The Myth of Hinayana

[sean]

[rex]

Less enlightened folks use Hinayana as a perjorative term however there is no real contradiction between Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana.

 

The so called 'lesser vechicle' refers to the aspiration of the practitioner to reach enlightement for themselves alone while practitioner of the so called 'greater vechicle' seeks enlightenment for themselves and all sentient beings. So the real difference is only in the scope of the aspiration . The terms are descriptive not qualitative.

 

Mahayana is based on Hinayana and Vajrayana has Hinayana and Mahayana as necessary foundations. Some Buddhists say that the different traditions arose from the Buddha's three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma (First turning - Hinayana, Second and Third Turnings - Mahayana) Their essential unity is summed up:

 

Hinayana - not to harm

Mahayana - to cultivate a wealth of virtue

Varjayana - to tame and train the mind.

 

Buddhism doesn't exist in a vaccum so naturally general worldly and samasric factors effect its expression.

[rex]

Here's a humorous but pointed exposition on the differences between Hinayana and Mahayana:

 

What They Fight About

 

What is all the row about, though?  Just this -- the Official Tight Assed Buddhists (Hinayanists) think that the Buddha really meant it when he said that in order to attain Nirvana you need to extinguish desire, and they go around trying to stamp it out wherever they find it.  They shave their heads, bind their breasts, sit long hours trying to not want to stand up and move around, because after all, that's wanting something, which is the whole problem.  They sort of try to strangle themselves to escape the pain of living, which is after all caused by breathing.  Occasionally they attain mental states of great satisfaction similar to sheathing your entire body in a condom so you won't get contaminated by desire or other disturbing experiences.  A Hinayanist is sure that everything will be all right if he can just stop being anyone at all.  This is an excellent religion for trust funders on a budget, because you won't spend much on entertainment, or fall in love and blow all your cash raising a family.  Actually, this sounds a lot like the religion the Buddha really would have founded, given his proclivities.  Which may explain why the Hinayanists are so damned mad at the Mahayanists for hijacking their tidy little religion.

 

The big-hearted Mahayanists are all over the map with their doctrines, by comparison.  But they all agree that the sort of cat-washing-itself style of meditation practiced by Hinayanists leads only to the minor spiritual achievement of "Arhat-ship," which is a classic of damning with faint praise.  The real heavy freight-carriers in the big-hearted tradition are called Bodhisattvas, "heroes of enlightenment," and far from stopping to consider their own immediate release from suffering, they throw themselves immediately into the business of placing other sentient beings in the bosom of enlightenment, like firemen clearing out a burning building. 

 

In practice, this leaves the Mahayana much greater scope for imaginative expression, and opens the door to a less prissy ethical approach.  A Jew would always have to wonder if he was safe hiding from nazis in a Hinayanist's basement, who might feel compelled to tell the truth to keep his karma clean, but would feel comfortable hiding in a Mahayana basement, knowing that a Mahayanist would relish the opportunity to tell a meritorious lie.  On the other hand, a Mahayanist might also find an excellent reason to screw your wife, for everyone's benefit.  It's like that.

 

Taken from http://www.american-buddha.com/what_is_buddhism.htm

[sean]

The so called 'lesser vechicle' refers to the aspiration of the practitioner to reach enlightement  for themselves alone while practitioner of the so called 'greater vechicle' seeks enlightenment for themselves and all sentient beings. So the real difference is only in the scope of the aspiration . The terms are descriptive not qualitative.

You should read the whole article I linked to. Hinayana has a definite meaning in Sanskrit. And it's not "lesser vehicle". More like "coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful, evil".

 

The Hinayana-Mahayana-Vajrajana distinction isn't actually an original teaching of the Buddha. It's not even based on an interpretation of Buddha's recorded teachings. From what I can tell it's based on later schools of Buddhism, after Buddha's death, claiming to have discovered original teachings of Buddha that were "the second turning" and then eventually "third turning of the wheel of dharma." Which lacks historical credibility. This in itself wouldn't really matter a whole lot except for that in this new mythology's "coarse, vulgar, ignoble and harmful, evil" category, they stuck a good portion of the Buddha's actual historical and genuine teachings. And in the "highest most supreme fastest most selfless path to enlightenment" category, they put their own new scriptures and commentaries. :roll:

 

Sean.

[rex]

Sean,

 

Well I never! What an informative article on the dubious origin of Hinayana. Having been taught from within the Tibetan Rime (non-sectarian) Tradition I had always equated Theravada with Hinayana. At least, as I was taught, there were no negative associations given to the Theravada or Hinayana. Quite recently I attended a teaching by a Tibetan lama in a Theravadan temple with Thai and Tibetan monks sitting together so at least there is some sanity amongst all the bickering.

 

Like Christianity Buddhism is not free from controversy. Even within the Tibetan tradition there are the Shugden and Karmapa controversies and that's not including a not so Shangri-la history of Buddhist armies from one Tibetan sect seeking to destroy another Tibetan Buddhist sect.

 

I was about to quote a nice little ditty from Cleary's introduction to Entry in the Realm of Reality but this will have to wait till later as the kids are creating chaos.

 

:bounce: :bounce:

 

rex

[rex]

In his introduction to Entry into the Realm of Reality: The Guide Thomas Cleary gives an interesting explanation of the origin of doctrinal dispute within Buddhism and the source of teachings which do not have the weight of recorded history behind them.

 

According to Buddhist legend, the fullest extent of consciousness available to humankind was rediscovered by Gautama Buddha thousands of years ago and summarized in the monumental discourse known as The Flower Ornament Scripture (Avatamsaka Sutra). Finding this statement of complete enlightenment beyond even the most advanced minds of his time, the Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching people how to prepare themselves for this comprehensive understanding. At every step of the way, there were those who succeeded in absorbing, utilizing, and finally superseding each stage of preparation, as well as those who took the part for the whole, assumed they had realized all there was to know, and fell by the wayside.

 

After the disappearance of Gautama Buddha, those among his mendicant followers who had attained a certain stage of individual enlightenment gathered together to recite and systematize what they had learned from their teacher. Since the Buddha's teachings were adapted to the specific needs o findividuals and groups according to their stage of evolution, the result was a vast amount of material, a highly complex body of principles and practices.

 

Not having reached the full consciousness of the Buddha, however, these mendicants were unaware of the teachings beyond their own range, and some of them assumed that they had recorded the full dispensation of their master, even though all of them refused to say they had attained all that the teacher had attained. Eventually the followers of the followers of these mendicants, imagining themselves to be the elite of a new religion holding the authentic teachings of the Buddha, not only rejected the more versatile and expansive teachings left among certain lay adepts and communities but even organized themselves into more than a dozen competing sects, each with its own propriety interest in what it considered truth.

 

According to The Scripture of the Great Ultimate Extinction, the fragmentation of Buddha's teaching, with different factions using parts of the teaching as claims to their own authority, was to be expected as a characteristic degeneration. The Scripture on Unlocking the Mysteries, revealing certain advanced teachings, represents this as already happening to mentally isolated Buddhist groups in the time of Gautama Buddha and explains its technical inefficiency.

 

Legend has it that the comprehensive teaching of The Flower Ornamanet Scripture was under these conditions withdrawn for a time, until the advent of a major renewer, the great Nagarjuna, who studied all aspects of Buddhist learning and recovered the teaching of The Flower Ornamanet Scripture "from the ocean". Consistent with his role in revitalizing the comprehensive teaching, Nagajuna is also regarded as ancestor of all the major branches of East Asian Buddhism, including the Zen, Pure Land, and Tantric schools.

 

Turning from legend to history, it must be admotted that the terrestial source of The Flower Oranamant Scripture is unknown. This is a characteristic it has in common with th eother great scriptures of the universalist Buddhist tradition ...

 

As interesting and compelling as this is it doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As it is said life has more imagination than we can dream so it won't be limited nor constrained by neat classifications and recorded history. This is probably deliberate as it almost seems like some sort or IQ test, that is Inner Quest test is being set - we pay our money and we make are choice. That's enough of the cliches ...

 

rex

[Yoda]

I think Hinayana is still a valid concept when applied towards one's own practice w/in the Tibetan system. Eg--taking the hinayana version of the empowerment, etc... But it is insulting and highly misleading when applied towards other systems. Not to worry, the Theravadin world has their own insults towards their Mahayanist rivals which most of the world of western scholarship buys into. They believe that the Mahayanist world is a serious perversion of the original doctrine. Theravadins can take care of themselves just fine!

 

-Yodster