anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

RBK
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:49 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by RBK »

I agree with the above comments regarding the bias being doctrinal, fundamentally.

It strikes me as interesting that in a contemporary context in both the West, with the relative dominance of Theravadin Vipassana influenced approaches in Western Buddhism etc, and Japan as evident in the “Critical Buddhism” movement, you see Mahayana dismissed as “inauthentic” somewhat due to its emphasis on “Buddha nature” and the centrality of sutras that were not written by the “historical Buddha” etc.

Which as to say that the implications of the doctrinal differences are not insignicant and cut both ways so to speak.
LuisR
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:17 pm

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by LuisR »

Wayfarer wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:22 pm
JMGinPDX wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:49 pm Ajahn Chah started out practicing Zen, as did his disciple Ajahn Sumedho...
Do you have a source for that? I don't think Ajahn Chah ever practiced outside Thailand, and Zen lineages are generally not represented there.
Maybe they meant Ajahn Brahm. I believe he practiced Zen Before becoming a Theravda monk.
User avatar
SunWuKong
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by SunWuKong »

None of these men ever practiced Zen. Although sometimes Zen monks were accepted as students in their sanghas. Maybe that’s the confusion. But that in and of itself does not show even an interest in. ZEn or Zen practices.
"We are magical animals that roam" ~ Roam
DharmaChakra
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:38 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by DharmaChakra »

Where is the actual word hinayana coming from, which sutta sutra, where did the historical Buddha say anything regarding hinayana, mahayana, and theravada. Who actually gave these titles to the traditions, are they based in texts.

Whats the sanskrit or pali for ism

Linguistically Dhyana in sanskrit is jhana in pali, chan in chinese and zen, its only the name and language that changes not the actual states of meditative absorption. Traditions are seperated by cultrual differences only, the essence of the practices is one, were not that complicated as organic beings, we are all made of the same ingredients but have different appreances, like suffering for Chinese person is the same as the suffering of an Indian, European or African, states of being are also the same in all respects, consciousness is one, experienced in diverse forms, and expressed in different ways, its quite simple.

Intellectuals study concepts and make it complicated and missing the whole dharma, cutting up a flower looking for the scent.

Yogis study states of being

Intellectuals end up knowing nothing

Yogis end up achieving great lasting joy both in this life and are fearless at the time of death.
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:03 am Where is the actual word hinayana coming from, which sutta sutra, where did the historical Buddha say anything regarding hinayana, mahayana, and theravada. Who actually gave these titles to the traditions, are they based in texts.

Whats the sanskrit or pali for ism

Linguistically Dhyana in sanskrit is jhana in pali, chan in chinese and zen, its only the name and language that changes not the actual states of meditative absorption. Traditions are seperated by cultrual differences only, the essence of the practices is one, were not that complicated as organic beings, we are all made of the same ingredients but have different appreances, like suffering for Chinese person is the same as the suffering of an Indian, European or African, states of being are also the same in all respects, consciousness is one, experienced in diverse forms, and expressed in different ways, its quite simple.

Intellectuals study concepts and make it complicated and missing the whole dharma, cutting up a flower looking for the scent.

Yogis study states of being

Intellectuals end up knowing nothing

Yogis end up achieving great lasting joy both in this life and are fearless at the time of death.
Hinayana Mahayana are needed terms, whether used by Buddha or not. There is a difference between view, method and result between them. Just like vajrayana is different from general mahayana despite being part of mahayana. The terms higher/lower or big/small is not to judge or make people feel bad. It is just a name used for faster teachings. Hinayana is smaller vehicle because one has to be a monk, the view is not as complete as it is in mahayana and the result is arhatship. Mahayana is bigger vehicle because one can be a householder, compassion plays central role, methods are faster (it does not take as many kalpas in general mahayana and in vajrayana it can be done in a single life) and result is complete buddhahood. Without those terms there can be quite a lot of confusion as one would read one thing in one sutta and another thing in different sutra and without such context it could be hard to understand what is going on. The genius of Buddha is that he taight according to his disciples abilities and therefore we have hinayana and mahayana.
Nagarjuna was a scholar and yet a realized being. So... #mahayana
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Formerly known as Miroku.
DharmaChakra
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:38 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by DharmaChakra »

Needed by who ? The way its set up it seems to create division.

As I was saying in another thread all traditions have gradual and sudden teachings. Vraja is post graduate, is it within the Theravada traditions, since they traditionally more silent on esoteric teachings its hard to say, one would need a developed level of adhikara quality of conscious being. Scholars study but there maybe no shift in their being or state of mind, they may know so many things, Sanskrit terms, but no conscious shift, even though they know higher tantras. I could memorise a whole vrajayana teaching but does that mean I have attained that state, I think not, its false way of learning dharma.

So there is the development of the path of practice, which in natural course of time will develop by its own means, we dont need sectarian divisions, just because some traditions may vary on the outside, this is a western thing. Teachings are based and given according to adhikara of the person, this will vary from person to person, there was never a system of building up concepts, not that i Know of of living in Asia among sadhus of all traditions for more than 20 years.

Nagarjuna was a scholar, thats funny, he was made into a scholar by western conceptual thinking. Even the HH Dalia Lama said he never knew that Nagarjuna was a historical person from South India before he came in exile in India. Thats says something doesnt it.......
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:34 am Needed by who ? The way its set up it seems to create division.

As I was saying in another thread all traditions have gradual and sudden teachings. Vraja is post graduate, is it within the Theravada traditions, since they traditionally more silent on esoteric teachings its hard to say, one would need a developed level of adhikara quality of conscious being. Scholars study but there maybe no shift in their being or state of mind, they may know so many things, Sanskrit terms, but no conscious shift, even though they know higher tantras. I could memorise a whole vrajayana teaching but does that mean I have attained that state, I think not, its false way of learning dharma.

So there is the development of the path of practice, which in natural course of time will develop by its own means, we dont need sectarian divisions, just because some traditions may vary on the outside, this is a western thing. Teachings are based and given according to adhikara of the person, this will vary from person to person, there was never a system of building up concepts, not that i Know of of living in Asia among sadhus of all traditions for more than 20 years.

Nagarjuna was a scholar, thats funny, he was made into a scholar by western conceptual thinking. Even the HH Dalia Lama said he never knew that Nagarjuna was a historical person from South India before he came in exile in India. Thats says something doesnt it.......
It is not a sectarian division. It is just a division used to name teachings. The same way how kagyu school has its own set of teachings and gelug has different set of teachings. If you wish to practice both you are free to do so. But bear in mind that there is a difference in view, path and also slightly in result. One can use it as a gradual path starting with hinayana etc. or go directly into vajrayana, why not. Higher vehicles encompass the lower ones while nowadays hinayana refutes mahayana and vajrayana.

Sorry for doubting you but I don't think you are quite there to say something is false. I know several khenpos who are very learned and also great practitioners (as told by their masters and judged by me based on their compassion). Even HH Dalailama is a great scholar and a realized being. If you don't want to study and only want to practice that is your thing and go for it.

The problem seems to be that you have lived among sadhus of different traditions for 20 years. Mixing everything together.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Formerly known as Miroku.
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 11:19 am I didnt say one cant be scholar and know the texts and be a practitioner simultaneously , thats a different type of scholarship than the western divisions of View and acedmic information based scholarship, which is useless and causes most the problems, but gives itself its own air of authority, this has been retaught back to the traditions , its typical colonial style rule.

And its not a problem to to know about different traditions, it just shows up the division and false views created by western scholars and intellectuals, its not about mixing to much, take a walk through Kathmandu and you will see how the cultures intermingle but they can remain unique according to their tradition, its not a problem, usually cultures were in small groups, but he essence of conscious being is one.

I know the texts, mostly Sanskrit ones, a few in pali, but I dont see anything that resembles the view of hinayana and mahayana, this is a foreign influence in the dharma traditions. Hinayana do not have a view against mahayana, as i said intellectual study concepts, ideas and views, yogis study states of being, the texts are maps of states of being, not philosophical beliefs and views, only ones who would say that are false teaching the wrong way. There maybe gradual systems and sudden awakening in all traditions.

View means belief in the west, this is to believe in a concept, this is faith based on religious ideals, this is also a western things and translated in western terms and is foreign to native darma traditions, that is not the same as dristi or dhitti, where conceptual thinking is abandoned and one studies states of being the causes and conditions and applies practices in to whatever state is necessary.
But mahayana/hinayana division comes from Buddhism. Jamgon Khongtrul talks about Hinayana/Mahayana in his Treasury of Knowledge book 6 part 2. Also others have talked about it before him such as Gampopa in his Jewel Ornament of Liberation. So your point is false.

View does not mean belief. Plus it does not matter what it means in the west what matters is how it is in buddhism. In buddhadharma the view is the state of enlightenment.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Formerly known as Miroku.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1671
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by seeker242 »

I've never considered any "Hinayana" references in zen to be referring to Theravada, but rather simply to the motivation for practicing. If you are practicing just for the benefit of yourself and that's it, that is a lesser vehicle regardless of what tradition you are practicing in. You can be Theravada and practice for the benefit of others. You can also be zen and only practicing for the benefit of yourself and that's it.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8029
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Astus »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:03 amTraditions are seperated by cultrual differences only
Differentiating the three families (gotra) of sravaka, pratyekabuddha, and buddha is an Indian Buddhist doctrine that is accepted by all surviving Buddhist schools, regardless of location.

'The nirvedhabhagiyas are of three types by reason of the distinction of the three gotras or families. The ascetic belongs to the family of the Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas or Buddhas; and Heat, the Summits, etc., are of the family of the ascetic who cultivates them.'
(Abhidharmakosabhasyam, vol 3, p 940, tr Pruden)
the essence of the practices is one
What essence?
Intellectuals study concepts ... Yogis study states of being
States of being are concepts as well.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
AkashicBrother
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:53 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by AkashicBrother »

The division of theravada and mahayana is a disgrace that weakens buddhism. theravada and mahayana shold have had a meeting or conference to try to unify the schools. i read that in thailand there are attempts of unification. its understandable the irritation of mahayana in relation to theravada self-imposed limitations.
tkp67
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by tkp67 »

AkashicBrother wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 3:16 pm The division of theravada and mahayana is a disgrace that weakens buddhism. theravada and mahayana shold have had a meeting or conference to try to unify the schools. i read that in thailand there are attempts of unification. its understandable the irritation of mahayana in relation to theravada self-imposed limitations.
I think if we look at the "evolution" of math we could see how the primodial basis for the most complex evolution still remains true in absolute relative terms and this even scales as expressed in our math systems (i.e. binary, hexadecimal, etc)

When I look at it this way all the words of Buddha remain golden regardless of my ability or inability to put them into relative context
User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2537
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by 明安 Myoan »

tkp67 wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:16 pm
AkashicBrother wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 3:16 pm The division of theravada and mahayana is a disgrace that weakens buddhism. theravada and mahayana shold have had a meeting or conference to try to unify the schools. i read that in thailand there are attempts of unification. its understandable the irritation of mahayana in relation to theravada self-imposed limitations.
I think if we look at the "evolution" of math we could see how the primodial basis for the most complex evolution still remains true in absolute relative terms and this even scales as expressed in our math systems (i.e. binary, hexadecimal, etc)

When I look at it this way all the words of Buddha remain golden regardless of my ability or inability to put them into relative context
:good:
With a heart wandering in ignorance down this path and that, to guide me I simply say Namu-Amida-Butsu. -- Ippen

Reciting the Nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally give rise to the Three Minds and the Four Modes of Practice. -- Master Hōnen
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Wayfarer »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:31 pm Each gotra has its source in supramental states, and each rshis were brahmanas knowers of brahma, ultimate reality. I fail to see any doctrines in the dharma traditions.

essence of all traditions is to become enlightened, all traditions will agree to this and is the main aim of the practice.
So, just to be clear, you don’t think there’s any real distinction to be drawn between Buddhism and the Vedic traditions generally?
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12099
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

DharmaChakra wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 10:34 am
there was never a system of building up concepts, not that i Know of of living in Asia among sadhus of all traditions for more than 20 years.
Sectarianism has existed in Asia too, don't BS. You can quibble over the form of it, but the idea that only the Western world has conceptual teachings or sectarianism is ridiculous. Asian traditions abound with sectarians and philosophical musings, they may or may not be the same guys who are meditating in the mountains, but they sure do exist.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
DharmaChakra
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:38 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by DharmaChakra »

in essence when the Sanskrit or pali are studied as states rather than concepts and views then there is no difference, but western scholars have made something which is so simple and profound into something vastly complex and created division in diversity. Most people need to unlearn all the false information, or develop their practice more deeply. Many Sanskrit words are untranslatable, so how much is being used to make up conclusions, from limited translated words.

Only practice with no gaining idea' its a great saying

First empty the mind of all concepts

Zen traditions are qute profound and have avoided the intellectual conceptual game, which is all that it is.

Its almost as arrogant to think that intellectual views can understand the profound as modern empirical science is a complete system to understand the whole of reality.

Veda is timeless, and as said in another post its related to lunar and solar dynasties from the subtle thrid state known as brahmanda which connects to the 4th via countless and unlimted cosmological mediums.

Each culture will have unique cosmological nama and rupa, sariputra is solar lineage and mogallana is lunar lineage for example, maybe they existed as historical people, but its not that important due to linear times not playing a very important role in dharma tradition, but they remain as cosmological beings and potetntials beyond the 5 sense based media.

Unless these things are understood in whatever way one practices it just becomes endless opinions and views, which in essence and via the words of the suttas is not buddhist, its something else. but due to religious and educational conditioning some just cant get past basic human errors to understand the vastness of Dharma traditions.

Why does Padmasambhava carry trishula.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12099
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

DharmaChakra wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 1:42 am in essence when the Sanskrit or pali are studied as states rather than concepts and views then there is no difference, but western scholars have made something which is so simple and profound into something vastly complex and created division in diversity. Most people need to unlearn all the false information, or develop their practice more deeply. Many Sanskrit words are untranslatable, so how much is being used to make up conclusions, from limited translated words.
This is such nonsense. As I said, there have been sectarians and conceptual philosophers in Asian traditions from the beginning, for better or worse. How you get the idea that this is exclusively "Western" is beyond me, though I admit Westerners have a certain flavor with it.
Only practice with no gaining idea' its a great saying
Great, then why are you ever bothering to post here, little sophomoric isn't it?
First empty the mind of all concepts
Not possible, concepts can liberate themselves, by trying to "empty" one's mind of concepts one just ends in just the kind sophistry you are criticizing.
Unless these things are understood in whatever way one practices it just becomes endless opinions and views, which in essence and via the words of the suttas is not buddhist, its something else. but due to religious and educational conditioning some just cant get past basic human errors to understand the vastness of Dharma traditions.
You seem just as wrapped up in this particular corner of Samsara as everyone else.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7315
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

HHDL makes a distinction between Pali Suttas and Sanskrit Sutras. There’s no pejorative.

That works for me!
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by Kim O'Hara »

AkashicBrother wrote: Mon May 27, 2019 3:16 pm The division of theravada and mahayana is a disgrace that weakens buddhism. theravada and mahayana shold have had a meeting or conference to try to unify the schools. i read that in thailand there are attempts of unification. its understandable the irritation of mahayana in relation to theravada self-imposed limitations.
They did - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bud ... ha_Council

:coffee:
Kim
DharmaChakra
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:38 am

Re: anti-"Hinayana" bias in Zen (and Mahayana in general)

Post by DharmaChakra »

smcj wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 3:19 am HHDL makes a distinction between Pali Suttas and Sanskrit Sutras. There’s no pejorative.

That works for me!
smcj

Can you provide some links, it maybe something to do with Grammar, as the Grammar in Sanskrit is considered better formed, it may just be that, and does he say that Tibetan Buddhism is Better and Superior to Theravadin Buddhism. Does he call Theravadin Hinayana and lesser vehicle where they ony care about their own liberation and with no concern for others.
Post Reply

Return to “Zen”