"Comfort Food Buddhism" a critique of

[wtompepper]

Jnana: Your really think that TNH has the "party line" on all Mahayana Buddhism? Are you honestly not aware of how unusual his position is?

Calling me stupid and ignorant over and over, this is true Buddhism? You post something I wrote just to insult me angrily for days, and then say I am angry and not a real Buddhist? I'll stick with my non-buddhism, thanks.

This is a very depressing forum. I honestly hope some of you learn something about Buddhism someday, and get over your childish, ignorant anger.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Jnana: Your really think that TNH has the "party line" on all Mahayana Buddhism? Are you honestly not aware of how unusual his position is?

Calling me stupid and ignorant over and over, this is true Buddhism? You post something I wrote just to insult me angrily for days, and then say I am angry and not a real Buddhist? I'll stick with my non-buddhism, thanks.

This is a very depressing forum. I honestly hope some of you learn something about Buddhism someday, and get over your childish, ignorant anger.

Seriously dude?

I don't know about as a Buddhist, but simply as a human being on a forum I think you have behaved pretty nastily, everyone is guilty to some degree of holding onto anger, and it's doubly easy to do in an abstract environment like an online forum. That said, from my point of view your responses have so far dwarfed everyone else in terms of obvious vitriol..go hit a punching bag or something. It's a shame because I find your argument itself to have some merit, and it interests me.

If people's response to your public postings generates such anger in you that you feel compelled to post to a forum just to digitally yell at them, why bother even responding..it seems the result of this kind of "communication" is set in stone before the first words are even said.

[JKhedrup]

Actually, Jnana didn´t post your article, I did. And I posted it because I thought it was interesting

I also think that this is a very interesting forum. Not perfect-certainly there are problems. But far from depressing, many of the discussions that go on here are quite productive, positive and informative. Have a look at some of the other threads.

[duckfiasco]

duckfiasco: I am not suggesting my speech might have been the cause of someone's suffering or anger--but I would not consider that unskillful. If the truth makes someone angry, or makes them suffer, then they should take their anger at the truth as an opportunity to see their delusions. Buddhist teaching has not usually meant saying only nice happy things even if it means encouraging delusion--that is a very modern very western idea of Buddhism. The "projection" I am referring to is the assumption that anyone who thinks is angry--if you think that thought always means anger, it might be worth considering what it is about thought that makes you so angry, what truth you are avoiding that thought might reveal to you.

Remember that arrogance does not mean being right, arrogance means refusing to consider evidence that you are wrong.

You're right in that anger is ultimately another's responsibility, another form of self-cherishing karma ripening for them. However, short of being enlightened or at least highly attained teachers ourselves, it may be best to err on the side of caution. We all sometimes have unskillful ways of speaking or acting that cause harm to others. At the very least, it seems more conducive to finding whatever truth there is by investigating the situation thoroughly. Saying we're just projecting or angry ourselves seems like a way to shut down the conversation.

Someone can be irrationally angry at you, and you can be totally correct about them, if you wish. What's important is do we stay open, most especially when we're right? The criteria of Right Speech aren't if it's nice and happy and hippie-ish... did anybody here suggest that? It's whether the speech is true, beneficial, and timely. Saying "I'll take your advice and ignore you" or that we're childish and ignorant, that doesn't seem to fit the categories of Right Speech. I'd very much like to read you elucidating your points on Thich Nhat Hanh's style, especially with other more knowledgeable posters here. What I see here is a lot of defensiveness instead. That is just my opinion.

Nobody here thinks conceptual thought or intellectualism are absolute evils to be avoided. Nor did I get that impression from Thich Nhat Hanh. In his books that specifically treat with the Buddhist path, he goes in depth on causation and the somewhat heady philosophical details of Buddhism. I still can't get my head around his chapter on the 12 links of codependent arising in "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching". I feel your original blog post was oversimplifying TNH's position and his teachings. At least my own experience hasn't borne out the complaints levied against him.

Also, I'm not personally angry at anyone here. So no worries about that

[Jnana]

Jnana: Your really think that TNH has the "party line" on all Mahayana Buddhism?

I never said nor implied that TNH has "the party line on all Mahāyāna Buddhism." What I said was: "Most of what TNH teaches can be supported by mainstream East Asian Mahāyāna sources." Specifically, East Asian Chan in terms of practice and Huayan in terms of view.

Calling me stupid and ignorant over and over....

I've just met you, and haven't called you stupid. I simply asked you if the reasons for your disagreements are because you're not a mahāyāna practitioner. I asked because you've also mentioned that you rarely agree with HHDL as well, who, I would suggest, does have a good understanding of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

I'll stick with my non-buddhism, thanks.

If you're going to post criticisms of Buddhist teachers on the internet then it's to be expected that this is going to generate some controversy on a Buddhist discussion forum sooner or later.

[zenkarma]

Yes, zenkarma, it is in sense paying less attention to the sensory, or at least not limiting ourselves to it, not assuming it is a clear and true perception. We must analyze our immediate perceptions to discover how they arise, what conditions them. This is not uncommon in the Buddhist tradition; we must realize that even our sensory perceptions are already shaped by our culture and experiences, and there is never a pure and true perception, because perception occurs in the mind, not the eye/ear/finger.

My point is that this reification of senses, by the belief that they are unanalyzable, prevents us from becoming aware of how things really are. This is a long debate in Buddhism, and, to come to Huseng’s question, the belief in and unconditioned, which is clearly already a subject of debate in the Pali canon, only becomes more or less “settled” in the “Original Nature” or “Buddha Nature” debates. It is after this that it is commonly simply assumed, in eastern Buddhism, that there is an “unconditioned.” Up until then, it was a subject of debate, and Nagarjuna is clearly arguing that even things like space are dependently arisen—but he is arguing this because there are other Buddhists who disagree with his position. It is only later that it can be “assumed” that there is an unconditioned, and for many Buddhists this is still seen as a rejection of the most important Buddhist insights: anatman and dependent origination.

I rarely agree with HHDL (I am not a Tibetan Buddhist), but on this he has a point. There is perhaps nothing wrong with understanding “mindfulness” a bare attention to the supposedly “pure” sensory present, if it helps relieve you migraines or whatever—but it is not Buddhism. Instead of helping us to realize the absolute conditioning of everything, it reifies our present construal of the world, and uses the “ineffable” to avoid real insight.

To return briefly to the idea of Thich Nhat Hanh using “skillful means”: I think in the case of the example of the WMD engineer, the function of the example in the book is not to suggest that he will become awakened eventually, but to reassure the reader of the book that it is okay to give money to Plum Village even if that money is made by making weapons. Read the book, and I think the rhetorical function of the example is clear: don’t bother to change the world, just ignore the effects of your actions and focus on you immediate sensations. It is promoting quietist comfort, and Buddhism as a way to reduce anxiety and guilt without having to stop doing things we really should be anxious and guilty about. I could believe he was using skillful means if he just said to the guy, look, if you even came here to ask this question, you already know the answer—when you’re ready to accept the answer you already know, then we can talk.

I dont really know what to make of this. You seem to be recommending mindfulness in one paragraph and in the next to have no idea what it is. If you pay attention you notice whats around you and what you perceive and your thoughts. Did you get that ? AND your thoughts. This tends to put "you" in context and you start getting an idea of what you are really up to. Also if you think buddha nature or the self is an atman you dont really understand the concept. What you need is to keep your ears, eyes and mind at attention and to type less. Pay attention and practice and if you can ignore your own opinions. Occasionally when people think something great comes out, a symphony, a great engineering feat. a novel new computer program, but most human thinking is superfluous cruft, this is true of most peoples opinions, including yours.

[catmoon]

Okay this has turned into a mudslinging festival.

It's time to stop the ad homs. Further posts containing accusations of anger, ignorance and such will be removed. Stick to the issues please.

[muni]

My master simple explained me when I was as deluded as can be in a fight with another practicioner:" he/she has another practice/path. I very slowly learned that by critizing others we only expose our own habits and so limit ourselves to be free. We want that others has the same glasses as we do.

While awaken beings see "others" as perfect nature and see the stains as temporary passing phenomena only, we are well trained to see the spots, the stains only and these are forming "the other". And we know the truth, but those spots out there, knows nothing. People can so nicely say: the pleasure is mine. In same way I should say: the ignorance is mine. Since again awaken Masters are seeing perfection in all of us and from that point they help us to see that as well. All own mind.


JKhedrup is right, we need it all; study, meditations, contemplations and our master will guide us what we need. The Vietnamese Master teaches dependency, emptiness, impermanence while there comes a moment practice is not any longer in intellectual field anymore. So is there thaught.

( sorry, didn't read all posts right now)

[wtompepper]

I have a question regarding combative tone. My concern is that the idea of a core self, the reification of our illusions, is so powerful and subtle, that it seems often impossible to persuade anyone out of it with kind words. The non-confrontational acceptance, the "tolerance" and acceptance of all positions, seems to just subtly reinforce core delusions, particularly the sense of a core "true self," while giving the illusion that it has been transcended. Then the newcomer to Buddhism realizes that despite (believing she has) transcended attachment, she is still miserable and angry, and she moves on to some other (non-)solution.

At the risk of being attacked for justifying my tone, I wonder if I can ask people to offer serious advice about this. Isn't it sometimes useful and even necessary to upset and anger people to help free them from their illusions and attachments? If we have an obligation to help others see through their illusions, can this be done by being "nice" and "accepting"? Has anybody had success with this approach? (Please, that last question is NOT meant rhetorically or sarcastically--I'm looking for real examples.)

My great concern with my own practice right now is not with understanding, but "skillful means." I seriously do believe, as Johnny Dangerous and others have pointed out, that I lack skillful means to successfully discuss these matters. My own experience has been that what passes for "right speech" simply reinforces peoples comfort with their denial and delusion, and when they are faced with truth they are more powerfully entrenched than before. For instance, the popular version of "mindfulness," which pretends to stop all thought, so strongly reinforces the subtle sense of a "self" that those who practice it seem to become even more powerfully attached, less able to comprehend anatman.

Now, I fully expect further comments on how angry and arrogant this comment is, and more assertions about my ignorance of Buddhism (eg if you "understood" you wouldn't lack skillful means, etc). But I'm willing to ignore them if anyone wants to seriously address this issue, which is the question my original post on Speculative Non-Buddhism was trying to address: can we really wake people from their sleep of illusion without being confrontational and argumentative and even making them upset and angry? Is there really a kinder gentler way to do it?

[Thus-gone]

At the risk of being attacked for justifying my tone, I wonder if I can ask people to offer serious advice about this. Isn't it sometimes useful and even necessary to upset and anger people to help free them from their illusions and attachments? If we have an obligation to help others see through their illusions, can this be done by being "nice" and "accepting"? Has anybody had success with this approach? (Please, that last question is NOT meant rhetorically or sarcastically--I'm looking for real examples.)

There have been great teachers in the past who were very confrontational and aggressive, and there have been great teachers who were very soft-spoken and kind. Anything, really, can be used to teach the Dharma; it all depends on your own understanding, compassion, and skill in transmitting it.

If you are not enlightened, however, it is best to just be yourself and strive to manifest right speech. Nothing that you do or say is really going to help people if you, yourself, are still in the midst of delusion. Confrontation - as you can easily observe in any thread on this forum - tends to make people more self-protective and reactionary.

[wtompepper]

I do see your point thus-gone, and perhaps this forum is not the place to discuss this matter. In my particular school of Buddhism, anatman is taken to entail that there are no "enlightened" individuals, and that we can only move toward enlightenment collectively. So from my perspective, to stay silent and wait for an enlightened teacher is to participate in the delusion of self. Do you see my point, here? If the consensus here is that individuals become enlightened and then teach the rest of us, and we must wait for one and in the meantime be kind, then perhaps I am just in the wrong place to discuss this matter, and I will only get more assertions that I am ignorant and deluded. From my perspective, we are all ignorant an deluded as individuals, and can only become awakened collectively--anyone claiming to be an enlightened teacher is, to me, perpetuating the worst kind of delusion and attachment to self.

I have received quite a few emails from people unwilling to post here and on other boards (because they are tired of being insulted and attacked, mostly) saying that a confrontational approach did help to break them free of their illusions. I am quite seriously asking if there are any examples of the kinder, calmer "right speech" approach doing the same?

[Jikan]

I have a question regarding combative tone. My concern is that the idea of a core self, the reification of our illusions, is so powerful and subtle, that it seems often impossible to persuade anyone out of it with kind words. The non-confrontational acceptance, the "tolerance" and acceptance of all positions, seems to just subtly reinforce core delusions, particularly the sense of a core "true self," while giving the illusion that it has been transcended. Then the newcomer to Buddhism realizes that despite (believing she has) transcended attachment, she is still miserable and angry, and she moves on to some other (non-)solution.

Sure. That's the meaning of wrathful practice in Vajrayana, for instance. The medicine is given to address the needs of the patient. If the patient is in need of a shock, then a shock is administered. If the student is in need of forty years of shoveling shit, then guess what? (see: Lotus Sutra, chapter 4). Upaya. Skilllful means, as you say below.

At the risk of being attacked for justifying my tone, I wonder if I can ask people to offer serious advice about this. Isn't it sometimes useful and even necessary to upset and anger people to help free them from their illusions and attachments? If we have an obligation to help others see through their illusions, can this be done by being "nice" and "accepting"? Has anybody had success with this approach? (Please, that last question is NOT meant rhetorically or sarcastically--I'm looking for real examples.)

One has to be competent to do it. A deluded person barking at people gets nowhere. You need to be a skilled physician to pull it off. In my case, the answer is no: I don't remove people's band-aids "the fast way" because I don't presume to be competent to do so. That said, I have seen it done effectively by teachers I know and respect. It is not fun for a teacher to have to play the stern grandmother, but if she has to in order to reach you, she will do it.

My great concern with my own practice right now is not with understanding, but "skillful means." I seriously do believe, as Johnny Dangerous and others have pointed out, that I lack skillful means to successfully discuss these matters. My own experience has been that what passes for "right speech" simply reinforces peoples comfort with their denial and delusion, and when they are faced with truth they are more powerfully entrenched than before. For instance, the popular version of "mindfulness," which pretends to stop all thought, so strongly reinforces the subtle sense of a "self" that those who practice it seem to become even more powerfully attached, less able to comprehend anatman.

I'd advise you to be concerned with understanding, and with realizing the teachings in practice, experientially. Because until you do, then your means won't be skillful. I agree with you on the mindfulness trip, by the way. In fact I'm writing a book on the topic.

Now, I fully expect further comments on how angry and arrogant this comment is, and more assertions about my ignorance of Buddhism (eg if you "understood" you wouldn't lack skillful means, etc). But I'm willing to ignore them if anyone wants to seriously address this issue, which is the question my original post on Speculative Non-Buddhism was trying to address: can we really wake people from their sleep of illusion without being confrontational and argumentative and even making them upset and angry? Is there really a kinder gentler way to do it?

I think this comment is actually much more thoughtful and reflective than some of your previous ones, such as your dismissal of Yudron's advice to you. I also think your criticisms of Thich Nhat Hanh's approach have some merit, even though I don't agree with all of them. Anyway, to your question:

Gentler may not always be kinder. Again, it depends on the patient and the capacity of the physician. Dharma practice unties emotional knots and turns people upside-down; no matter what, if you're serious about this, you're going to go through some upsetting experiences. I don't see much use in sugar-coating this.

Most important in this is the capacity of the one who presumes to do the waking-up. The first order of business is to attend to one's own practice. From this, the capacity to help others emerges. Absent that, you have ER doctors administering compound fractures instead of first aid.

[Jikan]

I do see your point thus-gone, and perhaps this forum is not the place to discuss this matter. In my particular school of Buddhism, anatman is taken to entail that there are no "enlightened" individuals, and that we can only move toward enlightenment collectively. So from my perspective, to stay silent and wait for an enlightened teacher is to participate in the delusion of self. Do you see my point, here? If the consensus here is that individuals become enlightened and then teach the rest of us, and we must wait for one and in the meantime be kind, then perhaps I am just in the wrong place to discuss this matter, and I will only get more assertions that I am ignorant and deluded. From my perspective, we are all ignorant an deluded as individuals, and can only become awakened collectively--anyone claiming to be an enlightened teacher is, to me, perpetuating the worst kind of delusion and attachment to self.

I have received quite a few emails from people unwilling to post here and on other boards (because they are tired of being insulted and attacked, mostly) saying that a confrontational approach did help to break them free of their illusions. I am quite seriously asking if there are any examples of the kinder, calmer "right speech" approach doing the same?

I've read about approaches such as this one (see the bit above I bolded); Peter Hershock's book Liberating Intimacy (which I liked quite a lot) takes this tack, at least partway. A useful point in that book is that communities committed to practice really do awaken together. It is not as though these matrices of practice remain deluded forever. Participating in such a group is a way to learn and to grow and transmit the teachings. Some are better at it than others, so to speak. It's something like a vanguardist principle. (There's a thread on whether Buddhism is elitist or not that may be of interest to you here at DharmaWheel...)

I don't know if this reflects your community's understanding. I'm just suggesting there may be a rapprochement between the two perspectives you are describing. It's possible for there to be bodhisattvas doing their work in the social context you advocate for. It' doesn't need to be blind individuals leading blind individuals.

Finally, it's a sad fact that conversations on the interwebz often fall prey to misunderstandings, hyperbole, and aggression. People take things personally that aren't personal, and people dish out what they would rather not eat themselves in this environment. What can we do? Well, we can try to do our best not to do those things ourselves and perhaps lead by example. I'm not that great at it myself but I think I'm learning...

[Jnana]

In my particular school of Buddhism, anatman is taken to entail that there are no "enlightened" individuals, and that we can only move toward enlightenment collectively ... anyone claiming to be an enlightened teacher is, to me, perpetuating the worst kind of delusion and attachment to self.

I'd suggest that a useful starting point would be to acknowledge that your view in this regard is uncommon, quite far from mainstream, and has no significant precedent in the long history of Indian Buddhism. Thus, you can expect that other people here on DW are coming from quite different perspectives.

I am quite seriously asking if there are any examples of the kinder, calmer "right speech" approach doing the same?

The historical Buddha, specifically as recorded in the Āgamas & Nikāyas.

[anjali]

Three or four years ago I started noticing the mindfulness trend to. I think that, like most things, it will run it's course in popularity. Perhaps it already has.

In any case, I suspect that most of us can agree that mindfulness is a necessary but not sufficient practice for enlightenment. After all, there are seven factors of awakening: mindfulness (of dharma), investigation (of dharma), energy, joy, relaxation, concentration and equanimity. Overemphasis on any one aspect will lead to errors in view, practice and result. For beginners, however, since mindfulness is such a foundational practice, a stronger emphasis on it at the start of the path might be called for. I haven't read much TNH, but I think a closer look at his writings/talks will confirm he does discuss these other aspects throughout his teachings. For example, his emphasis on "looking deeply" can be seen as a form of investigation and insight. If mindfulness practice leads people to further investigation of the Buddha-dharma, that's a win for them.

[wtompepper]

I’ve been considering this question further, and I wonder if perhaps it is best left alone now. As thus-gone says, people tend to get “more self-protective and reactionary” when confronted. From my perspective, this is a good thing—because it calls attention to how “self”-protective and reactionary they already are, without knowing it. Consider the first page of comments here, before I responded: it would seem the reason for posting my writing was to offer an opportunity for hostile self-protective insults, to, as it were, build a “community” of people who assure themselves of their great compassion by insulting and belittling others whom they take to be less enlightened.

Consider the list of personal insults, and the number of claims that I am “ignorant” of
Buddhism and a poor thinker, without a single example of what exactly I am ignorant of, or any attempt to actually correct my purported poor reasoning. This is, apparently, acceptable, but once I responded the moderator stepped in with a warning. And the personal insults against me continue—these, I guess, are not the kind personal insults the moderator warned she would remove. Are only my comments considered offensive?

So, my own response, bad-tempered and childish as it was, may have done some good completely without my conscious intention. My poor response can perhaps call attention to the enormous hostility and attachment to self already present here, but denied, simply by making it more intense. Perhaps it would be better to allow such “mudslinging” to stand, and not try to sanitize it? To sanitize it would only be to perpetuate the self-delusion that there is no hostility and attachment to self at work here. So often, westerners come to Buddhism exactly because they want to strengthen their attachment to some illusion of a transcendent and spiritual self, and allowing this simmering hostility to stay underground encourages this.

As I expected, I get more of the same: assertions about my level of “attainment,” about my ignorance of Buddhism, but no real effort to engage the question. The assertions that what I am saying has “no precedent” or is a misunderstanding of some term always seem to come from the most ignorant, those who don’t even seem to know that my school of Buddhist it by far the most common one in the history of Buddhism. And our first order of business is never to “attend to one’s own practice,” because this is to reinforce the illusion of self-power, and so the subtle belief in an atman that causes our suffering.

Does anybody have a real example of being truly awakened to the truth of non-self without some kind of upset, disturbance, some temporary pain or discomfort?

[Thus-gone]

If your school of Buddhism teaches that there are no enlightened teachers, then not only is it uncommon, I don't think it exists at all. If it does, it certainly disagrees with basically everything the Buddha and his predecessors taught, thus making it a different religion.

[JKhedrup]

What school of Buddhism is this?

[anjali]

My comments here are severely off topic. After reviewing this thread, the vast majority of comments have been on topic. But the tread has been turned into another case of attack/defense. We’ve all seen this so many times before. How does stuff like this get started? Like this,

Zenkarma: “I dont think Tom Pepper knows nearly as much as he thinks he does and that like most of the world his life is a hall of mirrors reflecting his delusions rather than reality.”

Yudron: “Because I can be an arrogant jerk at times, I am very sensitive to arrogant jerk phenomena. This dude, Pepper, makes me want to move to Plum Village, just because of his know-it-all attitude.”

Fruitzilla: “Pepper seems to be the usual angry intellectual buddhisty type. Normally you can see his conversations being characterized by argument. He almost never connects with the people he talks with.”

Wtompepper: “Yes, perhaps I am an arrogant jerk, but wouldn’t it better to examine why you feel so angry that you need to point that out, and to consider what truth in my argument your glib hostility is helping you avoid dealing with?”

At this point, we are off and running to the place this thread is now at. Does anyone here really want to continue down this path? If you want to stop before this thread gets out of hand and locked by a moderator, don’t respond with/to flamebait.

Looking forward to more on-topic comments...

[Fruitzilla]

Heh, guilty as charged!

But I never meant my remarks to be inflammatory. I indeed never expected Tom to open an account here and start posting!
I've been reading the speculative non buddhism blog for quite a while, and my comments are based on my "experience" over there.
I often love reading his articles and can agree with most what he writes. I especially found his article on Allan Wallace to say the things I've been wanting to say but lacked the skill to do so. But if you look at the comment sections over there, you'll see much the same as in this thread.