether or not the term was chosen because of the other meanings attributed to it - apparently suggesting a {{Wiki|nuance}} to the otherwise categorative term. | The difference of opinion is whether or not the term was chosen because of the other meanings attributed to it - apparently suggesting a {{Wiki|nuance}} to the otherwise categorative term. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
A [[bodhisattva]] [...] does not hold other [[Buddhists]] in [[contempt]], not even those who follow the [[Hinayana]] [[path]], nor does he [[cause]] them to have [[doubts]] or regrets by criticizing their way of practice or making discouraging remarks. | A [[bodhisattva]] [...] does not hold other [[Buddhists]] in [[contempt]], not even those who follow the [[Hinayana]] [[path]], nor does he [[cause]] them to have [[doubts]] or regrets by criticizing their way of practice or making discouraging remarks. | ||
| − | By the 3rd Century CE, in the [[ethics]] chapter of [[Asanga's]] [[Bodhisattvabhumi]], we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the [[Hinayana]] texts or [[traditions]], where Trainee [[Bodhisattvas]] are instructed not to: | + | By the 3rd Century CE, in the [[ethics]] [[chapter]] of [[Asanga's]] [[Bodhisattvabhumi]], we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the [[Hinayana]] texts or [[traditions]], where Trainee [[Bodhisattvas]] are instructed not to: |
Disparage the [[Hinayana]], or over-encourage others to learn [[Mahayana]] | Disparage the [[Hinayana]], or over-encourage others to learn [[Mahayana]] | ||
| − | [[Candragomin]] wrote a very influential twenty verse summary of [[Asanga's]] [[Ethics]], written or summarised as a set of [[vows]] to be taken by a trainee Bodhisattve. The 15th Verse (derived from [[Asanga's]] chapter on [[ethics]]) cites as a [[root]] downfall: | + | [[Candragomin]] wrote a very influential twenty verse summary of [[Asanga's]] [[Ethics]], written or summarised as a set of [[vows]] to be taken by a trainee Bodhisattve. The 15th Verse (derived from [[Asanga's]] [[chapter]] on [[ethics]]) cites as a [[root]] downfall: |
Rejecting the [[Sravakayana]] | Rejecting the [[Sravakayana]] | ||
| − | Candragomin's [[vows]] were adopted by the Indo-Tibetan [[Mahayana tradition]] via [[Atisha]], and are still used today by the [[Gelugpa]] and [[Kagyupa]] schools. | + | [[Candragomin's]] [[vows]] were adopted by the Indo-Tibetan [[Mahayana tradition]] via [[Atisha]], and are still used today by the [[Gelugpa]] and [[Kagyupa]] schools. |
The 18,000 verse [[perfection of wisdom sutra]] (an early [[Madhyamaka]] [[Mahayana sutra]]) states: | The 18,000 verse [[perfection of wisdom sutra]] (an early [[Madhyamaka]] [[Mahayana sutra]]) states: | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
[...] Of [[bhikshus]] there were eight thousand, all [[arhats]]. They were free from [[impurities]] and [[afflictions]], and all had [[attained]] self-mastery. Their [[minds]] were entirely {{Wiki|liberated}} by [[perfect knowledge]] [...] | [...] Of [[bhikshus]] there were eight thousand, all [[arhats]]. They were free from [[impurities]] and [[afflictions]], and all had [[attained]] self-mastery. Their [[minds]] were entirely {{Wiki|liberated}} by [[perfect knowledge]] [...] | ||
| − | So, certainly in the early centuries CE, the [[Mahayana tradition]] was doing its best not to | + | So, certainly in the early centuries CE, the [[Mahayana tradition]] was doing its best not to criticize or condemn the [[Hinayana]] vehicles. |
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Hinayana www.thelemapedia.org] | [http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Hinayana www.thelemapedia.org] | ||
[[Category:Theravada Buddhism]] | [[Category:Theravada Buddhism]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:32, 9 February 2016
Hinayana as a pejorative; There remains an open and active debate regarding the issue of whether or not Hinayana was coined to be pejorative or merely classificatory. Those who assert the idea tend to be among those who subscribe the idea of an early Mahayana schism, and who believe that there was a strong history of polemics between the early Mahayana and other early Buddhist schools. Those who assert that the term was coined in a merely classificatory manner, generally consider the pejorative accusation to be a Fundamental attribution error.
The arguments for the term as being pejorative largely depends upon the etymological roots of the prefix 'Hina': Hina- is defined as such: "inferior, less, low, base, mean, incomplete, deficient, wanting and so on."
Most agree that the usage of 'hina-' as a prefix represents those "inferior", -inferior because they do not lead to the attainment of Samyaksam Buddhahod; so, the hinayana vehicles are those vehicles that lead to Sravaka Buddhahood or Pratyeka Buddhahood.
The difference of opinion is whether or not the term was chosen because of the other meanings attributed to it - apparently suggesting a nuance to the otherwise categorative term.
Another argument for criticism of the Hinayana by the early Mahayana is a citation from the Lotus Sutra, where a large number of Bikkhus are said to have walked out of the discourse. We are told early on in the Sutra that there are more than 20,000 Bikshus and Bikhunis present (as well as many thousands of Bodhisattvas). Very early on 5,000 'haughty' Bikshus get up and leave. This shocking behaviour certainly represents something - but it cannot represent the Hinayana tradition, as the majority of Bikshus remain; what it probably represents were a minority of followers of Nikaya schools who were attempting to defame and denigrate the early Mahayana. It appears that there were many Nikaya practitioners who did not wish to criticise or denigrate the new Mahayana movement, indicated by the majority of Bikshus who remained throughout the discourse.
It is hard to come to a conclusion on the issue of pejorativeness. We can find Mahayana Sutras and traditions which repeatedly admonish the trainee Bodhisattva not to criticise any of the Buddhist schools. The mere fact that there is such a strong admonishment against criticising the Hinayana indicates a degree of defensiveness on behalf of the Mahayana regarding this issue.
Lotus Sutra (Ch.14):
A bodhisattva [...] does not hold other Buddhists in contempt, not even those who follow the Hinayana path, nor does he cause them to have doubts or regrets by criticizing their way of practice or making discouraging remarks.
By the 3rd Century CE, in the ethics chapter of Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the Hinayana texts or traditions, where Trainee Bodhisattvas are instructed not to:
Disparage the Hinayana, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana
Candragomin wrote a very influential twenty verse summary of Asanga's Ethics, written or summarised as a set of vows to be taken by a trainee Bodhisattve. The 15th Verse (derived from Asanga's chapter on ethics) cites as a root downfall:
Rejecting the Sravakayana
Candragomin's vows were adopted by the Indo-Tibetan Mahayana tradition via Atisha, and are still used today by the Gelugpa and Kagyupa schools.
The 18,000 verse perfection of wisdom sutra (an early Madhyamaka Mahayana sutra) states:
Bodhisattvas should practice all paths - whatever is a path of a sravaka, a pratyeka or a Buddha - and should know all paths.
in the opening verses of the Vimalakirti Sutra:
Reverence to all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Aryasravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, in the past, the present, and the future and
[...] Of bhikshus there were eight thousand, all arhats. They were free from impurities and afflictions, and all had attained self-mastery. Their minds were entirely liberated by perfect knowledge [...]
So, certainly in the early centuries CE, the Mahayana tradition was doing its best not to criticize or condemn the Hinayana vehicles.
