Talk:Nikaya Buddhism

[Untitled]

Nat, excellent work, and a good start for the area. (20040302 14:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)) I added 'often' to the derisory mark (I beg tolerance on this!), and I think that 'now-defunct' implies 'no longer functional', which can also mean 'no good for functioning', which could be interpreted as perjorative. Maybe removed is okay, but we could also use something like 'now-inactive'? (20040302 14:27, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC))

ah, Mahayanan reading of sutras is that Hinayanan path is something to be avoided. Tibetan actually takes three wheel approach where they claim to practice all three vehcile in one. If any existing Mahayanan actually claim that Mahayananan can follow Hinayanan practice, let me know. FWBOarticle 05:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does User:20040302 count? - Nat Krause 06:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are differing assertions, within different mahayana sutras on this. FWBOarticle's three-wheel idea remains a complete mystery to me. Maybe he means the three scopes - who knows? - It certainly isn't terminology found within the Tibetan systems I know of. Here is a quote from the prajnaparamita:

The 18,000 verse perfection of wisdom sutra (a Madhyamaka Mahayana sutra) states: Bodhisattvas should practice all paths - whatever is a path of a sravaka, a pratyeka or a Buddha - and should know all paths. (20040302)

Thought of another one off the top of my head: check out the account of Yasutani Haku'un's description of "five types of zen" towards the beginning of Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen. Yasutani puts "shojo zen" in the third or middle position. Shojo is Japanese for Hinayana. - Nat Krause 06:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, the quantity of Buddhist sutras are vast. English version of Pali Tipitaka is 20 volumes. And that is just one sutras. There are 600 sutras in Mahayana. In Lotus Sutra, Buddah do differentiate three different path in which he use hearer vehicle and then go on to say that he avoid hinayana and one should not associate with people who practice hinayana. "One should not associate with persons of overbearing arrogance or those who stubbornly adhere to the Lesser Vehicle and are learned in its three storehouses.". Oriental Mahayanan do not consider that "hinayana" is somethig Mahayanan can practice,

Do you mean, except for the example I cited from Yasutani, above? - Nat Krause 10:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ah, I haven't read Yasutani's work so I can't comment on the book, however, I can certainly comment on the meaning of shojo zen. You first have to understand that original meaning of zen/chan is not a sect but just chinese translation of the word, "meditation". The distinction originated from writing of esotric/tantric zen around 8th to 9th century. In one of their writing they categorised zen into 5 types, gedouzen (heretic zen), bonbuzen (commoner's zen), shoujyouzen (hinayana zen), daijyou zen(mahayanazen) and saijyoujyouzen (supreme vehicle zen). Then they claim that Bodhidharma's zen (i.e. their meditation) is this saijyoujyouzen, i.e. basically saying that their zen sect is the best. So no, zen don't practice hinayana meditation. They practice Bodhidharma zen which is da best, :D. FWBOarticle 11:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Yasutani's description is basically what you just said. Of course, (just about) anyone will argue that the best part of their teachings is (just about) the best thing ever. But it was clear from the book that some of Yasutani's students at any given time were practices shojo zen. - Nat Krause 11:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that there is a confusion about what the term "zen" is. It is originally the term for meditation but then become a name for a sect of buddhism. Therefore, just because there is term hinayana zen doesn't mean zen as a sect practice hinayana. And in Yasutani's boook, it does appear that some students are doing shojo zen because they are somewhat doing it wrong or can't get to higher teaching. I find it highly doubtful that under zen doctrine, they aim to practice hinayana meditation. As I said, in Oriental Mahayanan doctrine, hinayana path is something to be avoided. And whether such view is correct or not is a separate matter.

I'm not sure whether we have anything to argue about. I wasn't saying that Yasutani believes shojo is equal to daijo zen. But he did say that his students could practice shojo if it was necessary. Shojo isn't something to be avoided, it is an excellent thing if it is the best zen you can practice. Yasutani also said that daijo (i.e. Mahayana) zen is not the highest form of zen, either. - Nat Krause 09:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

while it may be possible for Mahayanan to practice Viyana, which is much closer definition of hinayan from Tibetan perspective. As I said, it is not the question of who is right or wrong. It's question of whose POV belong to whom. Anyway, I think it is inappropriate to start of discussion Nikaya in term of Hinayana controversy. It should be mroe about history of "Early Buddhist Schools". FWBOarticle

We already have an article on "Early Buddhist Schools". The most relevant fact for most people with regard to Nikaya Buddhism is that it is the same thing as what they may previously have heard referred to as Hinayana, and so that is what we are telling them. - Nat Krause 10:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Firstly, hinayana exist only in Mahayana doctrine so to present Mahayanan understanding of Nikaya buddhism is not NPOV presentation. It is better to present what is shared by all Buddhist as well as historian in the begining. Secondly, Nikaya schools present particular period of early buddhist school that is those 18 different school arose out of out of second council's dispute. It is also prudent to mention that they all accept Cannons compiled under guidance of Asoka and adopted in the third council as the sole scriptural guidance. You can certainly present mahayana interpretation of hinayana corresponding to nikaya later. But these two words is not exactly the same term. FWBOarticle 11:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, this article addresses not so much "Hinayana in Mahayana philosophy" but "Hinayana in Western scholarship" which is indirectly what most English readers are going to be familiar with. That is, Hinayana as a sect comparable to Oriental Orthodox Christianity or something. Now, to see it as a "sect" per se is always going to be flawed because it was never a sect (neither was Oriental Orthodoxy, by the way), but we can express a similar idea if we think of it as a category or classification. So, I certainly don't mean to suggest that Nikaya is generally synonymous with Hinayana, but the purposes of the expression "Nikaya schools" is to express more clearly one of possible meanings of Hinayana. And I don't agree that "Nikaya schools present particular period of early buddhist school" -- although Nikaya schools other than Theravada were mostly limited to the early period. Vinaya in China and Ritsu in Japan were, I believe, Nikaya schools and they were around fairly late. - Nat Krause 11:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

you actually have a point. In Oriental Mahayana, the most common usage of the term hinayana is "Hinayana Buddhism" (Shoujyoubukkyou, one word in Chinese characters) and basically is used to identify sect of buddhism. I have to stress that three path principle is Tibetan doctrine. Best thing, IMO, is to show that Nikaya and Hinayana overlap on some point but it does not mean the same thing.FWBOarticle

Recent edits from FWBOa

I'm uncomfortable with some of the edits you added recently, FWBOarticle. You introduced a new definition, "a general term for those schools of Buddhism that arose out of dispute in 2nd Buddhist council (383 BC). In time, up to 18 schools arose, the only remaining one today being Theravada school." The problem with this is that not all of the Nikaya schools arose out of the second council. Theravada didn't appear until around the time of the third council. (as for there being 18 of them -- we list 27 on schools of Buddhism -- maybe there were 18 in ancient India) One could say that Theravada came out of the second council indirectly, but, given that there is clearly some connection between Mahayana and the Mahasamghaka and probably also with Sarvastivada, one might make the same claim for the Mahayana schools, as well. I think it would better to stick with a functional definition -- i.e., which sutras they use.

As for the historical material you added, I'm not sure how much of that is necessary to have here instead of in Early Buddhist schools. I'll leav it, but I'm open to further suggestions. - Nat Krause 09:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prof. Masatoshi Nagatomi

According to The Emptiness That is Compassion: An Essay on Buddhist Ethics, Robert A. F. Thurman, 1980, as available on his Web site,

"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 pre-Mahayana Indian Buddhism, to avoid the term "Hinayana Buddhism," which is found offensive by some members of the Theravada tradition.

--Munge 04:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahistorical

I am seriously concerned to see so much mythology being posted on such a reputable site as Wikipedia. I am a student at the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University, studying Buddhism and Tibetan, and I can tell you that the material on this page that relates to early Buddhism, Asoka and the Buddhist Councils is just perpetuating the assumptions and bad scholarship of an earlier period. There are some modern scholars still writing this sort of stuff, but it is now being seriously criticised, and a lot of it is simply not true. I haven't time to correct the article now as I'm studying for my end of year exams, but as you ask for sources so others can check work, I suggest anyone interested consults my lecturers at SOAS, Dr Sean Gaffney and Dr Douglas Osto, or re Asoka for example, reads the work of KR Norman. Karen Williams, 5th April 2005

Yes, I was not happy with the state of the article, which I wrote the initial version of, when I reviewed it just now. I have moved some information around and have qualified some statements previously presented as historical. We would very much appreciate as much of your input on this as you are willing to give. - Nat Krause 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mahayananan can follow Hinayanan practice

FWBOarticle asked for confirmation of this; I am glad to confirm. In Progressive Stages Of Meditation On Emptiness, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rimpoche identifies the first stage as the Sravaka Meditation on No-Self (emptiness of self-nature). As a type of meditation on emptiness, one might argue that it is a mahayana practice. But the practice described is (as far as I'm aware) straightforward vipassana meditation.

Also: I have been taught that the difference between mahayana and hinayana concerns the aim of the practitioner, not the details of their technique, nor the source of the texts they rely on. A practitioner might apparently be doing vajrayana sadhanas; but if his aim is the removal of his own personal suffering, then his practice is actually hinayana. Similarly a meditator might be inspecting the skandhas, looking for traces of a permanent, truly-existing self; but if his aim is really the attainment of full Buddhahood, in order liberate all beings, then his practice is mahayana.

Also: I have an ancient photocopy of a detailed description of a set of 18 bodhisattva silas for upsakas (laymen), and one of those silas requires of the aspiring bodhisattva "Not to disparage the hinayana". I don't know what their origin is. They are a wonderful list; some of them are a little obscure, and need expanding (for example "Not to burn villages").

The term "hinayana" is sometimes glossed as "narrow path", in contradistinction to the "broad path" gloss for "mahayana". But I like this term for referring to the schools that follow the Pali suttas, never having come across it before; I think I shall adopt this usage. Good article. --MrDemeanour 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

semantic contradiction in content?

Second, according to Mahayana and subsequent Vajrayana doctrine, "Hinayana" refers not to a sect or school of Buddhism but to a type of path to liberation which is contrasted with the path of the Bodhisattva.

This is a gentle issue - we use the term 'Hinayana' here to identify .. what? I don't think people consider 'Hinayana' generally as a sect or school, as much as a category, or division of Buddhism (remember the old 'Northern Buddhism'/'Southern Buddhism' terminology?!) So - (bear with me) let's rephrase the above to:

Second, according to Mahayana and subsequent Vajrayana doctrine, "Hinayana" refers not to division of Buddhism but to a type of path to liberation which is contrasted with the path of the Bodhisattva.

Now, the problem here (which is what I was getting to) is that we are now using two terms (Mahayana, Vajrayana) that popularly divide Buddhism, and then we appropriate 'doctrine' to those terms - both of which are also types of path to liberation or more specifically, vehicles to liberation - according to etymology! So IMO, this specific argument against Hinayana needs to be rewritten or dropped.

I feel it may be more strong to argue that the terms Hinayana/Mahayana/Vajrayana as divisions of Buddhism have been traditionally used on the basis of what texts are accepted and what texts are not (this is how many schools of Buddhism are identified too, IIRC). The primary challenge/problem facing with this classificatory terminology is not so much that they are terms that refer to the path, but that the term Hinayana is not used reflexively - ie., by the division of Buddhists who accept only the Nikaya texts - the Pali canon ( to the point that they believe there is an inherent and explicit slur and bias when dividing Buddhism with these terms), which is half-wrapped into the first point of the paragraph in the article. IMO the divisions of Buddhism are better named Nikaya/Mahayana/Vajrayana as these terms are used reflexively.

Many commentors on Buddhism have used the term Hinayana to refer to Nikaya Buddhism. However, that term is now generally seen as flawed:

• Hinayana, (literally "inferior vehicle"), is often regarded as an offensive or pejorative term.

• Hinayana was coined by the Mahayana, and has never been used by Nikaya Buddhists to refer to themselves.

• Hinayana as a technical term, indicated the vehicles of both the Sravakabuddha and the Pratyekabuddha, whereas as a division of Buddhism, it refers solely to the individuals who follow the former vehicle, towards the achievement of Sravakabuddhahood.

• It is sensible to use a terms for a division of population which is ideally used by themselves, and failing that, at least not offensive to them.'

Nikaya Buddhism, which appears to have been coined by Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University, is an attempt to find the most neutral and accurate way of referring to this division of Buddhists. Note that Nikaya is also a term used by Theravadins to refer to a school or sect.

The term Sravakayana (literally, "hearer vehicle [or disciple's vehicle]") is also sometimes used for the same purpose.

Enough for the mo.. (20040302 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Merge discussion

Oppose merging with early Buddhist schools. Nikaya Buddhism is an attempt to classify Buddhist schools by content (literature, philosophy, praxis). "Early Buddhist schools" is, as the name implies, a historical description. To say "early Buddhist schools were all Nikaya schools" is a factual claim, while merging these two pages would make it into a tautology. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that this article is not so much intended to be an article about the Nikaya schools, but rather a discussion of the use of the term "Nikaya Buddhism"? Am I understanding that correctly? RandomCritic 02:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not exactly. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the Nikaya schools, although terminology is part of that. Arguably, it's a disproportionate part at present, but I don't see that as a major problem. I don't think that discussing the Nikaya schools is the purpose of the early Buddhist schools article. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this bears some thinking about. We have a fairly large number of partially overlapping articles: Early Buddhist schools, Hinayana, Schools of Buddhism, Nikaya Buddhism, Shravakayana and perhaps some others that I've overlooked. I don't think they all should be merged into one article, but I think that the present division is somewhat unintuitive. Probably elements of all of them could be merged and split to form two to four articles focussing on different aspects of non-Mahayana, non-Theravada (or not exclusively Theravada) Buddhism that would make some more sense than the current set-up. One article that doesn't exist, exactly, but has some incomplete elements scattered around these articles, is an article on the various Buddhist classificatory schemes for Buddhist schools, both historical and metaphysical (the latter, I think, being more common). RandomCritic 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget nikaya and yana. The relationship between these articles, though, has been hashed out in the past; perhaps it can stand to be hashed out more now. Early Buddhist schools I have always thought of as basically a dabber, although, now that I look at it, it has always been more of an "early history of Buddhist schools" history article, which has been reinforced by your merge of history of Buddhist schools. Schools of Buddhism is stricly a list. Hinayana is not an article about any schools or sects of Buddhism—I was originally going to use it for this purpose, but User:20040302 talked me out of it. It is now an article about the concept of Hinayana, which, naturally, only occurs in Mahayana philosophhy. Nikaya Buddhism is supposed to the main article about the branch of Buddhism that includes Theravada, various extinct Indian schools, and arguably certain largely-extinct East Asian schools, discussed from the standpoint of literature, doctrine, and praxis; I will agree that this article is underdeveloped apart from the section discussing terminology. Shravakayana is and always has been essentially a dab page, pointing to several of the above articles. The concept of Śrāvakayāna as a type of path to Buddhahood is discussed a bit in yana, which is not an article that I have actually read.

So, I am open to ideas for new arrangements, but I don't see the current set-up as particularly problematic. Out of the articles you mention, only two of them are actually discussing Buddhist schools (beyond the level of a list or a disambiguation page). One discusses a Buddhist sectarianism in a particular historical phase (mostly from a Theravadin perspective), and the other discusses a type of Buddhism distinguished by content. Granted, there is a lot of overlap between the two, but I think they can be discussed more clearly in separate articles. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merging with early Buddhist schools NB is NOT EBS. However, there is possibly a merger with Sravakayana - though the latter also has distinct meanings within the Buddhist tradition. (20040302 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

last paragraph

I removed the last paragraph, because it gave a wrong interpretation on the nature of the second council and the origin of the Mahasanghikas. It is a common mistake on the origin of the Mahasanghika. Greetings, Sacca 07:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what specific error you believe there was, but I think most of that paragraph was written by Dr. Hodge, so it probably doesn't contain any gross factual mistakes. That said, I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not that paragraph actually belongs in this article, so I'm not going to add it back myself. I have taken out the paragraph that you have replaced it with because it has the unfortunane tone of an editorial written by Sacca.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, playing on the person is indeed one strategy which can be used. If you really don't like the tone, you're very welcome to change it to your own tone while at the same time leaving the contents in the article. my regards and Greetings, Sacca 07:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage that Sacca removed was not writen by me although it contains a rephrasing of something I wrote elsewhere about the etymology of "Mahasanghika". It is inaccurate as the MahaS/Sthav schism did not occur at the 2nd Council, so I am happy for Sacca to remove it. However, I agree with Nat, the replacement passage below is not well written reads as though it should be on a Talk Page somewhere, not in an article.--Stephen Hodge 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually see now that it is not very well written. I will look at it and try try reformulate and rephrase it. Greetings, Sacca 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

Possible criticism of the term Nikaya Buddhism is that the term is quite obscure and not well known, and the term itself isn't very clear in that it's not obvious from the term what is meant by it. When used, it is used by scholars only, and hasn't found adoption by any of the existing schools of Buddhism. Also the term 'Nikaya Buddhism' is just a replacement of the term Hinayana, which keeps in place the tendency to regard the seperate early schools as one form or type of Buddhism, while the groups themselves never used a term to refer to all groups together as one type of Buddhism, and didn't see themselves as representing a type of Buddhism. Labeling all the schools under one name was started by the Mahayana school, which invented the name Hinayana to distinghuish itself from the already existing schools. So in some ways the usage of the term 'Nikaya Buddhism' points to a Mahayana view of Buddhism, which is not supported by the early schools themselves. The term early buddhist schools does not fall subject to these criticisms.

The article is POV

The term Nikāya Buddhism closely corresponds to (and is derived from) the term Hinayana.

Historically, there were many 'Nikāya schools', but only one still exists today in (close to) its original form: the Theravāda

Taken together, the two statments logically imply that Theravada is hinayana, or "closely corresponds" to hinayana. That implies that Theravada is inferior or perhaps "close to" inferior. Thus, before the article even gets to the TOC, it disparages the very doctrines and practices that Prof. Nagatomi was trying to respect. And the statement that the term Nikaya Buddhism was "derived from" the term hinayana is like saying that the term African-American was derived from the N word. The term Nikaya Buddhism was derived from a unique, common name for the texts that a large subset of past and present dharma practitioners regard as the complete and canonical word of Buddha. The term emerged from authors' and scholars' needs for an NPOV name for the practices and doctrines of dharma practictioners ("Buddhists") who do not accept the provenence of the Mahayana canon.

The term Śrāvakayāna (literally, "hearer vehicle" or "disciples' vehicle") is also sometimes used for the same purpose.

Cite? I doubt it. In any case, that would depend on what you believe such authors' "purpose" is. Nobody, to my knowledge, ever called their own practies "Śrāvakayāna".

Note that Nikāya is also a term used in Theravāda Buddhism to refer to a subschool or subsect within Theravada.

Cite? Maybe, but as currently worded, this remark implies there is some particular sect whose formal or informal name includes the word Nikaya. If so, let's see an example: I wager the context will clear up any ambiguity.

The difference is that in 'Hinayana Buddhism' the common attitude was stated to be a certain 'selfishness', while the term 'Nikaya Buddhism' tries to shift the attention to the more neutral issue of attitude concerning the authenticity of scriptures.

Good try, heart in the right place. But, the term emerged from a real need to disambiguate two logically independent categories: 1) what did a given sect regard as canonical? and 2) what aspirations do you believe that a given sect pursued? Many scholars (and apparently some Mahayana practitioners) do not assume that there is complete correlation between 1) and 2). The term Nikaya Buddhism specifies something about 1) and nothing about 2). Thus, use of the term is not necessarily an attempt to "shift the attention" nor change the subject. Also, I question if those who equate hinayana with Theravada consider canonicity to be a "more neutral" issue than the merits of the Bodhisattva way.

The term Nikaya Buddhism isn't very clear: it's not obvious from the term what is meant by it.

This seems to be a nonsequitur. Hinayana isn't obvious either. Neither is Mahayana or dhammayana or pratekyabuddhayana or...

The term 'Nikaya Buddhism' is just a replacement of the term Hinayana

Nope. Nikaya Buddhism designates which texts a person accepts as canonical, and which parts a person does not accept. It certainly was not intended to satisfy various Mahayanists' and scholars' desires for a term that refers to aspirations toward becoming this or that type of Buddha.

--munge 08:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, munge. You're right that this article has problems, and the reason for that is that multiple authors have had a hand in this, with different ideas about how it should be presented. As far as I can tell, the statement, "The term Nikāya Buddhism closely corresponds to (and is derived from) the term Hinayana" is just plain false. It's obviously not "derived" from the term Hinayana—they don't resemble each other at all. Nor does it really closely correspond to "Hinayana", since Hinayana has a whole set of meanings in Mahayana philosophy that Nikaya doesn't carry. I'm sure the guy that wrote that (Sacca) didn't intend it to disparage Theravada, however.

As for "Śrāvakayāna", it is used outside Wikipedia, although one could probably say that its use in this sense is quite obscure. A google search for (shravakaya -Wikipedia) brings up a good example, published by Snow Lion, as the first hit.

"this remark implies there is some particular sect whose formal or informal name includes the word Nikaya"." Isn't that just so? Have a look at Schools of Buddhism#Theravada subschools: this is the sort of thing the article is referring to.

At some point, I'll have a go at repairing this article, but I don't know how other parties are going to react to that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record; Mahayana scholastic origin of Nikaya Buddhism

although it was probably done with a wholesome intention, still I need to point out that both Thurman and Dr. Nagatomi are Mahayanist. Turman was looking for the term (he's more Vajrayana - which nicely fits with the softer tone (but still belittling) of the Vajrayana. Nagatomi was the successor to a Buddhist Temple in Japan,a nd descends from a Buddhist family; his father was a Buddhist missionary in the USA. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/02.24/16-mm.html Greetings, Sacca 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor Masatoshi Shoshun Nagatomi was born on September 1, 1926, in the town of Kuroi, in Yamaguchi Prefecture in Western Japan, as the eldest son and presumed successor to the family Buddhist temple, belonging to the Jôdo Shinshû sect. Nagatomi Mas mastered virtually all the major languages relevant to the study of Buddhism and taught on Buddhism in all the areas where the religion is found. In the breadth of his approach to the study of Buddhism, Mas had no peers.

As a young man Mas traveled the country with his father and grandfather, who were Buddhist priests, learning the sutras in preparation for the day when he would succeed to the headship of the temple. But life took a new direction when Mas and his parents moved to the United States, where his father became a Buddhist missionary. - from the article of Harvard Gazette Greetings, Sacca 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some disadvantages of the term Nikaya Buddhism

I think this section should be deleted. As it stands, it is apologistic editorial opinion: it is blatently not NPOV. To meet Wiki standards, it should include citations for each of the assertions.--Stephen Hodge 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is the correct procedure for this sort of thing? We have here a whole string of alternative names for roughly the same thing:

• Hinayana
• Sravakayana
• Early schools
• Nikaya Buddhism
• Conservative Buddhism
• Mainstream Buddhism
• Old wisdom schools (Conze: does anyone still use this?)
• Any others I've missed?

Are we supposed to have a separate article about each of them? Are we supposed to decide on one & redirect the rest?

One of the objections listed is to the idea of lumping them all together. I'd be interested to know if any leading scholar rejects the natural supposition that they are closer to each other than to Mahayana. The concept of Mahayana is rather more dubious, perhaps. Peter jackson (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot

• sectarian Buddhism

Peter jackson (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My original intention in starting this article was, as you say, that we would decide on this one term and redirect the others. However, at the time I started it, we didn't really have a lot of material for a general article on so-called mainstream Buddhism, so I wrote a bit about the naming issue. The article was never expanded to include a discussion of the various schools, and so it has remained an article about the term. In hindsight, I'm not sure anybody ever wanted this to be that article other than me, anyway. Generally, I don't think we need a separate article about each of the terms. An article on Nikaya Buddhism would pretty much overlap with the content of Early Buddhist schools, which seems to be the title Wikipedia is more comfortable with for this subject.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another:

• Abhidharma Buddhism

Peter jackson (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikaya Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318131023/http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm to http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)