Theravada and Zen differences?

[Dan74]

The above is excellent summary Bhante. This is how I have always suspected Tibetan Buddhism’s view and attitude of Theravada and the Pali Canon to be, but I would not have been able to explain it in such an informed and erudite manner as you have.

I've attended some Tibetan teachings and read a little, this was always said at the outset.

Tibetan Buddhism comprises the teachings of the three vehicles of Buddhism: the Foundational Vehicle, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. The Mahāyāna goal of spiritual development is to achieve the enlightenment of buddhahood in order to most efficiently help all other sentient beings attain this state.[5] The motivation in it is the bodhicitta mind of enlightenment — an altruistic intention to become enlightened for the sake of all sentient beings.[6] Bodhisattvas are revered beings who have conceived the will and vow to dedicate their lives with bodhicitta for the sake of all beings. Tibetan Buddhism teaches methods for achieving buddhahood more quickly by including the Vajrayāna path in Mahāyāna.[7]

What are Tibetan Buddhists talking about as being a Buddha here? The Buddha was a self-awakened being, so surely what they are claiming as attainment of buddhahood (particularly in one lifetime) cannot be of the same level of awakening. Is this correct?

Tibetan and some Mahayana sources have a very different understanding of who the Buddha was. That's a massive topic in itself and if you are curious, a better place would be to start a thread at Dharma Wheel.

[tiltbillings]

The Theravada Path
Of the three yanas the first is the Theravada path which is often called the “Hinayana.”

This is a statement not made from a place of knowledge. It is an uninformed equation. A bit better is this is from someone who has seriously looked at the differences:

In fact, as we shall see presently, "Hinayana" refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahayana historical traditions such as the Theravada are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of "Hinayana" would allow. ...The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.."

[Dhammanando]

The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.."

But what does Reginald Ray mean by the part in bold?

That it's "inappropriate" because it misrepresents the Tibetan view (i.e. no Tibetans ever intended "Hinayana" to refer to any particular Buddhist school)?

Or by "inappropriate" is Ray (a fashionably liberal follower of Tibetan Buddhism) simply voicing a personal preference that Mahayana Buddhists should make a break with the Mahayana's traditional polemical stance and start using some politer term to refer to non-Mahayana schools?

[tiltbillings]

The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.."

But what does Reginald Ray mean by the part in bold?

That it's "inappropriate" because it misrepresents the Tibetan view (i.e. no Tibetans ever intended "Hinayana" to refer to any particular Buddhist school)?

Or by "inappropriate" is Ray (a fashionably liberal follower of Tibetan Buddhism) simply voicing a personal preference that Mahayana Buddhists should make a break with the Mahayana's traditional polemical stance and start using some politer term to refer to non-Mahayana schools?

Basically, the Tibetan tenet system is a didactic construct (or set of constructs, each Tibetan school having their own variation) that points to the rightness of the set of the doctrines that can finally put it all into a context. The point is that the tenet portrayals of the various schools are not really accurate historical portrayals, which is, of course, something that comes from a Western (and Japanese) historical study of these issues. So, from a standpoint of an historical look at the various schools we are not seeing an accurate look at these schools if we are to use the Tibetan tenet system, and as has been pointed out above, Theravada is not really part of this mix.

Ray has a Western scholarly background (PhD in Buddhist studies) and thusly likely to approach these question a bit more objectively than that taking a particular school's point of view as being the end-all-be-all as to how to understand these things.

Just to be clear, unlike Thrangu Rinpoche, who is trying to be polite by using Theravada in place of the problematic word hinayana, Ray is voicing what is generally held by scholars who have carefully studied these questions.

I have argued these points on e-sandbox at length. One of my central points is that the criticisms of the Mahayana -- the Grandiose Vehicle -- do not really address the Theravada on any number of central issues, thusly the nasty term hinayana is not appropriate, nor is attempting to cram the Theravada into the Tibetan tenet system appropriate.

[Aloka]

In a book I have by a well-known Dzogchen teacher,(not mentioned in detail because of copyright restrictions) it's said that the Hinayana or Theravada Buddhist tradition is more faithful to the early teachings of the Buddha - and that Mahayana is based on more profound considerations.

In general, there's a booklet by By Chan Khoon San & Kåre A. Lie , "No Hinayana in Buddhism" which might be of interest to anyone who hasn't read it:

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/NoHinayana.pdf

[Phena]

In a book I have by a well-known Dzogchen teacher,(not mentioned in detail because of copyright restrictions) it's said that the Hinayana or Theravada Buddhist tradition is more faithful to the early teachings of the Buddha and that Mahayana is based on more profound considerations.

Because of the entrenched invalid view in Vajrayana towards Early Buddhism, IMO it’s really only qualified to make superficial and specious observations and comparisons about it. Anything else is just speculation.

Note in your quote for example, from the Dzogchen teacher the equating of Hinayana with Theravada. Also saying the Mahayana is more profound; more profound than what exactly? How can you know the profundity of a path of practice you have not traversed?

In general, there's a booklet by By Chan Khoon San & Kåre A. Lie , "No Hinayana in Buddhism" which might be of interest to anyone who hasn't read it:

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/NoHinayana.pdf

Thanks for the link Aloka. I'm pretty sure I have read this before, but it's worth another look.