I wasn’t speaking from the perspective of historical accuracy. We now know that, early on, the Hinayana/Mahayana divide wasn’t as clear as later generations made it out to be. Being a bit more accurate, the modern Theravada school came onto the scene rather late, and was the result of a schism of a schism of a schism of a schism, etc. I was just thinking about ways to recast the argument. Maybe reviving an older term, and even partially redefining it, would make people approach the situation differently…but probably not.
Remember that some theravadin are just mahayanist too because they reject arahantship instead they want buddhahood, so mahayana is just a movement it’s not a sect at all
1 Like
Theravada is not the same as Hinayana anymore, because even Theravada now have teaching about paramis and bodhisattva path, which advocates Mahayana spirit.
I think the term Sravakayana is more neutral to denote early Buddhist ideal of Arahantship…
2 Likes
Pali is not Indonesian, and you cannot interpret Pali words from how they are used 2,500 years later in a different linguistic context. Same goes for Hindi, Sinhala, Bengali, or Thai.
Sometimes hīna does indeed have that strong negative sense, but other times it has a softer sense of “lacking, less than”.
One example of this is the common passage, already quoted, where to disrobe is to return to the hīna state of a layperson. Clearly here it is meant in the sense of the “lesser” or “inferior” or “lacking” state. It’s not that it is intrinsically bad to be a layperson, just that it is missing out on the excellence of the renunciate life.
There’s a nice example, in Kathāvatthu 21.5, as well. The question is asked:
Atthi buddhānaṁ buddhehi hīnātirekatāti
Comparing different Buddhas, is there better and worse?
Here the word hīna is obviously used in a comparative sense: are some Buddhas less excellent than others?
But still, this is a good reason to avoid the term, knowing that in some modern languages hīna has such a strong negative sense.
Indeed. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, Sravakayana is fine, and it indicates the meaningful aim of early Buddhist practice, to “listen” to the Buddha and practice accordingly.
8 Likes
Interesting. Unless I’m mistaken, it’s used as a synonym for Hinayana in the Tibetan tradition. It doesn’t denote anything more positive than Hinayana does.
Anyway, I think it would be best if we just all called ourselves Buddhists, and did away with Mahayana, Theravada, etc., entirely.
2 Likes
No, it doesn’t, you are 110% right here
No, sravakayana is as bad as hīnayana, the best term is theravada but I don’t think other people can agree with this so I will rest my case
Hinayana/Sravakayana is part of the “Tibetan tradition” though. In my (admittedly limited) experience it is not categorised as inferior there, but as foundational.
When I was discussing regarding the 9 and 12 yana schemes, one Tulku suggested to me “same path, different destinations”.
1 Like
Sravaka or Savaka is “hearer” of the Buddha’s teaching, early followers of the Buddha. I don’t think it’s as bad term as “hina”.
Theravada is just a branch of Sthavira schools. If you called all early sects of Buddhism as Theravada or Sthaviravada, it will not include the Mahasanghika schools. Obviously, they cannot be called as Mahayana too 
Śrāvakayāna is used by sensitive Tibetan Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama instead of Hīnayāna because they are well aware of the pejorative sense of the latter. Śrāvakayāna has no pejorative sense, as to become a sāvaka is universally regarded as a good thing in all schools of Buddhism.
Let me make a list!
- Buddhists: Everyone who follows the Buddha’s teachings. Yay!
- Early Buddhism: The teachings as found in the Suttas, and the unified community in the first couple of centuries after the Buddha’s death. Sometimes used for the modern community that endeavors to follow these, making a historical distinction between these and later teachings.
- Nikāya Buddhism: Terrible name, it has nothing to do with the “nikāyas” of the Sutta-piṭaka. Rather it refers to the early “eighteen schools” of Indian Buddhism pre-Mahayana.
- Sthavira: By convention, this Sanskritic form of thera is used for one of the first two schools that emerged after the first schism, the other being the Mahāsaṅghika. Eventually there were more than a dozen “Sthavira” schools. Sthavira Vinayas are still followed by all extant monastic Sanghas.
- Mahāvihāravāsin: One of three Sinhalese branches of the Sthaviras, based in the Mahāvihāra at Anuradhapura.
- Theravāda: The modern school descended from the Mahāvihāra and prevalent throughout S-E Asia since the time of King Parakkamabahu in the 11th century.
- Śrāvakayāna: A term used to encompass all of the above, i.e. those Buddhists whose primary goal is to achieve arahantship as “disciples” of the Buddha, rather than becoming Buddhas themselves.
- Hīnayāna: A pejorative term historically used by Mahayanists to criticize certain followers of early schools, and which is no longer considered acceptable usage.
9 Likes
One small example I find interesting is the Nara period in Japan. To the best of my understanding, the Japanese Imperial family intentionally established six institutions to house what they saw as the six most important Buddhist traditions from the Asian Mainland (China and Korea). Three of these were “Mahayana” and three were “Hinayana” though all were part of the same ordination lineage (Dharmaguptaka) and practically there was a great fluidity and interchange between them.
3 Likes
That is the sense I get from 小乘 in Mahayana texts, and it’s a fairly rare term in the early texts. Often it actually refers to one of the three vehicles - sravaka - in the sense of small (sravaka), medium (pratyeka-buddha), and large (bodhisattva or buddha). So, it wasn’t exactly sectarian since the three vehicles were acknowledged paths in theory at least in Abhidharma Buddhism before the later Mahayanists started using the words more politically, I guess you could say.
Why was the sravaka vehicle smaller and the bodhisattva vehicle larger? Well, in Mahayana commentaries, I see many cases where the Mahayanists considered themselves more syncretic or unconditionally accepting of Buddhist writings whether they were part of the original oral tradition or not. They didn’t reject the Agamas, but the Agama Buddhists rejected anything that didn’t descend from the oral tradition. Well, actually, they did incorporate some later materials like we find in DN and DA, picking and choosing what was acceptable. Mahayanists often likened their canon to be like the ocean that accepts everything. It was more of a closed vs. open canon debate early on, I think.
But later on, perhaps when Mahayanists didn’t actually have to live with Agama Buddhists, then the rhetoric did get more pejorative and less accommodating. The Hinayana became as faceless Buddhist no one actually knew who was selfish or of limited knowledge, or even just represented selfish people in general. It was sort of like the way Buddhists today all say, “Well, of course, we should all be vegetarians. It’s obviously the purest way to practice.” Mahayanists thought, “Well, of course, everyone should be bodhisattvas and save others, not just themselves.”
There are so many layers to the history, and we’re sitting at the end of the story. Well beyond the end of the story. Well, the story doesn’t actually end, but it feels like “the end of Buddhist history” these days.
6 Likes
I think its important to differentiate two ways of using Hinayana, one which is acceptable (IMO) and one which is not.
The unacceptable way is to use the term to refer to a specific sect or a set of sects (i.e. “Nikaya” or “Mainstream” Buddhism, Theravada etc). This usage has been widely condemned by Mahayanists like the Dalai Lama.
However, in many Mahayana texts and contexts, the term is specifically used to refer to a type of motivation. That is, a kind of motivation which is focused only on helping oneself get free of suffering. This usage need not be sectarian or insulting, and it may even be compatible with the spirit of the EBTs (see AN 4.95 etc).
This second usage also has the useful side effect that if understood correctly, it negates the first usage. This is because we cannot really know others’ minds and motivations with absolute certainty (unless we’ve mastered siddhis!).
Of course, its never that simple, because the first and second usage are often combined in the same text, or it is sometimes assumed that they are equivalent. But this is a mistake I think. Mahayanists should toss out 1, but they can use 2 without issue.
5 Likes
Not exactly. As I recently learned in my monastery. I found out that not all monks, postulants wishes to go back into the marketplace to teach after many years of solitude. Some are content with being hermit their whole life, even if they attained to arahanthood, and my teacher says there’s nothing wrong with that. I was more influenced by Mahayana ideals and do have a lot of drive to want to teach, and encourage others to do the same.
However, not everyone has the skills of teaching. So, it maybe enough for them to be an inspiring example and a field of merit.
3 Likes
This is a good point. I actually used this as a joke last night: someone said if you get a vaccine it only helps you stay free of the virus, but doesn’t stop you transmitting to others. Ahha, a hinayana vaccine, I quipped. OK, so not all that funny!
But the thing is, clearly the term is not talking about nothing. It’s describing a certain kind of practice or practitioner, one that is not uncommon today. It’s just lazy to equate that with a “school”.
Incidentally, my talk last night for “Monks in Space” was all about this topic, so if anyone’s interested, check it out.
5 Likes
But in today, Agama Buddhists in certain Chinese Buddhist circles consider that SA is the foundation of both the Agama and Mahayana Buddhism due to the influence of Ven. Yinshun’s Agama studies in Taiwan.
In CSA vol. 1 p. 1: “《雜阿含經》（即《相應阿含》，《相應部》），是佛教界早期結集的聖典，代表了釋尊在世時期的佛法實態。佛法是簡要的，平實中正的，以修行為主，依世間而覺悟世間，實現出世的理想——涅槃。在流傳世間的佛教聖典中，這是教法的根源，後來的部派分化，甚至大乘「中觀」與「瑜伽」的深義，都可以從本經而發見其淵源。這應該是每一位修學佛法者所應該閱讀探究的聖典。… 「修多羅」分陰、處、因緣、聖道四大類，在《雜阿含經》的集成中，「修多羅」是最早的，正是如來教法的根本所在。”
1 Like
Thank you, Bhante. It was good to learn about … sect-aries. 
…and to learn about the recurring need to adapt the teachings to the ever-changing needs of society. How interesting that these waves of change started with calls to “get back to basics”
AN4.173:11.5: The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact.
AN4.173:11.6: The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation.
AN4.173:11.7: When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”
Thank you for the facts…and the basics.
3 Likes
Well, the point is that the higher motivation is better, and it is more laudable and to be celebrated. This doesn’t mean that the hermit who wishes to save themselves only is bad, its just not as good as the one who “returns to the marketplace” as the ox herding pictures say.
2 Likes
What I’m called “Agama Buddhists” are the Sarvastivadins, Dharmaguptakas, and the other Indian sects akin to but distinct from the modern Theravada. I’m not sure that they exist anymore in any real fashion. Mahayana Buddhists have studied Agamas since the beginning. It was only later when they stopped associating with Agama Buddhism - say when they were in China and Tibet - that they stopped paying any attention to the oral tradition. Now, in the modern times, that has changed, and Mahayanists are returning to the old tradition of studying both Agamas and Mahayana texts because of Western Pali studies, essentially.
2 Likes
Well, and also because of the work of pioneers like Yin Shun who have argued that Mahayana thought is thoroughly grounded in the Agamas.
2 Likes
Sure, but the attention returned to the Chinese Agamas because Western Pali studies had reached Japan and China, who at the time were Westernizing their education systems, and so East Asian scholars realized the connection between the Agamas and Pali Nikayas. That happened back in Yinshun’s early days. It was back around the time the Taisho was first published in the 1930s, which is why the Taisho editors were placing footnotes throughout out parallels noting Pali pronunciations of names and such.
3 Likes