Thich Nhat Hanh

[Sparkle]

Etherfish said:
I was a little turned off once when I saw a movie of him walking in the
sun with a follower keeping step with him shading Hanh's head with a big feather.

I have long since come to the conclusion that every teacher and every system has its flaws and yes, there are things like this about Thich Nhat Hanh that might not add up. In general, I think he has a lot to offer and "walks the talk" more than most. I have a group of friends going back years who practice with this system, and that is as important for me as anything else.

For what its worth, I find Yogani's writings easier and more straight forward to read. I would also see the active practice of mindfulness promoted by Thich Nhat Hanh and the AYP system as being very complimentary.

The symbol you referred to is the Euro €, you probably don't have it on your computers. 1 euro is worth about 1.2 US dollars at present.

Louis

[david_obsidian]

What bothers me most about Thich Nhat Hanh is that he sometimes seems to speak from a deeply naive social-constructionist mind-set.  Neither from traditional buddhism,  which recognizes karma,  or modern science, which recognizes the enormous power of genes;  nor simply even from a strong sense of the importance of personal responsibility,  which is the underpinning of success in every walk of life.  But rather from a strong social-constructionist mind-set,  the underpinning of 'leftism'.

Thich said:
So if we know how to look at the so-called criminals, we will have compassion. Society has created them like that; they have not been lucky, they have been born into a situation where social conditions, and their parents and other influences, have created that kind of behavior, and that person is very much the victim of the situation.

If someone behaves criminally it is because they are the victims of society.  Terrible stuff,  one hopes it is only bad writing.

This is all grist to the "enraged buddhist" side of the "engaged buddhist" mill.

[Etherfish]

David wrote:
"What bothers me most about Thich Nhat Hanh  . . . .
"Thich said:
So if we know how to look at the so-called criminals, we will have compassion. Society has created them like that; they have not been lucky, they have been born into a situation where social conditions, and their parents and other influences, have created that kind of behavior, and that person is very much the victim of the situation."


Yes that viewpoint bothers me too. There is a lot of truth in it, but it is not the whole story. It is true that it is difficult to go against the way you were brought up and your peers, but each of us is a separate and independent entity, and we must take responsibility for our entire life and actions. So environment can be written off as the reason for those people to make *mistakes*, but not for everything they do.

True we need to learn compassion for everyone, but let's not let society "entitle" some
people to be excused from responsibility for their actions. That only gives them a reason to continue as they are, never change, and become even more of a victim. It does nothing to help that person.

[david_obsidian]

We shouldn't even be quick to assume that the bad environment 'caused' the bad behavior   (the 'post hoc' fallacy).  Many people in a bad environment behave well,  and many people in a good environment behave badly.  It's fair to assume that the bad environment is a negative influence,  but it's mistaken to broadly declare it to be the cause of the bad behavior,  which is what Thich Nhat Hanh seems to be doing.

If the bad environment were always the cause of the bad behavior,  people from good environments would not behave badly,  and they certainly do.

[Sparkle]

David wrote:
Thich said:
So if we know how to look at the so-called criminals, we will have compassion. Society has created them like that; they have not been lucky, they have been born into a situation where social conditions, and their parents and other influences, have created that kind of behavior, and that person is very much the victim of the situation.

David and Ether, if you are looking for an indept discussion on Thich Nhat Hanh you are probably talking to the wrong guy. To be honest I don't read much of his stuff but I do like his energy and I like the energy of the zen nun who has been coming here annually. I seem to have a connection with them, perhaps from past lives - that's my feel on it.

On the other hand, I personally would not see a lot wrong with the statement you quoted. I would see it, not as a statement to let criminals "off the hook" but as a aid to developing more useful mental formations to bring one in the direction of compassion for the very people we might be inclined to condemn.

One of my own favourite sayings is: "The greatest gift we can give to anyone is to accept them fully for what they are, no matter what they have done".
If this is "social-constructionist mind-set, the underpinning of 'leftism'" then so be it. But perhaps you mean something else.

As for Karma and science, I will have to get back to you on that.
Naive - well he has lived as a monk for most of his 80 years, they don't listen to the news, he is from a very different culture and would not be "worldy or street wise", as a kid in the Bronx would be. But does this mean he does not know truth?.

This is all grist to the "enraged buddhist" side of the "engaged buddhist" mill.
I like that, although I'm not quite sure whether you are referring to me or to you as the buddhist, enraged or otherwise[]
(I like Ram Dass also, but the first thing people say about him is -"oh he was into drugs was'nt he" - thus duly writing him off )



One of Thich Nhat Hanh's poems below, I think describes compassion fairly well.


Please call me by my true names
by Thich Nhat Hanh

Don't say that I will depart tomorrow-
even today I am still arriving.

Look deeply: every second I am arriving
to be a bud on a Spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with still-fragile wings,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.

I still arrive,
in order to laugh and to cry,
to fear and to hope.
The rhythm of my heart
is the birth and death of all that is alive.


I am a mayfly metamorphosing
on the surface of the river.
And I am the bird
that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.


I am a frog swimming happily
in the clear water of a pond.
And I am the grass-snake
that silently feeds itself on the frog.


I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks.
And I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.


I am the twelve-year-old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate.
And I am the pirate,
my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

I am a member of the politburo,
with plenty of power in my hands.
And I am the man who has to pay
his "debt of blood" to my people
dying slowly in a forced-labor camp.

My joy is like Spring, so warm
it makes flowers bloom all over the Earth.
My pain is like a river of tears,
so vast it fills the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and laughter at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up
and the door of my heart
can be left open,
the door of compassion.

[Etherfish]

i believe Thich fully understands the way to love all people by having compassion. I also believe that is the way we are all heading with yoga.
The problem I see with the statement we are talking about is in the way that statement will be interpreted by the criminals it is talking about.

The "leftist" mind-set that David is writing about is, i believe, a little idealistic. They have all the best intentions, and the writings are by people who are attempting to follow the same path we are on.
But in my opinion the way those ideas are implemented is problematic.
When a criminal reads those kind of ideas, they don't think about how they can love all people or how to have compassion. They think about "How can this get me off the hook" or "How can I get out of jail" or "How can I relieve myself of feeling bad about what I did."
So telling them that it's not their fault is exactly what they want to hear.

I've known a lot of criminals and understand how they think. The reason they became a criminal to begin with is usually because they want to "hot wire" reality. They want an easy way to get everything without having to work for it. They think they have found ways to do this and
love to have people aiding them by making them feel better about themselves. Although I know of a couple cases of criminals who have straightened up and decided to go straight, it was a very long road for them, and it wasn't as a result of society removing the blame from them. It was a result of them realizing that they were on the wrong path, and taking responsibility for their lives. They realized that they are the only ones who can change their world, and they can't depend on anyone else to do it for them, and it's not an easy path.
So I think anything that seems to give them an easy way out is detrimental, and delays their recovery. Not that we should censor such statements from criminals, but they just need to be stated in a different way.

[david_obsidian]

Hello Sparkle,

Regarding some of the things you said in defense of what he said about the criminals,  Ether has given a great reply with which I concur fully.

I'll just add a few more things.

Everything you say about Hanh is true and I am sure he is a great guy,  and has a great heart,  and writes poems that are a very positive influence on people.

And I admire that you didn't get annoyed or defensive when I shoot my mouth off about another holy man.  

 We are coming up to a general issue of when a person becomes a 'celebrity' of some sort;  they obtain a platform due to their celebrity,   and sometimes they use that platform,  hoping to do general good,  but then in their eagerness,  they step outside their domain of competence.  They may,  for example, get 'political' but they aren't particularly insightful about politics.  Or they may express an over-simplified view of sociological problems.  By stepping outside their domain of competence, they abuse their platform to an extent,  though the abuse is not intentional.

Not all spiritual 'celebrities'  (and I am using the word celebrity in a matter-of-fact way,  not a disparaging way) step outside their domain of competence.  I have never seen the Dalai Lama,  for example, step outside his domain of competence.  He generally sticks to spirituality and doesn't get into the business of over-simplifiying deep sociological cause-and-effect complexities.

Sparkle said:
>> On the other hand, I personally would not see a lot wrong with the statement you quoted. I would see it, not as a statement to let criminals "off the hook" but as a aid to developing more useful mental formations to bring one in the direction of compassion for the very people we might be inclined to condemn.
One of my own favourite sayings is: "The greatest gift we can give to anyone is to accept them fully for what they are, no matter what they have done".

But in that snippet,  Thich Nhat Hanh is NOT actually leading us in the direction of 'accepting them fully .. no matter what they have done'.  Rather,  and this is my core issue with him,  he is leading us to believe or pretend that they have not done what they have done.  He is leading us to pretend that they are victims,  not perpetrators.  This is incorrect -- the predominant truth about criminals is much more like the picture Ether painted than the naive one that Thich Nhat Hanh paints for us.

There is the true tragic story about the sea-pirate who raped the 12-year-old girl who then committed suicide.  (This pirate-girl story is one comes up quite a lot in his writings,  and it's actually in the poem that sparkle just gave us.)  He makes up a sob-story for us about why a pirate would rape a 12-year-old girl --- he did it because he is a victim who never had a chance --- that's why he raped the girl!  This is the way he instructs us to look at crime and criminals!

In reality,  the sea-pirate in question (like most pirates) is more likely to have been a sociopath,  having very little conscience and near-zero compassion.  He raped the 12-year-old the girl because it was fun.  When he was doing it,  he was saying to himself,  'this is the life for me',  and when he left the boat,  he was looking forward to his next victim.

Try forgiving that.  If you can forgive that truly,  that would be adult,  heavyweight forgiveness.  Forgiving him because you have convinced yourself he was a victim is a lightweight,  naive pretense at forgiveness.

Because merely excusing people,  or pretending that they have not done wrong, is not forgiveness,  and practice at that is not practice at forgiveness.

By all means,  we should develop compassion,  but it should be a wise and clever compassion, not a naive pretense.  It's a complex world;  and for us as a society, often the soft head serves us as poorly as the hard heart.

Nisagardatta Maharaj had it figured out better.  What he said about it summarizes Ether's last post very succinctly:

'The essence of the criminal mind is the refusal to sacrifice.'

[david_obsidian]

P.S.

sparkle said:
 like Ram Dass also, but the first thing people say about him is -"oh he was into drugs was'nt he" - thus duly writing him off

Yes,  Thich Nhat Hanh shouldn't be 'written off' just because he makes big blunders sometimes.

Neither should anyone.  Even Da Avabhasa has his story.

But in order to not write him off,  I don't need to turn a blind eye to what I see as significant flaws in his teaching work.

I don't write people off because I don't see in black and white.  Many people do;  they live in a world of angels and demons,  and once someone has a halo around them, they can do only good and must not be criticized.

This is hopefully a new era in spirituality.  Everyone is potentially one of our teachers.  Our teachers don't need halos,  and don't need to be always right.  In fact,  they can be quite dumb sometimes and still be good teachers overall.

-D

[Sparkle]

Finally I've gotten round to replying here.

David said:
Rather, and this is my core issue with him, he is leading us to believe or pretend that they have not done what they have done. He is leading us to pretend that they are victims, not perpetrators

David, I don't know whether you are making this a core issue with Thich Nhat Hanh based on the few lines you quoted, or whether you are basing it on a more thorough evaluation of him.

But quite frankly when one looks at the fierce discipline with which Thich Nhat Hanh lives his life and runs his community in France it would be obvious to anyone who is familiar with this that what you are implying is ridiculous.

I'm quite sure Thich Nhat Hanh has made many blunders, large and small, he would not be human if he did not. Equally I am quite sure the Dala Lama has done so and will continue, he is also human. You have implied this point yourself.

Personally I don't put the guy on a pedestal either, although I do have a very high regard for the way he lives his life.
He runs a community in France where over the summer months there would be on between 500 and 1200 people on retreat. He gives freshly made darma talks every day, even at the age of 80 and lives the talk with a fierceness that would cut you in two. This same fierceness also translates into a soft compassion that is palpable in the air, from which people come away deeply changed.

All his talks are recorded live and sold and can be scrutinised by anyone, he holds himself up for this.
At any one time at the retreats many people are watching his every move to see him live his mindfulness and maybe see if he will falter. Reports I've heard first hand from his nuns tell me he is a true living example of mindfulness in every moment.
He hold himself up for the lot, there are not many people in the world, to my mind, that could live this life.

But sure, give healthy critisism, he would be all for that himself, he is reported as saying that he loves a good rebel.
As for his writing, I am personally not drawn to them, although having listened to a few hours of CD at our meditation evenings and discussed various topics it has become apparent that some things that may appear flawed are explained or filled out so that they make sense, to me at least.

The question about criminals is another issue in itself. We probably would not agree on this but we all have criminal aspects to us. The guys in the jails are in the vast majority from underprivilaged areas and in the US a large proportion are black, these are the un-disputed statistics.
They operate outside the accepted boundries of society, at that time, and are locked away for the protection of the rest of society. Locked away in the "universities of crime" with little or no rehabilation. After maybe 10 years in the slammer they are let loose on society, having survived in a completely artificial world of criminal "respect or be maimed, raped or killed", and then expected to act normally.
Me, I don't think they are the only criminals here - we as society must take some responsability.
But this is not really the issue with regard to Thich Nhat Hanh.


I have to thank you David and Ether for having a go at Thich Nhat Hanh, because normally it would be me taking this role with my friends, although not quite with as much vigour.
Having to defend him, in what I would consider a real way, has increased my respect for him.
Best regards
Louis

[david_obsidian]

Sparkle,

Yes,  and I have 'criminal elements',  though have never committed a real crime to my knowledge.  However,  I have the insight to know that these 'criminal elements' I have were not put there by society,  that 'society' did not 'create me like that'.  Hanh may have the insight that he has criminal elements too,  but may be under the illusion that they were put there by society.  

>> Having to defend him, in what I would consider a real way, has increased my respect for him.

what exactly are you defending in Hanh,  and is it the right thing to defend?

quote:
>>David said:
Rather, and this is my core issue with him, he is leading us to believe or pretend that they have not done what they have done. He is leading us to pretend that they are victims, not perpetrators

David, I don't know whether you are making this a core issue with Thich Nhat Hanh based on the few lines you quoted, or whether you are basing it on a more thorough evaluation of him.

But quite frankly when one looks at the fierce discipline with which Thich Nhat Hanh lives his life and runs his community in France it would be obvious to anyone who is familiar with this that what you are implying is ridiculous.

What I am saying is based on an entire dharma talk given here.

sparkle said:
But quite frankly when one looks at the fierce discipline with which Thich Nhat Hanh lives his life and runs his community in France it would be obvious to anyone who is familiar with this that what you are implying is ridiculous.

You are erring in your logic here Sparkle.  You seem to be saying that it is ridiculous to believe that someone who runs his community in France with fierce discipline can be telling us to look on criminals as victims.  The evidence that he is telling us to look on criminals as victims is available directly in his dharma talk itself,  from which I wouldh have thought I have already quoted amply.   But here is a little more,  with my emphasis added:

Thich said:
So if we know how to look at the so-called criminals, we will have compassion. Society has created them like that; they have not been lucky, they have been born into a situation where social conditions, and their parents and other influences, have created that kind of behavior, and that person is very much the victim of the situation.
...

 If we make others suffer, that is because we are also victims.

...

Killing him does not help him, and does not help us. There are others like him in society, and looking at him deeply we know that something is wrong with our society; our society has created people like that.



It's there in purple-and white.    I think you have identified the wrong person as holding a ridiculous notion.   It's Hanh,  not me.  


P.S. This is social-constructionist ideology,  not buddhism.  If you find the Dalai Lama telling us to look on criminals as the victims of society,  or that criminals are that way because they have been created that way by 'society',  let me know!  I have never known the Dalai Lama to step outside his domain of competence and teach social-constructionist ideology in a dharma talk.










 

[Sparkle]

Well David, you may not have committed a crime, but you are obviously well educated and I would guess from a middle class backgound, although I could be totally wrong there.
I suppose the old arguement is that if you were born into a family where your parents were on drugs and robbed for living and you could not read when you left school. The odds are you would indeed, by now, have committed a crime.

You say my logic is flawed, if you say so then it probably is David[]. I'm working from an intuitive sense of the man, but that won't satisfy you I know.

Ah, sure is'nt he a grand fella, to be sure, as you are and we all are, in this mish mash of samsara and logical conundrums.

Anyway I will be spending some time on retreat this coming weekend and will try not to think about it, and maybe will have an answer.
Louis

[Etherfish]

Sparkle wrote:
"I suppose the old arguement is that if you were born into a family where your parents were on drugs and robbed for living and you could not read when you left school. The odds are you would indeed, by now, have committed a crime."

i think it's quite likely I would have, but that would be the fault of the parents, not society in general. And there are *plenty* of kids who grow up in this environment and don't become criminals.

but don't get me wrong; I believe the prison system we have has a lot to be desired. There are very few programs that rehabilitate, which is what is needed. And the "corrections officers" that run the prisons are not that different in mentality than the prisoners. But they have to be; if you try to be nice to them they'll run you over. There are exceptions, but they are not the ruling prisoners.
So I would go halfway and say some prisoners are victims, but of their parents, not society, and there's a karmic lesson for them to learn no matter how difficult it may be.

[david_obsidian]

Louie said:
Ah, sure is'nt he a grand fella, to be sure, as you are and we all are, in this mish mash of samsara and logical conundrums.

Yes,  he is a grand fellow and the only thing I am sorry for in all this is that we have only one  post now on Thich Nhat Hanh,  and it happens to discuss a negative,  largely because that particular negative happens to be a pet peeve of Obsidian.  I suppose that's the way it goes -- that's forum life -- these are just frozen conversations.

At the same time,  I'd be happy to see someone else open another topic,  'Thich Nhat Hanh -- the positives',  listing all his virtues and making that topic ten times as long as this one.

Just don't provoke me by adding into the list of his virtues  something like 'he never never tells us to look on criminals as victims' and I promise to keep my own criminal tendencies (which are innate by the way) under control!

[david_obsidian]

Ether said:
 think it's quite likely I would have, but that would be the fault of the parents

Just one thing -- children can turn out delinquent and it is not any fault of the parents either.  It can be just genetic or developmental quirks -- the roll of the biological dice.

It should be pretty clear that this is true because we see parents have more than one child and they parent them both with the same care and diligence and one turns out fine and the other delinquent.

We have to keep recessive genes in mind too.  Just as two dark-haired parents can give birth to a blond child,  while hair color is still strictly 100% genetically determined,  it should be possible for highly conscientious parents to give birth to a child low in conscientiousness.

I know two people,  two Quakers,  who brought their two children up with exemplary love and discipline.  One turned out in good shape,  like them,  the other seriously delinquent;  they tried everything to get him back on track and agonized over where they were going wrong.  I told them that they did not necessarily do any significant wrong at all.  It can be harmful for parents to believe that if their children do not work out well that it is their fault.  My explanation was I believe both truthful and helpful to these people.

Much about the way people are comes from within themselves.

Did you know something interesting -- the LONGER a person lives,  the MORE closely correlated they become to their genetics.

Recommended reading --- 'The Blank Slate' by Stephen Pinker.

[Jim and His Karma]

It's a little surreal to see this man's life and work reduced to one particular stance taken at one particular time. I have friends who work in film editing, and they'll tell you that when you're selecting such moments, you can make someone look inappropriately good or bad depending on how you choose. Because people live in a flow, not in snapshots.

Thich Nhat Hanh has written some of the most inspiring books ever. He's a brilliant teacher. And, being human, he's surely said and done his share of dumb junk. I'm not saying we ought to ignore the dumb junk. But....sheesh.

Read "Being Peace" if you get the chance.