HënayÃÂna (Sanskrit: , ), literally meaning "Small Vehicle" or "Lesser Vehicle", is an umbrella term for the early Buddhist schools, at one time used by the MahÃÂyÃÂna school to refer to the pre-MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist paths to liberation. Specifically, it encompasses the à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna ("Listeners Vehicle") and PratyekabuddhayÃÂna ("Solitary-Realizers Vehicle") paths. MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhists consider the HënayÃÂna as the first, preliminary, and individual-focused (hëna) pathway or "vehicle" (yÃÂna) towards liberation offered by the Buddha's teachings, in contrast to the greater (mahÃÂ) vehicle (yÃÂna): the second path, which MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhists esteem more highly as it is devoted to helping all beings seek enlightenment, not just oneself.
Western scholars used the term HënayÃÂna to describe the early teachings of Buddhism, as the MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings were generally given later. Modern Buddhist scholarship has deprecated the term as derogatory and polemical, and instead uses the term NikÃÂya referring to the early Buddhist schools. HënayÃÂna has also been inappropriately used as a synonym for the TheravÃÂda Buddhist school, which is the main tradition of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.
The word hënayÃÂna is formed from the adjective hëna (Devanagari: à ¤¹à ¥Âà ¤¨) meaning "little", "poor", "inferior", "abandoned", "deficient", "defective"; and the noun yÃÂna (Devanagari: à ¤¯à ¤¾à ¤¨): "vehicle", where "vehicle" or "path" refers to "a way of life that leads to enlightenment". The Pali Text Society's PÃÂli-English Dictionary (1921âÂÂ1925) defines hëna in even stronger terms, with a semantic field that includes "poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible", and "despicable".
The term HënayÃÂna was translated by KumÃÂrajëva and others into Classical Chinese as "small vehicle" (å° meaning "small", ä¹ meaning "vehicle"), although earlier and more accurate translations of the term also exist. In Mongolian (Baga Holgon) the term for hinayana also means "small" or "lesser" vehicle or better called path, while in Classical Tibetan there are at least two words to designate the term: theg chung, meaning "small vehicle", and theg dman, meaning "inferior vehicle" or "inferior spiritual approach".
According to Tibetan Buddhist monk and Kagyu master Thrangu Rinpoche, the term HënayÃÂna is in no way implying that the à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna ("Listeners Vehicle") and PratyekabuddhayÃÂna ("Solitary-realizers Vehicle") are somehow "inferior" Buddhist paths to liberation in comparison to the later two vehicles (i.e., MahÃÂyÃÂna and VajrayÃÂna). In his translation and commentary of Asaá¹ ga's Distinguishing Dharmàfrom DharmÃÂta, he writes: "all three traditions of HënayÃÂna, MahÃÂyÃÂna, and VajrayÃÂna were practiced in Tibet, and the HënayÃÂna, which literally means "lesser vehicle", is in no way inferior to the MahÃÂyÃÂna".
According to Jan Nattier, it is most likely that the term HënayÃÂna postdates the term MahÃÂyÃÂna and was only added at a later date due to antagonism and conflict between proponents of the Bodhisattva and Arhat ideals within the Saá¹Âgha. The sequence of terms then began with the term BodhisattvayÃÂna ("Bodhisattva Vehicle"), which was given the epithet MahÃÂyÃÂna ("Great Vehicle"). It was only later, after attitudes toward the Bodhisattva ideal had become more critical, that the term HënayÃÂna ("Small Vehicle" or "Lesser Vehicle") was created as a back-formation, contrasting with the already established term MahÃÂyÃÂna.
The earliest MahÃÂyÃÂna texts often use the term MahÃÂyÃÂna as an epithet and synonym for BodhisattvayÃÂna but the term HënayÃÂna is comparatively rare, and the latter is usually not found at all in the earliest translations. Therefore, the often-perceived symmetry between MahÃÂyÃÂna and HënayÃÂna can be deceptive, as the terms were not actually coined in relation to one another in the same era.
According to Paul Williams, "the deep-rooted misconception concerning an unfailing, ubiquitous fierce criticism of the Lesser Vehicle by the [MahÃÂyÃÂna] is not supported by our texts". Williams states that while evidence of conflict is present in some cases, there is also substantial evidence demonstrating peaceful coexistence between the two traditions.
Although the 18âÂÂ20 early Buddhist schools are sometimes loosely classified as HënayÃÂna in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. There is no evidence that MahÃÂyÃÂna ever referred to a separate formal school of Buddhism but rather as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines. Paul Williams has also noted that the MahÃÂyÃÂna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate vinaya or ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools, and therefore bhiká¹£us and bhiká¹£uá¹Âës adhering to the MahÃÂyÃÂna formally adheres to the vinaya of an early school. This continues today with the Dharmaguptaka ordination lineage in East Asia and the Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda ordination lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. MahÃÂyÃÂna was never a separate sect of the early schools. From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both MahÃÂyÃÂna and non-MahÃÂyÃÂna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.
The seventh-century Chinese Buddhist monk and pilgrim Yijing wrote about the relationship between the various "vehicles" and the early Buddhist schools in India. He wrote, "There exist in the West numerous subdivisions of the schools which have different origins, but there are only four principal schools of continuous tradition." These schools are the MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika NikÃÂya, Sthavira nikÃÂya, Mà «lasarvÃÂstivÃÂda NikÃÂya, and Saá¹Âmitëya NikÃÂya. Explaining their doctrinal affiliations, he then writes, "Which of the four schools should be grouped with the MahÃÂyÃÂna or with the HënayÃÂna is not determined." That is to say, there was no simple correspondence between a Buddhist school and whether its members learn "HënayÃÂna" or "MahÃÂyÃÂna" teachings.
To identify entire schools as "HënayÃÂna" that contained not only à ÂrÃÂvakas and pratyekabuddhas but also MahÃÂyÃÂna bodhisattvas would be attacking the schools of their fellow MahÃÂyÃÂnists as well as their own. Instead, what is demonstrated in the definition of HënayÃÂna given by Yijing is that the term referred to individuals based on doctrinal differences.
Scholar Isabelle Onians asserts that although "the MahÃÂyÃÂna ... very occasionally referred to earlier Buddhism as the HinayÃÂna, the Inferior Way, [...] the preponderance of this name in the secondary literature is far out of proportion to occurrences in the Indian texts." She notes that the term à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna was "the more politically correct and much more usual" term used by MahÃÂyÃÂnists. Jonathan Silk has argued that the term "Hinayana" was used to refer to whomever one wanted to criticize on any given occasion, and did not refer to any definite grouping of Buddhists.
The Chinese monk Yijing, who visited India in the 7th century, distinguished MahÃÂyÃÂna from HënayÃÂna as follows:
In the 7th century, the Chinese Buddhist monk Xuanzang describes the concurrent existence of the MahÃÂvihara and the Abhayagiri vihÃÂra in Sri Lanka. He refers to the monks of the MahÃÂvihara as the "HënayÃÂna Sthaviras" and the monks of Abhayagiri vihÃÂra as the "MahÃÂyÃÂna Sthaviras". Xuanzang further writes, "The MahÃÂvihÃÂravÃÂsins reject the MahÃÂyÃÂna and practice the HënayÃÂna, while the AbhayagirivihÃÂravÃÂsins study both HënayÃÂna and MahÃÂyÃÂna teachings and propagate the Tripiá¹Âaka."
Mahayanists were primarily in philosophical dialectic with the VaibhÃÂá¹£ika school of SarvÃÂstivÃÂda, which had by far the most "comprehensive edifice of doctrinal systematics" of the nikÃÂya schools. With this in mind it is sometimes argued that the Theravada would not have been considered a "Hinayana" school by Mahayanists because, unlike the now-extinct Sarvastivada school, the primary object of Mahayana criticism, the Theravada school does not claim the existence of independent dharmas; in this it maintains the attitude of early Buddhism. Additionally, the concept of the bodhisattva as one who puts off enlightenment rather than reaching awakening as soon as possible, has no roots in TheravadaâÂÂor SarvastivadaâÂÂtextual or cultural contexts. Aside from the Theravada schools being geographically distant from the Mahayana, the Hinayana distinction is used in reference to certain views and practices that had become found within the Mahayana tradition itself. Theravada, as well as Mahayana schools stress the urgency of one's own awakening in order to end suffering. Some contemporary Theravadin figures have thus indicated a sympathetic stance toward the Mahayana philosophy found in the Heart Sutra and the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ.
The Mahayanists were bothered by the substantialist thought of the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins and SautrÃÂntikins, and in emphasizing the doctrine of à Âà «nyatÃÂ, David Kalupahana holds that they endeavored to preserve the early teaching. The Theravadins too refuted the SarvÃÂstivÃÂdins and SautrÃÂntikins (and followers of other schools) on the grounds that their theories were in conflict with the non-substantialism of the canon. The Theravada arguments are preserved in the Kathavatthu.
Some western scholars still regard the Theravada school to be one of the Hinayana schools referred to in Mahayana literature, or regard Hinayana as a synonym for Theravada. These scholars understand the term to refer to schools of Buddhism that did not accept the teachings of the MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras as authentic teachings of the Buddha. At the same time, scholars have objected to the pejorative connotation of the term Hinayana and some scholars do not use it for any school.
Robert Thurman writes, "'Nikaya Buddhism' is a coinage of Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University, who suggested it to me as a usage for the eighteen schools of Indian Buddhism to avoid the term 'Hinayana Buddhism,' which is found offensive by some members of the Theravada tradition." Thurman explains his own use of the term when he writes:
Within Mahayana Buddhism, there were a variety of interpretations as to whom or to what the term Hinayana referred. Kalu Rinpoche stated the "lesser" or "greater" designation "did not refer to economic or social status, but concerned the spiritual capacities of the practitioner". Rinpoche states: