The Hinayana Fallacy
e Hīnayāna Fallacy* Anālayo In what follows I examine the function of the term Hīnayāna as a referent to an institutional entity in the academic study of the history of Buddhism. I begin by surveying the use of the term by Chinese pilgrims travelling in India, followed by taking up to the Tarkajvālā’s depiction of the controversy between adherents of the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna. I then turn to the use of the term in the West, in particular its promotion by the Japanese del- egates at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in . I conclude that the current academic use of the term as a referent to a Buddhist school or Buddhist schools is misleading. e Chinese Pilgrims According to the succinct definition given in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Hīna- yāna “is a pejorative term meaning ‘Lesser Vehicle’. Some adherents of the ‘Greater Vehicle’ (Mahāyāna) applied it to non-Mahāyānist schools such as the eravāda, the Sarvāstivāda, the Mahāsāmghika,. and some fieen other schools.” * I am indebted to Max Deeg, Sāmanerī. Dhammadinnā, Shi Kongmu, Lambert Schmithausen, Jonathan Silk, Peter Skilling, and Judith Snodgrass for comments on a dra version of this paper. Strong : , who continues by indicating that in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism the term “mainstream Buddhist schools” is used instead. is term, which is an improvement over Hīna- yāna, has not found unanimous acceptance, cf., e.g., Sasaki : note : “I cannot, however, subscribe to the indiscreet use of the term ‘Mainstream’, which implies a positive assertion about a particular historical situation, and therefore, although completely outmoded, I continue to use the terms ‘Mahāyāna’ and ‘Hīnayāna’”; for critical comments on the expression “mainstream” cf.
[Show full text]