Favorite Answer

I've practiced Zen Buddhism for over 20 years and have trained in additional Mahayana and Theravada traditions, as well. Based on this experience, Houston Smith's description of Mahayana Buddhism betrays a misunderstanding that may stem from an unseen Christian Bias. (I say this, knowing that Smith is a highly respected, thoughtful scholar. However, he had no practical experience in Buddhist training.)

The Mahayana tradition is a more diverse and syncretic tradition than the Theravada tradition. It contains a disparate collection of teachings and techniques, from the highly analytical practices of Tibetan Buddhism, to the faith based teachings of Pure Land Buddhism (which Smith seems to think represents all of Mahayana), to the straight-forward "just sit" approach of Zen.

These diverse schools are not tied together by practices and approaches. Rather, they are unified in the *intent* behind each school's teaching.

To simplify a bit, in the Theravada tradition, the *intent* of practice is to gain personal liberation from samsara.

In the Mahayana tradition, the *intent* of practice is to help all beings gain liberation from samsara.

Again, to simplify, Theravada means: "how can I become free of suffering?," while Mahayana means: "how can I help you become free of suffering?"

This intent supports all Zen training, just as it does in Pure Land, Vajrayana and other Mahayana schools.

The various Zen traditions (Chinese Chan, Korean Seon, Japanese Soto, Japanese Rinzai, Vietnamese Thien) themselves vary somewhat in teaching and training styles. But they all share the same intent: "How can I help you?"