clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Locked
User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:59 pm

i said that i didn't think mahayana was real buddhism in a different thread, and a moderator disapproved the post. i would like to understand the reason why
we wouldn't say christianity to be a sect of buddhism, and i can point to various examples of apocrypha or non-canonical content; i don't think it is skillful to stay silent, but if there's some other way i can improve my practice, let me know
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

Caodemarte
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Caodemarte » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:20 pm

Dhammomhi wrote:i said that i didn't think mahayana was real buddhism in a different thread, and a moderator disapproved the post. i would like to understand the reason why
we wouldn't say christianity to be a sect of buddhism, and i can point to various examples of apocrypha or non-canonical content; i don't think it is skillful to stay silent, but if there's some other way i can improve my practice, let me know
Hardly a moderator, but how would you feel if a " Mahayanist"" said Theravada was not "real" Buddhism? I am sure that such a person could point to an equal number of texts that she believed in. Perhaps rather than insisting that we are the arbiters of "real" Buddhism that know precisely just what the Mahayana and Theravada actually are, perhaps we should all try to practice Buddhism.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:43 pm, edited 5 times in total.

dharmacorps
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by dharmacorps » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:33 pm

My suggestion would be to ask the moderator privately rather than making this post.

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:51 pm

Caodemarte wrote:
Dhammomhi wrote:i said that i didn't think mahayana was real buddhism in a different thread, and a moderator disapproved the post. i would like to understand the reason why
we wouldn't say christianity to be a sect of buddhism, and i can point to various examples of apocrypha or non-canonical content; i don't think it is skillful to stay silent, but if there's some other way i can improve my practice, let me know
Hardly a moderator, but how would you feel if a Mahayanaist said Theravada was not "real" Buddhism? I am sure that such a person could point to an equal number of texts that she believed in. Perhaps rather than insisting that we are the arbiters of "real" Buddhism that know precisely just what the Mahyana or Theravada is we should all try to practice Buddhism.
@dharmacorps: i would have, but i don't know which one did, so i thought there would be more confusion involved; also, i don't mind being shown to be wrong if it can help others

@caodemarte: but mahayanists say something alone these lines all the time; mahayana is 'greater vehicle' and 'hinayana' is inferior vehicle. i discovered the sister forum for mahayanists and vajrayanists recently, and the first post i ran into was someone dogging on thanissaro bhikkhu and the theravadin tradition
not that such is an excuse to do the same -- the buddha makes clear that he does not withhold teachings from anyone and that one should only speak of the dhamma in order to practice pleasant speech
the poster in that thread asked for a comparison to decide which sect he should belong to, and i thought it dutiful since ours has less revision
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:55 pm

calling anything 'buddhism' i think is how the dhamma is destroyed, but correct me if i'm wrong
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:56 pm

Greetings Dhammomhi,

I don't know what instance of moderation you're talking about, but I've asked any moderator who may know to get in touch with you.

As it is, you've given very little information for us to work with...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:59 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dhammomhi,

I don't know what instance of moderation you're talking about, but I've asked any moderator who may know to get in touch with you.

As it is, you've given very little information for us to work with...

Metta,
Paul. :)
here is the thread i was commenting on https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 33#p431833
yes, if they got time to expound on why my post was disallowed i'd appreciate it
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:11 am

Greetings Dhammomhi,

I have discovered a couple of things. Firstly, the topic in question was originally raised in the Discovering Theravada section which has very specific forum boundaries and regulations. The topic didn't really belong there, and was later moved... but for the time it was there, member posts would require explicit approval, prior to appearing publicly.

I can see a note in the logs saying that your post was disapproved because "Belittling of other paths is against the TOS."

However, I will say that this note does not accurately reflect what the Terms of Service actually say. The TOS prohibits various things, and the one possibly closest to this is...

2d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions ...

Unfortunately, disapproved posts can no longer be seen (even to moderators), so I am not in a position to assess whether your post breached that standard or not.

Perhaps if it's not too much trouble, you can re-write your post, but in doing so, please be mindful of the Terms of Service so that it doesn't inadvertently violate them. Now that the topic in question is out of the Discovering Theravada section, it should flow more smoothly.

Either way, I hope this clarifies what you were asking about in your original post. The Terms of Service have been written very specifically in order to make clear to everyone where the lines are drawn (in order to reduce subjectivity and misinterpretation) so I encourage everyone to take the time to read them.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Justsit
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Justsit » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:19 am

Dhammomhi wrote:@caodemarte: but mahayanists say something alone these lines all the time; mahayana is 'greater vehicle' and 'hinayana' is inferior vehicle.
Not sure if this is helpful, but thought it might be worth saying. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is given.

In my Vajrayana sangha the word "hinayana" is translated as "lesser," in the sense of smaller or basic, or foundational . In no instance since I took refuge in 2006 have I ever heard "Hinayana" used in a derogatory manner. I am aware that this may not be the case for all groups, but please be aware that at least some Mahayana/Vajrayana practitioners have great admiration and respect for Buddhists of all yanas.
:anjali:

Caodemarte
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Caodemarte » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:07 am

Justsit wrote:
Dhammomhi wrote:@caodemarte: but mahayanists say something alone these lines all the time; mahayana is 'greater vehicle' and 'hinayana' is inferior vehicle.
Not sure if this is helpful, but thought it might be worth saying. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is given.

In my Vajrayana sangha the word "hinayana" is translated as "lesser," in the sense of smaller or basic, or foundational. In no instance since I took refuge in 2006 have I ever heard "Hinayana" used in a derogatory manner. I am aware that this may not be the case for all groups, but please be aware that at least some Mahayana/Vajrayana practitioners have great admiration and respect for Buddhists of all yanas.
:anjali:
This part of the TOS, in my view, is very important to prevent the decline of this forum, as others have declined, into mindless sectarianism.

I have never known serious Theravada or Mahayana teachers to show less than respect for any religion with a special regard for any serious Buddhist group, Theravada or Mahayana. The Dalai Lama's well known respect for Theravada and Ajan Chah's promoting translations of Zen texts are good examples of this.

Just a note on vocabulariy.
Many centuries ago Hinayana was first used as a term for criticism for an attitude as Mahayana was used as a term of praise for another attitude. Only later did a group of self-identified Mahayana sects emerge. Hinayana was applied to about 18 sects as general criticism. Theravada emerges as a distinct sect later and is never mentioned by Indian Buddhist writers (hence it was never called Hinayana by anybody in the day). Early Western scholars during the re-discovery of extinct Indian Buddhism misidentified Theravada with the 18 or so schools and the term Hinayana. This gets fed back into Asian Buddhists who had had little previous substantive knowledge of each other.

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:22 am

Justsit wrote:
Dhammomhi wrote:@caodemarte: but mahayanists say something alone these lines all the time; mahayana is 'greater vehicle' and 'hinayana' is inferior vehicle.
Not sure if this is helpful, but thought it might be worth saying. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is given.

In my Vajrayana sangha the word "hinayana" is translated as "lesser," in the sense of smaller or basic, or foundational . In no instance since I took refuge in 2006 have I ever heard "Hinayana" used in a derogatory manner. I am aware that this may not be the case for all groups, but please be aware that at least some Mahayana/Vajrayana practitioners have great admiration and respect for Buddhists of all yanas.
:anjali:
i don't doubt that, but even my dictionary lists hinayana as a derogatory term. i will share some thoughts a friend posted:
"If Mahāyāna existed in isolation without setting itself against another school then sure, it could simply mean "Great" & not "Greater".

But Mahāyāna texts themselves, the Sutras they claim are the word of the Buddha & view as ultimately authoritative, refer to Theravāda as Hīnayāna.

The assertion that Hīnayāna means "Lesser" in terms of size is a modern twisting of the term that Mahāyānists have come up with to try to distance themselves from its derogatory history...Hīnayāna & Mahāyāna have always historically meant "Inferior" & "Greater" respectively...hence their arising before Mahāyāna was more populous than Theravāda & hence the numerous Mahāyāna texts that refer to Theravādins & those aiming for Arahantship negatively, e.g. the Vimalakirti Sutra, in which Sāriputta, the Buddha's chief disciple, is portrayed as a common fool

Modern example of someone who is not ignorant of this history: Kalu Rinpoche, who says that the terms refer to the spiritual capacity of their practitioners.

"Hinayana is most often translated as small vehicle, lesser vehicle, little vehicle, or even solitary vehicle. While yana is appropriately translated vehicle, means of conveyance, hina, however, is poorly translated by small, lesser, little or solitary. Hina, from the Sanskrit root hā (discarded, forsaken) as we find it in the Sanskrit and Pali dictionaries, carries meanings of: excluded, shut out from, inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned. To put it in idiomatic English, the hinayana is the "piss-poor" vehicle, or the garbage vehicle. It is hard not to see hinayana as an abusive, polemical term. Sanskrit is a rich language and there are plenty of options for small, little, solitary, or whatever that are not as negative in denotation and connotation."

>excluded, shut out from, inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned.

>hīna: "little", "poor", "inferior", "abandoned", "deficient", "defective"

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=DI...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana#Etymology

"According to Jan Nattier, it is most likely that the term Hīnayāna postdates the term Mahāyāna and was only added at a later date due to antagonism and conflict between the bodhisattva and śrāvaka ideals."

Asokadattavyakarana Sutra:

”Your Majesty, why should one who follows the path leading to supreme enlightenment, who is like the lion, king of beasts, salute those who follow the Hinayana, who are like jackals?

Your Majesty, if one is already engaged in a virtuous effort to seek the great, pure path, should he associate with S'raavakas of small and few good roots?

Your Majesty, if a person wishes to go to sea of great wisdom to seek thorough knowledge of the great Dharma in its entirety, does he bother to turn to S'raavakas, whose knowledge, based upon the Buddha's oral teachings, is as limited as the water in a cow's hoof print?

Your Majesty, if one wishes top reach Buddhahood, [the spiritual] Mount Sumeru, and acquire the infinite body of a Tathaagata, should he pay homage to S'raavakas, who seek only as much samaadhi power as could be confined to the space of a tiny mustard seed?” [And on and on and on] -- A Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, Garma Chang page 116

Here is the Pāli Text Society's entra on the term hīna:

"Hina (p. 732) [pp. of jahati] 1. inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable"
Not intrinsic to the word itself you say? These etymologies, both from Sanskrit & Pāli, convey only a meaning of inferiority - & a drastically harsh one at that - & nothing to do with a degree in quantity."
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

Caodemarte
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Caodemarte » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:26 am

No Mahayana sutra or canonical text refers to Theravada, presumably because it did not exist, was not known, or was simply not a concern. If you wish to argue that Theravada is a small-minded sect with inferior capacities then you could argue that it is indeed Hinayana. I can't imagine you would get much support for such an anti-Theravada sectarian argument here. I am sure there are such sectarians elsewhere.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:26 am

i'm not trying to bash anyone, if i'm a little aggressive... i'm so used to buddhism in the common vein either being absent or (falsely-)purported as new age gobbledygook
i was lucky or i had just enough good kamma to meet someone who actually cares about and practices buddhism
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5631
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Aloka » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:27 am

These resources might be helpful in connection with the subject of "Hinayana" :

"The Hinayana Fallacy" by Bhikkhu Analayo

http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/72/92

"No Hinayana in Buddhism" by Chan Khoon San and Kare A. Lie

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/NoHinayana.pdf


:anjali:

binocular
Posts: 4032
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by binocular » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:31 pm

Dhammomhi wrote:i said that i didn't think mahayana was real buddhism in a different thread, and a moderator disapproved the post. i would like to understand the reason why
we wouldn't say christianity to be a sect of buddhism, and i can point to various examples of apocrypha or non-canonical content; i don't think it is skillful to stay silent, but if there's some other way i can improve my practice, let me know
Welcome to the wonderful world of religious politics! :weep:
Conversations about religious politics are for the most part so emotionally charged, with so many interests at work that, in my experience, it is for the most part impossible to have a straightforward and open discussion. And if one does enter those conversations, one should be ready to get mauled.
In this case, I think that silence doesn't mean agreement or approval. Just like staying away from a fight between two street gangs doesn't mean agreeing or approving of the fight.

I think conversations about religious politics should be left to the upper echelons of religious communities or organizations, as they are the only ones who can come close to commanding the sufficient respect, have the institutional power, and the knowledge and support base so that some kind of half-way meaningful conversation can follow.

Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Santi253 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:46 am

Dhammomhi wrote:i said that i didn't think mahayana was real buddhism in a different thread
Try telling that to a Zen master. You might get hit with a stick.
Image
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by Sovatthika » Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:19 am

violence is incompatible with buddhism. not sure if a moderator deleted my comment or if i never posted it, but i'm not going to be shy on that point
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: clarification on 'belittling other paths'

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:05 am

Greetings,
Dhammomhi wrote:not sure if a moderator deleted my comment or if i never posted it, but i'm not going to be shy on that point
What happened to your original post which instigated this topic has already been explained above...

If you're referring to a more recent post of yours, the logs say you deleted one of your own posts 5 or so hours ago with the note "friend already posted same thing"... so at this point, I have no idea what you're doing or why.

It's time to step back a minute...

In light of the various miscommunications involved, you have been invited to redo your original post, but if you choose to do so, please do so ensuring it is compliant with the Terms of Service.

Thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests