Words have meaning and names have power. ~Author Unknown<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Something that has been coming up a lot for me, in blogs, chats with friends, and so on, is the discussion over classifying Buddhism(s) and Buddhists into various categories<\/b>. My friend Rev. Danny Fisher has a new podcast<\/a> \u2013 which is simply awesome btw, do check it out \u2013 which discusses the book\u00a0Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction<\/a>.<\/p>\n
One of the \u2018methodological issues\u2019 discussed early on is that \u2018s\u2019 on Buddhist Religions. Some earlier versions of the book were called \u2018The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction.\u2019 Yes, this is what we scholars worry about sometimes; is it \u2018Buddhism\u2019 or \u2018Buddhisms\u2019?<\/p>\n
Oh dear.<\/p>\n
Very briefly, based on what I remember from scattered sources: \u2018Buddhism\u2019 is a Western term, coined in the 19th century. It was created to describe a religion that was distinct from Hinduism (another Western construct) in India. (Or should I say \u2018Hinduisms\u2019, but I\u2019ll get to that in a moment.) Essentially, those who professed to follow teachings believed to originate from \u2018the Buddha\u2019, a 5th-4th century historical figure, were deemed \u2018Buddhist\u2019. And, for a very brief time, we -and by \u2018we\u2019 I mean Western scholars- had just one Buddhism.<\/p>\n
But then \u2018we\u2019 discovered that the Buddhists in Tibet seemed awfully different than those of Sri Lanka and Thailand, and the Buddhists of Japan were different still. So we created more labels: Tibetan Buddhism<\/a>, Japanese Buddhism, and so on. We began chopping Buddhism into pieces, generally by nation or region. And then we had lots of Buddhisms.<\/p>\n
Then someone came along (not sure who exactly) and decided we really only have 3 (yes, just 3) Buddhisms:
Hinayana<\/s> Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana<\/b>. This was neat because it didn\u2019t use Western (read colonialist<\/i>) terms, but instead allowed Buddhists to describe themselves. At the same time, we were discovering that Buddhists had been doing this sort of thing pretty much all along. An early split had created the Sthaviravadins (Theravadins, Teaching of the Elders) and the Mahasamghikas (The Big Community). Before long there were all kinds of -vadins and -ikas<\/b>. And soon enough, some time around the 1st century BCE, there arose a whole new -yana (vehicle or path), the Mahayana (big vehicle), which was supposed to supplant the Hinayana (little vehicle).<\/p>\nOne intriguing and often confusing fact is that Buddhists were generally very tolerant to differing beliefs<\/i>, while more strict in terms of discipline<\/i>. So Buddhists of different doctrinal schools could be living together under the same rules at the same monastery.<\/p>\n
Hinayana quickly exited Western academia (though you\u2019ll still find it popping up sometimes) because it was discovered that Theravadins (who rejected the Mahayana teachings) didn\u2019t like being considered \u2018lesser\u2019. Fair enough. Incidentally, Hinayana can refer simply to one\u2019s own motivation<\/i>\u00a0in life.<\/b> I\u2019ve read a quote by a Tibetan who said that he as an individual was \u2018Hinayana\u2019, meaning that he felt that his own motivations did not live up to the Mahayana ideal of seeking awakening for the sake of all beings.<\/p>\n
This is another interesting and confusing fact, as Tibetans are often all lumped in the \u2018Vajrayana\u2019 category of this nifty Three Buddhisms scheme.<\/p>\n
Then in the late \u201970s Charles Prebish, studying N. American Buddhists, suggested that there are \u2018Two Buddhisms\u2019 (ethnic and convert), which caused some uproar and a quick suggestion by Jan Nattier that, no, there are \u2018Three Buddhisms\u2019\u00a0(import, export, and baggage, focusing on modes of transmission rather than those practicing). And numerous other attempts to classify Buddhism in the West have been made since.<\/p>\n
For an excellent recent paper on the topic see,\u00a0Wakoh\u00a0Shannon Hickey\u2019s piece\u00a0TWO BUDDHISMS, THREE BUDDHISMS, AND RACISM<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Suggestions of racism and priviledge, aside, I agree with Jeff Wilson, who\u00a0writes<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0\u2018While \u2018maps\u2019 such as two Buddhisms, three Buddhisms, night-stand Buddhists, and others will likely continue to prove useful, they are also incomplete and further approaches are needed.\u2019<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-2794256179459969778?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"