[Buddha-l] caste-ist term ?

[Jayarava]

--- On Sat, 25/7/09, Mike Austin <mike at lamrim.org.uk> wrote:

> It is disparaging to apply the term 'Hinayana' to an
> identified group of practitioners but, if it is a generic term, does it
> disparage anyone? Do any practitioners describe themselves as 'Hinayana'?

No practitioner self-identifies as Hīnayāna, everyone thinks they are on the true path (and that others are deluded - it's the first thing you learn as a Buddhist!)

In early Mahāyāna texts, such as the Ugraparipṛccha, the Bodhisattva bhikṣus and the ordinary bhikṣus seem to get along just fine - the distinction arises from an intensity of practice, from the commitment to take on the Bodhisattva path and (I think) become a Buddha in this lifetime. At some point, still quite early on, this is formalised as the Bodhisattva vows. It's all very inspiring and beautiful.

It's not until a bit later that the self appointed Mahāyānists start to rudely refer to the others as Hīnayāna. BTW look up how hīna is used in compounds: hīnakula, hīnajati, and hīnayoni, hīnavarṇa, hīnasakhya, hīnaseva for instance. Hīnakarman is particularly illuminating I think. In ancient India hīna was not a neutral term by any means. More often than not it refers to some_one_ of low caste, or outcaste; or to some_thing_ broken or defective. There is more than a hint of ritual pollution about the word.

I'm aware that in Tibetan Buddhist circles that the term is a label for practices of a preliminary nature, but one still sees many publications and websites which, for example, equate the Theravāda school with "The Hīnayāna". One also sees the so-called arahant ideal contrasted with the bodhisattva ideal with the former characterised as selfish and limited. As though there is a kind of selfish enlightenment... 

This argument partly rests on the idea that Buddhism has not developed over time, but that it all came from a single teacher, all at once, including the Tantra in its entirety. Different levels of teaching to students of different capacity. I think we must reject this view of history as fallacious and see the later teachings as having been developed some centuries after the Buddha in response to local needs - and including large scale and ongoing syncretisation. That is to say that the traditional narratives which surround the use of the term hīnayāna, and those which vertically stratify the practices and teachings with hīnayāna occupying the lowest level, are no longer tenable amongst educated people.

Sadly I think the whole notion of hīnayāna as the teachings which do not lead to liberation (hīna meaning 'defective') has lead some people to undervalue the kinds of practices one finds in early Buddhism such as satipaṭṭhāna, ānāpānasati, or mettābhavanā. I see no reason to believe that these are not every bit as effective as Buddhist practices as Dzogchen or whatever. There really is nothing mahā about mahāyāna at least in terms of a useful comparison with other forms of Buddhism - it's pure sectarianism. The retention of the word hīnayāna represents an institutionalised gob of ancient prejudice. Hawk it up and spit it out I say.

Best Wishes
Jayarava

P.S. I'm sorry that I'm not able to engage more fully in the debate at the moment. Hit and run is the best I can manage.