Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Small Wheel
lobster
Veteran
in Philosophy
As some of you may be aware the deviant Mahayanists have in the past referred to Theravadins as the smaller wheel of dharma. Tsk, tsk naughty wheel rimmers.
The Hinyana is closer to the axle rod, or central pole of Dharma (aka Prophet Sheikh YA Moony).
In other words the small wheel is tighter and closer to the core but being up tight and spinning faster is not reflective of the whole wheel or vehicle.
All Mahayanists must eventually move towards Shakyamuni Buddha or a similar Dharma ex-Prince. They may be on the other side of the vehicle but travel is interdependent.
If you are attracted to a part of the wheel, that is spin. If the wheel is spinning around your stillness then Oh Buddha thanks for the means of travel . . .
4
Comments
A small vehicle carries one to the other shore. A great vehicle can carry everyone.
We can help one another, but at the end we go it alone.
Yes, they must move towards the centre, but it's further to go on a bigger wheel.
He could have stayed put on the far shore without so much as a beacon but instead he widened his wheel to accommodate the rest of us.
There must be a logical reason as to why he would bother.
Is compassion mere sentiment or a reflection of a deeper truth that even as there is no one to awaken, there is also no one left behind?
Sorry but I have no idea what that means - could you explain it?
I have never heard the term "small wheel" used to describe hinayana. I much prefer eka-yana (one-vehicle), a term found in the Lotus Sutra, where the three yanas (disciple, solitary Buddha and Bodhisattva) converge into the Buddha-yana.
It means that in light of there being no true separation, awakening may not be complete for even a Buddha until all are awake.
Buddha could have split without bothering to teach the dharma. That would have been a pretty small wheel indeed.
The Buddha said that craving is the origin of suffering which is the 2nd Noble Truth and it is one of the links of Dependent Origination, when the Buddha has severed craving doesn't the other 11 links of Dependent Origination fall apart as well and thereby ending birth for himself? Are you saying the Buddha has to take up craving again so he can continue to save beings?
Because I don't see how an awakened Buddha or an Arahant could return to birth when he has severed craving that brings renewed existence.
Now you have:
http://www.marimari.com/content/hong_kong/general_info/religion/buddhism/main.html
Just for reference, the term 'hinayana' is extremely derogatory and misused term when seemingly used in reference to Theravada. Usually I don't say anything about it because I don't really care all that much, but in this case I think it's worth noting for those new to Buddhism and those who might not understand just how derogatory this word actually is, even in jest.
The Pali/Sankrit term hina basically means 'low' or 'inferior,' but those translations doesn't really do it justice. The entry for hina in the Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary give a fuller range of its meaning: inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable. Whatever the definition, it should be clear that the connotation is extremely negative; and while one translation for hinayana is 'lower vehicle,' an equally valid translation is 'garbage vehicle.'
Essentially, the term hinayana, as defined by Mahayana, denotes "self liberation without the thought of helping others achieve the same," which isn't a fair designation of Theravada, in my opinion. Moreover, Theravada also stresses the importance of intention rather than imply clinging to "rules and observances," and has teachings for those desiring to follow the bodhisattva path via perfecting the ten paramitas (e.g., see The Ten Perfections and Manual of the Excellent Man).
In some cases, I think this term can be applied to some within Theravada when used to differentiate between certain, limited motivations and practices without too much controversy (although I wouldn't advise it, either), but I certainly wouldn't use it to define the entire tradition and I'd caution others about painting Theravada with such a broad, and arguably unkind, brush.
Exactly.
I am thinking of classifying YinYana as a Hinayana 'garbage vehicle'. At the moment it is a fourth wheel turning to differentiate from Tantra and closed system assertions. Fourth wheel will return to an open door policy instigated by Shakyamuni Buddha.
However I was thrown out of the YinYana cult with the other garbage, heretics, cushion fetishists and trouble makers, so I have no say in their development . . .
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/day/2013/09/12
If separation is an illusion there is no difference between the Buddha and those he saves except for perception. I wouldn't say he took up craving but he obviously thought it best to share what he discovered.
I don't think I said anything of the kind but the next time I meet an awakened Buddha or even an Arahant I will be sure to ask. I think a Bodhisattva will do whatever it takes to help our brothers and sisters even if it means doing just that.
What do you think made Buddha decide to share his wisdom with us instead of rotting under that tree?
Big wheel, small wheel... For those lost in such terms either one will suffice.
The Ariyapariyesana sutta has the answer to this question
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html#
I wouldn't call this source credible at all.
I'm certain that they are entirely credible. For booking a hotel or sightseeing.
Their review of Buddhism is full of holes. Not the best material out there.
Anybody can post a sutta but I asked why YOU think Buddha got up from his tree instead of rotting there. I am asking for your own words.
Why didn't he stay solely on the far shore instead of trying to guide the rest of us as he did?
There is nothing wrong with sticking to the core teachings and there is nothing wrong with expounding on the more subtle points as folks like Nagarjuna did with the two truths.
There is also nothing wrong with using your own scrutiny to figure out for yourself which is which and which is misinformation.
Buddha turned the wheel. He had different ways of getting his point across to different mindsets but it's still the same wheel.
Big wheel, small wheel is nonsense. One size can fit all or it is not the wheel Buddha turned.
Because he was a jolly nice chap and really an Englishman.
Size isn't everything, and small is beautiful. Well, mostly.
Exactly so.
As we recently witnessed in Paris, describing Boddhisatva Muhammad as a Dharmakaya (perfect being) is punishable by bad cartoon work . . .
. . . however that is a story for other mind sets . . .
The use of ridicule, tearing up sutras, crazy zen Cohens etc. is possible in Dharma and might be skilful in the right context. The important thing is are we helping our wheels to turn onto the path and the open road?
The point I am making is small wheel, Hinayana, is a potential description of somone close to ones turning and therefore not to be thought of as derogatory. The insult is only there when we accept it . . .