Comfort-Food Buddhism

[camerata]

Vague Platitudes to Avoid Life’s Hard Questions: Thich Nhat Hanh’s Comfort-Food Buddhism

by Tom Pepper

My first experience with the “mindfulness” craze was in psychology class. Nobody seemed very clear on what mindfulness meant, but they were all sure it was a “Buddhist concept.” It seemed harmless, if not at all helpful, so I ignored it. Until they showed us the educational dvd on mindfulness, which I believe came from the Mindful Awareness Research Center at UCLA.

In this video, a well-meaning psychologist spoke earnestly of how mindfully living “in the moment” would cure everything from ADHD to post-traumatic stress to addictions. When she got to the description of how we should learn to ignore everything but our sensory experiences, I thought, well, she just doesn’t know much about the history of psychology, or she would be aware that such practices have been tried, and nobody can EVER do that. Not even for a moment. And she doesn’t know much about Buddhism, or she would know that such “bare awareness” is not at all what the Buddha meant by sati. Then, she began to describe how one could mindfully walk to the guillotine to be executed, and I laughed so hard I had to leave the room.

Full article.

[rockyysdt]

When she got to the description of how we should learn to ignore everything but our sensory experiences, I thought, well, she just doesn’t know much about the history of psychology,

It just goes to show you, a practice can be maligned, purely by being taught by those who do not know.

I thought mindfulness/awareness was about observing what is actually happening in the moment (breath/body, mind/feelings/interactions), and not ignoring it.

In time,"wisdom", supported with "concentration/awareness" allows one freedom from reaction (greed, aversion, delusion).

Edited August 26, 2012 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

The path to Nibbana (why do people insist upon describing it as enlightenment...like we shouild all become as good as Buddhas or something?) IS actually very simple.

Simply keeping the five precepts and being mindful in every moment.

The practice is very difficult though. When we first encounter Buddhism we are attracted to read as much as we can about the life of the Buddha and all his suttas and about various followers etc. and we enjoy this complexity, but eventually discard all that to pass through and see the real simplicity.

Not just being mindful and living in every moment...but doing so by simply observing and not judging is the hard part. Not reacting or more usually over-reacting to every stimulus and thought.

I can sympathise with the article and how it plays to peoples needs without pushing them to get up and work.

[GrahamR]

Walking mindfully to the guillotine? Is mindfulness about divorcing ourselves from the reality of our actions?

Graham

[rockyysdt]

The path to Nibbana (why do people insist upon describing it as enlightenment...like we shouild all become as good as Buddhas or something?) IS actually very simple.

Simply keeping the five precepts and being mindful in every moment.

Don't forget "concentration" Fred.

An important ingredient which sharpens the other actions.

[huli]

I agree with the author of the article and also dislike Thich Nhat Hahn's version of supposed Buddhism.

I continue to be amazed at how many people come up with new twists on the original Buddhism, be it modern scholars, monks with a bent towards leadership roles, or even the Mahayanists. I have concluded that the world would be a better place if Buddha's original teachings, as they have come down to us, were propagated as he left them.

Some say that we don't know them for sure what Buddha said because of the oral transmission etc, but we know enough.

I particularly find Thich Nhat Hahn's concept of "engaged Buddhism" to be a phony heresy. The Buddhist Path has always been an individual's path, pure and simple. His followers may think they are being good Buddhists by engaging the world, but I think they are missing the essential point.

[Xangsamhua]

The article was amusing and I resonated with his critique of the "live in the present moment" mantra, but mainly because I associate it with Eckhart Tolle rather than TNH. Certainly TNH talks about it, but my understanding is that he sees it as mindfulness, not some kind of disconnect from reality or responsibility. Having said that, the ability to disconnect from being guillotined could be quite a handy thing in those circumstances.

Actually, the guillotine example is probably better applied to Hindu theology than to Buddhist reductionism. One focused on the Self as the essential reality may acquire some insouciance towards an immanent threat to the merely physical. Zen people talk like this sometimes, and it got them into all kinds of trouble in World War Two where they managed to disassociate the act of killing from the effect of being killed. Theravada Buddhists, however, who perhaps don't have much sense of the whole (the body), which they see as a reification of skhanda, may feel some concern at being guillotined as, even though the head may have no substance and is only notionally attached to a body, which is also insubstantial, just the sum of its parts, it's all they've got - processes in relationship with other processes - and they may have some misgivings at losing such a condensed network of processes as the head.

I think the author is just being clever, and mischievous, setting up a straw man and having fun knocking it down. While I agree that some of TNH's work is a bit schmaltzy, much of it isn't. Some of his books are commentaries on various Mahayana sutras. His autobiography of the Buddha (Old Path White Clouds) is a classic. He has written about 70 books, so to focus on one or two (I don't think I've read the one the author refers to) is not really fair. I think it is fair to say though that some of TNH's books are well below the standard of his best. I criticised one in this forum recently.

The DVDs, too, are a mixed bag and there are lots of them. TNH gives a Dharma talk and it's recorded each time. He does this two or three times a week at Plum Village, so that's 100 - 150 a year. I heard him speak twice at Plum Village in 2009. The two talks I heard were not superficial "comfort food for the soul". They were quite academic, quite demanding, and seemed to come from a Yogacara perspective. They were too much for me in a warm room in a cold climate. I fell asleep both times, but it wasn't because of the the warm fuzziness of his content.

When you consider TNH's life story and what he's done both in Vietnam and France, it's a bit rich to paint him as a poster boy for spoilt American baby boomers. I suspect the author is the product of these same baby boomers and, if so, his credibility and humility fall somewhat short.

Something he doesn't mention, and can't because he has no direct experience, is that TNH has the most extraordinary presence. He's just a little old man in a brown robe and a brown woollen hat, yet he radiates something almost palpable. I suppose his reputation generates expectations in advance, but, really, I've never experienced a presence like it. In fact, famous people when you meet them in the flesh are usually less than you expect. In TNH's presence, however, I think the word is darshan,a heightening of consciousness or spirituality occurs.

[sabaijai]

I think the author is just being clever, and mischievous, setting up a straw man and having fun knocking it down.

While I am not a follower of TNH's Vietnamese Zen, I agree with you, rather facile.

[Jawnie]

I agree with the author of the article and also dislike Thich Nhat Hahn's version of supposed Buddhism.

I continue to be amazed at how many people come up with new twists on the original Buddhism, be it modern scholars, monks with a bent towards leadership roles, or even the Mahayanists. I have concluded that the world would be a better place if Buddha's original teachings, as they have come down to us, were propagated as he left them.

Some say that we don't know them for sure what Buddha said because of the oral transmission etc, but we know enough.

I particularly find Thich Nhat Hahn's concept of "engaged Buddhism" to be a phony heresy. The Buddhist Path has always been an individual's path, pure and simple. His followers may think they are being good Buddhists by engaging the world, but I think they are missing the essential point.

Yours is the Theravada view which is about individual liberation but it leaves out the Mahayana view of compassion and working on behalf of all sentient beings. The Buddha taught different methods and paths according to the differing needs, abilities, and inclinations of beings. Just because you are inclined toward the Theravada view doesn't mean the other views and paths are invalid. That sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity - my way or the highway. The Buddha did not exclude anyone, but you are.

[hookedondhamma]

oh goodness.

Edited August 28, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[huli]

I agree with the author of the article and also dislike Thich Nhat Hahn's version of supposed Buddhism.

I continue to be amazed at how many people come up with new twists on the original Buddhism, be it modern scholars, monks with a bent towards leadership roles, or even the Mahayanists. I have concluded that the world would be a better place if Buddha's original teachings, as they have come down to us, were propagated as he left them.

Some say that we don't know them for sure what Buddha said because of the oral transmission etc, but we know enough.

I particularly find Thich Nhat Hahn's concept of "engaged Buddhism" to be a phony heresy. The Buddhist Path has always been an individual's path, pure and simple. His followers may think they are being good Buddhists by engaging the world, but I think they are missing the essential point.

Yours is the Theravada view which is about individual liberation but it leaves out the Mahayana view of compassion and working on behalf of all sentient beings. The Buddha taught different methods and paths according to the differing needs, abilities, and inclinations of beings. Just because you are inclined toward the Theravada view doesn't mean the other views and paths are invalid. That sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity - my way or the highway. The Buddha did not exclude anyone, but you are.

Jawnie,

IMO, all the different methods and paths that the Buddha actually taught are included in the "Theravada view".

Other views and paths, for example like "working on behalf of all sentient beings", that came up long afterward have a thin claim as to being Buddhist.

Thank you for commenting on my post. I think in the future I will think twice about criticizing others views, as you suggest. It is not reasonable to expect to reach a consensus on everything.

Huli

[Several]

Whats going on? I wasn't concentrating.

[fabianfred]

Whats going on? I wasn't concentrating.

Ah-Ha!!!