how does zen differ from theravada?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by daverupa »

I'll just set this down here...
SN 54.6 wrote:"Having abandoned sensual desire for past sensual pleasures, lord, having done away with sensual desire for future sensual pleasures, and having thoroughly subdued perceptions of irritation with regard to internal & external events, I breathe in mindfully and breathe out mindfully."

"There is that mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, Arittha. I don't say that there isn't. But as to how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is brought in detail to its culmination, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by alan... »

Raitanator wrote:I believe that in Theravada Prajnaparamita-sutra is not used as one of the main authorities for the meditation? Please correct if I am wrong.

:stirthepot:
prajnaparamita is mahayana i believe, not in the pali canon. the pali canon is the theravada authority on meditation, they also use the commentaries as an authority but the canon comes first.

prajnaparamita is an authority in zen. the heart sutra is the most common zen sutra and is prajnaparamita.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by alan... »

Dan74 wrote:
Words and descriptions don't get close
theravada can easily be described by using suttas, modern practitioners books, commentary, and so on. but when it comes to zen people always say this. why is that? something to do with that old zen saying perhaps?:

"A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence on words and letters;
Direct pointing to the mind of man;
Seeing into one's nature and attaining Buddhahood."

whereas theravada is a progressive step by step teaching laid out in the suttas and elaborated on in the commentary and by later teachers, zen can only be transmitted from master to student by direct interaction?

i'm inclined to believe it but i don't understand it. trying to learn zen from a temple i found myself dragging. a lot. but i had full and complete faith that the monks and nuns there were getting somewhere with their practice. my final conclusion on zen is that one must have a TON of direct face to face teaching with a zen master to get anywhere, which is in accord with the whole attitude where it can't be described or learned from books, it must be learned from direct transmission and all that. i never was able to get enough time at the temple (once every six months or so, the retreats i attended were mostly not in english since it was just me and monks/nuns and maybe one or two other english speakers) and my teacher had a lot of students so my interviews with him were always short and muffled by his thick accent. however i'm fully confident he had mastered zen, it radiates from the guy and his dharma talks show a deep understanding. i just think it's not something one could learn without spending months of daily practice and interviews with a master or it might even require living in the temple.

Dan74 wrote:Nature and any sort of oneness are not what it's really about.
this is up for debate based on who taught a practitioner or master, their own interpretation of zen, their own experience, and so on and so on. one zen master may say this is what it's about, another will say otherwise and the vast majority will be so vague in their description that it could very well be this or something different. zen is so dependent on each individual masters ideas that there is no way to make a statement like that and be 100% accurate. as you said, "words and descriptions don't get close". so from that standpoint, saying "it is about oneness and nature" is incorrect and saying "that's not really what it's about" is equally incorrect, if words don't describe it, any textual description is automatically incorrect. whereas in theravada if someone says that all we have to do is look to the pali canon and decide whether or not that fits in with the buddhas descriptions of nibbana, it doesn't, so we can say that's not what it's really about with a fair amount of confidence.

zen has made itself so independent from other schools, certainly from any texts, vague and yet dependent on each individual master that it evades any kind of pinning down of it's definition and so everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

the only real way to speak with 100% accuracy is to talk about only one masters school. so one could fairly easily discuss dogens zen or another well defined and well written master, and back up discussion points with references from their written works or later disciples works but trying to just discuss "zen" in absolutes doesn't really work. from that perspective certainly you are correct and know what you're talking about, what school do you practice?
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by m0rl0ck »

I think the biggest difference is that zen is right and theravada is wrong. The biggest similiarity being that they both have an "e" in them.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by Raitanator »

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already: Zen also has teachings from second turning of wheel, and some of the third. While Theravada doesn't have. Hence, Zen, like any other mahayana-school, has the burden of proving themselves to be an authentic buddhist school. Theravada doesn't have to do that. In zen, Sutra is the main authority also, because of mahayana. Dogen didn't invent his stuff out of thin air.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by alan... »

m0rl0ck wrote:I think the biggest difference is that zen is right and theravada is wrong. The biggest similiarity being that they both have an "e" in them.
Image
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by Raitanator »

2/5 troll, because it got three replies.
Last edited by Raitanator on Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by christopher::: »

Hi everyone.
daverupa wrote:I'll just set this down here...
SN 54.6 wrote:"Having abandoned sensual desire for past sensual pleasures, lord, having done away with sensual desire for future sensual pleasures, and having thoroughly subdued perceptions of irritation with regard to internal & external events, I breathe in mindfully and breathe out mindfully."

"There is that mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, Arittha. I don't say that there isn't. But as to how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is brought in detail to its culmination, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."
Many interesting observations but this jumped out for me right away as a possible key "difference." The sense I get is that the part in bold is considered an essential prerequisite or foundation for successful practice, in Theravada. But not so in Zen. It may be that the two systems were closer hundreds of years ago, or that in formal settings (such as a Zen training monastery) the approach is similar.

I don't know.

:juggling:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by alan... »

christopher::: wrote:Hi everyone.
daverupa wrote:I'll just set this down here...
SN 54.6 wrote:"Having abandoned sensual desire for past sensual pleasures, lord, having done away with sensual desire for future sensual pleasures, and having thoroughly subdued perceptions of irritation with regard to internal & external events, I breathe in mindfully and breathe out mindfully."

"There is that mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, Arittha. I don't say that there isn't. But as to how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is brought in detail to its culmination, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."
Many interesting observations but this jumped out for me right away as a possible key "difference." The sense I get is that the part in bold is considered an essential prerequisite or foundation for successful practice, in Theravada. But not so in Zen. It may be that the two systems were closer hundreds of years ago, or that in formal settings (such as a Zen training monastery) the approach is similar.

I don't know.

:juggling:

so you mean that these instructions being very in depth about desire and what not and the zen idea of, as Dan74 put it, "what arises, arises" are different in this way?
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by christopher::: »

alan... wrote:
so you mean that these instructions being very in depth about desire and what not and the zen idea of, as Dan74 put it, "what arises, arises" are different in this way?
Maybe :tongue:

I'm not really sure, as I have not practiced either Theravada or Zen formally with a teacher or sangha. But what I've noticed over the years (from talking with people in both groups) is that for those practicing Theravada the path seems very clear. Buddha laid out the instructions, you follow the instructions, find others (sangha and/or teacher) to support, guide and encourage you, and positive results unfold gradually over time.

With Zen the path seems less clear. Most Zen Buddhists believe a teacher is needed, that much about the path and practice cannot be communicated with words and descriptions, you need to be in close proximity of someone who has mastered Zen. But then some discover this doesn't work, in practice, all the time. The Western Zen community is going thru a bit of a "crisis" right now, with revelations of sexual misconduct by a number of respected Zen teachers.

How could this happen? I think its in part this belief that the path is not easily described, putting too much faith in teachers. Also a lack of emphasis on ethics and moral conduct (sīla), especially in Japanese Zen. Which I think is initially seen as something positive by many drawn to Zen, but then eventually leads to these incidents.

But I'm not sure. It's just something I've observed from a distance, and a problem I've wrestled with as well. Dan probably has a better understanding of this as he has been fortunate to have a Zen teacher who does emphasize sīla. For Zen teachers who have truly mastered the Dharma and recognize how essential each component is they probably provide assistance (and have an understanding of the path) that is closer to what Theravada provides.

Again, just my perspective.

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by Ben »

Thanks, Chris!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by christopher::: »

You're most welcome Ben.

We live in a very interesting time. The Dhamma teachings have only crossed over from East to West in a large scale way recently. Perhaps mirroring of the technological & economical influences crossing from West to East at the same time. The Asian cultures have been transformed by that, the transformation of our cultures is less clear, smaller scale perhaps?

Unfortunately the economic and technological advances haven't decreased suffering. So lets hope the positive influence of the Dhamma continues to spread and deepen.

:group:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by mikenz66 »

christopher::: wrote:Perhaps mirroring of the technological & economical influences crossing from West to East at the same time.
Exchange of technology in both directions has been going on for many centuries, maybe millennia. Just one example is the history of ceramics, which involved transfer in both directions.

It seems that the east-west religion transfer lagged far behind the west-east by almost a millennium (possibly because Islam and Christianity are a lot more vocal about selling themselves...).

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Mike,

Yes, good point about the technology exchanges going on for centuries. Though I think the transformations brought by Western culture and technology since the late 1800s is unlike anything that ever happened before. The "landscape" of people's lives - with phones, refridgerators, electricity, television, cars, planes, factories, movies, etc is almost identical from country to country where the influence was eagerly accepted.

And yes, the religion transfer lagged far behind... Though is that because Islam and Christianity were more vocal or more :quote: aggressive?

:guns: :stirthepot: :jedi:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: how does zen differ from theravada?

Post by christopher::: »

P.S. I apologize to everyone for going :offtopic:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Post Reply