Hinayana

Hīnayāna is a Sanskrit term historically applied to describe certain early Buddhist paths, particularly those associated with Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna. Emerging around the first or second century, the term was positioned as the “preliminary” or “smaller” vehicle of the Buddha’s teachings and was contrasted with later developments such as Mahāyāna, the “great vehicle”, and Vajrayāna, the “indestructible” vehicle. In modern scholarship the term is considered pejorative and is therefore avoided, with expressions such as “Nikāya Buddhism” or “early Buddhist schools” preferred for describing non-Mahāyāna traditions. Although once used by Western writers to refer to early Buddhist doctrines, it does not correspond to any living Buddhist school and is not an appropriate synonym for Theravāda, the predominant Buddhist tradition of Sri Lanka and Mainland Southeast Asia.

Meaning and Linguistic Formation

The Sanskrit word hīnayāna is formed from hīna (“small”, “deficient”, “inferior”, “abandoned”, “defective”) and yāna (“vehicle” or “path”). Classical lexicons, such as the Pali Text Society’s Pali–English Dictionary, record hīna with even stronger connotations including “abject”, “base”, or “despicable”, illustrating the term’s potential for polemic usage. In ancient translations, including Chinese renderings by Kumārajīva, the expression was commonly interpreted as “small vehicle”.
The literal meaning of “small vehicle” was never intended to denote doctrinal inadequacy in an absolute sense, and modern teachers emphasise that the term as used in historical doctrinal taxonomy did not imply intrinsic inferiority. In Tibetan, for instance, two terms were employed: theg chung (“small vehicle”) and theg dman (“inferior approach”), the former functioning as a descriptive categorisation within a three-vehicle system.

Historical Usage and Modern Reassessment

The designation Hīnayāna was used by Mahāyāna authors to contrast their developing ideology of the bodhisattva path with other approaches within the Buddhist world, but its usage in early Mahāyāna texts appears infrequent. Many of the earliest Mahāyāna scriptures refer instead to Bodhisattvayāna, and it is likely that the term Hīnayāna emerged later as a back-formation once Mahāyāna identity became more established. Modern scholarship observes that the symmetry implied between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna is thus historically misleading.
According to contemporary scholars, including Jan Nattier and Paul Williams, early Buddhist communities often coexisted without sharply defined boundaries. Evidence from Indian monasteries recorded by Chinese pilgrims such as Yijing indicates that monks identifying with Mahāyāna and those following non-Mahāyāna teachings frequently lived side by side, sharing monastic codes and institutional affiliations. In this context the label Hīnayāna tended to be applied to individuals or doctrinal positions rather than entire schools.
In 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists formally recommended that the term should not be used to describe any extant Buddhist tradition, recognising its divisive and disparaging implications.

Early Buddhist Schools and the Question of Classification

The early Buddhist landscape historically comprised numerous schools, often associated with distinct monastic lineages such as the Mahāsāṃghika, Sthavira, Mūlasarvāstivāda, and Saṃmitīya Nikāyas. Later authors occasionally grouped these schools into Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, but early sources present a more complex situation. Yijing noted that determining which schools aligned with Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna was not straightforward and that the distinction concerned doctrinal orientation rather than institutional identity. As Mahāyāna never established a separate vinaya, Mahāyāna monastics always belonged institutionally to one of the early lineages.
A common misconception in modern literature is the equivalence of Hīnayāna with Theravāda. Historically this is inaccurate: Mahāyāna critiques were predominantly aimed at other schools, especially the Sarvāstivāda and branches such as the Vaibhāṣika system, which developed highly formalised doctrines absent from Theravādin tradition. The Theravāda school, geographically remote from the rise of early Mahāyāna and preserving views aligned with pre-sectarian Buddhism, was not the primary subject of early Mahāyāna polemic.

Doctrinal Themes and Early Polemics

Within Mahāyāna discourse, the term Hīnayāna often indicated approaches viewed as limited in aspiration, particularly those oriented toward personal liberation rather than universal Buddhahood. The figure of the śrāvaka, aiming for arhatship, and the pratyekabuddha, achieving awakening independently without teaching, represented ideals contrasted with the expansive bodhisattva vow.
Although some texts contain strong criticisms of Hīnayāna, the general picture is more nuanced. Early Mahāyāna did not form a separate social institution or monastic identity but advanced a set of ideals pursued by individuals within a shared monastic environment. Many practitioners of early Buddhist schools also identified themselves as aspiring bodhisattvas, demonstrating the fluidity between doctrinal categories.

Chinese and Tibetan Understandings

Chinese historical texts further illustrate the multifaceted nature of these classifications. Xuanzang, travelling in seventh-century Sri Lanka, described two major monastic centres: the Mahāvihāra, which upheld what he termed Hīnayāna teachings, and the Abhayagiri monastery, whose monks studied both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna scriptures. Such accounts show that distinctions between vehicles were matters of doctrinal curriculum rather than separate sectarian identities.
In Tibetan scholasticism, the three-vehicle system—Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna—served primarily as a framework for organising philosophical and soteriological teachings. Teachers such as Thrangu Rinpoche have stressed that the “lesser vehicle” designation does not imply spiritual inferiority but identifies foundational practices within the broader Buddhist path.

Contemporary Scholarship and Interpretation

Modern researchers caution against reifying Hīnayāna as a fixed doctrinal or institutional category. Scholars such as Isabelle Onians and Jonathan Silk emphasise that early Mahāyāna authors seldom used the term and that later overrepresentation in academic and popular literature stems from misunderstandings. Hīnayāna often served as a rhetorical device applied variably, rather than identifying a coherent body of schools.
The more precise term Śrāvakayāna is now widely adopted for referring to the early Buddhist path oriented toward arhatship, as it lacks the negative connotations associated with Hīnayāna. Likewise, Nikāya Buddhism is used to denote the historical schools prior to the emergence of distinctive Mahāyāna doctrines.