Theravada Buddhism

[Vapour]

If you didn't meat to denigrate it, then you shouldn't have made a statement like "Hinayana do not, in general, use skillful means." This may be an unfair comparison but a statement like "N**** are in general economically disadvangaged" can't be excused as a mere statistical observation.

As of skillfull means, if you did mean to refer to certain Mahayanan techinque which is absent in Theravadan school, that is fine. However, "skillfull means" is a general concept refering to Buddah's ability to teach according to students, something any religious tradition practice.

I may got carried away because of H words. As of my spelling, read my sig.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Well, I actually know the shorter one. (I had to google to refresh my memory though) It is "I will save everyone, end all suffering, know the law (dharma) and become buddah",

close enough for government work, as they say

general thrust being that one will enlighten entire humanity along with yourselves. However, I know longer version exist for othe buddist school (tibettan?), which I obviously don't know but can probably google to find out.

the Bodhisattva vow is found in the same form throughout the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. it is certainly true that, depending on the language that we are speaking, we may use different words.

Buy anyway, my observation is that difference between Mahayanan and Theravadan in regard to boddhisatva originate from different approach, Theravadan one about historical buddah and Mahayanan one about transcendent nature of historical buddah.

well.. you've asserted this three times now.. and i have offered a few other points for you to consider. i would humbly ask that you investiagate this further before you continue in this line of reasoning.

if you think that the Mahayana and Vajrayana do not place emphasis on Buddha Shakyamuni, i would heartily encourage you to read some Mahayana Sutras or, perhaps better yet, a good book that explains the Mahayana view by a reputable author, such as Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance.

That in my view, partially explain the different interpretation of the nature of enlightement along with Mahayanan emphasis on the concept of emptiness.

actually.. i think that you can make a stronger argument here than you have above. in fact, it is the understanding of emptiness that distinguishes the thee Vehicles more significantly than any other single point, from what i've been able to discover.

of course, these are superficial differences and really correspond with the variety and capacities of sentient beings and do not reflect an inherent conflict within the Buddhist tradition.

of course, there are always some people that will cling to their doctrine or teachings or view and assert that they are correct and others are wrong. for those folks, i would heartily encourage them to put forth more effort in their meditation sessions.

As of the term "skillfullness", I was merely pointing out something obvious. "Theravadan buddhism doesn't use skillfull means" is not being polite and probably comes from the view that Theravadan lack of the concept of boddhisatva's skillfullness.

Vapour... are you talking to Samabudhi in this paragraph? i'm not sure.. since that is not something that i asserted.

as i've pointed out and even sited the Theravedan Suttas where the Bodhisattva is mentioned, i have no idea why you are trying to maintain this position. please, investigate these things for yourself.

As of Nichiren, they tend to be bit off because they put absolute faith in Lotus Sutra which contain polemics against formalism and disputed doctrines of Hinayana school. So in a way, you can't blame them can you.

not just the Theravedans... oh no... they are the only "True Buddhist school".. however... we aren't discussion that school in this thread.

They are indicative of prevaling Mahayanan attitude of about 50 years ago. It is minority now at least in public though.

i'm not sure what you are talking about. firstly, Nichrien school arose in the 13th century C.E. secondly, they are a huge organization.. perhaps, you would like to research this further?

As of my *opinion*, well, i do think one should extend the curtesy of describing Theravadan school in their own term. Therefore, use of three wheel concepts is inheritantly unfair. Obviously, you can use three wheel concept to describe tibettan buddhism. But that is not what this thread is about.

by "wheel" do you mean "yana"? nevertheless, when i talk about Buddhist teachigns, i do so from a non-sectarian point of view. when we get to specifics between the schools and traditions, then i present the teachings from my schools point of view, and i have clearly stated that this is how i operate on many occassions.

however.. something is puzzling to me... you say that you are not a Theravedan, however, you were raised in a Pure Land house, which is a Mahayana school. therefore, i'm unclear where you are deriving your Buddhist teaching from.. i.e. what is the source of your understanding of the Dharma?

further, i'm not entirely certain why you dispute the explanation that i've proved from the Vajaryana point of view vis a vie the Hinyana. EVERY Vajrayana practiconer has practiced the Theravedan school.. then, through the Mahayana and finally to the Vajrayana. this three step, graduated path, is outlined in the same Suttas that i've referenced in the Pali Canon and elucidated futher in others.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

here is what "hina" mean in sanskrit

a. left, forsaken; excluded or shut out from, fallen short of (abl.); devoid or bereft of, free from, without (instr., abl., loc., --- or ---); inferior, less (opp. {adhika}); low, base, mean; incomplete, deficient, wanting. Abstr. {-tA}Å f., {-tva}Å n.
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ind...wd_search.html

It doesn't help to claim that hina only means small/lesser because it is plainly not the case.

context, context, context. since the word has a great many meanings, the only way to ascertain the way that the word is used is by knowing the context of the text where the term is used.

futher, nobody claimed that it "only" meant 'lesser'.. the claim was made that Hina, in Hinyana, means lesser in the sense of smaller Vehicle. this is clear in the context of the Mahayana Sutras. please investigate this for yourself and it will be fairly clear, in my opinion.

It is like saying that by saying "<explitive deleted">, you only meant black people. People who invented the term Hinayana knew exactly what the term will indicates.

ok... that's right out, uncalled for and bigoted. which "people" invented the term, be as specific as you can in this instance as that will be fairly important in our discussion, in the academic sense, as we move forward.

[Vapour]

Yes, it would had been a simple matter if the word "small/Cuula" in sanskrit/pali was used. Instead, Mahayana school decided to choose "Hina". And let see how "hina" is used in the Pali/Sanskrit sutras.

Every Buddhist knows the first recorded sermon of the Buddha, the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta spoken to the five ascets who became the first five bhikkhus. There the Buddha says: "These two extremes, monks, are not to be practised by one who has gone forth from the world. What are the two? That conjoined with the passions and luxury, low (hiina), coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful ..."

Knowing that the sutta style often use strings of synonyms this way, so that they strengthen and define each other, one can regard "coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful" as auxiliary definitions of "hiina" in this case.

Here the Buddha clearly denotes the path not to be practised, as hiina.

In other Pali texts and commentaries hiina often occurs in the combination hiina-majjhima-pa.niita, that is: bad - medium - good. In the context of hiina - majjhima - pa.niita (or sometimes only hiina - pa.niita) the word hiina is always used as a term for undesirable qualities, like for instance hatred, greed and ignorance. It obviously means "low, undesirable, despicable" – and not "small" or "lesser".

The commentary Mahaniddesa-atthakatha, one of the texts where this triad occurs, defines the word thus: hiinattike hiinaati laamakaa (In the hiina-triad "hiina" is "laamakaa"). Now laamaka is defined by the PTS Dictionary in this way: "insignificant, poor, inferior, bad, sinful. The usual synonym is paapa". And paapa means "bad, evil". So it seems the definitions go from bad to worse here. The commentary then gives examples, and explains that desires that cause rebirth in niraya (hell, purgatory) are hiina.

Now for Sanskrit texts. In Lalitavistara we find a version of the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta, where the word "hiina" is used exactly as in the above citation from the Pali-version of that sutta.

In Mahayanasutralankara by Asanga, which is a very representativ Mahayana text, we find something of interest for our quest. Asanga says: "There are three groups of people: hiina-madhyama-vishishta ...(bad – medium – excellent)." This expression is parallell to the Pali: hiina-majjhima-pa.niita, and goes to show that the Mahayanists who coined the therm "hiinayaana", regarded "hiina" as a derogatory term, with the same meaning as in the Pali texts.

http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm

The above linked article explain this issue in term of Tibetan buddhism as well.

But most importantly, in Theravadan buddhist, even some lay people have basic understanding of pali language. And they will easily recognise the meaning of the term "hina" for what it is. Would it be that important to you or Tibetan buddhist to use the term "Hinayana" even you know it cause offence?

[Vapour]

Well, I did bit of reading on Pure Land. Guess what, aside from the four basic vows, Pure Land actually do have longer version of 48 boddhisatva vows. Not only that, it turned out be in Chinese! Non of it makes sence to ordinary Japanese without commentary.

As of emphasis on Trancendent nature of Budda/Bodisattva, when I went to SriLanka and there are only one Buddah's stuate with only three variation (standing, siting and laying down), whereas in Japan, there are 100 different type of Buddhist statutes. It didn't take long to recongise the difference in emphasis.

Here is an introductory link

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/bodhisattva.shtml

As of "skillfull mean" issue, yes I was refering to Samabudhi comment. In Mahayannan Buddhism, it refert to both Buddah and boddhisatva. In Theravadan, because of their focus on historical buddah who start to teach dharma after attaining enlightenemt, so boddhisatva's skillfull means make no sence to them. In Pali Cannons, there are mention of some senior Arahants giving instruction.

As of prevaling attitude of 50 years, I'm refering to general Mahayanan practice of description of Theravadan as Hinayana and all other prejudice involved. That attitude expressed in the Nichren link was not unique to Nichiren. It was almost customery comment made about Theravada/Hinayana back then.

Lastly, "EVERY Vajrayana practiconer has practiced the Theravedan school". This explain a lot. Did you ever bother to ask theravadan monks if such *claim* is valid from their point of view? In England, there is a new buddhist school which *claim* to teach combination of Theravadan, Mahayanan and Vajrayana practice. British Tibetan buddhist community has few harsh words about their claim.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vapour

In England, there is a new buddhist school which *claim* to teach combination of Theravadan, Mahayanan and Vajrayana practice. British Tibetan buddhist community has few harsh words about their claim.

Namaskar,

Do you perhaps mean the (Friends of the) Western Buddhist Order led by Sangharak****a (Dennis Lingwood)?

[Vapour]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

Do you perhaps mean the (Friends of the) Western Buddhist Order led by Sangharak****a (Dennis Lingwood)?

http://www.stfu.se/ Just kidding

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vapour

"shut the f*ck up"

Namaskar,

What kind of answer is that?

[I, Brian]

I think something was lost in translation - perhaps we should try again and keep on track with the discussion.

[Vapour]

My joke lacked subtlity. I apologise.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vapour,

thank you for the post.

fair enough.... let's talk about the language of the Mahayana.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Yes, it would had been a simple matter if the word "small/Cuula" in sanskrit/pali was used. Instead, Mahayana school decided to choose "Hina".

what language was the Mahayana originally written in? what is Pali? what is Sanskrit? i'm asking what type of languages are these two, specifically?

http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm

did you read the article?

this is the salient point:

Who were the opponents who were labeled Hinayana? Theravada? Probably not.

every school of the Hinyana is gone. the only school that is even remotely related in the Theravedan school... and Theravedan is the Teachings of the Elders, which is only a Hinyana school in the loosest sense.

nevertheless, those are sanskrit and pali terms, and for most english speakers, the subtlties are simply not there and they do not view them in a derogatory manner, unless their particular teacher does.

do you know who Robert Thurman is? in any event, he's chosen to represent the three Vehicles with the western words: orthodox, messianic and apocalyptic. which may be better terms for describing the Vehicles in the west.

Would it be that important to you or Tibetan buddhist to use the term "Hinayana" even you know it cause offence?

of course not. which is why we call the school, Theravedan. we call the Vehicle Hinyana. however, if one thinks that they are practicing one Vehicle at a time, they are mistaken, from our point of view.

it's like trying to build a house without a foundation... it simply cannot be done.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Lastly, "EVERY Vajrayana practiconer has practiced the Theravedan school". This explain a lot. Did you ever bother to ask theravadan monks if such *claim* is valid from their point of view?

of course not. that would be like asking a particle physist to explain quantum theory.. to different disciplines and perspectives.

as the orthodox view, the Theraveda position is clear. what's the problem? 84,000 Dharma doorways, remember?

In England, there is a new buddhist school which *claim* to teach combination of Theravadan, Mahayanan and Vajrayana practice. British Tibetan buddhist community has few harsh words about their claim.

as Avinash asked, are you referrring to the Western Buddhist Order?

of course they do why would you expect otherwise? people are people, regardless of the religious path that they practice, as such, they are all of differing capacities and respond to the Dharma as they are able.

the Tibetan Vajrayana position is well known in these respects, however, i would like to point out that often it will depend on the lineage of the Tibetan school on how they relate to other non-Vajrayana schools.

nevertheless, i cannot emphasize enough that the primary differences in these approaches are found in the Abidharma section of the Canon and how they are interepeted.

[samabudhi]

So what's your agenda Vapour?

Where do you stand in all of this (are you Buddhist?) and why are you so keen to see conflict where there is none?

[Vapour]

Theravadan scriptures are in Pali and Mahayanan scriptures are in Sanskrit. Both are close dialect. That is why lot of words overlap. On the other hand, Buddah spoke another dialect. Can't remember what it was called. Start with M, I think. Can you google?

As of historical accuracy of connecting Theravadan school as Hinayana school, I think your argument works if there was a mix up in the identity but that is not the case. It is most apparent when reading the content of Mahayanan writing which often accuse of Arahat of being narrow minded, selfish and in certain sutras, unable to attain nirvana. Not only the current Theravadan school consider Arahat as the living embodiment of enlightment, it trace lineage to one of the school which was included in Hinayana. So yes. Hinayana refert to Theravada school as well as whole other schools which didn't survive. Most importantly, Theravadan identify their doctrine and lineage as such. Most Mahayanan school recognise Theravadan lineage to be such as well. So the response Tibetan teachers give to this issue is puzzle to anyone who know even elementary knowlege of Buddhism like myself. I mean, it is not possible for these people to be unaware of the whole issue. It is like Catholic priest not knowing the issue of "Great Schism".

Possibly in Tibetan translation of hina, derogetory connotation is less pronounced. For example, Japanese/Chinese translation of hina, they have picked the word "small" with no other derogetory meaning. The word simply means small. However, the numerous paragraph in Mahayanan writing make it clear that small vehicle is inferior approach to buddhism. Plus, implication of small vehicle is insulting enough.

Another hypothesis I could think is the particular nature of Tibetan buddhism. I'm quite eanger to hear your opinion on this. Unlike other Mahayanan lineage in Far East, Tibetan took approach to synthesis Theravadan, Mahayanan and Tantric tradition. Far Easter Mahayanan tradition, on the other hand, moved on from this issue. I mean the issue is nearly 2000 years old and Far Eastern Buddhism rarely came into contact with Theravadan tradition which survived in Sri Lanka, only later transmitted to South East Asia. They had other sectarian disputes during this two thousands years. It hardly make sence deal with this issue when there is no one else to dispute the issue with. This may explain why in late 19th century, many Mahayanan school start to rediscover Pali tripitaka with little problem. But within Tibetan tradition, the theological reasoning in which the dispute has been harmonised within the three wheel system is integral to Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, in this way, the issue is alive as 2000 years ago. While most other Mahayanan tradition has no trouble saying "Opps, yes, this is embarassing. Let change the name and move on.", it may not be simple in Tibetan tradition.

I have a friends who has attended a Tibetan Buddhism event in Scotland with Dalai Lama and other high ranking lamas giving seminar. There are few aspect of the seminar which did catch my attention. Firstly, Dalai Lama apparently spent great deal of first few hours establishing the Mahayanan lineage of Tibetan school. Secondly, he spend another few hours discussing apparent philosophical problem in Pali cannons and how Mahayanan tradition has sloved this problem. It caught my attention because it was odd topics (from Oriental Mahayanan perspective) to discuss.

Lastly, yes, in English the word Hinayana doesn't sound as bad as N word because most westerners are not aware of Buddhism. May be if I use N word in Japanese, it is not too bad either. However, if you are buddhist, it would be naive to proclaim the ignonrance as a defence. Lastly, the popularity of the three wheel idea is most popular in the west because Tibettan Buddhism happen to be the most prominent buddhist school in the West. To Theravadan school, invoking the concept of vehicle/wheel itself would be same as invoking an issue which is solely matter of Mahayanan polemic against them. As I said, there is no problem to use the concept of three wheel to explain the Tibetan system. It is not at all accurate or appropriate to use such concept to describe Theravadan buddhism. I mean, one thing I can say about three wheel approach is that this totally ignore the evolution of Theravadan Buddhism since the split.

[Vapour]

Say I'm not a practicing Buddhist. oh, I also happen to be the treasurer of buddhist society in my university. I don't attend any of their religious event such as meditation or seminar which is popular with British. Instead I organise their social events which is popular with buddhist from buddhist country. The last curry night event I organise, we enjoy water pipe as well as bit of boozing. The chair of the society didn't like that too much.

As of "new Buddhist organisation", yes, I meant FWBO. After typing that comment, I did realise that I shouldn't have. Hence my previous link. I mean, there is a good chance that we may get a FWBO member in our forum. Plus, any discussion dealing with FWBO would raise issue such as cult/legitimacy/authenticity, not something helpful to the atomosphere of this forum. I mean we even treat our new Neo nazi guy with courtesy. Compared to the issue sorruoudin Holocaust, issue sourroudning Denis Longwood is tiny in my view.