Talk:Buddhist polemics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is still pretty much an essay originally written by Mahaabaala - and for me it remains pretty wild. There are no citations or references. I am unsure about it's status, or the views of others regarding it - but I dispute most of the claims in the article and personally would RFD it. (20040302 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

One of the quotations which could be incorporated is the name of the first Mahayana scripture that started criticizing the Hinayana, for those criticisms are currently used for Theravada. Sacca 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does mudslinging interest you, Sacca? You think the Sthaviravāda and other early Nikaya didn't crtiticise the new formed Mahayana schools?

Secondly, make no mistake - there are very few people left who both call the Theravada 'Hinayana' and also think of the Hinayana as being something to be derided.

Moreover, we know that any Mahayana sutra isn't addressing the Theravada - because the Theravada left India before the Mahayana arose.

I would like a response to my query: Why not author a new article that refers to the qualities of the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions that are remarked upon in the Theravada tradition? - I am quite serious. It would be great if you could explain to me why excellent examples of religious pluralism should take second place to spurious polemics. (20040302 07:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

It just caught my attention that Theravada was being criticized and not the Mahayana. I would say you are quite interested in mudslinging, or am I wrong here? You gave quite a bit of replies on my remarks already. ;-)

I see enough of the Hinayana-conceptions applied to Theravada. YOur claim that it is not so, does not match my actual experiences. What I do recognize is that the inspiring and good teachers of Mahayana/Vajrayana do not 'accuse' Hinayana nor Theravada, and interprate things rightly, and encourage their disciples to get the right attitude to Hinayana. And those disciples translate the word Hinayana to Theravada. Again, this is based on my actual experience, just speaking to people. I can tell you that, for example, last month I was speaking to a Tibetan Vajrayana monk who kept saying Hinayana when he meant Theravada.

On your second point; Theravada went to Sri Lanka, but it did not move there. It's the same as saying Roman Catholicism moved to South America. Which is not true: it went there, but it also continued its existence as the major religion in Rome and the rest of Western Europe. So Therevada went to Sri Lanka, and for a long time was still present in India too. Particularly in South India Theravada was strong; Theravada was present there until the 13th century AD, and it had a large centre of learning in Kancipuram (west of Chiennai), if I remember correctly.

At Nalanda Theravada was also being taught, together with a few other early buddhist schools (see, it's not necessary to use 'hinayana'), since it was one of the larger buddhist schools. I would think they had actual Theravada monks teaching it, as any serious institution providing education for monks would.

There is the article on the commonalities between Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana already, maybe you can work with that. If you start an article, maybe I will join in later. I am sure you are quite capable of writing such an article yourself. To be honest I don't quite understand what you mean with 'religious pluralism' and 'spurious polemics', maybe you can just start writing and make your meaning clear in that way.

I am sorry you do not appreciate an attempt to set biased accusations from one religion to the other right. Doing this we can actually remove the very foundation of these accusations, which are currently mainly based in unfamiliarity with 'the other side'. greetings, Sacca 09:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me yet. I am aware that Tibetans use the term Hinayana - but in the Indo-Tibetan tradition, there is no slight or criticism intended with the usage - it is used merely to refer to the paths (yana!) that lead to the state of Sravakabodhi or Pratyekabodhi - and such paths and practioners are given very high respect. I am working with the Tibetan community regarding their usage of the term - but since they do not attribute any abuse to it, they are mystified as to why they should not use it.

As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, I believe that many of these 'accusations' are not such whatsoever, but misinterpretations due to the different doctrinal views found within the Theravada and other traditions. Let me give you an example -

Within Mahayana doctrine, Nirvana-without-remainder is not final. It does not mean that it is not Nirvana, or that it is not enlightened - just as Nirvana-with-remainder is considered to be pure enlightenment within the Theravada. IIRC, the distinction is that Theravada hold that Nirvana-with-remainder becomes Nirvana-without-remainder at the point of death of the enlightened individual. There are NO Mahayana traditions that claims that the path to Arhathood takes aeons - after all there are plenty of sutras that are considered valid by Mahayana that talk of how many of Buddha's students gained Arhathood in one life - sometimes very rapidly. The reason why there is some misinterpretation is that because the Mahayana do not consider the peace of a Sravakabuddha to be final, their view is that after a long time the Sravakabuddha resumes his/her path to Samyaksambuddhahood but remains in Nirvana - after all Nirvana is final. This mahayana view is not a criticism of the path of the Sravaka - it is merely a doctrinal difference based on whether or not a Samyaksambuddha ceases to actively teach at the point of death. As I understand it, all traditional Mahayana schools assert that a Samyaksambuddha continues to teach forever (actually until the end of samsara). This is based on the assertion of the Mahayana schools that the continuum of consciousness is not extinguished on achieving Nirvana (I think that the logic goes that if it were, then the Buddha would cease to be at the point of enlightenment), but rather what is extinguished is suffering and the causes of suffering.

This is just one example of how doctrinal differences are interpreted by some to be criticisms, slights, or polemics. Nothing is so clear cut. (20040302 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

OK, but your example was a comparatively easy one. It's just a difference in disciption of what happens after death, this is not what the criticisms are usually about. I would be very interested to hear more of the more difficult issues, such as 'selfish', not helping others (=no metta), because this is what it is usually about, the things which are easily said without knowledge of the ideologies which are behind it, and which have a basis in the earliest Mahayana scriptures. Beginners hear them and remember them, and sometimes it's all they think they know about Theravada.

I found this in a website (in a glossary of buddhist terms), it's quite an accurate discription of what I usually hear:

Hinayana. 'Lesser Vehicle'. A polemical category of Buddhist sects created by early Mahayanists in their efforts to distinguish themselves from other sects and argue that their own was more effective a teaching. 'Hinayana' were rhetorically defined as selfish, incomplete, and holding imperfect views of reality, preoccupied with personal salvation rather than the salvation of others, etc. In Mahayana texts, then, this term refers to non-Mahayana sects, which are deprecated, sometimes to the point of being consider heretical depending on the text and author (source: http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/).

Your comment on the Arahants (takes aeons) was helpful, I suggest we can remove this now. greetings, Sacca 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sacca - I'm really very pleased that you followed this through. To reply to your question above - no I am not interested in mudslinging. I believe that the Theravada is a valid -and valuable- tradition. Likewise I believe that the Indo-Tibetan tradition is also valid and valuable. I see different approaches and methodologies to Nirvana as an essential response to the different cultures, temperaments and views of individuals. I do not consider Theravada to be inferior, and I do not consider Theravada practitioners to be inferior.

Regarding your citation from villa.lakes.com - it is quite clear that this statement is not authored by the Mahayana, and the Mahayana traditions cannot be held responsible for statements such as this.

I have been fortunate to have attended many Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings over 30 years - and I have been repeatedly told not to criticise the Sravakas or the Theravada in any way at all. So - far from hearing criticism of the Theravadins, I have heard praise and respect for them. I have also been taught to never criticise ANY of the followers of Buddha. In the many Vajrayana teachings, I have been taught not to criticise ANYTHING - not even a rainfall, or a piece of dirt. In 30 years of attending talks from Buddhists teachers around the world, I have not heard anything against the Theravada or against the Sravaka tradition. Now - I am not denying that some teachers are sometimes careless in the way that they describe things - and I'm not denying that some teachers have limited views - but I doubt that the entire Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions can be charged with the views of a few mistaken individuals.

On to the issue of compassion/selfishness that you raised. Once again, this is pretty much misinterpretation arises due to the same difference of view regarding the question of the activities of Buddha after death. Any well-studied Mahayana student is pretty aware of the paramitas, and the relevance of metta to all Buddhist traditions!

The sole manner in which a Sravaka-aspirant could be considered to be 'selfish' is based on the idea that an individual who does not wish to engage in the three kalpas of the Bodhisattva path in order to turn the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before is 'selfish'. This is all.

Therefore the proposition that Sravaka traditions are 'selfish' is NOT an accusation that the Sravaka traditions are selfish in their general behaviour, and it is NOT an assertion that the Sravaka traditions could not or would not teach the path to Nirvana. Howeverm a Samyaksambuddha has the quality of being able to teach where none have taught before - (he does not depend upon the lineage of students of a previous Samyaksambuddha) - and this distinction is the only statement that can be made regarding what can be taught.

Within the Theravada tradition it doesn't seem to make much sense to wait three kalpas to achieve Nirvana, when one can achieve it in this life. But this is possibly because in the Theravada tradition (as I understand it) a Buddha is not able to actively teach after death. Yet - for Mahayana Buddhists, once an individual has awakened into Samyaksambuddhahood, then he spontaneously benefits beings for the rest of time.

So to recap - there may be some instances where Sravakas are said to be 'selfish' - I cannot recall any right now - but this term can only be applied in the very restricted sense of not being willing to train for three kalpas to achieve Samyaksambuddhahood. Therefore the idea that Mahayanists say "Theravada is selfish" is itself a misconception based on using an unrestricted sense to the term 'selfish'. Moreover, it makes no sense to call the Theravada 'selfish' - unless we are to also apply the term to all beings who have yet to become Bodhisattvas - and even then it could only be used in it's very restricted sense! I hope that you feel that this issue is fairly dealt with.

I would be very interested to know - does the Theravada tradition respect the Mahayana traditions as having legitimate methods to Nirvana? For instance in Mahayana sutra, we find very detailed material on the development of the Bodhisattva wish - is this material seen to be valid or valuable? Also, am I correct when I imagine that Theravada do not assert that the Buddha continues to actively teach after death? - I am not mudslinging - rather I am attempting to comprehend the underpinnings of views which differ between Theravada and the Mahayana of the Indo-Tibetan traditions. Metta (20040302 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

The glossary definition of Hinayana quoted by Sacca is arguably from a "Mahayana" source; Charles Patton is a student of Chinese Buddhism and a translator of Chinese Buddhists texts, and claims at least to be a novice monk at a Zen Center in the Pure Land tradition. Though the discussion needs work, I think it is clear that disputation between Theravada and Mahayana practitioners about the relative merits of their approaches has been going on for some time and will continue. It is usually conducted in polite terms, but criticism is a fair description of it and does not equate to mudslinging. Westerners with an interest in Buddhism will find an explanation of the differences between Theravada and Mahayana, including the ways in which each argues for its own superiority, of interest. Ideally a parallel section on criticisms of Mahayana by Theravada sources would be included, but the fact that a particular contributor does not feel competent to provide that is not a reason to eliminate existing helpful content.

David Watson Dwatson888 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for contributing; I am aware that the text came from a Mahayana website - but the text talks about the Mahayana as a third party, and appears to be borrowed from another source, don't you think? (20040302)

I did find the same glossary entry, including the typo (consider for considered) on another Web site; perhaps that suggests borrowing from a third source, but perhaps not. The third party language is not significant, I don't think; it's what you would expect in a glossary. My point is that the inclusion of the definition on a self-identified Mahayana site is supportive of Sacca's assertion that he frequently encounters this view, and that it merits being addressed. (To perhaps veer off topic, during the English Reformation -- among other times -- Christians of different doctrinal persuasions burned one another at the stake as heretics with disturbing frequency, and animosity over the issues that were involved is often apparent even in contemporary English religious discourse. It would be very surprising if the major schism in the history of Buddhism had not provoked criticism of each tendency by the other and if at least vestiges of such criticism were not still present. Have doctinal disputes in Buddhism never led to bloodshed? When Hung Jen, the fifth Zen patriarch, named Hui Neng his successor, eventually leading to a split between northern and southern schools of Chinese Zen, it is said that monks who believed him unworthy pursued him into the mountains and sought to take his life, but he dissuaded them. There must be other similar stories.) --David Watson 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 T = "for oneself" is usually implied rather than explicit 2 Kenneth Ch'en: "Theravada...personal salvation by the individual for himself" 3 Scope of title is much broader than current article 4 DT Suzuki on Soto "quietism" 5 Dalai Lama busted 6 Good essay covering Shenhui's polemic against Shenshsiu 7 Article is an anti-Mahayana polemic with no citations

[edit] T = "for oneself" is usually implied rather than explicit

At a Vajrayana-based site, this glossary entry glossary entry for Hinayana implies fairly strongly that Theravada are in it for themselves. "first teachings of the Buddha...fruit is liberation for oneself". I.e., those who reject the authenticity of later sutras lack the "compassion" mentioned in the entry for Mahayana.

If you believe some less-than-authoritative-looking material like this article, republished on a number of personal Web sites [1][2] (unsigned but obviously not written by a Theravada practitioner) you might become persuaded that among Buddhist traditions existing today, "Theravada could be called the...most like Hinayana" and in that tradition "the main motivation for following the spiritual path is to achieve liberation for oneself".

I don't think it's easy to find a cite from a credible Mahayana source that literally accuses Theravada a a path to liberation e.g. "for oneself only" . But you can easily find articles by Mahayanists who should know better [3] that explicitly equate Hinayana with Theravada. Such an equation invites readers to infer that Theravada Buddhism has the same defects as Hinayana.

And you can easily find supposedly authoritative but non-Mahayana sources, e.g. the Encyclopedia Brittanica [4] telling us Hinayana "is concerned with the individual's salvation" and "Theravada Buddhism was the only Hinayana school that maintained a strong position". The simplest explanation is that they didn't make this stuff up. They got it from somewhere.

I nominate An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, D.T. Suzuki 1964, Grove Press, p31, which speaks of a "historical division into two schools, Hinayana and Mahayana", the former representing "primitive" Buddhism, the latter a more "developed" form existing in China and Japan. The word "historical" includes another allusion to the earlier and later contributions to the canon. This article indicates he wrote the same sentiments in 1921. In 1909 (Buddhist Review article reprinted in The Awakening of Zen, Shambhala, 1980, p1) Suzuki considered and then rejected the term "Southern Buddhism...which mostly prevails in Ceylon, Burma, and Siam" (p1 of the Shambhala edition) as well as other doxographies (he posits "progressionists" versus "convervatives") in favor of the "preferable" terms "Mahayana and Hinayana". He acknowledges the "historical odium" of this view but continues "Neglecting this latter objection, the term Mahayana...geographical distribution covers not only the Northern parts of India but extends Eastward...". In D.T. Suzuki's schema, Buddhism practiced in Ceylon was Hinayana. Regarding specific defects of the Hinayana, elsewhere I believe Suzuki apologetically cites Asanga (I don't recall where).

Apparently, the Dalai Lama disagrees--not merely with the schema but the underlying assumption that Theravada is restricted to only two vehicles. On someone's personal Web site, at the bottom of this page: [5], apparently an excerpt from intro to Dalai Lama's book on the Heart Sutra indicates that Theravada is not equivalent to Hinayana ("regrettable tendency on the part of certain followers of the Mahayana to disparage the teachings of the Theravada, claiming that they are the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle"). I.e., Theravada teaches something that is not included in the Hinayana.

IMO, the proof of this is in the Nikayas, verses 15-16 of Khuddakapatha 8 (Nidhi Kandaa) English by Samuels; English by Thanissaro Bhikku Another English translation; (Sanskrit)) I.e. from the Theravada point of view, the Pali Canon holds that meritorious deeds are the way to attain all intermediate and final stages of becoming a buddha; that is why Theravada differs from the category of the "two vehicles" spoken of by the latter traditions. I drifted a bit but thanks for hanging in there. --Munge 08:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Ch'en: "Theravada...personal salvation by the individual for himself"

This should satisfy one of the "citation needed" superscripts:

Theravada or canonical Buddhism is essentially a discipline for personal salvation by the individual for himself.

Source: Buddhism in China (subtitle) A Historical Survey, Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Princeton University Press, 1964 (paperback 1972), p11

When the term "Hinayana" was first used, it embraced all these chools of early Buddhism, but in current usage it refers primarily to the Theravada school, which is the only one active at present., ibid p12

Back cover of the paperback edition identifies Mr. Chen as "Chairman of the Department of Oriental Languages at the University of California, Los Angeles", I believe he held that position during the 1960s and 1970s after baving been professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University --munge 05:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of title is much broader than current article

Whenever the controversy got hot, there was polemic. To be encyclopedic, the article should at least mention the following:

• Buddha's polemic toward/against Brahmin religions (cf Cooraswamy's critique that Buddha ignored the "higher aspects" of Brahmanism)
• Presumed controversies and schisms among the early schools
• Heart Sutra's critique of Sarvastivadin doctrine; see Conze
• Madhyamaka defence against real and apparent criticism; Nagarjuna's refutation of objections; Fa-Tsang v. Yogacara; Candrakirti's later defence
• Sudden v. gradual/quietist and defense: Council of Lhasa (real and/or imagined); Zen v. Zen: Northern v. Southern; Dahui v. Hongzhi; Dogen v. Dahui; Rinzai v. Soto

I'm sure there are more. Article shouldn't obsess over the one issue. --munge 09:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) fixed typo 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DT Suzuki on Soto "quietism"

As I run across these things, I'll be posting them here to try to provide material suitable for making the article more balanced.

The Rinzai school is more speculative and intellectual while the Soto tends toward quietism. The latter is numerically strong and the former qualitatively so. D. T. Suzuki, Studies in Zen, Philosophical Library, 1955, p20

Of course "quietism" has played a historical role as a term of disparagement, and the Rinzai-affiliated Suzuki must have been aware of Rinzai/Linji teachers' use of the term that way. I think that it was not exclusive to that school (e.g. Wumen[6] and Dahui) but it predates the Linji/Caodong divergence (e.g. Huineng) and it probably predates Chan/Zen..--munge 07:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama busted

We find the practice of the Hinayana path most commonly in Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka and so forth. Here, practitioners are motivated by the desire to achieve liberation from their own suffering. Concerned for themselves alone…

Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, 7 October 1981, "translated by Alexander Berzin, clarified by Lama Zopa Rinpoche, edited by Nicholas Ribush"; originally published in a souvenir booklet for Tushita Mahayana Meditation Centre's Second Dharma Celebration, November 5-8 1982, New Delhi, India; reprinted in Teachings from Tibet (subtitle) Guidance from Great Lamas, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, 2005, full text available at http://www.lamayeshe.com/otherteachers/tft/tft.pdf ; chapter available at http://www.lamayeshe.com/otherteachers/hhdl/4noble_truths.shtml -munge 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good essay covering Shenhui's polemic against Shenshsiu

He claimed that Bodhidharma and all subsequent masters in the lineage taught the Diamond Sutra rather than the Lankavatara Sutra, a claim Yampolsky (1967:34) dismisses as “pure fabrication.” Dumoulin (1994:113-114) called him “unscrupulous” in his attacks on the Northern School. Shen-hui accused Northern School practitioners of attempting to steal Bodhidharma’s robe, trying to cut off the head of Hui-neng’s mummified body, effacing Hui-neng’s tomb inscription and altering the inscription on Shen-hsiu’s stele to call him the Sixth Patriarch (Yampolsky, 1967:28-29; Dumoulin, 1994:113-114) He also claimed that he was a tenth stage bodhisattva, a claim Poceski judges as “outrageous”.

"Legends in Ch’an: the Northern/Southern Schools Split, Hui-neng and the Platform Sutra", Vladimir K. (apparently, Vladimir Keremidschieff), April 2005,a available at [7]; Google's html version: [8]. Internal links seem to be broken, but Mario Poceski's article is here [9] -munge 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is an anti-Mahayana polemic with no citations

I may nominate it for deletion. Any comments? Arrow740 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

regardless if it is anti anything, there are no citations. this is an essay. El hombre de haha 12:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Interesting to see the vajrayana-ists come out to battle!

The article is titled "Buddhist Polemics" -- and it goes on to discuss how the various phases oh Buddhism have often criticized other sects including those that came before them. I find this to be a worthy and valuable area of study, and think the topic makes a valid article.

I'll be honest and admit I have not studied up on wikipedia's ideas regarding what an article should have to make it into the site. I have read a bit about the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica, and have heard that it was one of the last versions where authors were allowed to include some personal opinion and/or 'passion' in their articles. While many might complain about this...apparently it was considered by many to make much more interesting reading and people felt like they got a lot out of it.

A lot being said about "where are your sources". Well, I do think the author if they are willing to take a bit of time, could easily go to the nearest Buddhist bookstore and find plenty of published material to back up about everything they are saying.

In regards to things like, do Tibetans belittle Theravada by calling it Hinayana (which literally means "little vehicle"), the obvious answer is, of course they do. Theravada is called the little vehicle, Mahayana the great vehicle, and vajrayana the diamond vehicle. Of course, if you press a Tibetan lama on any given topic, you will often begin to hear many contradictory things.

Anyway, much better to have some heated debate/polemics here than to just have someone post the party line and end it there. Good job, and I hope the debate continues and that a propert article can be ironed out a bit more, perhaps with a few additional sources to make everyone happy.

If you would like a source donation here is one, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche mentioned in a recent public talk that one lama had said that instead of little vehicle, it should be called "root vehicle" or "tsawai-yana". He definitely recognizes the belittling of these teachings by some, and I think is trying to do something to rectify it.

Another obvious topic to hit with this would be how the various vajrayana sects are often at fairly great conflict with each other...

So -- I guess people are saying the author is taking one side...perhaps the article could be expanded to begin to form a basis for a discussion that seems to barely exist in the world today -- a discussion of how the different Buddhist schools really do see each other...and not just scratching the surface and being polite, but what is really being said and taught written and orally as well.