Comparing Theravada and Zen

Theravada can claim to be the oldest form of Buddhism. Theravada can also be one of the most “fundamentalist” Buddhist sects with totally different paths for laity and ordained monks and nuns. Theravada in Sri Lanka has recently been influenced by western thoughts and ideas. Theravada holds the Pali Canon to be one and only Canon, unlike Zen which uses Mahayana sutras like the Lotus Sutra. In the book “The Empty Mirror” the Lotus Sutra is one of the Sutras the Japanese monks chant in Chinese. Theravada and Zen both however have Jataka, or stories of the Buddha’s previous births to teach moral lessons. Harvey mentions that Theravadans will use them when ministering to laity and Wetering mentions the Roshi telling them to the laity. The Jataka stories may be slightly different from one another and these differences may reflect differences in philosophy or maybe just cultural differences.

Zen Buddhism emphasizes meditation and innate Buddha nature. The term “Zen” is usually used to distinguish it from Chinese Ch’an. Ch’an itself is a translation of the Sanskrit word “dhyana” which means meditation. So just by looking at its name it is clear to see that Zen emphasizes meditation. The founder of the Ch’an School, Bodhidharma, is said to have cut off his own eyelids so he could meditate in front of a wall without falling asleep. Whether that story is true or not isn’t important but it does demonstrate the importance of meditation to Zen.

Zen was brought to Japan by Eisai and then Zen split into two main schools: Rinzai and Soto. Both schools, pulling from their Mahayana background, stress sudden enlightenment or “kensho” spiritual “ah ha” moments. One may have several kenshos until one finally reaches total enlightenment, or satori. However Bodhidharma also studied and was influenced by Taoism. And because of this Zen also puts a stress on intuition, realizing unity, and spontaneous experiences and reactions. The Taoist leg of Zen is also where a lot of the “beyond logic” ideas come from.

In Zen moments of satori are brought on by meditation. Meditation also plays a huge part in Theravada circles as well. Where Zen emphasizes meditation Theravada offers two general paths for monks to follow: “book-duty” (gantha-dhura) and “insight-duty” (vipassana-dhura). Monks with book-duty tend to live in large cities and monasteries and monks with insight-duty tend to become forest dwellers. One can change focuses thought out one’s life. Zen stresses that enlightenment is beyond all words and scripture and instead focus on seeing one’s innate nature. Theravadans would argue that having an innate nature implies a self, but Zen would argue that the “innate nature” is selflessness.

In both Theravada and Zen concentration meditation and insight meditation are stressed. Both for example, hold sweeping floors to be a very good form of concentration meditation to bring on mindfulness. However the philosophies going into them are slightly different. For a Theravadan sweeping a floor is a great practice in concentrating one thing. The better one gets on concentrating on one thing the easier it is to then make the “next step” to concentrating on zero things. This is also true in Zen but there is an added emphasis on the Madhyamaka idea that Samsara and nirvana are not different from one another. So from that point of view sweeping the floor is an enlightened activity but it is up to the sweeper to wake up and realize it, to have a kensho.

In Theravada there has traditionally had two very different paths for laity and monks and nuns. However this distinction has been breaking down as Theravada has become influenced by outside ideas. In 1815 the British conquered Kandy the capital of Sri Lanka. Theravada Buddhism was disestablished as the main cultural force in Sri Lanka and had to adapt itself to survive. It was during this time that the Pali Canon was translated into English, by English scholar Rhys Davids, and then widely circulated. For the first time Buddhist scriptures were available to the masses and as lay people

become more educated about Buddhism there was a shift in the laities spiritual quest. The line between monk and laity became more and more blurry and the British discouraged monasteries. This was especially true when Anagarika Dharmapala tried to bring meditation to the masses. Dharmapala brought a new meditation lineage to Sri Lanka from Burma. Before Dharmapala bringing Buddhism to the masses like he did there were a lot of Sri Lankan practices such as possession that were more common. Also like almost everywhere Buddhism adopted the local Sri Lankan pantheon and incorporated them into Buddhism. However the Dharmapala movement would distance itself from these “folk beliefs” and try their best to practice “pure Buddhism”.

In Zen meditation can be hard. In Zen practice and meditation are helped by visiting a Roshi, or master. The Roshi has the wisdom (pranyana) and skillful means (upaya) to gauge where people are on their spiritual path and give them advice accordingly. In Rinzai there is a tradition of a Roshi giving his pupils koans to solve. A koan is a nonsensical riddle and the goal of it is to crash the minds logical processes. In the book “The Empty Mirror” the main character goes to a Rinzai school. He tells of his frustrations with the koans and also says that people aren’t encouraged or technically allowed to talk about what koan they’re working on but many people do. The goal is to try to “experience” the answer and move “beyond logical”.

Accepting alms is a major part of all traditions. Harvey says that alms are more popular among Theravadans then Zen monks but Harvey says that Zen trainees will sometimes take alms as part of their training. Wetering specifically mentions some Zen monks that were collecting alms while shouting “HOOO” to get people’s attention. The monks were so caught up and in a daze from shouting “HOOO” that people would have to run to catch up with them to give alms.

Dharmapala tried to establish a new social role in Theravada that would be halfway between a monk and a layperson. He called it an “amagarika” which was a Pali term from wondering homeless person. An amagarika would take all the vinayana vows except the one about handling money. The role of the amagarika never really caught on but ever since then monks all over have become more socially conscious and lay people have made more attempts Nirvana. In Japan about 800 years ago there was a new social role made, that is the role of the priest. A Zen priest can marry and his main function is to minister to lay people and run the in's and out's of small local temples. Zen priest may also lead meditation sessions for his followers.

For both Theravada and Zen the role of a monks is basically the same but also subtly different. In Theravada, for example, once somebody is enlightened and becomes and Arhat they are take out of Samsara. In Zen, like other Mahayana schools, the goal is not to leave Samsara but to help others become enlightened. This is accomplished by taking the Bodhisattva vow, which is where the person simply vows to stay in Samsara until every sentient being is enlightened. Zen and other Mahayana may hold their view is more noble and does the most good, some Theravadas may rebuttal that since all life is suffering the longer they stay in Samsara the ore harm they are doing, despite what their intentions are. Also inside the monastery Theravada stresses the Vinayana more so than Zen does.

As previously mentioned there have been some radical shake-ups about the role of the laity in Theravadan circles recently. Despite that Theravada and Zen are still philosophically different in that in Theravada one works towards enlightenment and in Zen one has to realize that he or she is already enlightened. Also the way one goes about this is different. As mentioned there is more room in Theravada for book study than there is in Zen, but that’s not to say that Zen monks don’t read. Also in Theravada concentration meditation (samatha) and insight meditation (vipassana) are done separately. In Zen they’re combined into one practice called “zazen”.

Zazen is notably different from Theravada practices because, again, there is a stress on “realizing” that one is already enlightened. Just like with the sweeping example, if one is already enlightened one only needs to “wake up” to that fact. However the goal of zazen is not to concentrate on this idea because that would be as futile and as pointless as pointing out that the sky is blue and would may also misplace the persons motivations. The goal in zazen is to “just sit”. There is a lot of stress placed on not having any expectations but just sitting. Wetering points out that this is a lot harder than it sounds and details his physical as well as emotional pain that goes along with zazen. Another Zen practice is the use of compassion sticks to hit people that aren’t meditating satisfactorily.

Since the resurgence of the written word and book study in Theravada Buddhism the notion that Zen is in contrast iconoclastic is all the more relevant. Zen has been accused of being iconoclastic because of they don’t stress art and music very much. That’s not to say that they don’t have art though because Watering mentions statues of the founder of the monastery he was staying out as well as a figure of Manjusri in the Meditation Hall.

Both also share similar core philosophies about karma. In the “The Questions of King Milinda” karma is explained as being like a fire, in that it is impersonal but has tangible effects which can be observed. Both Theravada and Zen seem to be ok with this way of looking at Karma. Both also stress the idea of no permeanete self. Besides the fact that Theravada and Zen have some common scripture, they also have related ideas about translations of scripture. In Theravada English translations of the Pali Canon are widely read and studied and in Zen Chinese and Japanese copies of scriptures are also widely read, studied, and chanted.

Theravada is generally accepted to be one of the three vehicles of Buddhism. Zen is one school inside of Mahayana. Zen is one of the more visible and accessible schools of Buddhism in the West but the notion that Buddhism is a “philosophy” and not a “religion” is refrain I’ve personally heard a lot of as well. The notion that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion is a somewhat trivial issue from any “Buddhist point of view” because “Buddhism” like anything else is subject to anatta and any attempt to study and label it ultimately will no be satisfactory. But to apply the term “philosophy” to Buddhism seems even more incorrect than applying the term religion because philosophy means love of wisdom. The goal of accumulating wisdom is a far cry from the Buddhist goal of stopping suffering, and it also would imply that there is a “self” to love the wisdom. This whole debate from a Theravadan and Zen point of view is contrary and against what they’re trying to do. Both schools Theravada and Zen do not claim to be an ultimant truth of reality, they claim that they can end suffering.

Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Zen Buddhism in Japan are both arguably well adjusted to living in a secular society. In Sri Lanka monks and nuns had to give up their central position in society and adjust. They also had to deal with the opening of state schools, so the monistaries were no longer the best way for people to get educated. Zen too survives in a country, Japan, where secularism is high and on the rise. It could be because of this that these two schools of Buddhism have been able to adapt neatly to the West where secularism is also prized. Having the Pali Canon translated into English has also gone a long way to make Theravada Buddhism very visible in the West. The works of monk activist and educators has also exposed the West to Buddhist ideas, especially Zen Buddhism through the works of Thich Nhat Hanh. Theravada Buddhism and Zen Buddhism have both made a last impression on the world.