superior and inferior traditions/schools

SattvaPaul

This is my first post here. I've been browsing the forum for a while and it seems a friendly place. Hello everyone. :wave:

I'll start with a question.. It's something that has been bothering me for quite a while and I still can't figure it out - how do you deal with different Buddhist traditions asserting superiority over one another, which - for me - results in a feeling that I am not "good enough", because I practice "lesser path"?

Paul

karmadorje

No genuine Buddhist tradition asserts superiority over other Buddhist schools.

mugzy

I assume you are referring to terms such as mahayana (great vehicle), vajrayana (diamond vehicle), etc? You can read an overview about these ideas on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_(Buddhism)

If this is not what you're asking about, then I second karmadorje's response.

SattvaPaul

I'm wondering how much of this is something I conjured up in my mind, and how much is actually what some teachers/teachings say... It goes something like this:

Theravada - most authentic, therefore superior to all others
Zen - most direct (and Mahayana) - therefore superior to all others
Vajrayana - most powerful methods, swift path - therefore superior to all others
Dzogchen - can't get higher than this

Paul

SattvaPaul

Writing this I realised how much I think in those terms in my everyday life, comparisons... And I think it has crept into my Buddhist practice.

mugzy

The river flows from the ocean to the stream, then back to the ocean.

SattvaPaul

No one has moved from one tradition to another because it promised "higher enlightenment"?

And what about philosophical arguments? I don't know what to make, for example, of Madhyamaka-Prasangika refuting all other schools of thought. As far as I know, Zen would be based on Mind-only school, so it's inferior. No?

Paul

compassionate_warrior

Several teachers I've had in the Vajrayana tradition have stated from the outset that it's the superior vehicle to all. It subsumes Hinayana and Mahayana and goes further, as sattapaul said, providing more powerful and swifter methods for achieving Liberation. I think each of us needs to evaluate the paths and decide for ourselves what is best or most appropriate for us, without feeling that any tradition is inferior or superior. As HHDL has said on the subject of religion (I paraphrase): Different strokes for different folks. It's all good.

SattvaPaul

Several teachers I've had in the Vajrayana tradition have stated from the outset that it's the superior vehicle to all. It subsumes Hinayana and Mahayana and goes further, as sattapaul said, providing more powerful and swifter methods for achieving Liberation. I think each of us needs to evaluate the paths and decide for ourselves what is best or most appropriate for us, without feeling that any tradition is inferior or superior. As HHDL has said on the subject of religion (I paraphrase): Different strokes for different folks. It's all good.

I've heard it said exactly that: the "highest" path is the one that is appropriate for us.. In my case, what works for me is Zen-style practice, but I believe at the same time that I "should" be practicing Vajrayana. It seems to offer some things I kind of miss in Zen, but I find it very difficult to approach. I've been trying to integrate the two, but it all just gets more confusing.

Paul

Mani

And what about philosophical arguments? I don't know what to make, for example, of Madhyamaka-Prasangika refuting all other schools of thought. As far as I know, Zen would be based on Mind-only school, so it's inferior. No?

Paul

In the Prasangika Madhyamaka system, they demonstrate the consequences of the views of each of the different schools (Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools). I have heard a few teachers jokingly wonder whether or not the Prasangika's actually defeated the Cittimatra's in debate.

In a commentary/teaching of chandrakirti's madhyamakavatara, it sort of actually shows the skill full means of how the Cittimatra school establishes their view (mind-only), and then uses that to take it further and deconstruct it so to speak.

I think it is important to remember that we all have different causes and conditions, different capacities for understanding and experiencing, and it is wonderful that there are so many vehicles, paths, methods and dharma's so suit our individual needs.

Cloud

@sattvapaul, As much as we'd like otherwise, "Buddhism" has become religion/tradition. The Buddha taught only one path, not that there's "greater" and "lesser"; and so it's for us to find the Buddha's teachings within whichever school or tradition we choose. Base your school on what is reasonable to you for what your goals are, not on the conceit or aversion of other people or traditions; that they'd show such traits only marks un-enlightened thought and can be safely ignored.

Namaste

Ada_B

My tradition is Tibetan Kagyu and my teachers have explicitly stated that there are no worse or best paths, just the one that helps you personally obtain liberation. That doesn't just apply to Buddhist traditions either, but equally applies to other religions and humanism. In my sangha we have both a Taoist and a Hindu who regularly come to meetings.

The attitude is that it is good that they are exposed to the dharma, even if they don't totally trust it, and it is good that we can learn from them and broaden our view. Of course, my teachers would say with a wink which tradition they prefer and trust in, but that doesn't mean others aren't equally valid.

FWIW I incorporate quite a few Zen understandings into my Vajrayana practice (it's easier to spell!). I particularly like the simplicity and the reliance on meditation as the source of revelation, rather than too much book learning.

"You are so educated, so intelligent, that when you sit on your cushion you think, you think and you think. You never give yourselves a rest," says Lame Chime Rinpoche of we Westerners, with a twinkle in his eye. "And then you say 'Teacher, meditation makes me tired!'".

So even though it comes from a different tradition to my own, Zen teachings have helped me learn to give my mind a rest and stop the relentless analysis. Ironically, it is Zen that has helped me pay more attention to my (Tibetan Kagyu) teacher's instructions!

The only trouble I find in learning from other traditions is in my own ego and clinging getting in the way - the desire to belong, to be one of the crowd, to just go along with stuff because it's easier than being different and my attachment to labels (like saying "My tradition is Tibetan Kagyu"). But that would be true whatever my practice.

upalabhava

You mean this kind of speech? It's Yogacara; they're a bunch of weirdos.

From the Sandhinirmocana Sutra:

Then, Born of Ultimate Truth went on to say to the Buddha, "In the beginning, the Buddha just taught the four noble truths, for those inclined to the vehicle of disciples. Although this was very rare and marvelous, and no one had been able to teach this before, there was still something beyond that teaching, some room; it was incomplete, and it was a ground of controversies."

"In the second phase, for those inclined to practice the great vehicle, the Buddha taught that all things are essenceless, without origin or destruction, fundamentally quiescent, and inherently nirvanic; but the Buddha taught this in a covert, implicit manner. Although this was even more marvelous, yet there was still something beyond the teaching of that period, still some room; it was still incomplete, still a ground of controversies."

"Now in this third period, for all those aiming for the great vehicle, the Buddha openly and explicitly teaches the essencelessness of all things, that all things have no inherent identity, no beginning or end, are fundamentally quiescent and inherently nirvanic. This is most marvelous; there is nothing beyond it, no more room for doubt. This is the true complete teaching, in which controversy has no foothold."

See, now: I like Prasangika because they aren't claiming that they are the only right ones; they aren't asserting anything! They're just demonstrating the absurd conclusions that follow from the other schools' positions.

compassionate_warrior

See, now: I like Prasangika because they aren't claiming that they are the only right ones; they aren't asserting anything! They're just demonstrating the absurd conclusions that follow from the other schools' positions.

Could you elaborate on that, Upalabhava? The absurd conclusions that folow from the other schools' positions: for example?

upalabhava

From the wiki: "Nagarjuna used the method of logical consequence (prasanga in Sanskrit) to refute flawed views. Using this type of reductio ad absurdum to establish ultimate truth (in the context of the two truths doctrine) featured prominently in the works of Buddhapalita and Candrakirti."

Also, you have to remember that the views that they were refuting were the views held by the Indian schools of thought and the traditional 18 schools of Buddhism. So, there aren't really any modern-day correlates to these schools, though some texts are surely shared.

The key to the method employed by the Prasangika hinges on affirming and non-affirming negation. You can negate a position while offering an alternative position, or you can negate a position without offering an alternative. I believe the Prasangika mainly practiced the latter.

A classic work refuting the MANY MANY views of Indian Philosophers and the 18 schools of Buddhism, culminating in the Prasangika (or perhaps culminating in the Mantra or Yantrayanas) is Maps of the Profound. I mean, it's REALLY in depth. A huge book. And very systematized.

But here's an example of the kind of logic employed. It's really dense stuff, but here they are discussing Sautrantika, a Sutra school:

About this a certain Dak-tsang says: It follows that the description of the Proponents of Sutra by earlier Tibetan scholars [...] are not correct because it is not feasible that the system of the Proponents of Sutra differs in such a way from the Great Exposition School. For although Vasubandhu's Treasury of Manifest Knowledge separately describes the assertions of the Proponents of Mind-Only on the occasion of the two truths, it does not make individual explanations of the systems of the Great Exposition School and the Sutra School.

Answer: Then, it absurdly follows that the Proponents of the Sutra Following Reason do not assert self-cognition because on the occasion of explaining consciousness Vasubandhu's Treasury of Manifest Knowledge, aside from only speaking of other-cognition, does not speak of self-cognition. The three spheres of self-contradiction! You have no reply! (p.251)

or, from the next page:

Objection by Proponents of Non-nature: No effective things have the capacity of ultimately producing effects.

Answer: That is not correct because it is seen with direct perception that seeds and so forth have the capacity to aid shoots and so forth.

Objection by the Proponents of Non-Nature: That is asserted conventionally.

Answer: How could it be that direct perception explicitly serves conventionalities, for false objects do not appear to non-mistaken awarenesses...

Statement of Opinion: Since even generally characterized phenomena have the capacity to produce a consciousness apprehending them, all specifically characterized phenomena and generally characterized phenomena have the capacity to function.

Answer: Because vaild cognition does not see that generally characterized phenomena have the capacity to aid awareness apprehending them by way of ineluctable concomitance with their existing or not, they do not produce consciousness apprehending them. If a consciousness apprehending a generality was generated from a generality, it would have ineluctable concomitance with a generality, as is the case, for example, with an eye consciousness's ineluctable concomitance with an eye sense power, a form, and so forth...

Also see, Ocean of Eloquence and Final Exposition of Wisdom and The critique of Svatantra reasoning.


Also, I apologize if it looks like I didn't answer your question very directly. I read these books years ago and they overwhelmed me. There are so many positions presented and negated...

Spaceless

I've heard it said exactly that: the "highest" path is the one that is appropriate for us.. In my case, what works for me is Zen-style practice, but I believe at the same time that I "should" be practicing Vajrayana. It seems to offer some things I kind of miss in Zen, but I find it very difficult to approach. I've been trying to integrate the two, but it all just gets more confusing.
Paul

This is because you have unknowingly asserted the superiority and inferiority over different traditions. No path in Buddhism is lowest, but at the beginning, there are basically two paths, one driven by self-power, and the other driven by Buddha-vow-power with self-power. The latter is to achieve self-power ultimately :cool:

whiterabbit

Might I suggest first reading the Dhammapada, then continuing on to the Pali Canon and then forming your own opinions? It seems to me that a lot of folks put too much faith in the statements and assertions of others (usually teachers/masters) without any personal verification. The Buddha himself exhorted his followers not to accept anything he said without arriving at the same conclusion on their own.

karmadorje

To practice Vajrayana you *must* uphold the vows of personal liberation (Hinayana) and the bodhisattva vow (Mahayana) in addition to the Vajrayana samayas. There is no rejection of greater or lesser. Zen teachings are very similar to Dzogchen/Mahamudra, there is really no reason to view them as at odds. No practitioner of Dzogchen can read Rinzai's inspired utterances without smiling.

The various philosophical schools provide a useful discourse to refine one's understanding, but ultimately all views must be gone beyond. As far as Tibetan Buddhism goes, with the exception of certain sectarian elements of the Gelukpa tradition, most schools see little practical difference between the implications of properly applied Prasanghika Madhyamaka, Yogacara Madhyamaka, Mahamudra and Dzogchen.

The school one is drawn to is a question of one's samskaras, hence it is strictly a matter of dependently-arisen ignorance. To be narrowly partisan is to make one's ignorance into a banner and fly it as a standard. It may make for interesting entertainment but we really should stop spelling dharma "d-r-a-m-a".

buddhajunkie

Of course some schools are superior in some way.

If there is an objective and constraints then there is a school that best meets those objectives, subject to those constraints.

For example, suppose a Westerner wants to reduce his fear and anger. And suppose this Westerner is highly skeptical of religion, metaphysics and "mumbo jumbo", and he has very limited availability to meet with a teacher.

What school would best suit his needs and limitations?

I think Theravada would be most attractive and useful to his purposes because of its relative simplicity and science-like approach. I don't think it's a surprise that Theravada has been catching on fast in the U.S. (I suppose Zen or Chan might be contenders, too.)

Some of the more "faith-based" schools probably wouldn't suit this person as well.


This reminds me of the whole debate, "Which is the best martial art?"

Once we specify the objectives, the opponent and the conditions, we can identify martial arts that are better and those that are worse.

For example, Brazilian Jujitsu has shown to be very effective in fights.... unless the opponent has a knife, in which case Krav Maga would be superior (The BJJ guy will clench from habit and find a blade between his ribs). If you are facing two opponents, some type of Kung Fu might be the best since there is an emphasis on groin and eye shots which is useful for taking out opponents quickly... unless you are a bouncer and don't want a law suit, in which case maybe judo... etc.

TheJourney

I think it's just a way for us to be confident in what we're doing. There's no such thing as superiority. To me, Zen is closest to my way of thinking, purely because it is the tradition that understands that there is no superiority and that it is impossible for anything to be other than perfect and enlightened.

Tekchef

There is some great wisdom here.

To put is simply, in the end, ALL schools/traditions have the Four Noble Truths at their core..all traditions want to reach enlightenment.

As Gautama pointed out, blind faith is not the way..you must experience the Dharma and see if it right for you. All the schools/Traditions are simply roads that all lead to the same place-enlightenment. There are many paths/ways to reach that goal..you just have to travel down the one that works for you.

I am currently still fairly new(about a year now) to Buddhism, so I am still on the path I started on..Zen. As of late, I have read some of the writings of HHDL and a few other Tibetan Lamas. At some point, I might spend some time on that path to expand my experiences.

Just go with the one that works best..in the end, we are all Buddah's followers.

karmadorje

I think what Tekchef says is just so. There are many paths because we all start from different places. The best is whatever is most appropriate for ourselves. It is like arguing about which single malt is superior. Some prefer something fruity like Oban, others prefer dark and peaty like Lagavulin. They will all get you drunk.

caz

One persons trash is another mans treasure. From a personal view point the value of each tradition is in the eye of the beholder they are all a means for liberation and some enlightenment they work to the capacity for sentient beings therefore never critise the Dharma in all its forms it is valuable and rare.

zenff

My personal scale of inferiority/superiority for Buddhist schools is this:

The more there is to know (in the form of dogmatic and unverifiable statements) the poorer the tradition really is.
The less there can be known (to the point of being utterly speechless) the more valuable the tradition really is.

But that’s personal like I said.
I find karmadorje’s single-malt-simile inspiring.
Cheers.

zenff

Caz said: “therefore never criticize the Dharma in all its forms it is valuable and rare.”

Yes, that sounds proper and devout.
But it is different for me.

Dharma is a sledge-hammer. It demolishes delusions.
It is a simple and practical tool, not something sacred.

Dazzle

I think what Tekchef says is just so. There are many paths because we all start from different places. The best is whatever is most appropriate for ourselves. It is like arguing about which single malt is superior. Some prefer something fruity like Oban, others prefer dark and peaty like Lagavulin. They will all get you drunk.

Uh? Erm... I'm not American, what's "single malt"?....a type of alcohol? ... Yuk!

:zombie:

caz

Caz said: “therefore never criticize the Dharma in all its forms it is valuable and rare.”

Yes, that sounds proper and devout.
But it is different for me.

Dharma is a sledge-hammer. It demolishes delusions.
It is a simple and practical tool, not something sacred.

Of course ! Dharma is like a golden hammer that annihilates the 4 maras.
Would it not be a shame if out of ignorance and confusion people critised various vehciles and created the karma not to come into contact with it again.
Karma can be subtle watch ones intentions and actions.

karmadorje

Uh? Erm... I'm not American, what's "single malt"?....a type of alcohol? ... Yuk!
:zombie:

Single malts are not in the least bit American either. Are you being ironic?

SattvaPaul

Thank you all for your valuable contributions.

It seems indeed wonderful that we have so many traditions and methods, with the one aim of liberation from suffering. In the West all the different traditions and schools co-exist, which is a unique situation historically.

I would like to be able to move towards cultivating a broad view of One Dharma. But still it seems to me that picking up methods/teachings that work for us is all very good, but those methods/teachings evolved within their own frameworks. Don't we have to accept those frameworks? And then we are limited to operate within their constraints.

P.

karmadorje

Can you give an example of what you mean by framework in the sense of being constrained?

SattvaPaul

Let's say I'm drawn to Gelugpa school. Then I feel like I have to accept everything that's written in Lam Rim.

I mean each school has got its own view of Buddha's teachings, it's own methodology, terminology, etc.

So how do I choose a tradition? If I make a choice based on my feelings of what feels right and makes sense intelectually, that's unreliable because it changes, and anyway, I find that in all traditions there are elements that make sense and feel right and those that don't.

P.

karmadorje

All traditions must inevitably be left behind. They are all ultimately provisional means. I think that one does have to put a stake in the ground, not saying that this will forever be your viewpoint but rather that one accepts working hypotheses to begin the experiment of practice. If you rely on the non-conceptual as being of ultimate importance, one can use whatever concepts are useful without getting attached to them. I think the really key thing is finding a teacher that has accomplished the goal you wish to achieve and to listen to their advice.

Academic adherence to a particular viewpoint isn't particularly helpful in my opinion.

Ada_B

Uh? Erm... I'm not American, what's "single malt"?....a type of alcohol? ... Yuk!
:zombie:

Single malts are not in the least bit American either. Are you being ironic?

@Dazzle It's an expensive type of whiskey which can be traced to a particular, named distillery. Purists would probably only recognise whiskey from Scotland (Scotch) or Ireland (Irish whiskey).

However, even people who like other alcoholic drinks may not like whiskey - it's a bit of an acquired taste.

Dakini

Using alcohol in an analogy may not be the best choice, especially for a Buddhist forum...the 5th precept, and all, not to mention personal preference/aversion to alcohol. Not everyone will have a clue as to what the analogy is about.

Jason

Throwing around the term Hinayana may not be the best choice, either.

karmadorje

Throwing around the term Hinayana may not be the best choice, either.

In the Vajrayana tradition, the Hinayana comprises the pratimoksha discipline. It is *not* a term for Theravada, which is not even referred to in any way. Vajrayana practitioners must uphold these vows and must never denigrate any of the three yanas. Those that take it to refer to a sectarian dispute and use it to become puffed up about the superiority of their own tradition do not have adhikara to practice the vows of vajrayana. Full stop.

From Ngari Panchen, 'Perfect Conduct':

The three vows are steps that lead to the same goal, enlightenment. The stream of lower vows merges into the higher vows, and the higher vows embody all the vows and the merits of the lower ones. Furthermore, when we are empowered in tantra, we are also ordained in the pratimoksa and bodhisattva disciplines. Ngari Panchen writes:

By receiving empowerment, all three vows are born simultaneously.

Tibetan Buddhists, as followers of tantra, must observe all three vows. Most lay practitioners observe the upasaka or upäsikä vows of pratimoksa, the bodhisattva vows, and tantric vows. Most monks physically observe each moral code of the vinaya in order to tame the mind. Mentally they uphold the aspiration of bodhisattvas, the aspiration to be of benefit to others with love and compassion. With wisdom awareness, they are also tantrics accepting all appearances as the path of pure perception. Longchen Rabjam writes:

With the unconflicted three vows of srãvaka, bodhisattva, and vidyddhara, tame your mind stream, benefit others, and transform every appearance into the path of pure nature.

karmadorje

Using alcohol in an analogy may not be the best choice, especially for a Buddhist forum...the 5th precept, and all, not to mention personal preference/aversion to alcohol. Not everyone will have a clue as to what the analogy is about.

Your mileage may vary. There may also be those that have been drawn to Buddhism because of being put off by puritanism of any sort. They may find that analogy perfectly understandable. There are ample illustrations from within Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Tibetan traditions of the use of wine as metaphor and/or as sacrament. You are welcome to present analogies more in keeping with your temperament and tradition.

Dazzle

Uh? Erm... I'm not American, what's "single malt"?....a type of alcohol? ... Yuk!
:zombie:

Single malts are not in the least bit American either. Are you being ironic?

@Dazzle It's an expensive type of whiskey which can be traced to a particular, named distillery. Purists would probably only recognise whiskey from Scotland (Scotch) or Ireland (Irish whiskey).

However, even people who like other alcoholic drinks may not like whiskey - it's a bit of an acquired taste.

Thank's very much for explaining, Beta. I am not a connoisseur of different types of alcohol, so I had no idea what 'single malt' was, I though it might be a type of beer!

Jeffrey

Flamebait? OP

Seems as worthy a question as what restaurant makes the best Philly Cheesestake

SattvaPaul

Flamebait? OP

Seems as worthy a question as what restaurant makes the best Philly Cheesestake

My intention is not to create disagreements, if that is what you are referring to. I am genuinely trying to clear up some confusion.

P.

SattvaPaul

Throwing around the term Hinayana may not be the best choice, either.

The term is controversial for sure. I have seen it explained in terms of attitude. So one may be thinking one is practicing Mahayana, but if it's only for one's benefit, one is really on Hinayana path. Similarly, a person not practicing within a Mahayana tradition may in fact be a bodhisattva.

Makes sense to me.

P.

Jason

Throwing around the term Hinayana may not be the best choice, either.

The term is controversial for sure. I have seen it explained in terms of attitude. So one may be thinking one is practicing Mahayana, but if it's only for one's benefit, one is really on Hinayana path. Similarly, a person not practicing within a Mahayana tradition may in fact be a bodhisattva.

Makes sense to me.

I agree. I don't think there's a problem using the term if its meaning is explicitly made clear and it's not used as a reference to a specific school (which would be derogatory); but on its own, it can easily be misinterpreted.

compassionate_warrior

Uh? Erm... I'm not American, what's "single malt"?....a type of alcohol? ... Yuk!
:zombie:

Single malts are not in the least bit American either. Are you being ironic?

@Dazzle It's an expensive type of whiskey which can be traced to a particular, named distillery. Purists would probably only recognise whiskey from Scotland (Scotch) or Ireland (Irish whiskey).

However, even people who like other alcoholic drinks may not like whiskey - it's a bit of an acquired taste.

Thank's very much for explaining, Beta. I am not a connoisseur of different types of alcohol, so I had no idea what 'single malt' was, I though it might be a type of beer!

That's what I thought, too, Dazzle. I'm out of the loop when it comes to alcohol.

Back to the OP's topic, I think HHDL's approach to religions in general applies to the different schools of Buddhism as well. He observes that everyone is different in culture, background and experience, and so the various religions have evolved to suit people's different conditions or starting points, cultural values, etc., but they all lead to the same end. I think the same principle applies to the schools of Buddhism. Whatever helps get you closer to Nirvana is the right vehicle for you. OP, sometimes you just have to disregard the judgmental stuff you hear. Judgmentalism obviously is not conducive to enlightenment.

Dazzle

Throwing around the term Hinayana may not be the best choice, either.

The term is controversial for sure. I have seen it explained in terms of attitude. So one may be thinking one is practicing Mahayana, but if it's only for one's benefit, one is really on Hinayana path. Similarly, a person not practicing within a Mahayana tradition may in fact be a bodhisattva.

Makes sense to me.

I agree. I don't think there's a problem using the term if its meaning is explicitly made clear and it's not used as a reference to a specific school (which would be derogatory); but on its own, it can easily be misinterpreted.

According to Ven Dr W.Rahula in "Theravada-Mahayana Buddhism"...........

"Between the 1st Century B.C. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana and Hinayana appeared in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law.

About the 2nd Century A.D. Mahayana became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata and proved that everything is Void in a small text called Madhyamika-karika. About the 4th Century, there were Asanga and Vasubandhu who wrote enormous amount of works on Mahayana. After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of Mahayana and Hinayana were introduced.

We must not confuse Hinayana with Theravada because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka. Today there is no Hinayana sect in existence anywhere in the world. Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc"

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


.

Jeffrey

Dazzle thats a great clarification, but I want to add to that. In the tibetan tradition there is a concept of three turnings of the wheel of dharma. All of them are cutting at suffering but each one purifies the faults of the others as I recall. Or maybe that is just one net dude I knews take on it!

Anyhow the yanas are fundamental yana or the 4 noble truths basicly. The mahayana wisdom of emptiness unified with compassionate action. And the vajrayana which I am not quite clear on perhaps it is about the vaster vision that emerges and trusting the effortless clarity-awareness of mind.

This is not to refute what Dazzle said regarding therevada as only the fundamental yana (nope thats not right) but just to point out another context in which hinayana is used. The yanas are not three separate doors as far as I understand but maybe different parts of the blind men and the elephant. No thats terrible analogy. Bad Jeffrey!

thickpaper

There were no schools in the Buddha's time.

Who stays at School?

Jeffrey

Buddha's sangha was a school. There were others.

TheJourney

Buddha's sangha was a school. There were others.

I like this way of putting it!

Dazzle

Hi Jeffrey,

'Hinayana' meaning 'lesser' or 'inferior vehicle' is a pejorative term if it is used to describe Buddha's teachings in the Pali Canon and the Theravada school and its practices - and as mentioned in the above article, is an outdated term for a school of Buddhism which no longer exists.
I am aware of the belief in the three turnings in Tibetan Buddhism, I studied and practised with that tradition offline for many years.

Regarding the term 'hinayana', here is an example from the glossary of a book by Thrangu Rinpoche

"Hinayana (tib. tekpa chungwa) Literally "the lesser vehicle". The term refers to the first teachings of the Buddha, which emphasized the careful examination of mind and its confusion ; also called the Theravadin path "

Kind regards,

D

Jeffrey

Yes dazzle I was not correcting your assertion that hinayana is not therevada. I was pointing out that hinayana isn't a meaningless term. Whether it was used historically as lesser vehicle or not. In some context hinayana means the first turning. Sogyal Rinpoche (I believe), sensitive to the loadedness of the term, replaces hinayana with 'fundamental yana'.

DhammaDhatu

No one has moved from one tradition to another because it promised "higher enlightenment"?

When I first practised Buddhism, I learned from a forest teacher, who was quite Zen-like. But then I upgraded to the Theravada Suttas. I found as I investigated the Theravada Suttas, they provided a very broad perspective or 'big-picture', which cannot be realised through meditation (unless one develops the 'divine eye'). There is more to liberation than just being a meditation zombie. To understand the world around us helps to broaden liberation. It is liberation with wisdom rather than solely liberation via zombieness.

As for the term 'Mahayana', imo, it does not mean the 'superior vehicle'. Instead, it means the 'greater or broader vehicle'. This means it offers a broader range of teachings for a broader audience. In its Vajrayana, it has all kinds of guardian angels & Jesus-like Hindu love deities. Or it has 'non-duality' & 'non-conceptuality', which the Buddha did not teach, which is Advaita Hinduism & Taoism introduced into Buddhism for those who cannot develop dispassion.

At least the Tibetan lama I listen to states the Mahayana evolved to broaden the appeal of Buddhism as traditional Buddhism was losing influence in India.

So some believe Mahayana is superior because they believe to save all sentient beings is wise. Others prefer Hinayana because they believe to keep the teachings pure is wise & because they believe trying to save all sentient beings is folly.

Alot of it depends on your 'world-view' really (rather than any inherent inferiority & superiority).

All the best