What's are the Major Differences Between Zen and Other Buddhist Sects?

howarda

For that matter- what are the major buddhists Sects and what sets each apart?

I've been studying and practicing for about 6 years. I was introduced to Buddhism by an elderly couple who were helping me along the path. They were Zen adherents and that's been my direction from the beginning. Both of them passed away about 4 years ago. Since then I've been pretty much on my own. Recently I've been reading Dogen and he seems to have had some serious disagreement with the teachings of non Zen Buddhist sects in China. This leads me to ask the above question(s)

BhikkhuJayasara

Depending on who you talk to, there are either 2 or 3 different major sects of Buddhism.

The two that no one argues over are Theravada (teachings of the elders) and Mahayana(Great Vehicle)..

The third is Vajrayana(Thunderbolt Vehicle) otherwise known as Tibetan Buddhism.

Mahayana is often called an "umbrella" sect, because most of the types of Buddhism you know of, Ch'an, Zen, Pure Land, etc, all fall under Mahayana.

and of course under all of these sects are innumerable amounts of traditions, usually based off of specific teachers.

I teach a basics of Buddhism class and I use these links from Buddhanet.net which should be helpful-

This link has a large variety of info on many many schools
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/schools.htm

Theravada - Teachings of the Elders
Mahayana - The Great Vehicle
Vajrayana - The Thunderbolt Vehicle
The Chinese Schools
Japanese Buddhist Schools
A Comparative Study of the Schools

Other links

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/guide.htm

All traditions for the most part have the core teachings of the 4 Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path and Dependent Arising. The Theravada tradition only uses the original Pali tipitaka while Mahayana and Vajrayana have additional texts.

some traditions are meditation and practice based, others not so much.

The main thing to remember with all the schools,sects, traditions, etc is that there are many rafts across the stream. The Buddha said that when you cross the stream you don't pick up the raft and carry it on land, you leave it behind as you have no further use for it.


My advice to you is to do some exploration.. if you have any monasteries/temples/meditation centers near you visit them, learn from them, etc. You may find one tradition fits you(like I did with Theravada) or you may find that none do, but you will be better off in the trying .

howarda

Thanks for the overview and the link.

Takuan

If you want to learn about the differences between schools within the Mahayana, I suggest doing some reading on your own. Really, a good book is better than anything we can give you here. I will, however, say that Dogen did not agree with the paths many of the Japanese schools of Buddhism had taken. Tendai, the school he ordained in, had become entrenched in inner and outer political issues. Because of this disillusion with Tendai, he spent some time practicing on his own and then came to Zen.

After eventually receiving dharma transmission in China, Dogen returned to Japan and set out to correct the problems he saw in the Buddhist practices of his time. This was not because he was arrogant; he merely wanted to bring the Japanese schools back to the dharma. He wrote a number of essays in an effort to help correct these issues, which is most likely what the OP has been reading. These essays stress correct practice and the living of that practice in everyday life. Now, what "correct" practice is should be mentioned. Dogen stressed zazen as his schools main method of practice. He considered it, when done correctly, to be the same as enlightenment. In his view, all methods were valid, including Nembutsu (Pureland), as long as they connected one with their true buddha nature.

Within Zen/Ch'an there are two main practices: sitting meditation and koan. Depending on the school, one is stressed more than the other, but they each have the same purpose.

Practices vary between the schools within the Mahayana, but all claim to descend from the Buddha. Because of this, they all essentially have the same purpose, to remove suffering via a changing in the dualistic outlook of the practitioner. These methods are generally categorized into two points of view: Sudden Enlightenment and Gradual Enlightenment. Gradual Enlightenment is the idea that enlightenment can take quite a while, i.e. one to many lifetimes, to achieve. This idea comes directly from the Indian schools and is seen today in Tibetan Buddhism. Sudden Enlightenment has Indian roots but is generally thought to be innovated by the Chinese. Sudden Enlightenment is the idea that one can become enlightened in this lifetime via certain conditions that create the causation to somehow jolt one out of dualistic thinking. The story of Ch'an/Zen patriarch Hui Neng is an example of sudden enlightenment.

The gradual idea became popular in India and Tibet, while the sudden idea became popular in China. This is because the idea of sudden enlightenment suited Chinese thought a bit better than gradual. This is why so many forms of skillful means and expedient methods come out of China and make their way to Korea, Vietnam, and Japan.

I hope this helps you out!

genkaku

@howarda ... in the course of your studies, no doubt you have realized that criticisms are a dime a dozen in Buddhism. Some consider Zen and entirely erroneous school -- fucked up from A to Z. And of course, given a chance, Zen can come back with critiques not only of the other schools of Buddhism but also of the schools of Zen itself. As it was in grade-school, so it is in Buddhism: Everyone can think somebody else is a nitwit.

Pardon may laziness but I lack the energy or interest to go into chapter and verse. I picked Zen, practiced zazen, listened to and sometimes indulged in the arguments to and fro and my conclusion is pretty much this: Pick your poison and see it through no matter what. Give yourself leave to whine and whimper; give yourself leave to change course if you like ... but see it all the way through.

FWIW and best wishes.

howarda

I'm soaking it all in

how

@Howarda

Ah the Dogen conundrum. ( or herasy from a zafu pilot)

All teachers understandably extol the vehicle of their understanding.
Dogen's vehicle traversed a time of cultural Buddhist apathy and so he warned of the local road conditions of the Asian 1200's.
800 years later Dogen presents two choices.
Meditation for the keys to his vehicle, or intellectual study for a view of where it once traveled.

What to do, what to do?

Jeffrey

@Jayantha said:

Depending on who you talk to, there are either 2 or 3 different major sects of Buddhism.

The two that no one argues over are Theravada (teachings of the elders) and Mahayana(Great Vehicle)..

The third is Vajrayana(Thunderbolt Vehicle) otherwise known as Tibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism is also Mahayana. In fact it teaches all three vehicles including hinayana which is not the same thing as Theravada, which if you realize that TB is defining within it's own criteria is obvious. It would be like Catholicism defining Judaism as the old law. That would be Catholicisms characterization, but Jews would not say "we are the old law". The Vajrayana teachings mean tapestry whereas sutrayana (mahayana and hinayana) would mean threads. So Vajrayana could be a system to understand the whole weave? And I feel the thing in common to integrate the weave is the nature of mind. The nature of mind is the same even if you have never heard of Buddhism. From that standpoint Zen could be related to vajrayana in that they say there was always Zen (read from a book perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh...)

Also vajrayana does not mean thunderbolt vehicle. It means diamond vehicle which refers to the indestructibility of the buddha nature/shunyata/rigpa/nirvana

One has to be careful about commenting on traditions they haven't studied thoroughly. Remember to say: I think, I have heard, I have read, and it says (here).

Jeffrey

@Takuan said:

Gradual Enlightenment is the idea that enlightenment can take quite a while, i.e. one to many lifetimes, to achieve. This idea comes directly from the Indian schools and is seen today in Tibetan Buddhism. Sudden Enlightenment has Indian roots but is generally thought to be innovated by the Chinese. Sudden Enlightenment is the idea that one can become enlightened in this lifetime via certain conditions that create the causation to somehow jolt one out of dualistic thinking. The story of Ch'an/Zen patriarch Hui Neng is an example of sudden enlightenment.

Tibetan Buddhism teaches both sudden and gradual. A pointing out of the nature of mind is the upadesha pointing out instructions of the guru to the student. This is both immediate as appareance, but as essence it is outside of time. The Lam Rim is the gradual path and it necessarily intersects with the upadesha/yogic path at certain points. An example of the intersection would be upon realization that we cannot purify our karma because it is endless. Thus the Lam Rim practitioner at that point of necessity must have a flash of insight to cut the root of delusion. I don't even have an intellectual understanding of what is happening there ^ but I have read this in a dharma talk I transcribed from audio.

One has to be careful about commenting on traditions they haven't studied thoroughly. Remember to say: I think, I have heard, I have read, and it says (here).

caz

We must appreciate the skilfulness of the Buddha to have provided for us 3 principle paths of training depending on our inclinations

How wonderful !

sova

genkaku said:

@howarda ... in the course of your studies, no doubt you have realized that criticisms are a dime a dozen in Buddhism. Some consider Zen and entirely erroneous school -- fucked up from A to Z.

I believe you mean from Mu to Mu

Cinorjer

Hee. Yes, there are the traditional lines of historical and geographical separation. Even in my own branch of Zen, there are Japanese and Korean and now Western Zen branches that only loosely follow the Eastern practice that gave them birth.

Here on the board, the biggest divides seem to be between those who follow the Tibetan Buddhism school, those following a mainstreem Thailand type Theravadan, and the various Zen hippies like me.

Takuan

Jeffrey said:

@Takuan said:

Gradual Enlightenment is the idea that enlightenment can take quite a while, i.e. one to many lifetimes, to achieve. This idea comes directly from the Indian schools and is seen today in Tibetan Buddhism. Sudden Enlightenment has Indian roots but is generally thought to be innovated by the Chinese. Sudden Enlightenment is the idea that one can become enlightened in this lifetime via certain conditions that create the causation to somehow jolt one out of dualistic thinking. The story of Ch'an/Zen patriarch Hui Neng is an example of sudden enlightenment.

Tibetan Buddhism teaches both sudden and gradual. A pointing out of the nature of mind is the upadesha pointing out instructions of the guru to the student. This is both immediate as appareance, but as essence it is outside of time. The Lam Rim is the gradual path and it necessarily intersects with the upadesha/yogic path at certain points. An example of the intersection would be upon realization that we cannot purify our karma because it is endless. Thus the Lam Rim practitioner at that point of necessity must have a flash of insight to cut the root of delusion. I don't even have an intellectual understanding of what is happening there ^ but I have read this in a dharma talk I transcribed from audio.

One has to be careful about commenting on traditions they haven't studied thoroughly. Remember to say: I think, I have heard, I have read, and it says (here).

Careful of what? I didn't make any disrespectful remarks. If I did somehow offend you, then I am quite sorry. I'm from a Tibetan tradition, btw.

Jeffrey

@Takuan, careful to not give a newcomer to Buddhism false information. I am just as guilty and as a consequence I try to think carefully to say 'I think' 'I heard' etc if I remember.

Jeffrey

@Takuan, sorry I was just irritable. I do have concern for newcomers but I have to admit I was just irritable. Sorry.

ecdrewello1

While I am nowhere near as skilled as some of the venerable posters here, I've been spending a lot of time lately looking into the differences in Buddhist sects. What it comes down to is what Sutras they take to be "key", what they do for their practice, and the reasons they give practitioners for undergoing said practice. I have a limited understanding of Zen, and I'm not going to even attempt a description. The founder of my own lineage had plenty to say about Zen and others school... but the weird thing is that the more I look into the "differences" the less that it seems to matter to me. I might be a heretic for saying so... lol.

When Buddhism first started splitting into schools... doctrine was not the first thing that was debated, and disagreeing with doctrine (at least in the beginning) was not something that would get you tossed from the Sangha. I personally subscribe to the idea in the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings that all dharma is one dharma.

The one criticism that I do agree with from my own sect is that sometimes a practitioner might come across one of the many types of insights that Buddhism provides and claim that to be the totality of insight. Choose which ever practice works best for you, but always be mindful of the temptation to feel you have nothing left to learn.

zenff

The way I see it the theoretical differences between different schools of Buddhism are of minor importance. The important core of Buddhism they all have in common. After I was in a Zen-group for some years I joined a Theravada group. I found exactly the same friendly people, working together, chanting and bowing and doing meditation. Also they made the same human mistakes.

What I think of as characteristic for Zen is that the teachers I met were really not very well informed on subjects of Buddhist philosophy (or the hid their knowledge well). I remember when students asked about the theory they would get some crap for an answer (or maybe it was just too deep for me?).
Anyways; the basic concepts of Buddhism were explained to me by a Theravada monk.

On the positive side I think it is characteristic for Zen how personal questions were thrown back at me. My teachers never really told me what to do. They did not refer to the sutras or to their own feelings about it. They put the important questions back where they belong, in the mind of the one who’s asking them.
It could be my personal take on Zen but I feel the strength of the tradition is its emphasis on finding your own wisdom; the confronting style of asking not what the Buddha taught – we can all look that up – but asking what you truly feel is the answer to your own question.

Don’t quote someone else; don’t be smart; don’t hide behind anything; but sit with it and tell me what your true answer is.

Florian

There are many schools of thought on how best to learn to play the guitar, and they all involve learning how to play it. I'd agree with whoever said that in the end we have to pick a method and see it through. All roads lead to Rome. I find zazen to be by far the simplest and most immediately effective practice, but it's horses for courses.

At any rate, I have no wish to spend much time trying to untangle all the variations between the schools, which would take many years of study and an existing background of practice.

I'd agree with Jeffrey's comment that we should be very careful to be rigorous here, and to use qualifiers when we are not world-class experts so as not to mislead. It's a complex topic.

how

This is a difficult subject where a variety of different traditions and schools speak about what separates them from each other.
It does have it's place...BUT
Teachings that define themselves accordingly to who they are not like, make me cautious.

Firstly because such an approach makes it sound like those teachings are not valid enough to stand on there own worth and require the props of perceived lesser teachings to define themselves.

Secondly because it's imputus often smells like just another worldly ego wrapping itself spiritual clothing.

Thirdly, because the practitioners I most respect, (once they have chosen there path) seldom take such time from attending to the next moment of their practise to apply it to the examination of how others walk it.

David

This is something I don't really understand. It perplexes me and I find it facinating to think about.

Even within Zen there are different feels from different masters. From Dogen to Hakuin to Thich Nhat Hanh, there are different feels to the dharma they each express.

When I see pictures of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh together, I see two different styles of living the same awakened truth.

ecdrewello1

Even within a tradition, you are going to see very different teachers. The last retreat that I went on there were five teachers, and five different apraches to Dharma. One is more a "pop" Buddhist, one indulgent, one strict, etc. I think having this diversity is good. A teacher that drives me crazy, might be exactly what another person in the group needs, etc. Maybe the "pop" Buddhism will lead me to the path, but the "strict" teacher will have something important to say once I'm ready for it.

I think I would be careful as well with any school that tried to discourage me from learning from other Buddhist groups. The teachings of my own school make more sense now that I know where they are coming from.

Cinorjer

ourself said:

This is something I don't really understand. It perplexes me and I find it facinating to think about.

Even within Zen there are different feels from different masters. From Dogen to Hakuin to Thich Nhat Hanh, there are different feels to the dharma they each express.

When I see pictures of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh together, I see two different styles of living the same awakened truth.

You're right. I love the commentaries to the old Koans. Quite often one old Zen Master's comment boils down to, "Oh, that old fart didn't get it right at all!"

Master Seung Sahn was once asked why something he'd said contradicted one of the old Masters and who was right and wrong. He replied, "That was his understanding, this is mine."