Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 20040302 (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 9 May 2004 (Continuing chat.. (btw, thnx for archiving)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

The same argument holds that all Buddhism is primarily a form of Hinayana since Hinyana suttas, and vinaya continue to have importance, and many later teachings have their origins in Hinayana thought. Indeed even Vajrayana practices contain an element of Hinyana in the form of renunciation which the Vajrayana came to see as the quintessential Hinayana practice."

This was removed because it is based upon the premise that Hinayana and Mahayana are what they are according to what scriptures they accept. However, this is not the case: Hinayana has as it's goal the Nirvana of an Arhat. Mahayana and Vajrayana have as their goal the Nirvana of a Buddha. This is why it is 'okay' to say that the Vajrayana is a specialised form of Mahayana. (20040302 16:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC))

I'm curious, do you know if the Theravada school accepts this distinction? - Nat Krause 10:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The specific distinction (I guess) you are refering to is that between a Bodhisattva and Sravaka? (Mahayana refers to the path of Bodhisattvas, and here Hinayana I took to refer to Sravakayana - or the path of Arhats)? Yes, there is no problem with that. The Pali canon and Jataka tales assert that there is a distinction between the Bodhisattva and the Sravaka. Remember, the Pali canon does agree that Sakyamuni was a Bodhisattva before he achieved enlightenment. Buddha himself said it was not necessary to follow the path of a Bodhisattva to escape samsara, that all one needed to do was to get out, and this is why he taught the Sravakayana. I do not think that any tradition actually objects to this point.

Hmmm, I guess so. It's not that I'm trying to argue that some sect or another is wrong or right or more ultimate or something, or that anybody is malicious (well, "every heart is sinful and desperately wicked"). But I'm still trying to figure out if I can really agree that there is no Mahayana school / non-Mahayana school division. I'll continue to dwell on the subject occasionally. - Nat Krause 18:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't take it that you were looking for dirt, but to the issue of Mahayana/non-mahayana, which (I believe) is a more interesting discourse.

My point above (as ever) was that mahayana is the path of the Bodhisattva, not a group of schools. In this sense, mahayana is recognised by the Theravada and other Nikaya schools (though they may dispute that schools that call themselves 'mahayana' are actually following the mahayana path!)

Regarding the division itself, we need to ask ourselves "Is it useful? -Does it serve a good purpose?" If we look 'across the road' to Christianity, at the division into Catholicism and Protestantism - is that a legitimate division of Christianity? And in one sense, the answer is 'Yes' because by definition Protestants have protested against Catholicism, though a quick trip to the List_of_Christian_denominations will show just how reductive such a division is. Why I brought this up is that I believe that early Western scholars were looking for a similar division of Buddhism as a rationale (e.g. the 'northern buddhists' of China and the 'southern buddhists' of Ceylon), but were possibly faced with the dilemma of attempting to find the "Martin Luther" of Buddhism. Of course, if they did think this way, they missed the point - in that Buddhism has a different cultural background, and is imbued with a completely distinct set of messages than those that are found in the Ibrahimic religions.

My working assumption of the distinction between the Nikaya and non-Nikaya schools is based upon the concept of transmission. I believe that the Nikaya only recognise transmission through scripture, whereas non-Nikaya recognise transmission through realisation. This allows the non-Nikaya to be more creative, adaptive, and dynamic with scriptural elements, in that (if you will) they are more interested in the Spirit of the law rather than the Letter of the law; moreover, because they recognise the idea of transmission of realisation, then who they call 'Buddha' is not just the person who walked and taught in the C6th BCE, but also the consequences of his actions and teachings. This then allows for the later authorship of sutras, which are indeed spoken by the Buddha, but not in the way that is normally meant by such an idea- the individuals who penned the words 'heard the sutra' through realisation; for them to claim that it is 'their own' realisation would imply the existence of a self that they do not wish - moreover, they could claim, whatever remnants of their self-grasping there is could not write dharma - dharma is the pure expression of Buddha's mind - and in that sense, it is more appropriate to say that the text is indeed authored by Buddha.

So following this tirade, the Nikaya, non-Nikaya distinction can indeed be made (by identifying those that agree solely with the Pali or it's equivalents). However, we still need to ask ourselves is such a distinction, on those lines, relavant or useful? It is really clear that e.g. the Pure Land traditions are completely distinct from any of the Tibetan traditions, and certainly in some respects (e.g. Tibetan monastic vinaya) the Tibetan tradition is considerably closer to Theravada than it is to Korean or other Mahayana monastic vinaya, though in many other respects their are other similarities.

I had an interesting discussion with an academic the other day about just how cartesian and C19th the whole idea of cataloguing, categorising and taxonomising is; how the mid C20th brought about the ability for us to break out of these absolutist concepts, and yet how incredibly reluctant we are to let go of them as building blocks, and see them just as the patterns that they are - models that are useful for certain purposes only, but no nearer or further from any objective truth than any other model that we wish to use.

Hmmm.. Obviously drank lots of coffee this morning! (20040302 11:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC))