In the newest video [you can watch this video for FREE] with Ken and Traleg Rinpoche on Integral Spiritual Center Ken starts his usual wrap about Nagarjuna’s “Middle Way” philosophy being a criticism of Theravada Buddhism. Although I think there’s some truth to his argument, the main problem I see with it, is the same problem i see from many Tibetan influenced thinkers, and that is conflating “Hinayana” Buddhism with “Theravada” Buddhism. Hinayana, or ‘lesser vehicle,’ was a term given to one portion of the foundational texts that the Tibetans use, which actually don’t even come from the Theravada school! They come from an another contending, early school, called the Sarvastivada, which consequently died out. So when you start conflating Hinayana and Theravada you are collapsing two different schools. Ok, but this isn’t really what Ken does in this video (although he does it all the time in his writing), but this “idea” that he adopted from Tibetan Buddhism carries with him in his criticism of the Theravada.
He is basically arguing that Nagarjuna was criticizing the Theravada school of Buddhism. BUT, if we look at the actual history of these schools, one will quickly see that Nagarjuna was said to have lived from 150 – 250 CE, and that the Theravada school didn’t even begin until 246CE after the Third Buddhist Council. So was Nagarjuna criticizing, in all his writing which predated 246CE, a school that hadn’t even come into being yet??? Obviously not. Instead he was criticizing different schools or different views, which although were considered early schools of Buddhism, and therefore probably had some doctrinal similarities with the later Theravada school, were still different schools. Not to mention that even if Nagarjuna was criticizing Theravada in particular (which he wasn’t), then we have to recognize that the Theravada school itself has been morphing, changing, & evolving over the past 1750 years since its conception.
So what seems more likely, is that Ken is taking his understanding of Theravada, and applying Nagarjuna’s earlier criticisms to that. Let’s remember that the major commentator for the Theravada tradition, Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga, didn’t come until nearly 300 years after Nagarjuna, so clearly that was a later development (on a historical scale).
One can still argue that Nagarjuna had a deeper understanding than Buddhaghosa, and while I think his interpretive framework might have been novel in refreshing ways (particularly the two truths doctrine) I don’t think that means his realization was actually fundamentally different. My understanding, is that the realization of the Arhant is the non-dual realization.
I agree with you that this type of criticism is confused in terms of its basis and reasoning, however there seem to be an interesting discussion about the nature of one’s realization via the Hinayana teachings vs Mahayana, which I’m not taking sides on because I’m still exploring this issue.
As for the Hinayana, it is more a meta categorization of teachings than a school, although one could assert that certain schools abide by those teachings, they are NOT equivalent. Actually, it’s not a classification of teachings in the sense of the Abhidharma for example, but it’s more that than it is school classification (as far as I understand it). For example “Mahayana” refers to teachings that several schools use. So, Ken and others should be careful in their use of terminology. Of course, they may still have a point but they should present it differently. So my point here is that we can’t even have a discussion about the conclusion because our basis is flawed to begin with. Fix that then let’s talk.
As for the Tibetan criticism of earlier school and/or earlier groups of teachings, it seems one key point the Tibetans make of Hinayana (and those schools who use them as their sole source) is the issue of realizing emptiness of all phenomena in addition to the emptiness of self. One thing that I’ve heard, which I’m going to double check, is that the earlier teachings did not make reference to the emptiness of all phenomena and this is what the Mahayana did. This is supported via the scriptures. However one could debate whether or not a person follow these teachings would realize the emptiness of all phenomena as a result of realization of no-self, but to support via scriptures is a different case. I think that’s the basis of criticism, not whether it’s inferred to be teh case or not. Although, as you mentioned, we have to know which scriptures are being referred to!:) Obviously Nagarjuna was critizing different texts than the Theravadans use, but not sure about other Tibetan criticisms. I’ll check into it.
Last, as I also mentioned to you, there’s the question about teachers/schools using their interpretation of other teachings/schools as a way of making their point. In other words, their interpretation may not have anything to do with the real presentation of that school, yet the critics main points stands as valid truths/realizations on its own ground.
Good stuff. But your main point is certainly true: it’s not accurate to collapse Hinayana and Theravadan school together and then criticize it from that perspective.
Wilbur has been fairly influential on my own thinking but as a Eastern Orthodox Christian I’ve always found his conclusions regarding Christianity and Western religion in general to be lacking. In fact, it seems most of his research came from Alan Watts books “Myth & Ritual in Christianity” and “The Supreme Identity”. Interesting post.