What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post Reply
Snowbeast
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:26 am

What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by Snowbeast »

(I hope you don't mind but this was originally posted on the the Jodo Shu google group, I was thinking I could find a good answer here) I am wondering what school Jodo Shu is closest to in terms of Buddhist Philosophy? What school (Non Jodo or pure land) has the closest similarities on views of things like emptiness ect. I would like to supplement my Buddhist studies with a school that goes a little deeper on the philosophical side of things but still stay relatively close to Jodo Shu. Would I be correct in saying it is probably Tiantai/Tendai, only because that is what Honen studied? What about Hua Yan or the Tibetan Schools?
User avatar
cj39
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 8:26 pm

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by cj39 »

My first thought is the Avatamsaka school at least as it is practiced in Korea. In Japan it is called Kegon. I don't know much about it there.
Sentient Light
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by Sentient Light »

As it currently stands in mainland East Asia, there is basically one big doctrinal 'school' with tons of individual practice lineages to pick and choose from, and they are generally seen as not mutually exclusive. Some have said that my descriptions of the Vietnamese tradition sound like what Tendai attempts to achieve, and I think that Tendai is probably the closest Japanese school to mainland practice. But basically, the broader East Asian Mahayana framework is the 'school' that all these traditions fall under, and my recommendation is just to study the Mahayana as a whole.

But if you're going to stick to Japanese traditions, yeah, Tendai is probably where you want to look.
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by Zhen Li »

Sentient Light wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:47 pm As it currently stands in mainland East Asia, there is basically one big doctrinal 'school' with tons of individual practice lineages to pick and choose from, and they are generally seen as not mutually exclusive. Some have said that my descriptions of the Vietnamese tradition sound like what Tendai attempts to achieve, and I think that Tendai is probably the closest Japanese school to mainland practice. But basically, the broader East Asian Mahayana framework is the 'school' that all these traditions fall under, and my recommendation is just to study the Mahayana as a whole.

But if you're going to stick to Japanese traditions, yeah, Tendai is probably where you want to look.
It's hard to find the same kind of esotericism seen in Tendai anywhere in Chinese or Vietnamese practice. The closest is definitely Ōbaku-shū, which was transmitted to Japan in the Ming Dynasty. Their practice of Zen and Pureland is essentially what you see as the mainline Chan approach these days. Even their chanting is close to what you hear in Chinese Buddhism.

If you want to learn what Hōnen would have studied, then Tendai is better than considering Ōbaku-shū or even mainland sects. I know some Tendai monks who aren't that into esotericism, but it's rare.
GrapeLover
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by GrapeLover »

In terms of the Tibetan side, I find Shinran’s deeper views to be very close to a Dzogchen presentation. I know people other than myself who independently transitioned from Shin towards Dzogchen because they wanted the philosophical side to be filled in more. I’m not sure the same sentiments are explicit in Jodo Shu, but Shinran always said he was just loyal to Honen’s teaching.

Kegon/Huayan/Avatamsaka was a very explicit influence on the Yuzu Nembutsu school, and I’ve seen some Yuzu Nembutsu-style sentiments expressed by a Jodo Shu priest.
Fortyeightvows
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:37 am

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by Fortyeightvows »

I know people other than myself who independently transitioned from Shin towards Dzogchen because they wanted the philosophical side to be filled in more.
Hello friend, what do you mean when you say you transitioned?
How is whatever you are doing now different from what you were doing before?
GrapeLover
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am

Re: What school of Buddhism that is not a Pure Land school is closest to Jodo Shu in terms of philosophy and doctrine?

Post by GrapeLover »

Fortyeightvows wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:47 pm
I know people other than myself who independently transitioned from Shin towards Dzogchen because they wanted the philosophical side to be filled in more.
Hello friend, what do you mean when you say you transitioned?
How is whatever you are doing now different from what you were doing before?
Hallo! Firstly it was that my philosophical/intellectual grounding became based in Dzogchen (and Nyingma more broadly). Since then, my practice has basically become Tibetan in form (guru yoga, mantra etc) but I still dedicate the merit towards birth in Sukhavati. I use Tibetan aspiration prayers and so forth. Nembutsu is now more something I do while going about my day.

I think true, true shinjin is basically recognising the nature of mind in Dzogchen terms (but of course on the Dzogchen side they wouldn’t accept that you can do this without transmission etc).

But yeah. I didn’t leave Pure Land behind; it is still my goal. I just personally found that Dzogchen gives me intellectual satisfaction and I’m better at dedicating myself to Tibetan-style practice. I still think that, for example, Jodo Shu or Shinshu are perfectly complete in themselves. Ironically I’m probably just too low capacity to be satisfied by the single practice.
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”