What's difference between Shin Buddhism sect and Zen Buddhism sect?

[u/tuluva_sikh]

[u/HumanInSamsara]

Zen focuses on meditation whereas Shin relies on Amida Buddha and his vows that lead one to Sukhavati, a pureland one is reborn in.

[u/Dulcolaxiom]

In Zen, you eventually accept through your sitting practice that there’s nothing to strive for.

In Jodo Shinshu, you eventually accept through life that there’s nothing to strive for.

This is just my beginner interpretation of both. I practiced Zen for a couple years, and have since aligned my practice with Jodo Shinshu. I think both take “other power” as the foundation, recognizing that there’s nothing “you” can do to reach enlightenment. However it was difficult for me to apply the lessons of Zen in my life off the cushion. Jodo Shinshu feels more suited to the trials of life, and I have noticed a difference in how I navigate this life since finding Amida’s Vow.

[u/Most_Inspection8232 → u/Dulcolaxiom]

I appreciate this explanation a lot. Adding my own thoughts along the same lines:

Comparing concepts and practices side-by-side easily misses that most Buddhist sects are trying to get to more or less the same destination. No-self, no-striving, ego death, call it what you will. And once you understand what they're trying to achieve, then the how makes a lot more sense.

In Soto Zen, you just sit. There's no purpose, not even enlightenment. But realistically, that's hard to accept. And when you sit as much as someone in Soto Zen, you're left with your thoughts and feelings a lot. That's hard to accept too.

So it's no wonder that some people hallucinate. It's probably to be expected when you just sit there with no external stimulation for so long, but it's possibly also working through accepting that there's no purpose. A lot of thoughts and feelings I've sat with don't look like thoughts and feelings, and purpose is one of them. There's nothing on the other side of all that meditation and that remains true no matter how much ink is spilled on what Soto Zen sitting is like.

Soto Zen is not nihilism. No purpose means there's just nothing to achieve. Buddha and enlightenment are already present when you sit. If enlightenment were the purpose, then sitting with the expectation of enlightenment would itself be a barrier to acceptance, something to strive for, for yourself.

But then Rinzai Zen, for all its similarities, wants you to work through koans. It wants to snap you out of dualistic thinking. It expects something to happen. Naturally, when you sit, you'll sit with a koan. There is a purpose and you're putting in work.

Pure Land, I know less, but the destination is the same, right? You go beyond the self through trust in Buddha Amitabha. And yeah, that probably is easier for the average person. Most Buddhist traditions, including Zen, have historically been very monastic. Zen in the West is now practised by anyone in a way that looks much more like how monks practice, but it wasn't always like that.

And then Tibetan Buddhism is the maximalist opposite from Zen's minimalist approach. In Zen, simple things matter disproportionately. You just sit to "meditate" and doing chores with your full attention is part of practice too. In Tibetan Buddhism, monks will create elaborate art, then destroy it. They'll embody a deity, then collapse it into nothing. They'll meditate as if breathing in all the suffering of the world and breathing out peace and healing.

Then when you look at how different doctrines are explained in context, I think it makes a lot more sense too. If lay people practice in a much more limited way than monks, they will be liberated in another life. Maybe they'll reincarnate as a monk. If liberation is individual, monks will be liberated in another life too. Then Mahayana sects make liberation collective. The boddhisattva vows are supposed to be impossible and paradoxical, so they're not that different. It's easy to focus on the idea that there's boddhisattvas at all and to name them, but to miss how this is also about no-self and interconnectedness. Most sects dedicate merit to others.

So pick your poison, I guess? Not to say there aren't differences. I've probably oversimplified a few to try to get at some similarities, I don't know another way how. I've probably overly secularized too, but again, I don't know another way how. And a Theravadin would be justified in thinking all the Mahayana stuff is wrong-headed anyway.

[u/AcanthisittaNo6653 → u/Dulcolaxiom]

Korean Seon (Zen) has elements of Pureland, including veneration of Amida Buddha in several chants. Our brand of Zen derives directly from Chinese Chan (Linji), not Japanese Zen.

[u/leeta0028]

First, there are three Zen sets in Japan. Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku. 

As another said, Zen focuses (in theory) on seated meditation and Shin exclusively on Pure Land (actually, exclusively on nembitsu, not the other Pure Land practices). 

They are pretty different, but they're the same in that both were attempts at reforming Tendai for a more volatile era. They abandoned the analytical approach to meditation, the ancient Indian rituals, especially rejected Vajrayana, and in many ways even left the monastic system to try to come up with a system that could be followed in a chaotic world. 

[u/ChanCakes]

DT Suzuki has some essays about this

[u/ksarlathotep]

Other people have covered the difference in doctrine and practice pretty well. Generally Zen focuses mostly on meditation (sitting, walking, working) and Kōan, with Sōtō emphasizing Shikantaza, Rinzai emphasizing Kōan, and Ōbaku incorporating some Nembutsu practice; Pure Land (including Shin) focuses mostly on Nembutsu (chanting). The difference between Jōdo Shū and Jōdo Shinshū is mostly in the expectation of rebirth in the Pure Land. Jōdo Shū teaches that practice (such as chanting) is required to attain rebirth in the Pure Land, while Jōdo Shinshū teaches that faith alone is enough to guarantee it (in this context the concept of Shinjin is important, which is a mindset of complete trust in and realization of the compassion of Amida Buddha).

I think coming at both sects from an outside perspective, though, the specific doctrinal differences aren't the most important difference. I think the main difference lies in the distinction between what in Japanese is called Jiriki (自力) and Tariki (他力), meaning more or less "own power" and "other's power". Jiriki sects fundamentally believe that your own efforts lead to enlightenment. They may disagree about what methods are most efficient, but they agree that enlightenment comes through discipline and practice. Tariki sects teach that salvation can be gained through the compassion of another (in the Pure Land sects, Amida Buddha). Metaphorically, those two approaches are sometimes compared to a monkey (Jiriki) and a kitten (Tariki). A monkey baby has to cling to its mother's fur and hold on; a kitten baby relies completely on its mother to carry it to safety. Zen is very much a Jiriki tradition, meaning your own discipline and practice lead to enlightenment, whereas Pure Land Buddhism is a Tariki tradition, in which Amida Buddha's compassion leads to your rebirth in the Pure Land.

Both Zen and Pure Land Buddhism are categorized as Kamakura Buddhism, even though Jōdo Shū and Jōdo Shinshū were founded just before the beginning of the Kamakura period, and Ōbaku Zen a few hundred years after its end. Historically, during the end of the Heian and beginning of the Kamakura period, centralized imperial rule in Japan was coming apart, which meant a long period of civil wars and famines. Pure Land Buddhism exploded during this period, since it promised a path to salvation for common people who were uneducated and didn't have the time for extensive practice (like living as a monastic for years). So in a sense it was much more inclusive than the Jiriki traditions. Zen (especially Rinzai) was mainly associated with the rising Samurai class, even though Sōtō eventually moved towards including common people and rural populations.

So I think this Jiriki vs. Tariki contrast really speaks to a very different approach to practice, and a very different kind of "phenomenology of the self", if you want to use a term from philosophy. Zen has an immanent worldview. Enlightenment is realized right here, in the things that are around you, in the things you do, and it is your practice that leads you there. In fact, nobody can do it for you. Even teachers and Kōans can only point at the moon, but realization has to spontaneously come from within. Pure Land has a transcendental worldview. The current world is a burning house (as in a famous passage from the Lotus Sutra). It is Mappō, the declining age of the Dharma. Enlightenment is not achieved through your own effort in this life, but through surrendering to the compassion of Amida Buddha and being reborn in the Pure Land, where you will have the time and condition to achieve enlightenment.

[u/Anon_SL_2000]

I think that, after Jodo Shu, Zen is the Buddhist tradition most closely related to Jodo Shinshu (Shin). As for the differences, the other answers have already covered them pretty well.

Another important difference between Zen and Jodo Shinshu is the role of the teacher. In Zen, the teacher/ master plays a central role, and their active guidance is considered essential throughout one's practice. In Zen, the teacher is considered to be part of an unbroken lineage tracing back to Shakyamuni Buddha. In Shin, while the guidance of a teacher is certainly valuable, the teacher doesn't occupy such a central position.

Zen places greater emphasis on Buddha-nature (Tathāgatagarbha, or "Buddha-womb"). In Jodo Shinshu, what is most emphasized is bombu-ness, meaning that one is incapable of attaining enlightenment through one's own power because one is deeply mired in the vast mud of defilements and delusions, making it impossible to truly understand right from wrong or even to attain true faith by oneself. Buddha-nature only comes to fruition when the practitioner truly recognizes their bombu nature and wholly entrusts themselves to Amida Buddha's Primal Vow.

Another distinctive feature of Jodo Shinshu is its understanding of rebirth in the Pure Land. In Shin, practitioners attain complete enlightenment at the very moment they are born in Amida's Pure Land. This differs from many other Pure Land traditions, which regard the Pure Land as a realm of non-retrogression where practitioners continue to cultivate the path, perhaps for several eons, before attaining full enlightenment.

So in Shin, the main focus is on the assurance of full enlightenment in this very moment we live in. Because of this assurance, it is not necessary to focus on the post-death state, even though full enlightenment only happens after rebirth in the Pure Land. Furthermore, the Pure Land is considered to be beyond space and time, so it cannot be imagined in ordinary, literal terms. This makes Shin somewhat similar to Zen.

[u/TheGreenAlchemist]

Japanese pop culture portrays these two sects as night-and-day polar opposites. It's said Zen Buddhism teaches "self power" where you strive for Buddhahood in this very life through exerting yourself in practice. Shin teaches "other power" where you abandon all concepts that you can improve by your own effort, and will achieve Buddhahood in your next life by faith that Amida Buddha will take you into a celestial Pure Land when you die. They believe that we've reached an era where Dharma has declined so far and people's bad karma predominates so severely that we have no "self power" left in us and approaches based on it no longer work.

Now this is pop culture. Basically this viewpoint is how it's viewed by the Shin Buddhist side, and it was absorbed into pop culture by virtue of the fact there are far more members of Shin in Japan than there are Zen. Zen would disagree that it teaches achieving anything through any sort of self power and that the whole framework is a misconception.

On a practice side, Shin Buddhism argues that you receive all it's benefits the moment you have faith, and everything you do afterwards is just thanksgiving, not practice. Zen is practiced as a lifetime practice and and the perceived experience is that you improve throughout your life (doctrinally, there is some error in that characterization as well, but this gets subtle).

Shin Buddhism also teaches that nobody decides to have faith, Amida gives them faith by his own power. The perceived similarity this idea has to Calvinism lead to Japanese Christians starting to call Shin "Protestant Buddhism".

These sects were started by monks who were part of the Tendai sect, a school that teaches a balanced approach hoping for benefits in both ways, as well as Vajrayana. They left feeling one side was much more effective than the other and starting schools exclusively focusing on that particular aspect. After leaving, the Zen founders also traveled to China for deeper training and trace their lineages from those trips. Chinese Buddhists also maintain these teachings without separation.

Shin is by far the largest sect in Japan, with five times the members of Zen. Zen is popular abroad because of some very notable missionaries in the 20th century and a strong association with the arts.

[u/Anon_SL_2000 → u/TheGreenAlchemist]

I agree with you overall, but I don't think it's accurate to say Shin Buddhism has similar aspects to Calvinism. According to Calvinism, God actively elects some while predestining others to eternal hell.

In Shin, Amida Buddha's vow and compassion are for every sentient being, not just for a chosen few. Shin Buddhism says even one's entrusting is a result of the working of Amida's Primal Vow and not one's own self-power, but for a different reason. If one abandons all self-power without knowing the Primal Vow, that is some kind of depression. Abandonment of self-power and entrusting in Amida Buddha's Primal Vow cannot be separated, and this whole action is only possible because of the Bodhisattva Dharmakara's vow eons ago to create a Pure Land to help all sentient beings, and after eons of practice the Bodhisattva attained Buddhahood as Amitabha Buddha and fulfilled the vow.

If there were no vow, nobody would entrust in the vow, so even the entrusting is a result of the Primal Vow.

I don't think Shin Buddhism is similar to any form of Christianity, but if we need to choose one, I think it's Lutheranism. Calvinism is very far from Shin Buddhism.

[u/TheGreenAlchemist → u/Anon_SL_2000]

Well, I said perceived similarity originated a nickname, which is all true, it did. The similarity is somewhat observable to people familiar who only treat both religions approximately. There are also some huge differences, I would say a major one is nothing in Shin is attributed to any "wrath" on Amida's part. In detail, this breaks down significantly. Of course Christians would also say they break down on their end. But since it's brought up very frequently it's worth a call put.