Why use a word thought by some to be offensive even if the meaning isn't meant to be offensive? There is no other word that can be used? Would using another word (or phrase) be compassionate towards those who might get offended by it's use even if the intent wasn't to offend or provoke? Is "Hinayana" so sacred, useful and descriptive that it must be used even when talking to an audience that likely has people in it who would be offended?

I have difficulty with the notion of bodhicitta and the concept of Boddhisattva, and the difference with the concept of Buddha. If I understand correctly, the idea is to have an altruistic intention in one's practice: to seek liberation not for oneself, but for all sentient beings. I can understand the usefulness of having an altruistic intention as a basis for one's practice, but I have the impression that for Mahayana this must be taken as a real objective: however, it is held in Buddhism that samsara has no beginning and no end, therefore neither does ignorance, and that there will never be a moment when all beings will be liberated. In the same way, the practitioner who attains enlightenment obtains it only for himself, and cannot give it to others like a deity who would offer a grace: "each one is his own refuge". So what is the real scope of bodhicitta? Is it only a pious wish? How can one truly believe that one is really practicing for the liberation of the world and not only one's own, if one knows for a fact that awakening is always "personal" and that samsasra will always exist? If the idea is only to awaken in order to be able to teach others, this is what a Buddha does and there is no need for the concept of Boddhisattva for that. If the idea is to help others and to have a mind radiating compassion, this is also what a Buddha does with the brahmavihara and I don't see the difference with the Bodhisattva.

I've seen this glossary entry in a couple of places: *Hīnayāna: “Inferior Vehicle,” a pejorative term, coined by a group who called themselves followers of the Mahāyāna, the “Great Vehicle,” to denote the path of practice of those who aimed at Arahantship, rather than full Buddhahood. Hīnayānists refused to recognize the later discourses, composed by the Mahāyānists, that claimed to contain teachings that the Buddha felt were too deep for his first generation of disciples, and which he thus **secretly entrusted to underground serpents**. The Theravāda school of today is a descendent of the Hīnayāna.* Does anyone know where this claim about the origin of Mahāyāna texts comes from?

> In 2012, Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima published a damaged and partial Kharoṣṭhī manuscript of the Mahāyāna Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It is carbon dated to ca. 75 CE, making it one of the oldest Buddhist texts in existence. > > [Wikipedia: Gandhāran Buddhist texts - The "Split" Collection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts#The_%22Split%22_Collection) Here's a copy of that paper by Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima: [A first-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra](https://docdro.id/PyJF9z5) Question (1): What are the commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories among Buddhist-studies scholars in order to explain how come Prajñāpāramitā sutra (which belongs to the so-called 'Mahayana') have existed since so early (no later than 75 CE)? Question (2): Is it sensible to hypothesize/theorize (or even accept) that, Prajñāpāramitā thoughts, in fact, have developed early parallel with thoughts in Āgama and Nikāya (which belongs to the so-called 'Hinayana')?

I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama. "The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: **Vaibhashika** (Skt. **Vaibhāṣika**), **Sautrantika** (Skt. **Sautrāntika**), **Chittamatra** (Skt. **Cittamātra**), **Madhyamika** (Skt. **Mādhyamika**). I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction. 1. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly? 2. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written? 3. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts? Thank you in advance.

Apologies for the term Hinayana but this question is borne out of those discussions . So - is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative on Hinayana Buddhism or are there another current branches of Buddhism, no matter how minor, that could also be termed 'Hinayana'. Or in other words would Theravada be completely synonymous with 'currently existing Hinayana Buddhism'.

I have heard about these traditions: Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Hinayana. In today's world, Buddhist people dwell in South Asia and East Asia. Who among them follows each particular sect? Does anybody follow more than one of them?

Would it be true to say that cultivation of a non-dualistic view is more important in Mahayana Buddhism than Hinayana?

Where does the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana' come from? Who made them up? They are often translated as "lesser vehicle" and "greater vehicle". I wonder about this translation. Is it correct? I think it sounds a bit degrading, as if Mahayana is somehow greater or better than Hinayana. Are there better terms with which to speak about what is generally called 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana'?

In Zen Mind, Beginners Mind Shunryu Suzuki says > observing the precepts in a Hinayana way is violating the precepts in > a Mahayana way Can an one give an explanation of way he is getting at here and perhaps a concrete instance of when that might occur.