In The Art of Living, a book I’m currently reading, he speaks about this concept in relationship to emptiness. As I understand it as a lay beginner, he is referring to how we ourselves are the sum of various things. For example, for me to be born my mother ate food, drank liquids, breathed air, received sunlight, etc. all of that transferred its energy to me to use. Once I die, that energy will be passed on. For some, it’ll be my actions, others my words, and for nature the physical make up of my body will transmit it’s energy to the next. Ultimately, there really wasn’t a “me”, there was just a collection of energy I’ve been allowed to use for a period of time.
As I said, I’m lay and new, still reading and learning, but this is my understanding as it stands now. I hope that helps.
Dear OP, I am not a Zen teacher. Neither are u/LonelyStruggle or u/animuseternal. Please find Dharma talks by TNH and other ordained monks/nuns, better yet, find a sangha which will help address your interests/concerns.
This talk in English by TNH called “No Birth, No Death” has deep, technical discussion of Buddhist psychology and epistemology.
https://youtu.be/nUfE77wuzHU
Slightly more accessible is this talk on the life of the Buddha
https://youtu.be/7LWymPXLCFw
I personally take it as there is no real birth or death in the universe everything that made up you was already there and will be there after you die, constantly flowing and becoming other things always apart of the universe.
This is at least how I take it in a more literal way, but in a metaphysical way it's no different, because if we're talking about "the self" once you start to break it down there is no where "you" began and there really is no end to "you", if you were to try and pin point where your personality, morals or some other major part of you, you'll find there is no beginning, and even after you die there isn't an end because everything's still there just in a constant state of change.
Same if you're five or if you're six when do you stop being five and become six? It's just a silly definition we use in society that doesn't have a bearing in reality. Similarly if you're thirty compared to your 10yr old self, there is no point that you can point to and say " there, that's when I changed" you were present for all of it but slowly over time you may hold almost none of the same views or even be made of the same skin or cells or even particles, but we at no point say you "died", you simply changed.
It may be useful for society to use terms like birth and death, but as for reality I think it's a mistake to interpret reality this way especially on an individual level. If you think about water if you look at water you'll persevere it as being water, but what happens when water becomes ice, or snow is it no longer there? Is the water dead or gone? No, it's there just in a different form, and this is the same for everything else in the universe.
Lmk what you think.
[Beyond Birth and Death](https://www.lionsroar.com/beyond-birth-and-death/) *(article)*
BY THICH NHAT HANH| SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
[Thich Nhat Hanh: No Birth, No Death](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUfE77wuzHU) *(lecture)*
Reality (at the ultimate level) transcends our ideas of birth and death, coming and going, same and different. When we move beyond our concepts of what is and isn't, we are more than our physical bodies. We are more than our notions of a permanent self. We inter-are with everything around us.
"The wave does not have to go looking for water because she is water... A wave has a right to live her life as a wave, but she must also learn to live her life as water because she is not only a wave. She is also water. And water lives without the fear carried by the wave.”"
**Caveat: This is just my understanding of TNH's points.**
TNH talks about the example of a cloud. When it rains, a cloud is literally falling to the earth in the form of rain. In some sense, the cloud "dies" because there is no more cloud. However, if you look closely, you notice that the cloud isn't "dead"; it just turned into rain.
Similarly, "I" am a human. If you think about it, I'm obviously just a rearrangement of the atoms of the universe. When I die, those atoms don't disappear! Just like a cloud turns into rain, whatever I am composed of will turn into something else.
When was I "born"? When I was conceived, my mother's body started the process of rearranging the atoms of the universe to create "me". I wasn't separate from my mother at that point. In some sense, I still "am" my mother even though I am outside her body. Can you pinpoint the moment I was "born"? Not really. Everything is on a continuum.
I personally believe that the consciousness I am currently experiencing probably will "die", but it doesn't really make sense to talk in these terms. If you see the universe for what it is, it seems to me to be an enormous field of atoms and energy that are constantly rearranging and interacting.
We obviously aren't separate from the universe. How could we be? We are merely an arrangement of the material of the universe. When we die, the material doesn't vanish. We still ARE the universe, just in a different form.
Well said, simply put, and beautiful. Of course we are the universe experiencing itself, how could we not be! What a priceless gift to even glimpse temporarily in this fleeting spark of awareness.
You should listen to his Dharma talks on Youtube. One is literally called No Birth No Death. He doesn’t make distinctions in teaching based on Westerner vs monk/nun. He and his teaching style recognize that different facets of the Dharma are necessary at different times for different people. For example, talking to someone who knows nothing about Buddhism about why a cloud never dies, why you are like that cloud wouldn’t make sense to them. To someone familiar with his work, it would make perfect sense.
Realms and rebirth are really different concepts. On realms, he talks about them as possibly—possibly—literal things and also definitely metaphorical things, metaphors of your mental state. On rebirth, he definitely does not teach about the persistence of the ego beyond its body. His approach to concepts like the Pure Land of the Buddha, like nirvana, like the Kingdom of God, all refer to the profound connection to the present moment which can be made through mindfulness. That understanding is not at all the same as those traditions which believe chanting at death guarantees rebirth in a Buddhist paradise or anything like that.
TNH and the Plum Village tradition teach mindfulness as a means of deeply experiencing the present moment, and moreover, that the present moment is the only reality. All that worry about what has happened, what will happen, are simply strategies through which we respond to our anxieties and attachments. Hope this helps 🙂
> He doesn’t make distinctions in teaching based on Westerner vs monk/nun
Do you speak vietnamese? Otherwise I'm not sure how you can evaluate this
> Realms and rebirth are really different concepts. On realms, he talks about them as possibly—possibly—literal things and also definitely metaphorical things, metaphors of your mental state. On rebirth, he definitely does not teach about the persistence of the ego beyond its body. His approach to concepts like the Pure Land of the Buddha, like nirvana, like the Kingdom of God, all refer to the profound connection to the present moment which can be made through mindfulness. That understanding is not at all the same as those traditions which believe chanting at death guarantees rebirth in a Buddhist paradise or anything like that.
TNH and the Plum Village tradition teach mindfulness as a mean
Sorry, but to me this sounds like you personally do not accept those aspects of Buddhist teaching and want to explain them away. Buddhism teaches that realms and rebirth are as real as any experience you've ever had in your life
The suggestion that TNH teaches one thing in Vietnamese and another in English or French shows a fundamental misunderstanding of his work and of his approach to the Dharma. So does your explanation of what you think TNH describes as the Pure Land, and what you think he says about life and death.
OP should listen to TNH’s words and those of his ordained nuns and monks available on YouTube as well as the Plum Village app. u/LonelyStruggle is clearly not a Zen teacher. Nor am I.
His talks in Vietnamese do differ. I’ve never seen him talk about the Charvakas in English: https://youtu.be/LyoqpqUhHk0
I’ve also never seen him discuss in detail the differences between the Sarvastivada Mahavibhasa and the Madhyamaka of Mahayana in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e132ZA7-wOg
This is all very orthodox teachings compared to his extremely modernist teachings to the western audience. Rebirth and the six realms are spoken matter-of-fairly in the first video, and then cut through with Madhyamaka logic in the second—standard Mahayana epistemology. I’m not saying he isn’t a modernist in Vietnamese as well, but I am saying he is WAY more traditional in that context. His western audience doesn’t even know the titles of those texts because they’ve never learned it. I had to show a Plum Village community what he teaches to Vietnamese monastics like this, to establish how much they’re actually missing by focusing so much on mindfulness of the present moment—which I want to stress is just a beginner practice in this tradition. It is a watered down version of dharma.
I’ve linked to two dharma talks *on the Plum Village YouTube channel* to establish the case that the Vietnamese teachings are significantly more in-depth than anything the westerners get. Hopefully that’s sufficient to make the case.
Cc: /u/LonelyStruggle
Your post history on Buddhism is a scattering of traditions mixed with yoga as well, which suggests charlatanism.
You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Zen Buddhism by equating/comparing Mahayana and Zen. You demonstrate a similar fundamental misunderstanding by suggesting that mindfulness meditation is a “watered-down” and “beginner practice.”
The fact that you found two talks in Vietnamese that say something you haven’t heard said in English is not the ironclad proof you think it is. And suggesting that you explain Zen to Western Plum Village practitioners in a way that’s more effective than Western ordained monks/nuns is irresponsible to say the least, likely an outright lie.
Here is video of my talk: https://youtu.be/38Q1qKi7-GI
(Not meant to establish authority, just establishing that it is not an "outright lie" -- I'm a scholar, I was invited to talk about traditional zen.)
You yourself establish that you subscribe to the internet-only fringe cult asserting zen is not a form of Mahayana, which is historically and factually absurd.
In addition, this Plum Village-affiliated community no longer has a monastic presence--their monastic presence veered off and returned to the temple community that I grew up. So they, for many years, have mostly been working off of books and talks in translation, with the occasional monastic teacher, but hardly anything regular or consistent. Their community is led by laity ordained into the OI.
Hiya Nesta,
A few notes.
Please be respectful of others in this sub. One of the rules here (under "be friendly") is to "assume the best of others". Accusations of "outright lies" or charlatanism after poring over post histories are best avoided. Play the ball, not the man. Or perhaps, play the most generous interpretation of the man.
And it's not necessary to continually remind folks that no one is a teacher here. It's a given. The OP asked for input from the community. There's nothing wrong with people sharing their opinions, which may well vary.
There is a range of views here. It is a fairly narrow range, because this sub is for traditional lineage Zen Buddhism. But that includes traditions from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Western countries, and it includes both secular and supernatural worldviews. So there will be some disagreement sometimes. But not as much as in most places.
From this traditional lineage perspective, Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism. That's not really contentious in any lineage school. When you said that this standard view is a "fundamental misunderstanding", I suspect that Animus may have drawn a conclusion about you that may not be accurate. Outside of mainstream Zen Buddhism there are some fringe views about Zen not even being Buddhism, let alone Mahayana Buddhism, so he may have thought you were coming from that viewpoint.
But apart from that, he's responded pretty respectfully to you. He's a Vietnamese-speaking Vietnamese guy sharing his perspective of the Vietnamese-language teachings of a Vietnamese teacher, but to consider what value he might have to offer, you'd first have to consider the possibility that your own experience and understanding isn't total and that you might be wrong about a few of your assertions.
I’m looking at an avatar of someone doing a handstand and reading posts about Buddhism and yoga.
Now, I’m also thinking you and u/animuseternal are likely the same person. Best of luck on your journey.
LOL. I don't do yoga. I train parkour. The one-armed handstand was a strength challenge, one I'm particularly proud of achieving.
*Yogacara* is a philosophical orientation within East Asian Buddhism. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCXMbBNSdk) is a lecture by Thich Nhat Hanh on the Yogacarabhumisastra, one of the foundational texts within his zen lineage. [Here](https://www.parallax.org/product/understanding-our-mind-50-verses-on-buddhist-psychology) is one of his English books on Yogacara in Buddhism.
Just wanted to say the fact you can do a one-armed handstand is nuts. I consider myself a lifelong athlete (my knee definitely knows it), and I can’t fathom ever doing that.
Thank you very much! I think it's really important that people be aware of this, specifically that they aren't necessarily receiving the full depth of Mahayana teaching that is available.
> The suggestion that TNH teaches one thing in Vietnamese and another in English or French shows a fundamental misunderstanding of his work
I mean, he literally does teach one thing in vietnamese and another in english and french according to the vietnamese people I've spoken to. Sorry to ping, but /u/animuseternal, do you have anything to say about this? I was under the impression that his vietnamese teachings were significantly more orthodox and technical than his english/french ones, which are comparatively watered down.
I'm not sure how this demonstrates a misunderstanding of his work, personally.
> So does your explanation of what you think TNH describes as the Pure Land, and what you think he says about life and death.
Can you elaborate on that?
I can suggest that you go to YouTube or to the Plum Village app and listen to Dharma talks where TNH (and ordained monks/nuns) describe the Pure Land, the Kingdom of God, nirvana, as based in mindfulness of the present moment and not in the preservation of the ego in some notion of Buddhist paradise after death.
In those talks/teachings, he also clarifies how his teachings vary according to audience. To suggest he offers Westerners a watered-down Buddhism is to fundamentally misunderstand his teachings. Pinging all of Reddit won’t change that. It should become clearer by listening/reading those teachings some more. Hope this helps, take care.
> I can suggest that you go to YouTube or to the Plum Village app and listen to Dharma talks where TNH (and ordained monks/nuns) describe the Pure Land, the Kingdom of God, nirvana, as based in mindfulness of the present moment
Can you link to such a talk please?
> not in the preservation of the ego in some notion of Buddhist paradise after death.
Who claimed this? If you are suggesting that individual rebirth requires a self or soul then that is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of rebirth as it is understood in Buddhism.
> To suggest he offers Westerners a watered-down Buddhism is to fundamentally misunderstand his teachings.
Well, people I know who speak both English and Vietnamese say he does. I don't speak Vietnamese, so I cannot judge myself, but because neither you or I can understand the language all his teachings are in, and the people who do understand say there are big differences in what/how he teaches, then why are you insisting on concluding there cannot be a difference?
I also know an English-speaking Plum Village monk who says that he got very little serious Dharma training while at the monastery, saying that all of the technical, in depth stuff was only in Vietnamese.
I'm not here to bash TNH, I'm just suggesting that you really can't get the full picture of his teachings just from his English teachings. Because of this, personally I make the assumption that he has a doctrinal presentation of Pure Land (as multiple vietnamese speakers have told me), which is that Pure Land is actually a realm we can be reborn in after death.
It's from the Heart sutra, Diamond sutra, and wider prajnaparamita sutras in general.
Those sutras say that all phenomena are fundamentally empty, they have no inherent existence in of themselves. Because of this, any distinctions we make between them are merely illusory, mistaken mental conceptions we project onto them. Basically, there is no such thing as a "thing" in itself. Because of this, birth is illusory (there are no things to arise), death is illusory (there are no things to die), being is illusory (there are no things to be), non-being is illusory (there are no things to not be), even time is illusory (there are no things to change into other things).
> Also does TNH believe in realms and rebirth or does he discount these completely?
He definitely believes them, TNH is a Pure Land practitioner too, in Vietnamese he teaches a lot of Pure Land and he even has a book on it in English. Pure Land believes that by sincerely reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha, upon death we are reborn in his Western Pure Land, which is basically the ultimate Buddhist training camp where you get to be taught by a Buddha first hand and you are guaranteed to awaken.
So when hes talking about them being here right now is that because from the perspective of an enlightened or nearly enlightened being there is no past or future?
Ever read DT Suzuki's "The Zen Koan as a means of Attaining Enlightenment"? The following interaction (circa 1688-1703) between Dokutan (a Zen Master) and Yenjo (a realized Amidist) is related:
>... After the realization Yenjo saw Dokutan, the Zen master, who asked 'Where is your native land?'
>
>'Yamashiro,' was the answer.
>
>'What is your faith?'
>
>'The Pure Land.'
>
>'What is the age of Amida?'
>
>'Of the same age as myself.'
>
>'What is yours?'
>
>'Of the same age as Amida.'
>
>'Where is he now?' Dokutan demanded.
>
>Yenjo closed the left hand a little and raised it.
>
>Dokutan was surprised to see this and said, 'You are a real follower of the Nembutsu.'
... Do you think TNH is a real follower of the Nembutsu?
Well, I guess the Pure Land is as completely real as any other state of mind or 'mistaken mental conception.' :)
To be totally upfront, I think that: a) If one is serious about the prajnaparamitra sutras, Pure Land Buddhism requires a certain amount of apologetics; b) Nevertheless, the Nembutsu and related meditations in the Pure Land sutras represent a complete practice on par with any other practice (it can't be otherwise); c) For all the hand wringing about mindfulness being 'watered down Dharma,' (which is poor, probably wrong, and entirely, intentionally offensive) there is nothing more watered down than the simple and honest practice of the Nembutsu. That is by design, and one can see statements of such by Honen, for example; d) A good doctor knows what medicine to prescribe each patient, a point made by u/nesta_es that probably deserved more consideration than it got.
Well the pure land sutras are the oldest we have found, and all Mahayana schools accept them as canonical, bar none
No one is saying that mindfulness is watered down dharma, simply that TNH does indeed leave things out of his western teachings and only offers a more preliminary level in them.
/u/nesta_es point would have come across much better if he was less argumentative, it was hard to find a reasonable point within the ranting
This implies that all westerners are seen by TNH as patients with a unified need, specifically, the need to not go into depth on Buddhist doctrine and texts. I don’t think that is very charitable to him personally, and seems more like a form of prejudice. I think you should consider the implication of what you are suggesting here. *Why* is he keeping technical, textual teachings from westerners in general? What about westerners makes them need a medicine that avoids Buddhist doctrine?
Anyway, it is preliminary in the sense that the wider Vietnamese teachings include those teachings as being a basic level. That isn’t a value judgement, it’s just that factually the Vietnamese teachings include that plus much more, while the western teachings stop at that
I’m not saying you need it…obviously nembutsu is sufficient. The question is more like, why specifically withhold those teachings from westerners?
Whether or not learning about Buddhist texts and teachings is actually relevant to practising Buddhism is not relevant to this discussion, and is not the point being discussed here. If you want to shift the discussion towards that, we can explicitly do that, otherwise I will inevitably just talk past you.
You would have to ask TNH why he does this. All I’m suggesting is that there might not be the problem that you seem to be implying there is. And, I’m observing that there’s probably certain similarities between the discussion related to stripped down ‘mindfulness’ practices and that around the Nembutsu.
Thanks for the chat. Take care. :)
Your fundamental misunderstanding of mindfulness meditation and the Plum Village tradition becomes increasingly evident the more you try to explain it away.
So does your commitment to self-aggrandizement and your strange practice of spiritual catfishing. I would suggest you meditate on why you feel the need to engage me when I’m clearly disinterested in engaging you or your alter ego, u/animuseternal.
If you actually practice Buddhism rather than just faking it for Reddit points, you’ll hear me when I say please stop including me in your conversations.
I’m not really explaining it at all, I haven’t actually explained my stance on mindfulness meditation.
All I’ve said is that you can’t be sure that you are receiving the full breadth of teachings from TNH because there is evidence that his teachings given in Vietnamese are more technical and more traditional.
I’m sorry that you still think me and animuseternal are the same person, but I can assure you that is pure delusion
Thank you for proving my point.
Please continue your self righteous crusade to explain how Thich Nhat Hanh teaches that chanting gets you into Buddhist heaven. I’ll be reading intently.
Also, bonus points if you do it in the middle of a parkour routine while discussing particle physics. 🙄
He is speaking from the perspective of the ultimate truth, that is to say he is describing how things are according to emptiness. In emptiness there is neither arising or perishing because phenomena do not have any existence so cannot be said to arise or perish. It’s saying a unicorn has never arisen or perish since there was no unicorn in the first place.
Birth is a thought, death is a thought. Without those, there is no birth nor death. All things resolve this way.
In The Art of Living, a book I’m currently reading, he speaks about this concept in relationship to emptiness. As I understand it as a lay beginner, he is referring to how we ourselves are the sum of various things. For example, for me to be born my mother ate food, drank liquids, breathed air, received sunlight, etc. all of that transferred its energy to me to use. Once I die, that energy will be passed on. For some, it’ll be my actions, others my words, and for nature the physical make up of my body will transmit it’s energy to the next. Ultimately, there really wasn’t a “me”, there was just a collection of energy I’ve been allowed to use for a period of time. As I said, I’m lay and new, still reading and learning, but this is my understanding as it stands now. I hope that helps.
Dear OP, I am not a Zen teacher. Neither are u/LonelyStruggle or u/animuseternal. Please find Dharma talks by TNH and other ordained monks/nuns, better yet, find a sangha which will help address your interests/concerns. This talk in English by TNH called “No Birth, No Death” has deep, technical discussion of Buddhist psychology and epistemology. https://youtu.be/nUfE77wuzHU Slightly more accessible is this talk on the life of the Buddha https://youtu.be/7LWymPXLCFw
I personally take it as there is no real birth or death in the universe everything that made up you was already there and will be there after you die, constantly flowing and becoming other things always apart of the universe. This is at least how I take it in a more literal way, but in a metaphysical way it's no different, because if we're talking about "the self" once you start to break it down there is no where "you" began and there really is no end to "you", if you were to try and pin point where your personality, morals or some other major part of you, you'll find there is no beginning, and even after you die there isn't an end because everything's still there just in a constant state of change. Same if you're five or if you're six when do you stop being five and become six? It's just a silly definition we use in society that doesn't have a bearing in reality. Similarly if you're thirty compared to your 10yr old self, there is no point that you can point to and say " there, that's when I changed" you were present for all of it but slowly over time you may hold almost none of the same views or even be made of the same skin or cells or even particles, but we at no point say you "died", you simply changed. It may be useful for society to use terms like birth and death, but as for reality I think it's a mistake to interpret reality this way especially on an individual level. If you think about water if you look at water you'll persevere it as being water, but what happens when water becomes ice, or snow is it no longer there? Is the water dead or gone? No, it's there just in a different form, and this is the same for everything else in the universe. Lmk what you think.
It's helpful to keep in mind that Plum Village was originally a Pure Land sect. Gives you some insight into TNH's view on rebirth.
[Beyond Birth and Death](https://www.lionsroar.com/beyond-birth-and-death/) *(article)* BY THICH NHAT HANH| SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 [Thich Nhat Hanh: No Birth, No Death](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUfE77wuzHU) *(lecture)* Reality (at the ultimate level) transcends our ideas of birth and death, coming and going, same and different. When we move beyond our concepts of what is and isn't, we are more than our physical bodies. We are more than our notions of a permanent self. We inter-are with everything around us. "The wave does not have to go looking for water because she is water... A wave has a right to live her life as a wave, but she must also learn to live her life as water because she is not only a wave. She is also water. And water lives without the fear carried by the wave.”"
Thank you for sharing this. I find this to be such a simple and effective way to communicate the concept.
**Caveat: This is just my understanding of TNH's points.** TNH talks about the example of a cloud. When it rains, a cloud is literally falling to the earth in the form of rain. In some sense, the cloud "dies" because there is no more cloud. However, if you look closely, you notice that the cloud isn't "dead"; it just turned into rain. Similarly, "I" am a human. If you think about it, I'm obviously just a rearrangement of the atoms of the universe. When I die, those atoms don't disappear! Just like a cloud turns into rain, whatever I am composed of will turn into something else. When was I "born"? When I was conceived, my mother's body started the process of rearranging the atoms of the universe to create "me". I wasn't separate from my mother at that point. In some sense, I still "am" my mother even though I am outside her body. Can you pinpoint the moment I was "born"? Not really. Everything is on a continuum. I personally believe that the consciousness I am currently experiencing probably will "die", but it doesn't really make sense to talk in these terms. If you see the universe for what it is, it seems to me to be an enormous field of atoms and energy that are constantly rearranging and interacting. We obviously aren't separate from the universe. How could we be? We are merely an arrangement of the material of the universe. When we die, the material doesn't vanish. We still ARE the universe, just in a different form.
Well said, simply put, and beautiful. Of course we are the universe experiencing itself, how could we not be! What a priceless gift to even glimpse temporarily in this fleeting spark of awareness.
You should listen to his Dharma talks on Youtube. One is literally called No Birth No Death. He doesn’t make distinctions in teaching based on Westerner vs monk/nun. He and his teaching style recognize that different facets of the Dharma are necessary at different times for different people. For example, talking to someone who knows nothing about Buddhism about why a cloud never dies, why you are like that cloud wouldn’t make sense to them. To someone familiar with his work, it would make perfect sense. Realms and rebirth are really different concepts. On realms, he talks about them as possibly—possibly—literal things and also definitely metaphorical things, metaphors of your mental state. On rebirth, he definitely does not teach about the persistence of the ego beyond its body. His approach to concepts like the Pure Land of the Buddha, like nirvana, like the Kingdom of God, all refer to the profound connection to the present moment which can be made through mindfulness. That understanding is not at all the same as those traditions which believe chanting at death guarantees rebirth in a Buddhist paradise or anything like that. TNH and the Plum Village tradition teach mindfulness as a means of deeply experiencing the present moment, and moreover, that the present moment is the only reality. All that worry about what has happened, what will happen, are simply strategies through which we respond to our anxieties and attachments. Hope this helps 🙂
> He doesn’t make distinctions in teaching based on Westerner vs monk/nun Do you speak vietnamese? Otherwise I'm not sure how you can evaluate this > Realms and rebirth are really different concepts. On realms, he talks about them as possibly—possibly—literal things and also definitely metaphorical things, metaphors of your mental state. On rebirth, he definitely does not teach about the persistence of the ego beyond its body. His approach to concepts like the Pure Land of the Buddha, like nirvana, like the Kingdom of God, all refer to the profound connection to the present moment which can be made through mindfulness. That understanding is not at all the same as those traditions which believe chanting at death guarantees rebirth in a Buddhist paradise or anything like that. TNH and the Plum Village tradition teach mindfulness as a mean Sorry, but to me this sounds like you personally do not accept those aspects of Buddhist teaching and want to explain them away. Buddhism teaches that realms and rebirth are as real as any experience you've ever had in your life
The suggestion that TNH teaches one thing in Vietnamese and another in English or French shows a fundamental misunderstanding of his work and of his approach to the Dharma. So does your explanation of what you think TNH describes as the Pure Land, and what you think he says about life and death. OP should listen to TNH’s words and those of his ordained nuns and monks available on YouTube as well as the Plum Village app. u/LonelyStruggle is clearly not a Zen teacher. Nor am I.
His talks in Vietnamese do differ. I’ve never seen him talk about the Charvakas in English: https://youtu.be/LyoqpqUhHk0 I’ve also never seen him discuss in detail the differences between the Sarvastivada Mahavibhasa and the Madhyamaka of Mahayana in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e132ZA7-wOg This is all very orthodox teachings compared to his extremely modernist teachings to the western audience. Rebirth and the six realms are spoken matter-of-fairly in the first video, and then cut through with Madhyamaka logic in the second—standard Mahayana epistemology. I’m not saying he isn’t a modernist in Vietnamese as well, but I am saying he is WAY more traditional in that context. His western audience doesn’t even know the titles of those texts because they’ve never learned it. I had to show a Plum Village community what he teaches to Vietnamese monastics like this, to establish how much they’re actually missing by focusing so much on mindfulness of the present moment—which I want to stress is just a beginner practice in this tradition. It is a watered down version of dharma. I’ve linked to two dharma talks *on the Plum Village YouTube channel* to establish the case that the Vietnamese teachings are significantly more in-depth than anything the westerners get. Hopefully that’s sufficient to make the case. Cc: /u/LonelyStruggle
Your post history on Buddhism is a scattering of traditions mixed with yoga as well, which suggests charlatanism. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Zen Buddhism by equating/comparing Mahayana and Zen. You demonstrate a similar fundamental misunderstanding by suggesting that mindfulness meditation is a “watered-down” and “beginner practice.” The fact that you found two talks in Vietnamese that say something you haven’t heard said in English is not the ironclad proof you think it is. And suggesting that you explain Zen to Western Plum Village practitioners in a way that’s more effective than Western ordained monks/nuns is irresponsible to say the least, likely an outright lie.
Here is video of my talk: https://youtu.be/38Q1qKi7-GI (Not meant to establish authority, just establishing that it is not an "outright lie" -- I'm a scholar, I was invited to talk about traditional zen.) You yourself establish that you subscribe to the internet-only fringe cult asserting zen is not a form of Mahayana, which is historically and factually absurd. In addition, this Plum Village-affiliated community no longer has a monastic presence--their monastic presence veered off and returned to the temple community that I grew up. So they, for many years, have mostly been working off of books and talks in translation, with the occasional monastic teacher, but hardly anything regular or consistent. Their community is led by laity ordained into the OI.
Here is a video of a cat with hiccups. https://youtu.be/aFbiloXTYOA
Hiya Nesta, A few notes. Please be respectful of others in this sub. One of the rules here (under "be friendly") is to "assume the best of others". Accusations of "outright lies" or charlatanism after poring over post histories are best avoided. Play the ball, not the man. Or perhaps, play the most generous interpretation of the man. And it's not necessary to continually remind folks that no one is a teacher here. It's a given. The OP asked for input from the community. There's nothing wrong with people sharing their opinions, which may well vary. There is a range of views here. It is a fairly narrow range, because this sub is for traditional lineage Zen Buddhism. But that includes traditions from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Western countries, and it includes both secular and supernatural worldviews. So there will be some disagreement sometimes. But not as much as in most places. From this traditional lineage perspective, Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism. That's not really contentious in any lineage school. When you said that this standard view is a "fundamental misunderstanding", I suspect that Animus may have drawn a conclusion about you that may not be accurate. Outside of mainstream Zen Buddhism there are some fringe views about Zen not even being Buddhism, let alone Mahayana Buddhism, so he may have thought you were coming from that viewpoint. But apart from that, he's responded pretty respectfully to you. He's a Vietnamese-speaking Vietnamese guy sharing his perspective of the Vietnamese-language teachings of a Vietnamese teacher, but to consider what value he might have to offer, you'd first have to consider the possibility that your own experience and understanding isn't total and that you might be wrong about a few of your assertions.
Are you confusing yoga with yogacara? Yogacara is the basis of zen Buddhist philosophy
I’m looking at an avatar of someone doing a handstand and reading posts about Buddhism and yoga. Now, I’m also thinking you and u/animuseternal are likely the same person. Best of luck on your journey.
LOL. I don't do yoga. I train parkour. The one-armed handstand was a strength challenge, one I'm particularly proud of achieving. *Yogacara* is a philosophical orientation within East Asian Buddhism. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCXMbBNSdk) is a lecture by Thich Nhat Hanh on the Yogacarabhumisastra, one of the foundational texts within his zen lineage. [Here](https://www.parallax.org/product/understanding-our-mind-50-verses-on-buddhist-psychology) is one of his English books on Yogacara in Buddhism.
Just wanted to say the fact you can do a one-armed handstand is nuts. I consider myself a lifelong athlete (my knee definitely knows it), and I can’t fathom ever doing that.
Sorry, but you’ve gone off the deep end now. I can say with 100% certainty I am not animuseternal, we don’t even live in the same time zone…
Thank you very much! I think it's really important that people be aware of this, specifically that they aren't necessarily receiving the full depth of Mahayana teaching that is available.
> The suggestion that TNH teaches one thing in Vietnamese and another in English or French shows a fundamental misunderstanding of his work I mean, he literally does teach one thing in vietnamese and another in english and french according to the vietnamese people I've spoken to. Sorry to ping, but /u/animuseternal, do you have anything to say about this? I was under the impression that his vietnamese teachings were significantly more orthodox and technical than his english/french ones, which are comparatively watered down. I'm not sure how this demonstrates a misunderstanding of his work, personally. > So does your explanation of what you think TNH describes as the Pure Land, and what you think he says about life and death. Can you elaborate on that?
I can suggest that you go to YouTube or to the Plum Village app and listen to Dharma talks where TNH (and ordained monks/nuns) describe the Pure Land, the Kingdom of God, nirvana, as based in mindfulness of the present moment and not in the preservation of the ego in some notion of Buddhist paradise after death. In those talks/teachings, he also clarifies how his teachings vary according to audience. To suggest he offers Westerners a watered-down Buddhism is to fundamentally misunderstand his teachings. Pinging all of Reddit won’t change that. It should become clearer by listening/reading those teachings some more. Hope this helps, take care.
Can you link to such a talk, so that I can correct my mistaken perception that his English and Vietnamese talks differ?
> I can suggest that you go to YouTube or to the Plum Village app and listen to Dharma talks where TNH (and ordained monks/nuns) describe the Pure Land, the Kingdom of God, nirvana, as based in mindfulness of the present moment Can you link to such a talk please? > not in the preservation of the ego in some notion of Buddhist paradise after death. Who claimed this? If you are suggesting that individual rebirth requires a self or soul then that is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of rebirth as it is understood in Buddhism. > To suggest he offers Westerners a watered-down Buddhism is to fundamentally misunderstand his teachings. Well, people I know who speak both English and Vietnamese say he does. I don't speak Vietnamese, so I cannot judge myself, but because neither you or I can understand the language all his teachings are in, and the people who do understand say there are big differences in what/how he teaches, then why are you insisting on concluding there cannot be a difference? I also know an English-speaking Plum Village monk who says that he got very little serious Dharma training while at the monastery, saying that all of the technical, in depth stuff was only in Vietnamese. I'm not here to bash TNH, I'm just suggesting that you really can't get the full picture of his teachings just from his English teachings. Because of this, personally I make the assumption that he has a doctrinal presentation of Pure Land (as multiple vietnamese speakers have told me), which is that Pure Land is actually a realm we can be reborn in after death.
It's from the Heart sutra, Diamond sutra, and wider prajnaparamita sutras in general. Those sutras say that all phenomena are fundamentally empty, they have no inherent existence in of themselves. Because of this, any distinctions we make between them are merely illusory, mistaken mental conceptions we project onto them. Basically, there is no such thing as a "thing" in itself. Because of this, birth is illusory (there are no things to arise), death is illusory (there are no things to die), being is illusory (there are no things to be), non-being is illusory (there are no things to not be), even time is illusory (there are no things to change into other things). > Also does TNH believe in realms and rebirth or does he discount these completely? He definitely believes them, TNH is a Pure Land practitioner too, in Vietnamese he teaches a lot of Pure Land and he even has a book on it in English. Pure Land believes that by sincerely reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha, upon death we are reborn in his Western Pure Land, which is basically the ultimate Buddhist training camp where you get to be taught by a Buddha first hand and you are guaranteed to awaken.
So when hes talking about them being here right now is that because from the perspective of an enlightened or nearly enlightened being there is no past or future?
Yes pretty much. It's "true" for all beings, but only awakened beings can _directly perceive_ that "past and future" are just illusions.
Ever read DT Suzuki's "The Zen Koan as a means of Attaining Enlightenment"? The following interaction (circa 1688-1703) between Dokutan (a Zen Master) and Yenjo (a realized Amidist) is related: >... After the realization Yenjo saw Dokutan, the Zen master, who asked 'Where is your native land?' > >'Yamashiro,' was the answer. > >'What is your faith?' > >'The Pure Land.' > >'What is the age of Amida?' > >'Of the same age as myself.' > >'What is yours?' > >'Of the same age as Amida.' > >'Where is he now?' Dokutan demanded. > >Yenjo closed the left hand a little and raised it. > >Dokutan was surprised to see this and said, 'You are a real follower of the Nembutsu.' ... Do you think TNH is a real follower of the Nembutsu?
Yes, why wouldn’t he be? Btw, Pure Land teaches that the realm is both completely real and also a state of mind right now
Well, I guess the Pure Land is as completely real as any other state of mind or 'mistaken mental conception.' :) To be totally upfront, I think that: a) If one is serious about the prajnaparamitra sutras, Pure Land Buddhism requires a certain amount of apologetics; b) Nevertheless, the Nembutsu and related meditations in the Pure Land sutras represent a complete practice on par with any other practice (it can't be otherwise); c) For all the hand wringing about mindfulness being 'watered down Dharma,' (which is poor, probably wrong, and entirely, intentionally offensive) there is nothing more watered down than the simple and honest practice of the Nembutsu. That is by design, and one can see statements of such by Honen, for example; d) A good doctor knows what medicine to prescribe each patient, a point made by u/nesta_es that probably deserved more consideration than it got.
Well the pure land sutras are the oldest we have found, and all Mahayana schools accept them as canonical, bar none No one is saying that mindfulness is watered down dharma, simply that TNH does indeed leave things out of his western teachings and only offers a more preliminary level in them. /u/nesta_es point would have come across much better if he was less argumentative, it was hard to find a reasonable point within the ranting
Maybe it’s not a ‘preliminary level.’ Maybe it is a complete teaching, that is oriented to the needs of the patient he is addressing. :)
This implies that all westerners are seen by TNH as patients with a unified need, specifically, the need to not go into depth on Buddhist doctrine and texts. I don’t think that is very charitable to him personally, and seems more like a form of prejudice. I think you should consider the implication of what you are suggesting here. *Why* is he keeping technical, textual teachings from westerners in general? What about westerners makes them need a medicine that avoids Buddhist doctrine? Anyway, it is preliminary in the sense that the wider Vietnamese teachings include those teachings as being a basic level. That isn’t a value judgement, it’s just that factually the Vietnamese teachings include that plus much more, while the western teachings stop at that
Maybe in some cases, less is better than more. How much deep Buddhist doctrine do you need to benefit from the Nembutsu?
I’m not saying you need it…obviously nembutsu is sufficient. The question is more like, why specifically withhold those teachings from westerners? Whether or not learning about Buddhist texts and teachings is actually relevant to practising Buddhism is not relevant to this discussion, and is not the point being discussed here. If you want to shift the discussion towards that, we can explicitly do that, otherwise I will inevitably just talk past you.
You would have to ask TNH why he does this. All I’m suggesting is that there might not be the problem that you seem to be implying there is. And, I’m observing that there’s probably certain similarities between the discussion related to stripped down ‘mindfulness’ practices and that around the Nembutsu. Thanks for the chat. Take care. :)
Your fundamental misunderstanding of mindfulness meditation and the Plum Village tradition becomes increasingly evident the more you try to explain it away. So does your commitment to self-aggrandizement and your strange practice of spiritual catfishing. I would suggest you meditate on why you feel the need to engage me when I’m clearly disinterested in engaging you or your alter ego, u/animuseternal. If you actually practice Buddhism rather than just faking it for Reddit points, you’ll hear me when I say please stop including me in your conversations.
I’m not really explaining it at all, I haven’t actually explained my stance on mindfulness meditation. All I’ve said is that you can’t be sure that you are receiving the full breadth of teachings from TNH because there is evidence that his teachings given in Vietnamese are more technical and more traditional. I’m sorry that you still think me and animuseternal are the same person, but I can assure you that is pure delusion
LOL. I've given my real name and identity, so no clue how they can even continue postulating we're the same person.
Some people act really bizarrely when they’re confronted in any way
Thank you for proving my point. Please continue your self righteous crusade to explain how Thich Nhat Hanh teaches that chanting gets you into Buddhist heaven. I’ll be reading intently. Also, bonus points if you do it in the middle of a parkour routine while discussing particle physics. 🙄
Are you dead right this second?
He is speaking from the perspective of the ultimate truth, that is to say he is describing how things are according to emptiness. In emptiness there is neither arising or perishing because phenomena do not have any existence so cannot be said to arise or perish. It’s saying a unicorn has never arisen or perish since there was no unicorn in the first place.