Rakshasa wrote:It is generally believed that the Taoists and Tantric Buddhists believe in cultivating both body and mind in their paths towards spiritual cultivation (or even enlightenment) because they are deeply connected, but the general Sutrayana schools (Zen, Pure Land etc) only concentrate on the cultivation of mind.
Just a nitpick: "Sutrayana" of course is not a term used in the schools so-called, and does not accord with the manner in which some of them define themselves. We have to be clear which traditions' triumphalist hierarchies and terminologies we're using.
And it seems all traditions have such hierarchies. Zen, for example, defines itself clearly as a tradition not depending upon sutras, and as an expression of the One Vehicle (Ekayana) which encompasses all the teachings of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana and Mahayana) and transcends them in that it takes direct recognition of one's nature as both its initial gate and path. "Mahayana" here includes Mantrayana (known in Japan via Shingon and Tendai).
The result of this self-view is that sutras certainly may be used in Zen, but so may any other text or method which helps one to recognize one's nature or integrate/embody that recognition as realization. If all the sutras disappeared, Zen would not.
Aside from sutras, Zen practice methodology may primarily be found within written and oral teachings that are passed down within the various teaching lines. In the Japanese Rinzai tradition (the one I'm familiar with), these detail an understanding of practice which encompasses the body and its subtle energetics, and contain many methods for working with the latter. There is also, of course, an emphasis on physical culture as a complementary practice. And monastic training, with its use of form and valuing of physical labor, is far from a solely mental exercise.
The writings of Hakuin and Torei clearly lay out the manner in which the 4 wisdoms and 3 bodies are actualized in Zen, and what "embodiment" means; these may be found in English translation.
Of course if by "Sutrayana" one specifically means that Zen did not historically make use of tantric texts, sure that's fine. But again, Zen would never call itself by this term because it does not reflect Zen's own understanding of its basis or praxis.
So in short: Like Jikan, I know of no Mahayana tradition in which practice is viewed as solely mental in nature. And many traditions like Zen (one may call them Mahayana, or Sutrayana, or whatever one likes) have an understanding that does not fit into the boxes constructed by other traditions.