Introduction

In this chapter 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 monastic pilgrims travelling in India, before taking up 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 delegates at the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. I conclude that the current academic use of the term as a referent to a Buddhist school or Buddhist schools is misleading.

---

The Chinese Pilgrims

According to the succinct definition given in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Hīnayāna "is a pejorative term meaning 'Lesser Vehicle'. Some adherents of the 'Greater Vehicle' (Mahāyāna) applied it to non-Mahāyānist schools such as the Theravāda, the Sarvāstivāda, the Mahāsāṃghika, and some fifteen other schools."[n.1] Strong 2004: 328, who continues by indicating that in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism the term "mainstream Buddhist schools" is used instead. This term, which is certainly an improvement over Hīnayāna, has not found unanimous acceptance; cf., e.g., Sasaki 2009: 25 note 2: "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. also Skilling 2013: 101f.

When trying to contextualize the term hīnayāna in the historical setting in India,[n.2] The term hīnayāna itself means, in the words of Rhys Davids 1913: 684, "a wretched, bad method, or system, for progress on the way towards salvation". The common expression "small vehicle" is, as already pointed out by Nattier 2003a: 173 note 4, "not based on the Indian term at all, but on the Chinese expression … 小乘 … used by Kumārajīva and others". Besides the fact that 小 does not render the pejorative hīna- as well as 劣 or 下, yāna need not imply a "vehicle", cf., e.g., Gombrich 1992, Vetter 2001: 62–66, Anālayo 2009j, and Walser 2009. obvious sources for information are the descriptions provided by the Chinese pilgrims Fǎxiǎn, Xuánzàng, and Yìjìng. The indications they give, however, make it clear that to use the term hīnayāna as an umbrella term for the Buddhist schools or sects that arose in India, which tradition usually numbers as eighteen, is not entirely straightforward.

Reporting on the conditions of monasteries in early fifth century India, Fǎxiǎn (法顯) on several occasions refers to monastics who were practising the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna (大小乘學). According to his description, in one region three thousand monks practised the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna conjointly; in an adjacent region where the Buddha-Dharma flourished the Mahāyana and the Hīnayāna were also practised conjointly; and for Sāṅkāśya he records that about a thousand monks and nuns were also practising Mahāyāna in combination with Hīnayāna.[n.3] T 2085 at T LI 859a16: 三千僧兼大小乘學, T LI 859a20: 兼大小乘學 (which thus does not explicitly indicate that these were monastics), and T LI 860a5: 僧及尼可有千人 … 雜大小乘學.

Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are mutually exclusive terms,[n.4] Cf., e.g., the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Lévi 1907: 4,24: tasmād anyonyavirodhād yad yānaṃ hīnaṃ hīnam eva tat, na tan mahāyānaṃ bhavitum arhati, which, after having mentioned five aspects of opposition between the two yānas, concludes that due to this mutual opposition the Hīnayāna is indeed inferior, it is incapable of becoming the Mahāyāna. For a study of the contrast between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in this work in general cf. D'Amato 2000. thus both terms could not really be used to describe the practice of the same person. Therefore I take Fǎxiǎn's description to imply that some monastics out of the group he was describing followed the Mahāyāna, whereas other monastics followed the Hīnayāna. These different vocations did apparently not prevent them from living together.

However, since in order to become monastics in the first place these practitioners of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna would have to be ordained in any of the "eighteen" schools, it becomes clear that Hīnayāna as an umbrella term for these Buddhist schools does not fit the situation described by Fǎxiǎn. If all eighteen schools are Hīnayāna, members of one or the other of these schools should then not be Mahāyāna. Mahāyāna, alternatively referred to as the bodhisattvayāna or the buddhayāna, is "great" precisely because its followers have embarked on the path of the bodhisattva with the aspiration to become a Buddha in future. This decision marks the difference compared to the Hīnayānists, who do not aspire to future Buddhahood and who have not embarked on the path of the bodhisattva. Yet, if Fǎxiǎn's description is to be trusted, some members of a monastic "Hīnayāna school" were at the same time adherents of the Mahāyāna.

The impression that something is not quite right with the use of Hīnayana for all of the Buddhist schools is further reinforced when turning to Xuánzàng (玄奘), who travelled to India two centuries later. In his travel records, Xuánzàng also regularly mentions that in India and elsewhere Buddhist monks practised both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna.[n.5] Cf., e.g., T 2087 at T LI 889c17, 890b4, 893c17, 896b7, 910a5, 910b19, 927a22, 934c15, 935a28, 936b13, 937a4, 937c8, 938a6, and 940a17. Xuánzàng usually mentions not only the number of monastics, but also the number of monasteries in which they were living (except for T LI 910b19, which describes the situation in Nepal). Since in T 2087 at T LI 877a16 he indicates that the followers of the Mahāyāna and of the Hīnayāna were dwelling apart from each other, 大小二乘, 居止區別, I take it that in the situation he describes the practitioners of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna were not staying in the same monastery. On several occasions in his description of the situation in India he refers to practitioners of the Mahāyāna who were at the same time members of the Sthavira-nikāya (學大乘上座部法). In India itself he reports that nearly a thousand such monks were found at Bodhgayā, nearly five hundred in Kaliṅga, and nearly three hundred in another two locations.[n.6] T 2087 at T LI 918b14, 929a3, 935c2 (which has a slightly different formulation), and 936c15. For Sri Lanka, which Xuánzàng did not visit personally, he mentions adherents of the Sthavira school that cultivate the Mahāyāna as numbering twenty thousand; cf. T 2087 at T LI 934a14. Regarding this reference, Deeg 2012: 153 could be right that this is an attempt "by Xuanzang to upgrade the otherwise, at least in a Chinese context, low-ranked Hīnayāna-sthaviras to the respected status of Mahāyāna-monks", although this need not be the case for the other references of this type.

In the light of the conclusion that already suggests itself based on Fǎxiǎn's description, Xuánzàng's reference to these Mahāyāna practitioners found among the members of the Sthavira school is perhaps less puzzling than it might seem at first sight. This description may simply refer to monastics ordained in the Sthavira tradition(s) whose spiritual vocation was to follow the bodhisattva path and who would presumably have studied Mahāyāna texts.[n.7] Bechert 1973: 13 comments that "the Mahāyāna-Sthaviravādin are those sections of the Sthaviravāda community who had accepted Mahāyāna doctrines although they still belonged to [the] Sthaviravāda school as far as bhikṣu ordination and vinaya-karma was concerned." The same interpretation would probably also apply to an eleventhcentury Khmer inscription, which refers to monks who have ordained as mahāyāna sthavira bhikṣus.[n.8] Cœdès 1929: 22,3: vraḥ paṃnvas bhikṣu mahāyāna sthavira, trsl. p. 23: "qui ont pris les ordres comme moines (bhikṣu) dans (la secte) Mahāyāna ou (dans la secte) Sthavira"; cf. also the similar rendering by Assavavirulhakarn 2010: 88: "monks ordained as Mahāyāna or Sthavira". Yet, as Bizot 1988: 111f convincingly argues, to convey such a sense one would expect the inscription to be worded differently, wherefore it seems more probable that the reference is to monks ordained in a Sthavira tradition who are followers of the Mahāyāna. Skilling 2013: 149 note 159 comments that "we cannot say with certainty whether Xuanzang and Sūryavarman I used the compound in the same sense, but in any case Cœdès' translation of the term as dvanda … is incorrect, given that there is no such thing as a Mahāyāna bhikṣu ordination."

To be sure, this interpretation only works if we allow that the Sthavira or other Buddhist schools were not entirely composed of Hīnayāna followers. That this appears to have indeed been the case can be seen from the report of the Vinaya specialist Yìjìng (義 淨), who travelled in India in the later part of the seventh century. He explains that, in the case of the four main monastic schools (nikāyas), the distinction between the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna is uncertain.[n.9] T 2125 at T LIV 205c8: 其四部之中, 大乘小乘區分不定; cf. also Deeg 2006: 120f. In fact the distinction between Buddhist schools, nikāyas, is a matter of monastic ordination traditions, whereas the distinction between the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna refers to a vocational distinction.[n.10] Cf. the discussion in de La Vallée Poussin 1930. The two distinctions have no necessary relation to each other.[n.11] This difference does not seem to have been fully clear to Xuánzàng himself, as in T 2087 at T LI 891a21 he speaks of a thousand monks, of which many practise the Hīnayāna, while a few practise in other schools (nikāyas), 多學小 乘, 少習餘部. Bechert (1992: 96f) explains that the formation of Mahāyāna Buddhism took place in a way which was fundamentally dissimilar from that of the formation of Buddhist sects. Whereas the formation and growth of Buddhist nikāyas took place mainly on the basis of local communities, the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism was a development which pervaded the whole sphere of Buddhism and many nikāyas … One could not be a Buddhist monk without being a member of one of the old sects … [yet] members of any one of these sects could have accepted the religious "program" of Mahāyāna without leaving the community of their nikāya.

As Gombrich (1988: 112) sums up, "Mahāyāna … is not a sect, but a current of opinion which cut across sects as properly defined."

How reliable is the information provided by Fǎxiǎn, Xuánzàng, and Yìjìng? The descriptions furnished by the Chinese pilgrims certainly need to be read keeping in mind that they combine firsthand impressions with hearsay and hagiography in a manner not easily set apart from each other. Moreover, the way they describe conditions in India must have been influenced by awareness of the propagandistic effect their reports would have back in China.[n.12] For the case of Xuánzàng cf. the discussion in Deeg 2009.

Yet, from the view of the propagandistic effect of their reports in China, one would expect the pilgrims to err on the side of overstressing the dominance of the Mahāyāna and belittling the Hīnayāna,[n.13] Schopen 2000/2005: 10 offers the following assessment: "in China in the third century the Mahāyāna was of 'paramount importance', well situated among the ecclesiastical and social elite, well on its way [to being] – if not already – mainstream. In India it is, during the same period, embattled, ridiculed, scorned by learned monks and the social elite … and at best marginal." Even if the contrast between China and India at the time of the Chinese pilgrims may not have been as clear-cut as this, there can be little doubt that the Mahāyāna was more successfully established in China than in India. Relevant here is also the observation by Bareau 1985: 648 that Fǎxiǎn and Xuánzàng report only rarely instances of actual Mahāyāna forms of practice in India. in line with the stark contrast between the two yānas with which they would have been familiar from textual sources available in China.[n.14] Deeg 2006 suggests that the stark contrast between the two yānas made in Chinese texts, even though in actual fact there was no substantial presence of the Hīnayāna in the country, served as a foil to avert criticism raised against Buddhism as a foreign creed not suitable to the situation in China. In this way qualities perceived as negative could be attributed to the Hīnayāna, with the prevalent Mahāyāna in contrast being a teaching suitable for the Chinese. Since their descriptions do not corroborate such a stark contrast and repeatedly show the Mahāyāna in a less than dominant position, it seems that their accounts deserve to be taken seriously in this respect. That is, the report that both yānas were practised by Indian monastics stands a good chance of reflecting actual conditions, even if the numbers given may not necessarily be accurate.

---

The Tarkajvālā

If the descriptions given by the Chinese pilgrims stand a chance of reflecting the ground situation in India in the fifth to seventh century, the following question arises: in what sense can all of the Buddhist monastic schools be assembled under the heading of being Hīnayāna?

An example of such use can be found in Paramārtha's biography of Vasubandhu, who according to the traditional account was a follower of the Hīnayāna until he converted to the Mahāyāna. The biography, apparently compiled in China, reports that Vasubandhu had completely learned the principles of the eighteen schools and had well understood the Hīnayāna; he held on to the Hīnayāna as right and had no faith in the Mahāyāna, as this was not taught by the Buddha.[n.15] T 2049 at T L 190c12: 法師既遍通十八部義, 妙解小乘, 執小乘是不信大乘, 謂摩訶衍非佛所說; cf. also Takakusu 1904: 290 and Tola and Dragonetti 1996/1997: 244.

This description suggests a relationship between the application of Hīnayāna to the eighteen schools and the perennial accusation against the Mahāyāna that it did not stem from the Buddha. Vasubandhu in fact provides several arguments against this accusation in the Vyākhyāyukti, which seem to have formed the basis for a similar series of arguments in the Tarkajvālā, a sixthcentury doxographical work that offers a detailed examination of the Buddhist schools and their tenets.[n.16] For a study of these arguments in the Vyākhyāyukti cf. Cabezón 1992; cf. also Pāsādika 2009: 503.

In the Tarkajvālā this examination is preceded by a reference to those who are of an "inferior aspiration", hīnādhimukta / dman mos. [n.17] Eckel 2008: 303,8 (4.1). The importance of the Tarkajvālā for appreciating the application of the term hīnayāna to the Buddhist schools suggests itself from the circumstance that this work employs the corresponding Tibetan term theg pa dman pa on several occasions, cf. D 3856 dza 42b6, 48a1, and 48b3 or Q 5256 dza 45b7, 51a4 and 51b8. In contrast, I have not been able to locate occurrences of the term hīnayāna with a digital search in central doxographical works like the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā, T 468, the Śāriputraparipṛcchā, T 1465, the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, T 2031, T 2032, T 2033, and D 4138 or Q 5639, and of course in the Dīpavaṃsa. The term hīnayāna is also relatively rare or even absent in early Mahāyāna discourses, as already noted by, e.g., Kimura 1927: 119, Harrison 1987: 80, Williams 1989/2009: 43, Harrison 1990: xviii, Karunaratne 1992: 453, and Nattier 2003a: 172. The Tarkajvālā reports that those of inferior aspiration criticize the Mahāyāna on the grounds that it was not taught by the Buddha, as its teachings are not included in the discourses, etc., and do not exist among the eighteen schools.[n.18] Eckel 2008: 307,28 (4.7): na buddhoktir mahāyānaṃ, sūtrāntādāv asaṃgrahāt, 308,30 (4.8cd): aṣṭādaśanikāyāntarbhāvābhāvān na niścitam. That is, the accusation that the Mahāyāna is not the Buddha's teaching is rooted in the observation that its teachings are not found in the discourse collections transmitted by the eighteen schools.

The Tarkajvālā then comes out with arguments against such challenges. One is to propose that the Mahāyāna teachings are part of a compilation carried out by Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, etc. Of course, the disciples (of the eighteen schools) did not include the Mahāyāna teachings in their collections because these were beyond their ken.[n.19] Eckel 2008: 336,8: theg pa chen poʼi gsung rab ni de dag gi yul ma yin paʼi phyir ro.

The reasoning recorded in the Tarkajvālā makes it clear in what sense – from the Mahāyāna viewpoint – all of the eighteen Buddhist schools are Hīnayāna. This notion emerges as an expedient reply to being challenged for lacking canonical authority. Those who according to tradition compiled the teachings of the Buddha at the first saṅgīti at Rājagaha did not include the superior Mahāyāna teachings. Therefore the teachings they did include are fit to be reckoned Hīnayāna, and those who transmit those teachings – the "eighteen" schools – deserve the same epithet.

Thus the application of the term Hīnayāna emerges in the context of a polemical argument; it does not reflect the actual historical situation. To reckon the teachings collected at the first saṅgīti at Rājagaha as Hīnayāna is in fact an anachronism, as the early Buddhist period does not yet know of the generalized aspiration to become a Buddha in the future.[n.20] For a study of the first traces of developments, evident in later layers of the early discourses, that eventually would have led to the arising of the bodhisattva ideal, cf. Anālayo 2010b and 2017b. Hence from a historical viewpoint it is not meaningful to apply the distinction between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna to early Buddhism. Such a distinction presupposes the existence of the bodhisattva path as an ideal to be emulated, which one may either reject or else adopt. For such a decision to be possible and form the basis for a meaningful distinction, the bodhisattva ideal first of all has to come into existence.

This would be like applying the term "protestant" to early Christianity. Although the teachings of early Christianity can indeed be seen as in some way being a protest against certain aspects of Judaism, the term "protestant" only makes sense from the time of Luther onwards, once the distinction between Catholics and Protestants has come into being.

In the same way it only makes sense to use the qualification hīnayāna for those who are unwilling to pursue the bodhisattva path, who have decided not to embark on the bodhisattvayāna. As long as the bodhisattvayāna has not yet come into existence, however, it is not really possible to qualify someone as "inferior" because of not embarking on this yāna.

The passages surveyed above from the Chinese pilgrims show that the application of the term Hīnayāna to the "eighteen" Buddhist schools does not fit what appear to have been the actual conditions on the ground in ancient India. Monastic followers of the Mahāyāna were at the same time members of a Buddhist school by dint of their ordination.[n.21] Here it may also be relevant to note that the lay origin of early Mahāyāna proposed by Hirakawa 1963 (cf. also Przyluski 1926: 369f, Lamotte 1954: 378–379, the related position taken by Ray 1994, and the discussion in Vetter 1994a) has been critically reviewed by, e.g., Schopen 1975: 180, Williams 1989/2009: 21–27, Harrison 1995: 57–63, Sasaki 1997, Silk 2002: 376–382, Nattier 2003a: 89–96, Sasaki 2004, and Strauch 2010: 25f. Skilling (2004: 143) explains that available scriptures of the eighteen schools allow all three options: it is one's own decision whether [to] become an Arhat, a Pratyekabuddha, or a Buddha, and to practice accordingly. That is, the eighteen or four schools embrace the three yānas.

In sum, the term hīnayāna as a referent to the teachings of early Buddhism or to the Buddhist schools has its origins and meanings in a polemical context; it does not accurately represent the historical situation. Nevertheless, the term has been used widely in academic publications. In what follows I survey the development that appears to have contributed to this usage.

---

The Parliament of Religions

According to recent research, the use of the term hīnayāna in Western publications becomes a broadly visible phenomenon at the beginning of the twentieth century and steadily increases until reaching a peak around 1960.[n.22] Perreira 2012: 454. The event that appears to have exerted particular influence in this respect is the World's Parliament of Religions in 1893 at Chicago, in the sense of leading to a more widespread use of the term hīnayāna.[n.23] Perreira 2012: 500 explains that "it was in Chicago at the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions when the terms by which we study Buddhism took a decisive turn. From this time forward, the terms Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are in ascendance, and will gradually eclipse 'Northern Buddhism' and 'Southern Buddhism' as the main categories by which Buddhism was to be organized in scholarly and popular discourse."

The World's Parliament of Religions – the first time in the West that representatives of religions from around the world came together – had a strong impact on the reception of Buddhism in the United States of America.[n.24] In his study of Buddhism in America in the period 1844 to 1912, Tweed 1992/2000: 31 notes that "with the possible exception of the publication of Arnold's Light of Asia, no single event had more impact than the World's Parliament of Religions of 1893." The Parliament itself was held in 1893 as part of the Columbian exposition to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the journey of Columbus to the New World.

The Columbian exposition was an opportunity for the United States of America as well as for Japan to show themselves to the world as modern nations. For the Japanese, presenting Japan as a civilized modern nation with an ancient culture – of which Japanese Buddhism was seen as a central aspect – carried the hope that acquiring recognition from the West would enable a renegotiation of unfair treaties that had earlier been imposed upon Japan by the Western powers.[n.25] This topic was taken up explicitly by one of the Japanese delegates, Hirai Kinzō, in his talk at the Parliament; cf. Barrows 1893: 445 or Houghton 1894: 159. At the same time, success abroad would of course result in a welcome strengthening of Buddhism at home, which was still recovering from the recent persecutions during the Meiji period.

Against this background, a central aim of the Japanese delegation at the World's Parliament of Religions was to counter Western perceptions of the Pāli canon as representative of original Buddhism and to establish the authenticity of the Mahāyāna Buddhism of Japan.[n.26] Snodgrass 2003: 199 notes that "up to the time of the Parliament in 1893 almost nothing was known about Japanese Buddhism beyond the general assumption that as a form of Mahayana it was necessarily a later and therefore aberrant form of the original teachings of the historical Buddha." Thus, in the words of Snodgrass 2003: 9, "the task … the delegates faced … was to relate Japanese Buddhism to the Western construct that privileged the Theravada of the Pali texts. They needed to show that Japanese Buddhism encompassed all of the truth of the Theravada – that is, all those aspects of Buddhism which had attracted contemporary Western approval – but that Theravada, Southern Buddhism, was no more than a provisional and introductory expression of the Buddha's teachings." Harding 2008: 139 comments that "Japanese Mahāyāna, portrayed as the culmination of Buddhism, was actively differentiated from earlier schools of Southern Buddhism, pejoratively labelled 'Hīnayāna'." Perreira 2012: 512 explains that "approaching the Columbian Exposition as a unique opportunity to recast the terms by which the Buddhism of Japan had been defined in Western scholarship, the Japanese … fully embraced the idea that the Buddhism of Japan was indeed more 'developed', but not in the sense of being less genuine or authentic as Western scholarship insisted – rather, it was portrayed as more progressive, and, as such, it constituted the very essence of the Buddha's teaching"; cf. also McRae 1991: 30.

A recurrent theme in the presentation of the delegates was thus naturally the polemical discourse that advocates the canonical authenticity of the Mahāyāna, following the traditional arguments based on the Hīnayāna / Mahāyāna divide and the pànjiāo (判教) schemes of classifying Buddhist teachings so as to accommodate their diversity within a coherent system that can be attributed to a single teacher,[n.27] In his detailed study of the pànjiāo taxonomies, Mun 2006: 1f points to early fifth-century China as the starting point, when "Kumārajīva systematically translated an enormous amount of texts", which led to "an urgent need to devise doctrinal classifications in order to explain … contradictions among them". Thereon "Kumārajīva classified the Buddha's teaching into two groups, i.e., the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna", presenting "the Mahāyāna as superior to the Hīnayāna". the Buddha.

Due to the need to differentiate themselves from other forms of Buddhism in Asia – Ceylonese Buddhism was represented at the Parliament by Anagārika Dharmapāla and Siamese Buddhism by Prince Chudhadharn – the Japanese delegates recurrently identified the Theravāda as being the present-day manifestation of the Hīnayāna known to them from their own doctrinal background.

In his initial presentation at the Parliament, the layman Noguchi Zenshirō remarked that, instead of making gifts of Japanese teapots and the like to his American hosts, he wished to make a gift of the best of his possessions, which is Buddhism.[n.28] Barrows 1893: 440 or Houghton 1894: 156. He then announced that the delegation had brought thousands of books for distribution to their hosts, among them Kuroda Shintō's Outline of the Mahāyāna, as Taught by the Buddha.[n.29] Snodgrass 2003: 82f notes that "the Japanese were very aware of the importance of the published record of the conference to Western understanding of their religion … the delegates and their supporters not only prepared their papers with this in mind but prepared a number of books on Japanese Buddhism for distribution."

As the title already indicates, the book by Kuroda, which had been specifically prepared for distribution at the Parliament, claims that the Mahāyāna was taught by the Buddha himself. The term Hīnayāna is used by Kuroda as a referent to the Buddhism found in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.[n.30] Kuroda 1893: iif introduces the terms Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna and then explains that "though these two doctrines are not without differences, they were both taught by one Buddha", adding that in Japan Hīnayāna is considered "only as secondary branch of religious knowledge", whereas in "Southern India, Ceylon, Birmah, Siam, etc., only the Hînayâna is taught." Snodgrass 2003: 178 reports that the publication by Kuroda "achieved greater permanence than others because it was reprinted and further distributed through the Theosophical Society in 1894." Kuroda 1893 was also translated into German by Seidenstücker 1904, thereby extending the influence of his presentation to German readers. Similar doctrines were also made available to the French by Fujishima 1889: 54f, who repeats the statement by Nanjio 1886: 2 quoted below note 36 on the Hīnayānists not being ashamed and speaking evil of Mahāyāna texts, and then ingeniously argues, in regard to certain Mahāyāna sūtras that he reckons as having become part of the Tripiṭaka a century after the Buddha's demise: "si ces derniers n'avaient pas existé auparavant, d'où les aurait-on tirés?"

The Shingon representative Toki Hōryū introduced the same claims in his presentation at the Parliament, namely that the Buddha taught Mahāyāna and that the Hīnayāna is now found in Southern Buddhism.[n.31] Barrows 1893: 543 or Houghton 1894: 222, which differ in their record of the details of his talk. The argument presented by Toki Hōryū and Kuroda Shintō was crucial to the effort of the Japanese delegation.[n.32] Snodgrass 2003: 221 comments that "establishing that the Mahayana was the Buddha's teaching was pivotal. Upon this rested the claim that Japanese Buddhism was 'real' Buddhism."

The Jōdo Shinshū representative Yatsubuchi Banryū then recommended to his audience the study of the History of Japanese Buddhist Sects by Professor Nanjō Bun'yū.[n.33] Houghton 1894: 324 records his statement in this way: "those of you who would care to know the outline of Buddhism might read Professor Nanjo's English translation of the 'History of the Japanese Buddhist Sects'." I take the fact that this injunction is not found in the corresponding section in Barrows 1893: 723 to be due to the circumstance, noted by Snodgrass 2003: 201, that "papers in Barrow's official copyright record have been heavily edited." Nanjō, who had studied under Max Müller in Oxford and thus spoke with the credentials of an accredited academic,[n.34] According to Snodgrass 2003: 120, Nanjō had gone to the West and became a disciple of Max Müller "to study the science of religion, the philology and historical techniques of Orientalist scholarship. These were to be used to present Japanese Buddhism in a manner acceptable by the standards of Western scholarship … by participating at the highest levels of Western academia, the Japanese priests obtained academic credentials … and were listened to and taken seriously within professional circles, their interpretations validated by the same processes as those of Western authorities." claimed in his book that the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra was the first teaching given by the Buddha after his awakening.[n.35] Nanjio 1886: xiii, a claim based on distinguishing the Buddha's teaching into five periods, following a traditional expedient for presenting Mahāyāna as the first teaching given by the Buddha. According to this scheme, Hīnayāna was taught by the Buddha only in the second period of his teaching activities. Having identified the eighteen schools as Hīnayāna, Nanjō then highlighted the inability of the Hīnayānists to understand the Mahāyāna.[n.36] Nanjio 1886: 2 speaks of "the eighteen schools of the Hînayâna", and p. 51 remarks on "the collection of the Mahâyâna books. Though it is as clear or bright as the sun at midday, yet the men of the Hînayâna are not ashamed at their inability to know them, and speak evil of them instead."

The Tendai representative at the Parliament, Ashitsu Jitsuzen, again identified the Buddhism found in southern Asian countries like Ceylon and Siam as Hīnayāna, before presenting Japanese Mahāyāna Buddhism as the most powerful Buddhist tradition.[n.37] Barrows 1893: 1040 or Houghton 1894: 541. According to the record in Houghton 1894: 541, he added that "there have been a great many Europeans and Americans who studied Buddhism with interest, but unfortunately they have never heard of Mahayana. They too hastily concluded that the true doctrine of Buddhism is Hinayana … they are wrong. They have entirely misunderstood."

During the Parliament, the Rinzai representative Shaku Sōen befriended the publisher Paul Carus.[n.38] Snodgrass 2003: 228 explains that "the Japanese presentation was a major revelation for Carus." Nagao 2009: 176 notes that "Carus served as a councilor of the Parliament of Religions and lectured at one of its sectional meetings. This great event proved to be a turning point in his career … after the Parliament concluded, Carus invited Shaku Sōen to his mansion in La Salle for a week", adding in a footnote that Shaku Sōen had been advised beforehand to befriend Carus. A year after the Parliament Carus published his influential Gospel of Buddha,[n.39] According to Tweed 1992/2000: 65, "with the possible exception of Olcott, Carus was probably more influential in stimulating and sustaining American interest in Buddhism than any other person living in the United States." with an introduction that contrasts the Hīnayāna with the Mahāyāna.[n.40] After referring to the Hīnayāna, Carus 1894: ix explains that "following the spirit of missionary propaganda, so natural to religious men who are earnest in their convictions, later Buddhists popularised Buddha's doctrines and made them accessible to the multitudes … they constructed, as they called it, a large vessel of salvation, the Mahâyâna, in which the multitudes would find room and could be safely carried over … the Mahâyâna is a step forward in so far as it changes a philosophy into a religion and attempts to preach doctrines that were negatively expressed, in positive propositions." As a result of the contact between Shaku Sōen and Paul Carus, D.T. Suzuki, a lay Zen disciple of Shaku Sōen, came to stay in the United States with Carus.

In his Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the prolific writer D.T. Suzuki continues in ways similar to the Japanese delegates at the Parliament.[n.41] Perreira 2012: 528 comments on Suzuki that "it is largely owing to his influence that Buddhism, from this time onward, will increasingly be conceived as being divided into two principal schools – Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna." In a paper on Suzuki, Pye 2008: 1f comments that "there is probably no other single writer whose works have had a greater influence on the European and North American reception of Buddhism." He presents the Mahāyāna as a teaching originating from the time of the historical Buddha,[n.42] Suzuki 1907: v refers to "Mahâyâna Buddhism, whose history began in the sixth century before the Christian era." As Snodgrass 2003: 263 comments, "the concern to show that Mahayana and Japanese Buddhism are the teachings of the historical Buddha remains." and criticizes the Western perception of Hīnayāna Buddhism as the only genuine teaching of the Buddha.[n.43] Suzuki 1907: 11 explains that "what is generally known to the Western nations by the name of Buddhism is Hînayânism, whose scriptures … are written in Pâli and studied mostly in Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It was through this language that the first knowledge of Buddhism was acquired by Orientalists; and naturally they came to regard Hînayânism or Southern Buddhism as the only genuine teachings of the Buddha … Owing to these unfortunate hypotheses, the significance of Mahâyânism as a living religion has been entirely ignored; and even those who are regarded as best authorities on the subject appear greatly misinformed and, what is worse, altogether prejudiced."

---

Current Usage

From the Parliament to subsequent publications,[n.44] Harding 2008: 16 notes that "the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions provided a singularly spectacular showcase of positions, prejudices, preferences, and portrayals that continue to determine the presentation and reception of Buddhism in both Asia and the West." the distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna successfully made its way into the general discourse on Buddhism.[n.45] In a paper on the Western reception of Zen, Sharf 1995b: 108 comments that "given the pedigree of these early Zen missionaries, one might have expected Western scholars of Buddhism to approach their high-minded pronouncements with considerable caution, if not scepticism, but such has rarely been the case." Although the term Hīnayāna was known earlier,[n.46] Already Rémusat 1836: 9–12 introduced the term with a detailed discussion. Rockhill 1883/1907: 196, after translating the section from the Tarkajvālā on the Buddhist schools, reported that these were referred to as Hīnayāna. Beal 1884: 5 identified the little vehicle with early Buddhism. Eitel 1888/2004: 63f offered a short entry on Hīnayāna that speaks of "18 subdivisions". Monier- Williams 1889/1995: 159 indicated that "the people of Ceylon, Burma and Siam have always preferred the 'Little Vehicle'"; etc. it appears to have come into prominent use after the World's Parliament of Religions in 1893,[n.47] Perreira 2012: 519 explains that the "effort to promote Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna as the basic division in Buddhism … continued long after the Parliament, and it eventually gained traction in the United States." where its promotion by the Japanese delegation and then by D.T. Suzuki stands in a logical continuity with the polemics recorded in the Tarkajvālā. Throughout, references to the Hīnayāna serve to deflect criticism of the lack of canonical authority of the Mahāyāna. In spite of a general awareness of the fact that the term stems from a polemical context and has clear pejorative connotations,[n.48] According to Perreira 2012: 450f, the Inaugural Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, held in Sri Lanka in 1950, appears to have been particularly instrumental in drawing public attention to the pejorative connotations of the term hīnayāna. the use continues up to the present day.[n.49] For the type of reasoning involved cf., e.g., Sharma 1976: 131, who holds that, whereas "on the one hand the term Hīnayāna is undesirable as it is a pejorative; on the other hand it is useful academically as referring to the pre-Mahāyāna schools collectively."

An example, chosen simply for the sake of illustration, would be the sketch of the history of Buddhism in Faure (2009: 7 and 10), who reports that a schism occurred between the disciples of the Buddha that eventually led to a separation into the two main schools – the "Great Vehicle" (Mahāyāna) and the "Lesser Vehicle" (Hīnayāna) … the "Lesser Vehicle" … later became Theravāda … Hīnayāna (a term we are using here for want of a better one and which we do not intend to have any pejorative connotations whatsoever) was initially transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of Ashoka and then, from the tenth century CE, spread throughout Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia). It lives on today in the form of Theravāda.

A schism involves a splitting of a monastic community that leads to the resultant factions undertaking their respective communal observances independently.[n.50] Cf., e.g., Bechert 1961/1982 and Hüsken 1997a. This is different from a vocational difference based on the individual decision of whether or not to embark on the bodhisattva path. As the reports by the Chinese pilgrims show, this vocational difference cuts across the Buddhist monastic schools which, including the Mahāsāṃghika school, are comprised under the heading of the "eighteen schools". Thus the distinction between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna is not the product of a schism.

The Theravāda tradition cannot simply be considered a developed form of Hīnayāna. Identifying Theravāda as a form of Hīnayāna is self-contradictory, since among the Buddhist populations of Burma/Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand the aspiration to become a Buddha in the future has for a long time been a recognized aim, attested to in inscriptions and texts.[n.51] Cf., e.g., Rahula 1971, Tambiah 1976: 96f, Ratnayaka 1985, Endo 1996, Samuels 1997, Skilling 2003b, Harvey 2007, and Chandawimala 2008. For inscriptions in Theravāda countries that document the donor's aspiration for Buddhahood cf., e.g., Luce 1969: 56, Dohanian 1977: 20–25, and Assavavirulhakarn 2010: 175. Bond 1988: 203 reports from his field experience in Sri Lanka that the notion of the bodhisattva ideal "has deep roots in popular tradition". This makes it misleading to refer to these Buddhist populations with a term that by definition stands in contrast to the bodhisattva path.

The main problem in presentations of this type is not merely the continued use of a pejorative term, instead of using other and less loaded alternatives.[n.52] Cf., e.g., the discussion in Katz 1980 and also above p. 473 note 1. The real problem is that the contrast between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, in the words of Skilling (2005: 270), refers to "trends in ideas and practices that developed … within the institutions of the Buddhist saṃghas". Hence it is not meaningful to use these terms as if they were in themselves saṃgha institutions.

Such misapplication naturally tends to obscure an accurate perception of the historical situation. According to Cohen (1995: 18),

the prevailing conception of the nikāyas as sub-species of the Hīnayāna should be aborted … the Mahāyāna/Hīnayāna distinction … loses most of its significance as a handle for Indian Buddhist institutional history.

At times, the use of the term hīnayāna in academic publications is not really required. An example is the classic on the Buddhist schools by Bareau (1955), which has the title Les sectes bouddhiques du petit véhicule. The topic of his research would have been clear to the reader if he had just chosen Les sectes bouddhiques, "the Buddhist sects". This suffices to show that the topic in question is the nikāyas (which he calls "sects") and there seems to be no real benefit in adding the qualification that these are of the "little vehicle".

A key reference work by Norman (1983a) has the title Pāli Literature, Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of All the Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhism. Here as well, there seems to be no need for the qualification hīnayāna once the Schools of Buddhism have been mentioned, which makes it fairly clear that literature of nikāya Buddhism is intended, not Mahāyāna works. If a need is felt to make this indubitably plain in the title, however, then instead of hīnayāna an expression like nikāya Buddhism would be preferable. Thus the title could read: Pāli Literature, Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of All the Schools of (Nikāya) Buddhism.

The issue is not one of redundancy only, however. The problem that can result from considering the Theravāda tradition as Hīnayāna can be exemplified with a page in the study of Buddhism in Burma by Spiro (1970/1982: 62). After quoting Suzuki's Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, Spiro explains that "the Bodhisattva ideal is not found – nor for reasons just suggested, could it be found – in the Theravāda tradition."[n.53] Although Spiro 1970/1982: 61 was aware of the fact that Suzuki's presentation is the "point of view of a partisan", he nevertheless seems to have been influenced by the basic underlying distinction that informs Suzuki's presentation. On the very same page he then reports that "in Theravadist Burma … there has been a long tradition of aspiration to Buddhahood."

If there has been a long tradition of aspiration to Buddhahood, then it is not really possible to state that the bodhisattva ideal is not found in the Burmese Theravāda tradition. Yet, such a contradiction is not easily noticed as long as one is misled by the assumption that the Buddhist traditions fall into two distinct institutional categories, of which in principle only one advocates the bodhisattva path. This is to fall prey to what I would call the "Hīnayāna fallacy", taking polemical arguments as if they were accurate descriptions of historical facts.

Cohen (1995: 20f) points out that once "Mahāyāna is positively characterized by its members' pursuit of the bodhisattva path; the Hīnayāna is negatively characterized as the non-Mahāyāna" and by the fact that its members do not pursue the bodhisattva path. In this way,

when positively characterized, the Hīnayāna is defined by members' affiliation with one or another nikāya, which, of course, means that the Mahāyāna is known negatively by its members' institutional separation from those same nikāyas … [Thus] we are left with the Mahāyāna/Hīnayāna distinction as a mere structural dualism devoid of specific content, a mere nominalism.

In fact, neither of these two descriptions reflects historical reality, making it clear that there is something basically wrong with the distinction between the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna as historical categories. In the words of Silk (2002: 367f),

the referent of the term "Hīnayāna", when it occurs in Buddhist texts themselves, is never any existent institution or organization, but a rhetorical fiction … a fundamental error is thus made when we imagine references to "Hīnayāna" in Mahāyāna literature to apply to so-called Sectarian Buddhism, much less to Early Buddhism.

Skilling (2013: 76) concludes that

the Hīnayāna never existed, anywhere or at any time, as an establishment or organization, as a social movement, as a selfconscious historical agent. Nor was Hīnayāna a stage or period in the development of Buddhism … the Hīnayānist was defined by Mahāyānist polemics; he was a dogmatic construction, not a social identity. He was a straw man, a will-o'-the-wisp, a māyāpuruṣa.

---

Conclusions

By way of conclusion, it seems to me that the use of the term hīnayāna as a fundamental category for studying the history of Buddhism is misleading. As far as I can see, the term is best confined to discussions of Mahāyāna polemics. The problems of continuing to deploy it as a classificatory concept for studying the history of Buddhism are, in brief:

1) Referring to Buddhism in India at least until the reign of Aśoka as Hīnayāna is meaningless, since neither Mahāyāna nor its opponents had so far come into existence and their main issue of contention – the option to follow the bodhisattva ideal – was still in the making. A better term for this period would be "early Buddhism".[n.54] On the textual sources for "early Buddhism" cf. Anālayo 2012e.

2) Hīnayāna as an umbrella term for the Buddhist monastic schools is misleading, because Mahāyāna was not confined to laity. Terms that can be used instead would be "Buddhist schools" and/ or "nikāya Buddhism";[n.55] Cf., e.g., Strong 1995: 87. a way of designating the period in question would be "Buddhism of the middle period".[n.56] Schopen 1995/2004: 94 uses the expression "Middle Period of Indian Buddhism" for "the period between the beginning of the Common Era and the year 500 C.E.". On following his definition, the two centuries between the time of Aśoka and the beginning of the Common Era would require a term on its own, which could be, e.g., the "early post-Aśokan" period.

3) The use of Hīnayāna for the traditions of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia is incorrect, because the respective Buddhist traditions recognize the assumed distinctive characteristic of the Mahāyāna – the bodhisattva path – as a viable option of practice. A better term would be "Theravāda", which I examine in the next chapter.