Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:55 am

So, what do you guys think?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 25#p223807" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found it a bit misleading to say, for example, ordination found in Tibetan buddhism a Theravadin practice. More accurate term would be imo Root-yana, or something else.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:17 pm

and what would it be applied to?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:20 pm

Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?
To describe buddhist practices in conversations?

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:24 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?
To describe buddhist practices in conversations?
why not just use the name of the practice?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:28 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:and what would it be applied to?
To describe buddhist practices in conversations?
why not just use the name of the practice?
You mean one by one?

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:36 pm

Raitanator wrote:
You mean one by one?
Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum? Dharma Wheel - our sister site - is there for such discussions.

specific practices may be useful to talk about but superfluous detail is not.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:00 pm

Cittasanto wrote: Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum?
Sorry, I didn't get this.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:17 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Yes. But why would groupings of Mahayana need discussed on a Theravada forum?
Sorry, I didn't get this.
Yes when talking about specific practices. As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:23 pm

Cittasanto wrote: As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
Exactly where did I use term hinayana? Seems like you just want me to bugger off instead of conversation...

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:57 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: As there is no practice known as hinayana so the term is not needed to be used.
Exactly where did I use term hinayana? Seems like you just want me to bugger off instead of conversation...
that's quite an assumption!
you link to your use here http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 25#p223807" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:18 pm

Cittasanto wrote: but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
Well, I feel theravada and hinayana can be both in some cases a bit misleading. And I don't want to be one of those arrogant mahayana-guys who are disparaging pratimoksha practices. Root-yana is somewhat good term imo, because it points out that Theravada is the basis of all the lineages. Without it they would just fall. What do you think?

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by daverupa » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:37 pm

Raitanator wrote: Theravada is the basis of all the lineages.
This isn't accurate, however. Theravada is one of a number of early scholastic groups; it's due to some of the other ones (Mulasarvastivada [Tibetan], Dharmaguptaka [East Asian], etc.) that the Dhamma made it north via modern Afghanistan. Striking Nikaya similarities, though their Vinayas and especially Abhidhammas become largely divergent.

Theravada in toto is simply one historical product, among many, of the pre-scholastic Sangha.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:47 pm

Raitanator wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: but what exactly are you on about if not trying to find a better term?
Well, I feel theravada and hinayana can be both in some cases a bit misleading. And I don't want to be one of those arrogant mahayana-guys who are disparaging pratimoksha practices. Root-yana is somewhat good term imo, because it points out that Theravada is the basis of all the lineages. Without it they would just fall. What do you think?
Theravada is not the basis of all lineages. nor has the patimokkha got anything to do with other schools sets of rules.
Theravada refers to one school and is quite clear as to what it means by those who follow Theravadan Buddhism. and is not a umbrella term like Mahayana.

Root (mula) yana would refer to pre-sectarian Buddhism and is already called early or pre-sectarian Buddhism.

Hinayana (hina = low; despicable; inferiour; base; + Yana = vehicle; going) in some cases can be used as a derogetory term for the early schools that came before Mahayana, or as hina is originally used within the Suttas, for practices which are not beneficial for the path.
In the former use (here) it has sometimes been used for Theravadins without any real knowledge of what Theravada teaches or practices, and as a means to try and belittle adherents of Theravada by writing off what they have to say without any knowledge of what they are actually saying.
In a more specialised use of the term it refers to certain foundational practices, or initial scope of practice, (as I understand its use). However in this latter usage, there is a mistaken perception that this refers to Theravadin practice, when all it refers to is a scope of practice within Mahayana/Vajrayana.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:52 pm

Reginald Ray states in his 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?

Post by Raitanator » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:07 pm

Yes, that's why some Lamas, too, are saying that Hinayana term should not be used, because it's vulgar and doesn't fully respect what it has to offer. Other term, what I've seen people use is Sharavakayana, but I don't know how Theravadins react to that.

:juggling:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chownah, denise and 74 guests