Buddhism is neither Method nor Philosophy

There is the belief that Buddhism is a method, a technique, a practical teaching that can be used for one's benefit in this life, in everyday matters, in stress reduction and other psychological matters. The traditional materialisation of that attitude is in ritual activities like offering incense and prayers. The modern form is meditation. The other approach is that of those who study Buddhism as a matter of scholarly investigation or as an exotic philosophy.

The common element in both is that neither practice nor study has a personal importance for the individual, the Dharma is no different from a tool one can use for a while and then discard it. It is not integrated as the guide of one's actions. Therefore such people do not take refuge in the Triple Jewel. They grasp at the outer forms without understanding the real value of the teachings.

Let me use here as examples zazen and nenbutsu. Zazen literally means seated meditation, and nenbutsu is buddha remembrance. Both terms are as old as Buddhism itself. Originally zazen referred to the posture only that did not define the type of meditation performed, while nenbutsu was about recalling the Buddha's wonderful qualities as a way of inspiring oneself. Today zazen is regularly associated with meditation by upholding a specific posture and nenbutsu with the verbal repetition of Amida's name. But most importantly, it is the ideology that such physical activities encompass the essence of the Buddha's teaching that allows the simple shift from religious life to mundane self-help. Although there is a difference between the two that explains the popularity of nenbutsu in the traditional and zazen in the modern approach. It is that zazen promises liberation in this life while nenbutsu in the afterlife. The common element is that besides being an occasional activity they have virtually no influence on one's day to day life.

On the contrary, as ultimate teachings they were taught as life changing realisations by their famous advocates Dogen Kigen and Honen Genku. Dogen's zazen is called practice-enlightenment because it includes and accomplishes the whole path of morality, meditation and wisdom. Honen's nenbutsu guarantees birth in the Pure Land because it includes and accomplishes the three minds and the four practices. That is possible for both of them not because of the outer form, the actual activity performed by the body, but because of the mind.

In zazen it is the non-abiding awareness and in nenbutsu it is the faith in Amida's vow. The outer activities themselves are not unique to the Zen or the Pure Land school, and neither Dogen nor Honen would have had any reason to leave the Tendai school to sit or to recite. So while both are called practice oriented schools, it is not the method but the doctrine that makes them distinct from other traditions.

Since it is the mind that matters and not the activity, we could say that there is no need for the physical part. And that is partially true. Most of the Zen teachers - that is, before the times of Dahui Zonggao in China - only pointed to the nature of mind. In fact, that has been the definition of the Zen tradition since the beginning without any reference to common practices. However, while in China the heirs of Bodhidharma always lived within a Buddhist environment, Dogen separated himself from the established tradition and initiated an institutionally separate school. That way zazen became the primary representation of his style. Honen separated himself in a similar way from others and focused on recitation as the chosen expression. It is like with our thoughts, they cannot be communicated without words. The teaching has to take form and that form has to become the carrier of the teaching. And while Dogen and Honen had their respective practices selected as the most important, they did not deny or leave out other activities, like reading, reciting and copying sutras, doing prostrations, and other things. With giving a specific form to their teachings they managed to transmit them.

If one focuses only on the words, that is turning the Dharma into a study material. If one sees only the outer practice, that is turning the Dharma into gymnastics. If one knows only the meaning and has the realisation without the words and the outer practice, that is being a pratyekabuddha, where no communication is possible. But I think it is mostly a theoretical possibility and not something anyone could see or confirm (besides that they exist in the Buddhist tradition). The unity of practice and realisation, of methods and understanding, that is the real and living path of enlightenment. That unity is what zazen and nenbutsu embody according to Dogen and Honen.

So, Buddhism is neither a method nor a philosophy. When one wants to grasp the true meaning of the Dharma it takes moving away from one's previous conditioning, giving up both body and mind, and taking the teachings to one's heart. Through that transformation it becomes the living reality and not just some part time occupation between dinner and bedtime. After that every movement is zazen, every sound is the nenbutsu.