Talk:Hinayana

• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1 Talk up till 17 July 2004
• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 2 Talk up till 26 August 2004
• Talk:Hinayana/Archive 3 Talk up till 21 September 2004

Contents

1 Note to Editors 2 Readability 3 I'm Back 4 References 5 Further Thoughts 6 About those Chinese characters...

Note to Editors

Welcome to those who are interested in the Hinayana article, especially if you are new to wikipedia. Please remember to strive for a Neutral Point of View, and that we are writing an encylopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Please read the archives above, as there are many issues which have been covered in some manner or another.

This article tends to swing from an anti-mahayana to a pro-mahayana stance. However we are attempting to find a fair NPOV for the article, which remains informative and encyclopaedic. If you wish to help, please do more than to criticise the current copy. Show good reasons, cite sources, and provide evidence - this way your arguments can be accomodated into the article. (20040302)

Readability

In general, this article is just not readable for someone who has no clue about Hinayana, please stay on topic. -- Solitude 19:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully the new introduction should help this. Of course, the subject is quite technical, so it will never be completely readable to all. This is not atypical of Wikipedia - I invite you to have a look at the somewhat technical article on Manifolds. Regarding staying on topic - the article reasonably depends upon the definitions of Sravaka,Pratyeka, and Samyaksam Buddhahood - the articles for which are yet to be written. For the time being it seems best to keep the explanatory section. There are varying views on whether or not such an approach is correct - I leave such discussions to those higher powers.

I am still looking for guidance on extended quotations. Certainly the latter half of the article consists primarily of quotes. (20040302 22:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm Back

Well, I've been away. When 20040302 start to add section on top of my edit, I was quite sure he was going to change article back to his Tibetan (Hinayana was never projetive) line eventually. I came back and that pretty much seems to be the case. Distinction of Tibetan Vijrayana and Chinese(Oriental)Mahayanan is gone, obviously on this person's belif that Mahayanan tradition undestood by Tibetan is the correct one. I will again make it clear that Hinayana being projetive is a Tibetan viewpoint in accordance with this site policy to promote correct "attribution" of view. One can certainly express "Tibetan" interpretation of the term as long as it is attributed as such. Just don't try to censor other interpretation or for that matter try to present one view point (Tibetan)as the representation of entire category of philosopy (Mahayana)FWBOarticle

Welcome back. It also appears that you have still not read this article, and you still cannot spell. I suspect your purpose here is merely to cause an argument. I will not engage in a fruitless battle. And if you do wish to positively contribute, show some respect please. The article as it stands mentions every point of view that is currently available. It quotes from the Theravada, the Indian Mahayana, extensively from Mahayana sutras, from both the Asanga and the Nagarjuna branches of Mahayana, and it has been read by many scholars from both oriental and asian backgrounds and studies who did not see a need to make any major adjustments. Just what is your problem? If you wish to write an alternative article do so at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox, so we can discuss them in a sensible manner. If you are looking for a fight, I recommend you go over to Atheism or some other page. Moreover, I have not made a significant change to the article since 22 Sep 2004 - there has been nothing particularly slanted or devious in my intentions or direction. I hope that you can respect that. (20040302 00:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Hello, FWBOarticle, welcome back. 20040302, I wanted to say that when I read your first few lines above, I heard them in my head with a tone of sharp but good-natured wit. I hope that was your intention. I hope you guys can both keep in cool. - Nat Krause 03:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I guess I felt a bit defensive, and I apologise, FWBOarticle. Please note that I have kept in the definition of 'hina', under the 'Hinayana as a pejorative' section, which is why I wonder if you have actually read the article.

Just one point about the edits you made: You are claiming that the PTS states that "Hina" is derogatory - yet, you do not cite from them. I have no problem with keeping the definition of the term, yet your claim is an interpretation, or maybe just poor Engrish.

The other issue that I interpret from your edit is that I gather you feel the article under-represents the position that -if- the term Hinayana was meant to be categorative, -then- the Mahayanists would have coined the term "ksudrayana" instead. However, I'm not sure about that: Kshudra: "minute, diminuitive, tiny, very small, little, trifling, mean, low, vile, wicked, niggardly, avaricious, cruel, poor, indigent" (Monier-Williams) - so it appears that Kshudra has the same connotations that one finds with 'Hina'. Moreover, the Maha/Kshudra pair (not mentioned as apposite in MW) would indicate size rather than quality, which I doubt was the purpose of the authors of the term 'Hinayana'. It appears that the argument you use is not particularly strong. However, if you can show some literary or 3rd person documented support for the argument, then I am sure we can reflect the discussion in the article. (20040302 09:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

References

Pali text soc. dictionary is here (http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/). The claim made in the article checks out OK.

All Pali/Sanskrit diminutives I'm aware of (khudda, appa, thoka) have the potential to connote something disparaging--e.g., a trifle. However, khudda is apparently used as an unambiguously neutral, non-disparaging diminutive in the Pali canon (e.g. see Khuddakapatha (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/khp/khp-d.html)). In contrast, I am not aware of the use of hina as a neutral, non-disparaging term in Pali or Sanskrit texts. If there is such a comparable, unambiguously neutral, non-disparaging use of hina in such texts, by all means, let's cite it.

One doesn't have to search long for uses of hina that imply inferior quality. Two examples pop up if you search on hina at accesstoinsight.org, and two more are found in the index of Nanananda's book Concept and Reality. To me, that line of reasoning alone justifies the link to Kare Lie's article (http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm), although he makes many other good points. If he is not correct on every point, "never let the perfect stand in the way of the good".

If there is a comparably good link somewhere that justifies the position that Hinayana is after all an innocuous term, by all means, let's link to that, too.

user:munge 09:12 UTC 22 Dec 03

Munge, Thanks. First of all, the Lotus Sutra (and other sutras) were not published or written in Pali but Sanskrit, so when deciding which terms they could choose from, we have to consider only the terms available in the language of the authors. Also, the term was coined by the Mahayana, not the Theravadans, so it is not reasonable to refer to Theravadans when attempting to identify the origins and intents of the term, though it is (of course) important to listen to what Theravadans (indeed any scholars) have to say.

Regardless, the term "hina" is used all over the place (in both Pali and Sanskrit) in a non-disparaging manner to indicate "inferior". This has been discussed earlier, and it is not hard to find citations that show it being used in a categorative sense (inferior-middling-superior).

Of course, if you assume that 'inferior' is necessarily derogatory, then there is no argument; however I beg you to consider that there are others (including myself) that do not have that assumption, and can think of plenty of contexts where the term 'inferior' has no such connotation.

Indeed, all schools of Buddhism consider the Samyaksam-Buddhas to be superior to the Sravaka-Buddhas, and it seems eminently sensible (in light of the usage from sutras such as the Lotus and others) to understand the terms in light of this distinction alone. Please recall that many later Mahayana traditions were not even aware of the existence of the Theravadins until sometime in the 19th Century. One of the central arguments of the Theravadins is to do with the status of Nirvana - they repeatedly state that the Nirvana of all Buddhas is the same, something which is repeatedly acknowledged by the early Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus sutra. The distinction was not made on the class of Nirvana at all, (though there are some later developments concerning nirvana-with-movement, and nirvana-without-movement which are a separate distinctions of metaphysics) but on the nature of the last life of the practitioner. In fact, concerning the nature of the three types of Buddha, neither the Theravadans nor the Mahayana schools differ regarding the main distinctions.

The primary problem I have with Kare Lie's article is that it is defensively POV which in the end serves only to sustain misunderstanding and grief between the different traditions of Buddha; it is a little like sticking an pro-Karaites article that rails against the Mishnah onto the end of the Mishnah article. Moreover, Kare Lie only recognises the term in one of it's uses: as a definition of a school, or group of schools. Much that he may like it to be dead, the term is still used, and it still has meaning: Within Mahayana tradition, it is often used to talk about individuals who have sustained a desire to be free from Samsara, but have lost the wish to achieve Samyaksam-Buddhahood.

Indeed, my own research has repeatedly shown that the assumptions made by the Theravadans concerning the term 'hinayana' are primarily fundamental attribution errors: many of the uses of the term are not referring to a school or tradition at all, but to a way of thinking which is considered inferior to the Mahayana thought.

I recognise (which is mentioned in the article as it stands) that there is a very active debate concerning whether or not the term is pejorative; however, as for evidence that 'Hinayana' is an innocuous term, this current article cites plenty of early sutras to demonstrate that not only is the term 'innocent' (in that it is not meant to be derogatory or pejorative), but that both the path and the followers / traditions of Hinayana cannot be disparaged by a properly behaved Mahayana practitioner. This includes both the Mahayana tradition of Maitreya/Asanga and also the Mahayana traditions of Nagarjuna.

I also refer you to Paul Williams' book- where there is extensive material on the early formation of the Mahayana, and especially the reaction to the Mahayana from other schools. (20040302 12:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC))

If I am not misled, I seem to have found the text (http://www.yogichen.org/chenian/bk43.html) where Asanga warns not to "disparage the Hinayana and over-encourage others to learn Mahayana only". Yet the same text (Eight Mulapattis...) 2 lines up, says that it violates ethics to "discourage others from striving after Mahayana and encourage them to aim at Hinayana". A related section of the document, the 46 Apattis says it violates ethics "to be capable of practicing the Bodhisattva ideal, yet abandoning it to follow the Hinayana". The 46 also includes a passage effectively urging us to "practice the right Dharma to lead oneself to transcend the Nirvana of Hinayana into that of Mahayana". Elsewhere, "Forsaking the Mahayana..." is right out. Assuming Asanga wrote that, it seems peculiar to include in the wiki a passage from him that indicates tolerance, while seeming to omit various passages from the same author that suggest that he used hina to refer to quality, not just quantity. If the translation is to be trusted, I would go further and say that entirely reasonable people can interpret his remarks as expressing a sectarian and condescending attitude.

Somewhat similarly—my impression is the Lotus does not use the term hinayana—if I am not mistaken, the wiki omits passages in old texts that are imperfectly tolerant (http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Buddhism/LotusSutra/text/Chap14.htm) toward the sravaka ("hearers" per Watson).

This seems as good a place to any to link to the dreaded "tongues fester in their mouths" (http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/TeachingCapacityTimeCountry.htm) passage from Nichiren. Is that really in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra? user:munge 05:54 UTC 23 Dec 2004

Munge, Thanks again for your excellent thoughts. I would like to point out that, when interpreting Mahayana texts and sutras, it is important not to identify the term 'hinayana' as referring to a school or tradition, except when explicitly talking about those schools that assert only the hinayana paths (paths of the Sravaka-Buddha). I completely acknowledge that there is sectarianism today, and that certain schools are known for issuing sectarian statements. So - as individuals with self-centered natures are willing to interpret terms that suit them, so they may quote out of context. I understand that you feel I may have been doing exactly that, but I do not think so.

Both Asanga and Nagarjuna assert that one must know and practice all paths, including the Sravakayana - this is evident in even the core texts of the Tibetans which devote large sections to Sravakayana, though they are clearly Mahayana schools. It is true that we can read the precepts of Asanga and understand that a trainee Bodhisattva is not to "discourage others from striving after Mahayana and encourage them to aim at Hinayana", but of course we need to understand that 'aiming at Hinayana' is not actually talking about a buddhist tradition, but the motivation of achieving the status of a Sravakabuddha, rather than a Samyaksambuddha. There are plenty of commentaries on this which make such points clear. Also, "to be capable of practicing the Bodhisattva ideal, yet abandoning it to follow the Hinayana" - does not say that one should not practice Hinayana, but that one must not abandon the Bodhisattva ideal. These precepts are instructions on how to maintain the Bodhisattva attitude, so they seem perfectly reasonable, and not at all sectarian. As this text is specifically aimed at the trainee Bodhisattva, this makes sense. It is deeply important to remember the intended audience: just as the Vinaya is not written for laypeople, so Asanga's work was not intended for individuals who follow the Hinayana path (to achieve Sravakabuddhahood). He makes this eminently clear.

You are right about the Lotus in that it does not explicitly use the term 'Hinayana', but it certainly sets the scene for later sutras. Regarding the apparent quote from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, I am not aware of it. However, I doubt that it is particularly significant. There was quite a bit of defensiveness regarding the status of early Mahayana sutras and there were many statements that concerned their legitimacy. Remember that there were different Mahayana schools who also variously accepted and rejected the status of different Mahayana sutras (all schools accept the Hinayana sutras), and so we often find verses stating that this particular sutra is legitimate and what terrible karma entails for individuals who reject them. Scholars such as Williams have the opinion that most of this is not aimed at Hinayana schools. (20040302 09:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC))

(Hope you don't mind I indented your text 1 notch)

(Please feel free to notch my comments as you see fit! I hope you don't mind that I split our discussion!)

Further Thoughts

One might wish that sectarianism and equivocation was exceptional. But if Robert Thurman's translation is to be believed, the Vimalakirti Sutra manages to take a swipe at the Hinayana (http://www.imeditate.com/vimalakirti/vimalakirti02.html) after having expressed "reverence" to the sravaka (http://www.imeditate.com/vimalakirti/vimalakirti01.html). In contrast, the translation (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/) by Ven. Guo-go Bhikshu of the Perfect Enlightenment denies the sravaka can reach nirvana (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/04_vajra.htm); the student in search of a teacher vows not to take instruction from a sravaka (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/05_maitreya.htm); apparently, that's because sravakas are inadequate as teachers (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/10_universal.htm), and implies that because the sravaka is so attached to quiescence (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/06_wisdom.htm) that it is probably beyond the sravaka's ability to understand the subtlety (http://www.prajna.nl/teksten/onderricht/soetras/complete/11_complete.htm) of what is and isn't quiescent about meditation. If a certain version of the Lankavatara--said to be translated by D. T. Suzuki and Dwight Goddard--is trustworthy, the sravaka are "well meaning but" (http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/lankavatara-sutra.htm) they have various defects and can't fully get over their egos (although they do get credit for not being entangled in theism, materialism, and atman).

The Amithaba seems to be kindlier toward the sound-hearers (http://www.drba.org/dharma/amitabhasutra.asp), at least in the version said to be translated by Dr. Ron Epstein of the Buddhist Text Translation Society (http://www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/). Multitudes of them have no trouble entering the "Buddhaland". I hope you will forgive me for wondering, however, whether the intent of the Pure Land Sutra (http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0367-e.html) was to admit all the sound-hearers, or only those who converted.

My point is not that the Mahayana are evil and the Theravada are innocent victims, patiently tolerating this abuse in accordance with Dhammapada I:3. Here's a quote from John McRae that I find helpul: "...the term Hinayana is legitimately used when working solely within the context of Mahayana doctrines, but not in reference to actual Buddhists of either ancient India or modern Southeast Asia." (cf Seeing Through Zen, p76. (Unfortunately, that quote leaves much to be explained re the Vajrayana tradition.) Frankly I'm not sure of the point because...

• a) Do any of these texts actually truly use the sanskrit term hinayana?

• b) Do disparaging remarks about sravakas constitute disparagement of anyone alive?

• c) How about arahats/arhants...do they come out OK? Or, e.g., do they maybe get slighted in the Diamond Sutra?

• d) What were the consequences of violating Asanga's silas, anyway? (The compiler of the page cited above indicates, without citation, that the consequences were rather dire; he does not indicate that the negative results would be limited to achieving mere sravakahood).

• d) Now, about those Vajrayana schools. Do they acknowledge that the, uhm, I guess theg pa dman pa practices can, at least for some people, take them all the way, with no ifs ands or buts about it? Or are those practices generally seen as preparatory for other practices held in higher esteem? Or...? It would be particularly helpful to have some explicit, unambiguous, traceable references to Tibetan primary sources that vindicate practices and doctrines that translators describe as "hinayana", without setting up such practices for comparison to more "advanced" practices or whatnot. I'm looking for something that cannot reasonably be interpreted as "Buddhism on training wheels", or "Buddhism for people of lower capacity", or anything like that. Something that if I trouble myself to dig into, I'm not going to find the kind of condescension that lie under the surface of the cited versions of the Lotus (per Watson), or the Vimalikirti (per Thurman), etc. (The fact that those translators are eminent does not put them above suspicion. In other cases, I have found significant errors made by equally well-regarded translators.) user:munge 23 Dec 2004

These are valid concerns. I completely understand the difficulty of trying to sort the 'wheat from the chaff', especially when having to rely upon translation. I appreciate the energy and care for which you've taken on this thorny issue, and I am entertained by the way in which you constructed your links!

I think that (in general) the Mahayana traditions consider the Hinayana thought to be inferior; more specifically the thought of achieving Sravaka-Buddhahood (aka 'mere peace') or Pratyeka-Buddhahood is considered to be inferior to the thought of achieving Samyaksam-Buddhahood (or Buddhahood). I consider it fair to translate 'hina' as 'inferior'. As I recall, the term Hinayana applies to both the Sravakayana and Pratyekayana.

I reject any claims that suggest Mahayana traditions claim that the Hinayana Dharmas are not Buddha-Dharma, or that the Hinayana Dharmas should not be practiced (see the article's citation from the 18,000 Prajnaparamita).

Regarding the final nature of enlightenment, I accept that most Mahayana traditions consider that Sravaka-Buddhahood is not final: This is based on a subtle doctrinal distinction between the Mahayana and Theravadans concerning the issues of Nirvana-with-motion and Nirvana-without-motion. As I understand it the Theravadans consider that Nirvana-without-motion always follows Nirvana-with-motion (we achieve enlightenment before we die) and that Nirvana-without-motion is final, whereas the Mahayana consider that Nirvana-without-motion is always followed by Nirvana-with-motion (the state of Sravaka-Buddhahood is succeeded by the state of Samyaksam-Buddhahood). These issues are important doctrinal distinctions which are IMHO beyond the scope of the current article, though could be fleshed out in the Nirvana article at some point. The fact that the Theravadans find the Mahayana doctrine of the finality of Sravaka-Buddhahood to be unacceptable is certainly not surprising, but that the Mahayana traditions differ in doctrine cannot be said to be a slur, slander or pejorative in itself! The fact that this doctrinal distinction lies at the very root of the meaning of the "vehicles" of Mahayana should not be ignored.

Regarding your quotes and comments, the festive season has overtaken me - please be patient, and I will endeavour to answer you. I find our discussion very rewarding. Please continue to be patient and tolerant, and enjoy whatever holidays you may have. (20040302 10:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC))

About those Chinese characters...

...namely 小乘 (http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?5c.xml+id('b5c0f-4e58')) (log in as "guest") is only one of several Chinese renderings given by Charles Muller in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, notably including 劣乘 (http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?52.xml+id('b52a3-4e58')) but also including 下乘 (http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?4e.xml+id('b4e0b-4e58')), 下劣乘 (http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?4e.xml+id('b4e0b-52a3-4e58')), and 小乘佛教 (http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?5c.xml+id('b5c0f-4e58-4f5b-6559')).

Notably, the only Chinese characters that Muller actually cites to a primary source is 劣乘, which (unlike 小乘) clearly carries the stigma of inferior, not just small, and which he cites to the Yogacara-bhumi sastra. Based on that cite, I suppose that when Asanga used the term hinayana, Xuanzang translated it into Chinese as equivalent to "inferior journey" or similar.

In other words, the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism as currently composed supports the idea that there was not a one-to-one correspondence between "hinayana" and the pair of Chinese characters given in the article. Hinayana was a more multivalent phrase than the current article allows. Very regrettably, citing only the two characters as given reflects a particular POV, and does not reflect the various POVs even of all Mahayanists. Specifically it apparently omits Xuanzang's interpretation, and as I showed several messages ago, it whitewashes the POV of Asanga. Not to mention the perspective of Nikaya Buddhists. And not to mention the scholarly perspective that holds (paraphrasing John McRae) that statements that use the term hinayana are statements of Mahayana doctrine. They presuppose belief in that doctrine. It's like saying that Bubba Free John is a necessary intermediary between people and enlightenment. Devotees hold that to be true. That's different from saying that it is true. This is an encyclopedia, not an evangelistic tract.

Notably, I have yet to see evidence one can always rely on the equation hinayana = sravakayana + pratekyabuddhayana. There seem to be too many variant uses by Mahayanists to support that claim, which the current article seems to assert. I note with interest Dogen's apparent use of hinayana to simply mean deluded practitioner, including deluded Mahayanists, including deluded Soto Zen Mahayanists; (see Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, Bieldefelt, p114; see also Hee-Jin Kim's book on Dogen).

Even within Tibetan Buddhism, perhaps there is not unanimity: I also note with great interest that one Ngak'chang Rinpoche is quoted as saying that (http://aroter.org/articles/dzogchen_int.htm) "...Hinayana simply exists according to the Tibetan analysis of the range of Buddhist teaching...one should never confuse Hinayana with Theravada. No one practices Hinayana...No one practises Shravakabuddhayana and Pratyekabuddhayana these days in Tibet, or elsewhere for that matter...". It is still possible that I am making a mistake, but these notes and those at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox should make it clear that a wide range of POVs do exist and have existed, and that the current article is a particular POV.

--Munge 09:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As we increase our research into any term with as much history as Hinayana, it is invevitable that we will find new POV's that are not currently implemented within the current article. However, I think it is unfair to say that the current article reflects one particular POV alone.

Generally I applaud the work you (Munge) are doing in the sandbox, though I am concerned about your agenda and, to be fair, what you are (or anyone is) able to do about putting agendas to one side. FYI the text from Rahula that you seek is within the current article, which makes me wonder how much of the current article you have read. The best to you.

Moreover, you have yet to comment on, or even mention Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, or the 18,000 verse Prajnaparamita Sutra, both of which predate Tibet, and indeed Chinese/Japanese sources. As nearly every existing Mahayana tradition acknowledges Asanga, Nagarjuna or both, your lack of citation from primary sources appears to be an oversight that cannot be ignored. (20040302)

The current article projects unqualified high regard by Asanga toward Hinayana. Yet as already noted in my previous remarks, apparently the same text (http://www.yogichen.org/chenian/bk43.html) as the one cited to Asanga in the article likewise prohibits "To discourage others from striving after Mahayana and encourage them to aim at Hinayana". Also, to repeat, according to Muller (cites above), Xuanzang translates Asanga's hinayana as 劣乘, which some reasonable people might regard as being imperfectly respectful toward its intended referent. Both of these points suggest that Asanga's regard for the hinayana was qualified. Why the omissions?

Similarly for the article's quotes from the Lotus and the Vimalikirti—only nice things about sravakas, omitting quotes from the same sutras that stand in contrast—contrasting statements that I provided above in more than half-a-dozen links to primary sources in translation; do a Find... command on this Talk page and look for the first instance of "Thurman" for my cites on the Vimalikirti and "Watson" for my cites on the Lotus. In fact, you yourself remark above that you would get around to responding to those points. Perhaps you could reconsider your statement that I lacked citations from primary sources.

As for the 18000 verses, is there an English translation? I could start plowing through Taisho v220, 479-537 (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/cbeta/result/T07/T07n0220.htm). But given that I have already identified apparent selective quoting of primary sources, can you understand why I might well suspect that if/when I do delve into the Prajnaparamita literature I may find more mixed messages? Notably, Lopez indicates that's exactly what I'll find (detailed cite at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox). Can you understand why the current article might appear to someone as a case of selective omission? Can you imagine why someone might wonder whether selective omission could be a sign that the article has an agenda?

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was seeking some "text by Rahula". In fact, yet again, the current article seems to selectively omit Rahula's "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha126.htm). Notably, the contrast between that article and certain (but not all) Tibetan teachers (again, see Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox) suggests that indeed that the way people past and present use hinayana is far more multivalent than the present article indicates. --Munge 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox now contains an extended quote from the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Verses, said to be the "earliest sutra" in the Perfection of Wisdom texts. The 8000 Verses clearly slams those who "prefer an inferior vehicle" and identifies them as those who "prefer the Sutras associated with the level of Sravaka, the Disciple or Pratyekabuddha". Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox now also contains quotes from the Brahma Net Sutra, which clearly predates and prefigures Asanga, and explains why Bodhisattvas are not to insult people, even those who follow the teachings of the so-called "Two Vehicles". --Munge 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)