DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - How does Theravada Buddhism differ from other Schools in Buddhism?

**Keeriewof** · 07-29-2012, 10:27 AM

Just out of interest, this Soto Zen temple in France describes itself as Mahayana:

The term "Buddha Nature" is definately a Mahayana concept/core belief.

Here it is mentioned on a Soto Zen site in the UK:

'Buddha Nature' is also mentioned here:

with kind wishes,

Aloka

OK, lets say ‘some’ schools…

For zenners, at least in my experience, Buddha Nature is nothing more than just the possibility of achieving 'awakening' and not a kind of metaphysical substance in the being.

Even when some schools have declared themselves as Mahayana, this is doubtful because when it comes to practice, the focus of Zen in general, and Soto in particular, is about here and know. Many Soto teachers refuse to accept rebirth as an important believe and the emphasis in the here and know and a dispassionate mental state is its core practice and almost its goal.

The other believe of Mahayana is that of a savior… but when it comes to practice the concept is centered in the teaching shown to the student only as an act of compassion where the idea of a savior of Mankind is neither real nor practical for Zen purposes

Worshiping of a guru –another important feature of Mahayana- is against the way of teaching the Dharama. In memoir of Jikai Danin Katagiri from a student of him:

"My basic memory of Katagiri is of how he paid total attention to what was in front of him. He took care of each thing as if it were the most important thing in the world, whether it was throwing away some trash or talking to another person. He really listened and tried to give the best answer he knew how to give. He also encouraged each of us to stand up in our own space, following our own wisdom rather than depending on him for answers or affirmation. I would sometimes tell him exactly what I thought about some idea he had, only to turn and see him smiling broadly at me, glad that I wasn't buying into his agenda."[8]

Dainin_Katagiri
From this same lineage we have Steve Hagen that is against ‘trash thoughts’ as those that are not concerned with the here and know.

His book ‘Buddhism Plain and Simple’ is an excellent example of this kind of approach.

Taisan Maetzumi, the founder of many Soto schools in America, stated:

"I encourage you. Please enjoy this wonderful life together. Appreciate the world just this! There is nothing extra. Genuinely appreciate your life as the most precious treasure and take good care of it."[16]

Taizan_Maezumi
His lineage, Baian Hakujun Dai Osho, has spread a huge number of schools around the world.

Sorry that I can't give more reliable links because most of this ideas are from personal notes from some Teishos I attended. And this conclusions are from the way we practices during several seshins that I attended too. I have the impression that this bent is from Japanise traditions and maybe it is very different for the Cha'an. But I don't know this.

But I can be misguided,

07-29-2012, 10:27 AM	#9
Keeriewof Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 465 Senior Member	Just out of interest, this Soto Zen temple in France describes itself as Mahayana: The term "Buddha Nature" is definately a Mahayana concept/core belief. Here it is mentioned on a Soto Zen site in the UK: 'Buddha Nature' is also mentioned here: with kind wishes, Aloka OK, lets say ‘some’ schools… For zenners, at least in my experience, Buddha Nature is nothing more than just the possibility of achieving 'awakening' and not a kind of metaphysical substance in the being. Even when some schools have declared themselves as Mahayana, this is doubtful because when it comes to practice, the focus of Zen in general, and Soto in particular, is about here and know. Many Soto teachers refuse to accept rebirth as an important believe and the emphasis in the here and know and a dispassionate mental state is its core practice and almost its goal. The other believe of Mahayana is that of a savior… but when it comes to practice the concept is centered in the teaching shown to the student only as an act of compassion where the idea of a savior of Mankind is neither real nor practical for Zen purposes Worshiping of a guru –another important feature of Mahayana- is against the way of teaching the Dharama. In memoir of Jikai Danin Katagiri from a student of him: "My basic memory of Katagiri is of how he paid total attention to what was in front of him. He took care of each thing as if it were the most important thing in the world, whether it was throwing away some trash or talking to another person. He really listened and tried to give the best answer he knew how to give. He also encouraged each of us to stand up in our own space, following our own wisdom rather than depending on him for answers or affirmation. I would sometimes tell him exactly what I thought about some idea he had, only to turn and see him smiling broadly at me, glad that I wasn't buying into his agenda."[8] Dainin_Katagiri From this same lineage we have Steve Hagen that is against ‘trash thoughts’ as those that are not concerned with the here and know. His book ‘Buddhism Plain and Simple’ is an excellent example of this kind of approach. Taisan Maetzumi, the founder of many Soto schools in America, stated: "I encourage you. Please enjoy this wonderful life together. Appreciate the world just this! There is nothing extra. Genuinely appreciate your life as the most precious treasure and take good care of it."[16] Taizan_Maezumi His lineage, Baian Hakujun Dai Osho, has spread a huge number of schools around the world. Sorry that I can't give more reliable links because most of this ideas are from personal notes from some Teishos I attended. And this conclusions are from the way we practices during several seshins that I attended too. I have the impression that this bent is from Japanise traditions and maybe it is very different for the Cha'an. But I don't know this. But I can be misguided,
	Quote