So, why is this section not under Mahayana?

[Vishvavajra]

Zen is a Mahayana school and doesn't really make sense outside of that context, so why is it placed separately? Is that how the fellow bodhisattvas here would prefer it? If so, why? I'm curious about people's attitudes and didn't see where this had been asked before.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Zen is a Mahayana school and doesn't really make sense outside of that context, so why is it placed separately? Is that how the fellow bodhisattvas here would prefer it? If so, why? I'm curious about people's attitudes and didn't see where this had been asked before.

Would they prefer Zen not to be a Mayahana school by displacing it from that catagory? Probably. Zen has gotten so much bad rep that I don't see people practicing the religion just the meditation. So, maybe they separated it because it doesn't have a extreme dogmatic influence as other sects do.

I don't know. Good question.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Probably because the people who designed the board were Christians or Atheists (together the majority around here) who neither knew nor cared.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yeah, how come the Zennies get preferential treatment?!

I would like my own sub-forum for Spinyana.

 

[von bek]

Fair question. However, Vajrayana could also be placed under Mahayana. There are a couple of different taxonomies of Buddhist traditions that I have seen. As far as separating Zen here on RF, I am fine with it. As you rightly note, Zen is certainly a part of the wider Mahayana tradition. Zen does have a lot of notoriety here in the U.S. and Europe; enough where I can understand why it may have been separated out. I think that the admins anticipated that Zen might receive a lot of attention and spark a lot of threads, so many that it would be best to separate it from Mahayana to give room for people who wanted to talk about Pure Land and Tendai, among other Mahayana traditions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Zen barely qualifies, yet still it originates within Mayahana.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, how come the Zennies get preferential treatment?!

I would like my own sub-forum for Spinyana.

We have all the sticks.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Vajrayana could also be placed under Mahayana.

True, but Vajrayana practitioners also make a big deal about the Tantras' being an additional layer of revelation beyond the Mahayana, creating a tripartite structure. You don't see anything like that with the Chan tradition.

It may be that they didn't want the Zen traffic to drown out other Mahayana talk. But outside of Japan, Zen, like Pure Land, is more of a practice than a sect. Most people do both to some extent. Of course, that doesn't stop Zen from being a hip thing on its own here in the States and in similar places, so there might well be twice the traffic of the other Mahayana schools. I haven't been here long enough to notice.

Zen barely qualifies, yet still it originates within Mayahana.

What do you mean by "barely qualifies"?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Of course, there is a separation between Zen as a school of Buddhism and Za-zen as a meditation technique. I believe that in Japan there is a rule that there are no Buddhist ceremonies conducted in the meditation hall, nor are there any religious symbols. I have an old book on the subject written by a Jesuit priest who settled in Japan. He wrote that when he went for training, the monk told him that practicing Za-sen would help him get a better understanding of Christianity and that, to his surprise, turned out to be the case.

 

[von bek]

True, but Vajrayana practitioners also make a big deal about the Tantras' being an additional layer of revelation beyond the Mahayana, creating a tripartite structure. You don't see anything like that with the Chan tradition.

It may be that they didn't want the Zen traffic to drown out other Mahayana talk. But outside of Japan, Zen, like Pure Land, is more of a practice than a sect. Most people do both to some extent. Of course, that doesn't stop Zen from being a hip thing on its own here in the States and in similar places, so there might well be twice the traffic of the other Mahayana schools. I haven't been here long enough to notice.

Interestingly, Shambhala Publications, which puts out quite a number of Buddhist texts and books, has a dictionary of Buddhist terms called, The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. The people who put that dictionary out are not new to Buddhism, they seem to think that there is enough of an interest in Zen specifically, alongside the fact that Zen Buddhism has its own nomenclature, to warrant its special mention on the cover and in the contents.

 

[von bek]

Here is a link to the dictionary I referred to above: Amazon.com: A Concise Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen (9781590308080): Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Michael S. Diener, Michael H. Kohn: Books

It appears to have been republished under a slightly different title. Now it is the Concise Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. I have a copy of this book, under its original title, on a shelf behind where I'm sitting. It is a nice resource.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you mean by "barely qualifies"?

My answer is for which you raised the question concerning my statement, would suffice.

Shunryu Suzuki would elaborate Zen as formal practice, informal mind.

I prefer Zen*******'s

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course, there is a separation between Zen as a school of Buddhism and Za-zen as a meditation technique. I believe that in Japan there is a rule that there are no Buddhist ceremonies conducted in the meditation hall, nor are there any religious symbols. I have an old book on the subject written by a Jesuit priest who settled in Japan. He wrote that when he went for training, the monk told him that practicing Za-sen would help him get a better understanding of Christianity and that, to his surprise, turned out to be the case.

??

 

[Vishvavajra]

My answer is for which you raised the question concerning my statement, would suffice.

Shunryu Suzuki would elaborate Zen as formal practice, informal mind.

I prefer Zen*******'s

I haven't got a clue what you're saying, sorry.

Of course, there is a separation between Zen as a school of Buddhism and Za-zen as a meditation technique. I believe that in Japan there is a rule that there are no Buddhist ceremonies conducted in the meditation hall, nor are there any religious symbols. I have an old book on the subject written by a Jesuit priest who settled in Japan. He wrote that when he went for training, the monk told him that practicing Za-sen would help him get a better understanding of Christianity and that, to his surprise, turned out to be the case.

There will normally be an altar with a Buddha image in the meditation hall, either Shakyamuni or Manjushri. But it's true the main ritual hall will be separate if possible.

As for the rest, yes. Zen is a practice that anyone can do. Our teacher, when he was recommending that people take part in a refuge ceremony that the visiting abbot of Dharma Drum would be performing, said that even Christians should feel free to do it, since becoming a Buddhist would make you a better Christian. I didn't understand at the time and even thought it sounded wrong, but now I think I get it, and it's true. It's not just the meditation, since that's just part of the holistic package, but the meditation is a gateway for a lot of people, including Christians and Jews. Then their view of their original religious tradition will probably shift and grow more nuanced, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (although some of their co-religionists may not accept it).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I haven't got a clue what you're saying, sorry.

It's perfectly fine. It's not actually anything significant anyways.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not sure completely how formality applies in Japanese Zen temples however sarei is held daily in the zendo with the tea ceremony within various sanghas while others do not.

I would certainly have loved to attend even briefly in a traditional setting over there.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

??

WTF?

 

[crossfire]

True, but Vajrayana practitioners also make a big deal about the Tantras' being an additional layer of revelation beyond the Mahayana, creating a tripartite structure. You don't see anything like that with the Chan tradition.

It may be that they didn't want the Zen traffic to drown out other Mahayana talk. But outside of Japan, Zen, like Pure Land, is more of a practice than a sect. Most people do both to some extent. Of course, that doesn't stop Zen from being a hip thing on its own here in the States and in similar places, so there might well be twice the traffic of the other Mahayana schools. I haven't been here long enough to notice.


What do you mean by "barely qualifies"?

***Sets Vishvavajra's meditation mat down facing the blank wall and invites hir in for a meditation session***

 

[crossfire]

We have all the sticks.

We have the sticks, and the instruction that if we meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. (That is why we are isolated. )

 

[Kartari]

I cannot say why Zen was specifically isolated. But in truth, fitting a number of Buddhist traditions into one vehicle of Buddhism is not always so easy. I'm not sure if any particular Buddhist school can be said to be 100% of one or the other vehicle. The lines tend to blur, and Zen is no exception.

For instance, in an attempt to reform Japanese Buddhism, Eisai (founder of Rinzai Zen) sought to combat the lax standards of Buddhist vows in his time by instituting the strict avowal of both Theravadan and Mahayanist monastic precepts for his disciples. More specifically, these were the Vinaya-Pitaka vows of Theravada and the Boddhisattva vows of Mahayana. He himself avowed to uphold both sets of vows, as did Dogen (founder of Soto Zen), while training in China under Chan Buddhist masters.