Not Practice, But Understanding
by Rev. Nobuo Haneda
People usually say that it
is easy to understand but it is difficult to practice. These are words of
secular sentiment. They are words of untruth. The words of truth are quite
opposite: “It is difficult to understand, but it is easy to practice.” If we
can truly understand, then action will naturally follow. Action that is not
based on understanding is simply deluded action. And how can we
“easy-goingly” say that the understanding in “understanding the truth”
is an easy matter? Understanding is indeed difficult. Buddhism as a teaching of
the truth, or as an intellectual religion, maintains the position,
“Understanding is difficult, but practice is easy”... Shinran says that
among the difficult the most difficult is “genuine understanding (shin).”
He talks about “Shin
that is the most difficult (gokunan
Maida, Complete Works, I, pp.
In order to understand this unique feature of Buddhism, that it primarily emphasizes understanding (or wisdom), not practice (or discipline), let us first examine the process by which Shakyamuni attained Awakening.
After several years of ascetic practice--an attempt to eliminate passions through self-discipline--Shakyamuni renounced it. Having left this practice, he started to meditate under a tree. Here it is important to note that simply meditating under a tree was not considered a full-fledged practice in his time. Thus the co-practitioners whom he had left behind mocked him, saying, “Siddhartha has become a backslider and taken to an easier lifestyle.” But it was this meditation, which seemed an idle action to the religious practitioners of his time, that led Shakyamuni to Awakening.
What, then, was the meditation which Shakyamuni took up under a tree and which led him to Awakening? It was “understanding”—understanding of the self. He was desperately asking one question, “What am I?” He wanted to understand the basic nature of the self; because he thought that his ignorance--his lack of understanding--of the self was the basic cause of suffering and that by clearly understanding it, he could eliminate suffering.
In examining the basic nature of the self; he investigated whether there was something permanent in the self After intense introspection he came to the conclusion that all things that made up the self were impermanent. That is, he recognized that not only physical elements such as muscle and blood but also mental elements such as volition and consciousness were constantly moving and changing. He recognized that impermanence was the only absolute reality (or truth) underlying his existence.
In this way he clearly discovered the cause of suffering and the way to eliminate it. He identified ignorance of the self (or misunderstanding of the self as something permanent and substantial) as the cause of suffering. Although the basic nature of the self was impermanence, he was attached to the self; he considered it permanent and desired to maintain it against the truth. Thus friction between his self-attachment and the truth was inevitable. This friction was the suffering he was experiencing.
But when he understood the absoluteness of impermanence, he recognized the mistake in his self-understanding. Now he totally identified with the truth of impermanence and loosened his grip on the self. Then the friction between the self and the truth disappeared. He experienced liberation from suffering.
This insight into the truth of impermanence was the content of Shakyamuni’s Awakening. It was by this insight alone that he became a Buddha.
As soon as he recognized that his entire being was impermanence itself; he identified himself with it. He became the truth and started to live his life as the truth. Here it is important to note that his “understanding the truth (or Awakening)” was simultaneously his “becoming the truth.”
a few words on the meaning of “becoming the truth.” Although “becoming the
truth” may sound like he had just become the truth, that is not the case. Its
true meaning is this:
Shakyamuni, who had always been the truth of impermanence but had not been cognizant of it, became awakened to the fact that he had always been the truth of impermanence. In that sense, he recovered (or discovered) what he really was rather than newly becoming what he had not been before. Thus “becoming the truth” was contained in “understanding the truth.”
In this way his “understanding the truth” contained in itself a total (both mental and physical) transformation of his life. Although “understanding” is usually construed only as mental transformation, his understanding was so thorough that it brought about total transformation of his life. Thus his mental transformation was simultaneously physical transformation.
Hence in Buddhism, “understanding” and “practice” cannot be discussed as two separate issues. Practice, which is usually identified with the physical (or lifestyle) aspects of human life, cannot be discussed in isolation from understanding the truth. Practice is fully contained in understanding the truth.
we attain right understanding, right practice--a lifestyle that is based on the
truth of impermanence--is simultaneously attained. Thus all our efforts in
Buddhism should be focused on gaining right understanding, not on disciplinary
practices. No matter how many disciplinary practices we may take up, they do not
guarantee our attainment of right understanding. But attainment of right
understanding immediately guarantees the attainment of right practice.