anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

[Simon E.]

dharmic religions suffer with severe decentralization and lack of organization.

That's a feature, not a bug. You want centralised organisation, consider Roman Catholicism.

That exactly the same thought that ran through my mind when I read the comment! Word for word.

Theravadins (who are presumably Theravadins for a reason ..karmic, tempramental, national) beware.
When The Vatican says it wants Christian Unity it means it wants to subsume the Protestants.
When Mahayanists say they want Buddhist unity.....

[múscailt]

Since I am new here, I started poking around and I bumped into this, which is certainly interesting and, in the context of my previous comment in this thread, this is worthnding to here, to make a point or two.

This is not in order to be contentious. But a few posts recently appear to suggest that;

a) The Theravada is older than the Mahayana and is, therefore, more representative of 'pure' or original Buddhism.

Theravāda is older, indeed, than the Mahayana, but ideas of “pure” and “original” Buddhism are likely coming from the Protestant notions of late 19th and early 20th Century Western scholars of Buddhism, and can be ignored.

b) That the Theravada somehow provides the basic platform on which the Mahayana is built.

No, not at all. The Theravāda historically had very little, if any, involvement with the incipient Mahāyāna. What needs to be understood about the Mahāyāna as it was developing in India is that the Mahāyāna monks lived in monasteries of the various main stream schools in India, and these monks, the founding fathers of the Mahāyāna, as long as they followed the Vinayas of whatever school they were associated with, there seems to have been no real problems with their “unusual” notions. For example, Joseph Walser in his book Nagarjuna in Context makes an extended argument that Nāgārjuna followed the Vināya of the Mahāsāṃghika, but it was not just following the monastic rules, they also thoroughly learned the texts, doctrines and practices of these schools all the while developing what was to become the Mahāyāna.


The Theravāda seems to have had little to no direct involvement with incipient Mahāyānists among its ranks. It is not the Theravāda, as such, that provides the basic platform. It would seem that it is, rather, the general Indian early mainstream schools that provides to our Mahāyāna church fathers shared texts and teachings and a post mortem (after the Buddha’s passing) buddhology, which includes the development of notions of a valorized Buddha and the ideas of bodhisattva practices from which to build.


In other words, it would not be unreasonable to say that while the Theravāda did interact to some degree the other main stream schools, as is evidenced by the text the Kathāvatthu, "Points of Controversy,” which is a collection of debates between the Theravāda and other mainstream schools, the Theravāda was not a major player, if a player at all with the incipient Mahāyāna. As an aside, one of my favorites debates has to do with the claim the Buddha was so pure his poop smelled like sandalwood, which, needless to say, but I will say it anyway, is not a Theravādin position.

c) That the Mahayana has to be validated by the Pali Sutras.

Has to be? Says who? The answer to this is no, nope, not at all. The Theravāda is not the arbiter of what is what for the Mahāyāna, and the Mahāyāna certainly is not the arbiter of what is what for the Theravāda.

All these suggestions are erroneous.

Yes.

In reality;

The evidence suggests that the Theravada is a relatively recent development in the history of Buddhism and that much of the Mahayana corpus predates it.

Huh? I think is coming from the idea that the Burmese Vipassanā practices are fairly new. The Theravada is quite old.

The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.

Does it really have a different set of aims? The idea of the arahant, as taught by the Buddha in the Pali suttas is far more profound and far more radical then the Mahāyāna devalued notion of “arhat” as presented particularly by the later Mahāyāna

The Mahayana path including the Vajrayana can be brought to completion with no reference to the Pali Sutras at all.

Of course.

And to pick up one more point:

Since Zen has never coexisted with Hinayana before the 20th century meeting in Western countries, this is all rather rhetorical.

And given that there are no schools that self-identified as hīnayāna, Zen still has never coexisted hīnayāna.




.

[tkp67]

I believe the point of "unification" is not for the purpose of those who practice any form of Buddhism but rather to remove public schism between the various practices which is denigrating the public view of them all working against propagation of Buddhism in any form.

If there is no self why is there attachment to disparity with dharma outside of one's own teaching?

Are the publicly argued and conflicting views between the various schools a reasonable staple of personal practice?

Or is the custom of sole focus on one teaching and the comparison thereof to other teachings meant for personal application between student, teacher and teaching and not for judging the application of dharma by others?

[múscailt]

If there is no self why is there attachment to disparity with dharma outside of one's own teaching?

That is an interesting and important question, and it is, maybe, one which has an answer that might be quite uncomfortable. With Insight into emptiness of the inherent grasping after that which reinforces a sense self-centrality and insight into emptiness of the inherent pushing away that which threatens a sense of self-centrality, letting go of self-attachment follows. And the teachings are no longer a basis for contention and disparagement.

[tonysharp]

When I was with the Theravada, I used to get so offended by the "hinayana" designation. I'd think, "How dare you say my school is the 'lesser' vehicle?!" Then I learned to just stop worrying about it. To some degree, we all feel that the particular school we follow is the better school—at least for us personally. If all schools were equal, there'd be no point in choosing one over the other. For Mahayana to distinguish itself from the Theravada, they had to make the case for how their path was better and more inclusive, so, naturally, they pointed out what they saw as flaws in the Theravada ideology. Sure, some Mahayana folk could be a little more sensitive when speaking outside of Mahayana circles. However, within Mahayana circles and texts, a critical portrayal of the Theravada should be expected.

[múscailt]

When I was with the Theravada, I used to get so offended by the "hinayana" designation. I'd think, "How dare you say my school is the 'lesser' vehicle?!"

The problem is that the hīnayāna carries far more meaning than just “lesser.” Hīna is a derogatory term, as we find it in the Sanskrit or Pali dictionaries, and can be translated as inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned. And one could imagine how hīnayāna could be said in idiomatic English.


But the real problem is not that hīnayāna is just a rude word; rather, it is that it carries considerable additional polemical doctrinal baggage that gets wrongly applied. If one were to call the Theravada hīnayāna, the assumption is that the Mahāyāna doctrinal polemics are an accurate reflection of the Theravada and its teachings. That would not be true, but the consequences could easily be that one might be far more inclined to reject the Theravada based upon totally inaccurate information. Tell me how that would be a good thing.

Then I learned to just stop worrying about it. To some degree, we all feel that the particular school we follow is the better school—at least for us personally. If all schools were equal, there'd be no point in choosing one over the other. For Mahayana to distinguish itself from the Theravada, they had to make the case for how their path was better and more inclusive, so, naturally, they pointed out what they saw as flaws in the Theravada ideology. Sure, some Mahayana folk could be a little more sensitive when speaking outside of Mahayana circles. However, within Mahayana circles and texts, a critical portrayal of the Theravada should be expected.

Consider this: Rimpoche Traleg Kyabgon's states in his book: THE ESSENCE OF BUDDHISM: … we should realize that Hinayana does not necessarily refer to Theravada Buddhism, as some people assume. … The sect with which the Mahayana was interacting most closely was known as Sarvastivada…. When such masters as Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti came on the scene, the school they criticized the most was the Sarvastivadin school. They did not attack Theravadins. pgs 36-7.

The history is a bit more complicated than that; however, this is far closer to the truth than stating the Mahāyāna was criticizing the Theravāda, or that the term hīnayāna is an appropriate descriptor of the Theravāda. For a Mahayanist to characterize the Theravāda in terms of the hīnayāna polemic developed by the Mahayana, is to speak from a place of considerable ignorance, doing harm to the to whomever might be listening/reading such an inaccurate characterization.

Let me repeat:

As Mahāyāna/Vajrayāna teacher, Reginald Ray states in his book, Indestructible Truth:

In fact, as we shall see presently, "Hinayana" refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahayana historical traditions such as the Theravada are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of "Hinayana" would allow. ...The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.." Page 240.

I think a productive dialogue between the Mahāyāna and the Theravāda is possible and is a good thing, but each side needs to put aside their better-than-thou stances.

[Grigoris]

Theravāda is older, indeed, than the Mahayana...

Historical evidence shows that this is not the case.

The current form of Theravada is a 19th century reformation movement. In order to understand what it looked like previous to reformation, I recommend you research the Reusi/Lersi tradition.

[Astus]

The current form of Theravada is a 19th century reformation movement.

That is a serious simplification, that could as well be applied to the various Mahayana schools as well. For instance, just because the Rime movement appeared in the 19th century, and Humanistic Buddhism in the 20th, it does not render the whole of Mahayana a new thing.

[Grigoris]

The current form of Theravada is a 19th century reformation movement.

That is a serious simplification, that could as well be applied to the various Mahayana schools as well. For instance, just because the Rime movement appeared in the 19th century, and Humanistic Buddhism in the 20th, it does not render the whole of Mahayana a new thing.

Rime was not a reworking, originally Rime was about collecting existing practices that were at risk of disappearing. Rime is more of an "attitude", not a tradition. Humanistic Buddhism is a new thing, a new sub-category of Mahayana. Theravada is not a Yana, it is a sub-category of the Shravakayana.

[seeker242]

I’d like to talk with serious Mahayana people who see the advantage of unifying with Theravada. Personally I don’t see any advantages. And this is in spite of the fact that the Thien tradition I’m in borrows quite a lot from Theravada.

I don't see any advantage separating them. Sure, there are different practices, techniques, etc, but there is only one truth regardless.

[tonysharp]

But the real problem is not that hīnayāna is just a rude word; rather, it is that it carries considerable additional polemical doctrinal baggage that gets wrongly applied. If one were to call the Theravada hīnayāna, the assumption is that the Mahāyāna doctrinal polemics are an accurate reflection of the Theravada and its teachings.

Criticism, or even outright attacks, of the Theravada shouldn’t be taken personally, but, instead, as objections to the framing of the Theravada teachings. Frankly, after engaging with Mahayana texts and commentaries for the past three weeks, the criticisms of the Theravada that used to offend me seem justified now. To cultivate—as the Buddha exemplified—broad and unattached compassion for all sentient beings, renunciation needs a counterbalance. For many Mahayana Buddhists, this counterbalance is the Bodhisattva path.

[Astus]

Theravada is not a Yana, it is a sub-category of the Shravakayana.

Theravada is a school all right, but it's neither limited to the sravaka path, and more importantly, nor is it a unified tradition. Even in the same country there are different teachers with diverse methods. Theravada is a living tradition, and the fundamental teachings and practices go way back before the 19th century. E.g. Buddhaghosa, Theravada's probably most influential teacher, lived in the 5th century.

[Grigoris]

Theravada is a school all right, but it's neither limited to the sravaka path, and more importantly, nor is it a unified tradition. Even in the same country there are different teachers with diverse methods. Theravada is a living tradition, and the fundamental teachings and practices go way back before the 19th century. E.g. Buddhaghosa, Theravada's probably most influential teacher, lived in the 5th century.

You do realise that there is plenty of in-fighting regarding the validity of Buddhgosha and his Visudhimagga?

Yes, it is a school. I never denied that. Like the Kagyu is a school. But it is not a Yana. Like the Kagyu is not a Yana.

[Astus]

plenty of in-fighting regarding the validity of Buddhgosha and his Visudhimagga?

It doesn't change his importance. Furthermore, the modern changes in Theravada does not negate the tradition's roots and continuity. For instance, there were significant reforms in the Soto and Rinzai schools in the last couple of centuries, but those do not make them disconnected from their past history.

[Grigoris]

plenty of in-fighting regarding the validity of Buddhgosha and his Visudhimagga?

It doesn't change his importance. Furthermore, the modern changes in Theravada does not negate the tradition's roots and continuity. For instance, there were significant reforms in the Soto and Rinzai schools in the last couple of centuries, but those do not make them disconnected from their past history.

I did not say that they are disconnected. All things arise from causes, remember? But I do not believe that they are the same thing that existed in the Buddha's time...

[Astus]

But I do not believe that they are the same thing that existed in the Buddha's time...

Nothing remains the same, right? Nevertheless, the Buddhadharma is still present and alive today, so it's not yet lost either, consequently one can learn it now just as much as one could at the time of the Buddha. The main point is that current Theravada is not a product of a 19th century reform, nor was there any one reform in the 19th century that affected the entirety of Theravada. Also, reformations of Buddhist communities is not a new phenomenon, as it's occurred several times where people intended to return to or keep the correct teaching (e.g. in Sri Lankan Buddhism: the writing down of the Tipitaka, the revival and reform during the Polonnaruwa era (11-13th c.), the revival and reform of the monastic community by the rulers of Kandy during the 16th and 18th centuries).

[múscailt]

Theravāda is older, indeed, than the Mahayana...

Historical evidence shows that this is not the case.

The current form of Theravada is a 19th century reformation movement. In order to understand what it looked like previous to reformation, I recommend you research the Reusi/Lersi tradition.

Your appeal to this modern variation of the Thai shaman/Sadhu-istic movement is interesting, but your claim that that is what Theravāda used to be like is rather hollow. It carries no weight that you have shown.

Theravada is not a Yana, it is a sub-category of the Shravakayana.

That would only be so in the later Mahāyāna systematizations, which is not how the Theravādin school defined itself. The Mahāyāna does not get to define what the Theravāda is or believes, though it can make whatever claims it wants, but such claims are meaningless in terms of understanding what it that the Theravāda taught/teaches as its core beliefs.

[múscailt]

But the real problem is not that hīnayāna is just a rude word; rather, it is that it carries considerable additional polemical doctrinal baggage that gets wrongly applied. If one were to call the Theravada hīnayāna, the assumption is that the Mahāyāna doctrinal polemics are an accurate reflection of the Theravada and its teachings.

Criticism, or even outright attacks, of the Theravada shouldn’t be taken personally, but, instead, as objections to the framing of the Theravada teachings. Frankly, after engaging with Mahayana texts and commentaries for the past three weeks, the criticisms of the Theravada that used to offend me seem justified now. To cultivate—as the Buddha exemplified—broad and unattached compassion for all sentient beings, renunciation needs a counterbalance. For many Mahayana Buddhists, this counterbalance is the Bodhisattva path.

It is seems that the mistake you are making here is taking very rigid Western convert-notions about things as being accurately characteristic of the Theravada, when in fact these notions, which you finds so problematic are more likely reflective of some problematic, incomplete and flawed understanding of what the Theravāda teaches.

Explain what you mean here by renunciation that needs counterbalancing, please. Thanks.

[tonysharp]

Explain what you mean here by renunciation that needs counterbalancing, please. Thanks

There are many discourses in the Pali Canon, like the Potaliya Sutta (MN 54), that emphasize the necessity to renounce worldly affairs. According to these texts, renunciation is a requisite for arahantship, the end goal of Theravada. Mahayana teaches renunciation along with the Bodhisattva path, the latter of which provides a strong incentive to engage with the world to help others rather than aspire, primarily, to be cut off from it.

[Caoimhghín]

Explain what you mean here by renunciation that needs counterbalancing, please. Thanks

There are many discourses in the Pali Canon, like the Potaliya Sutta (MN 54), that emphasize the necessity to renounce worldly affairs. According to these texts, renunciation is a requisite for arahantship, the end goal of Theravada. Mahayana teaches renunciation along with the Bodhisattva path, the latter of which provides a strong incentive to engage with the world to help others rather than aspire, primarily, to be cut off from it.

Mahāyāna wants to embrace the world, but even it someimtes can't live up to it's aspirations. Take the Lotus Sūtra, for instance, a famous sūtra of the Mahāyāna which instructs practitioners, lay or monastic, to shun eunuchs amongst other groups like jugglers and actors. So all scriptural traditions have their moments.