Bill and Daniel,
One difference between Zen and Theravada Buddhism:
It appears that the inherent Buddha Nature of all sentient beings is a
basic premise of Zen.
Whereas in Theravada Buddhism, the corresponding premise is that there
exists the potential for all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood.
--ED
From: Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism
Buddha-nature
(Sanskrit, buddhata, buddha-dhatu; Jap., bussho). In early Buddhist
thought, this term referred to the potentiality for becoming a Buddha
<http://www.answers.com/topic/buddha-1> through the traditional methods
of study <http://www.answers.com/topic/buddha-nature#> and religious
practice. Discussion centred on clarifying what kind of beings had this
potential and how it was to be developed.
After the rise of Mahayana Buddhism, some thinkers began to question the
validity of the distinction between practice and enlightenment (bodhi
<http://www.answers.com/topic/bodhi-religion-in-encyclopedia> ), or
between potentiality and attainment, and so Buddha-nature gradually came
to be seen not as a potential, but as the inherent Buddhahood of every
sentient being.
In this setting, the task then was not to achieve Buddhahood, but to
uncover it. For example, the Platform Sûtra of the Sixth Patriarch
<http://www.answers.com/topic/platform-s-tra-of-the-sixth-patriarch>
compares Buddhahood to a full moon covered by clouds. When the clouds
blow away, the moon is revealed. It does not gradually come into being
nor is it constructed. Similarly, each being is already a Buddha, but
this fact is obscured by defilements and impurities. Once these are
removed, one's Buddhahood becomes manifest.
--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
>
> Mayka,
>
> I always used to think 'mindfulness' was the same as 'Buddha Nature',
but after reading a lot of the definitions here I now think it is not.
>
> Your definition is the same, but most of the others are not.
>
> ...Bill!
