The Myth of "Hinayana"

By Kåre A. Lie (excerpt edited by WQ)

In the centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, there was a radical development going on in Buddhism. A new school was born, and its adherents called it Mahayana (the "Great Vehicle"). How this school differs from earlier schools may be found in any history of Buddhism. Here we will concentrate on one of the results of this schism: the term Hinayana (the "Inferior Vehicle").

Adherents of the older schools criticized the Mahayanists, particularly for creating new "sutras" [discourses], counterfeiting the word of the historical Buddha. Mahayanists, on the other hand, reacted to this critique by accusing their opponents of not understanding the teaching of the Buddha at all and for being narrow minded egoists.

The debate became heated, and accusations flew from both sides. Then one brilliant person on the Mahayana side of the debate created the pairing Mahayana/Hinayana. And it stuck. They called their opponents Hinayanists. The word worked excellently as an insult – with a simplicity parallelling "Mahayana" that any fool could grasp.

Hinayana (or more correctly hiinayaana) is a highly derogatory term. It does not simply mean "lesser" or "inferior" vehicle as one often sees stated. Whereas the second element – that is, the yaana – means vehicle, hiina very seldom has the simple meaning of "lesser" or "small."

.

Shakyamuni teaching his dimunitive first disciples:

Hinayana is the "basic level" of Buddhism according

to some Vajrayana teaching (e.g., Kagyu Samye Ling)

If that had been the case, the Pali (and Sanskrit) texts would have used it in other connections as the opposite of maha – big. But they do not. The opposite of maha is cula [pronounced, choola], the normal word for "small."

The term Hinayana is an echo of a debate long dead, or rather a debate wherein one party is dead and the other is shouting to the winds.

Who were the opponents who were labeled "Hinayana"? Was it the Theravadans? Probably not. At the birth of Mahayana, Theravada [the "Teaching of the Elders," those "elders" being the immediate disciples of the historical Buddha] had largely emigrated to Sri Lanka, and could therefore hardly be counted among the dominating schools on the Indian mainland – which is where the Mahayana/Hinayana debate took place.

Theravadans are only sporadically mentioned in Mahayana works. Karmasiddhiprakarana Vasubandhu respectfully calls them "the honorable Tamraparniyas." (Tamraparni was a name for Sri Lanka). He does not call them "Hinayanists."

The most influential of the schools at that time was the Sarvastivada. So it is most probable that they were the main targets of this epithet – but they were hardly the only target for Hinayana-invectives.

.

The Sarvastivada School, and the other early Buddhist sects that developed in India at that time, are long dead -- with the exception of the Theravada. But the debate and the arguments found their way into the Mahayana discourses. For instance, it is glaringly apparent in the anti-Hinayana propaganda of the Lotus Sutra – and echoes of it are found throughout the teachings of Mahayana and Vajrayana.

[NOTE: Vajrayana (the "Lightning Vehicle"] is a Mahayana-school dominant in Tibet, which regards itself as a further refinement of Mahayana teachings and thus superior to "ordinary" Mahayana].

Today confusion remains, because Mahayanists and Vajrayanists use the pejorative term "Hinayana" in three different ways:

1. In a historical sense, pre-Mahayanist schools are called Hinayana.
2. Modern Theravada is frequently confused with the old Hinayana.
3. It is used as an internal part of the Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings.

Let us have a closer look on these three usages.... Read full article

• Also available in Norwegian Portuguese Russian Spanish Swedish Italian
• More Dharma the Cat cartoons