After reading the brief autobiographical excerpt from Thich Nhat Hanh, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1.
On p. 159 TNH tells a story about a Zen master answering yes and no
to the same question asked by two different disciples (if a dog has a
Buddha nature). He goes on to explain, "'Yes or 'no' here were not
the truth, but were just a means to point to the truth" (159). Does
this make sense to you? Why or why not?
2. On p.
161 TNH talks about an experience of trying to get a few leaves out of
a container of water. Having been unsuccessful trying a few
different methods, he states, "After I stopped stirring, the water in
the jar continued to swirl, and the leaves rose to the surface" (161).
Does this remind you of the Buddha's teaching on desire? Or the Zen
teaching about thinking? Why or why not?
3. On p. 164
TNH dissuades Vinh (or his "friend") from entering the monastery and
pursuing Buddhism as a way to escape the world. Do you think it is
accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism? Why or why
not?
4. "Buddhism does not tolerate dictatorial
thinking[...]You can[...]make new spiritual discoveries without fear
of being condemned or excommunicated by any power, even that of the
congregation" (168). This statement sounds like a rather liberating
statement. What are the positives aspects of such a teaching? Is
there any danger in such a teaching?
REMEMBER:
No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last
initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,'
etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your
participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your
contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No
personal or ad hominem attacks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Buddhism is a very individualistic religion and is based upon what one does through mediation and enlightenment. With this liberating statement, it positively affects Buddhist in a way that can make them more individualistic, and independent by meditating freely, and making discoveries without being condemned or looked down upon. It positively promotes security in one’s personal discoveries. Also with this teaching, there is not one central leader or “God” enforcing one idea. It is rather based upon one’s “interdependent arising and causation” (168), and everyone’s personal ideas. This statements further shows how “individuals determine their own future and take responsibility for their actions, whether they be constructive or destructive” (168). Buddhists, overall, directly affect their enlightenment in this religion through their own discoveries, not the discoveries of others. Also with this statement, there could be some dangers like straying too far away from the central idea of Buddhism and becoming too free.
ReplyDeleteI think it is accurate that Buddhism preaches against escapism. Although religion can be viewed as an escape, usually if someone is seeking an escape, they are trying to escape from something, as supposed to be trying to escape from no-thing. Then, if someone is trying to escape from something, they usually still have the thought in the back of their mind, and they will have great difficulty with learning Buddhism, and achieving nirvana which involves clearing one’s mind in meditation, and focusing. Also, Buddhism is primarily about not desiring, and if someone is distracted by other matters, they may only desire to not desire, even more.
ReplyDeleteYes this makes sense to me because earlier in the chapter Thich Nhat Hanh says, "The teaching that the master gives to the disciple is for him alone; only he can recieve what the teacher is trying to transmit in its full sense" (157). Basically, this means that each person has his own path to achieve Nirvana. The teacher gives two different answers to two different disciple's because they have different paths. There is no one true answer to the question: "does a dog have Buddha nature" (159); each of the disciples recieved different answers because the answers they were given are going to keep them on their own path.
ReplyDelete1. Yes, this makes sense to me. Buddhism is a very individualistic religion, in the sense that it is up to each individual to achieve nirvana. Therefore, it only makes sense that two contradictory answers to the same question could possibly be true. The master understands that the two inquirers come from different pasts. Therefore, how each responds to the same question will be different from the other, as they have been made to be different people. I think the master answers the same question differently in the hope of helping each individual understand what it means to achieve enlightenment. In addition, truth is incommunicable through simple language. It is imperative that those who seek nirvana do not limit themselves to definitive answers given by others, as nirvana must be found individually.
ReplyDelete2. The scene where Thich Nhat Hanh tries to remove leaves from a container of water resembles Buddha’s teaching on desire. In this excerpt, the capturing of the leaves represents a final goal, like nirvana is to the Buddhist faith; Thich Nhat Hanh represents anyone trying to attain this goal. He begins to get annoyed and suffer when he fails to fulfill his desire to get the leaves; therefore, this parallels the second of the Four Noble Truths, which states that all suffering is caused by tanha, or desire. Once he walks away and initially ends his desire, the leaves float to the surface naturally, so he can easily reach them. If the collection of the leaves corresponds to the achievement of nirvana, the experience echoes the Buddhist teachings that state that to reach nirvana, one can no longer desire anything, including bliss itself. Overall, Thich Nhat Hanh’s experience explains to readers, on a smaller and more relatable scale, the Buddhist teachings on desire and attaining nirvana.
ReplyDeleteThe positive aspects of the fact that Buddhism does not tolerate dictatorial thinking is that you can practice Buddhism freely, “without fear of being condemned or excommunicated.” When you are a Buddhist, you are free to think what you want to think, and I not only believe that you can “make new spiritual discoveries,” but I also believe that you are safe to make other discoveries as well. For example, if Galileo was a Buddhist, he would not have been condemned by the Church for his views on the world. The danger of this teaching is that there is no force that can control a Buddhist. If you have no fear of punishment, why would you ever stop behaving freely? Because there is no end, a Buddhist could potentially make unwise choices with his/her extreme freedom.
ReplyDeleteYes, this makes sense to me. In this story two disciples ask the same question and each receive a different answer. Does this mean that the monk who gives the different answers believes that there is no single truth? I don’t think that this what the monk is saying by giving a different answer each time. Rather, he is saying that the point of asking a question and receiving an answer is not to find truth but to discover something about yourself. Each disciple heard an answer that they needed to hear in order make a discovery about the nature of truth. In this case, the answer to the question is supported by the concept that the yes or no is not the truth but instead a way to lead the questioner on his or her journey to find their own personal discoveries. The point of asking a question is not to receive an answer but rather to engage in a process of discovery that leads one to personal realizations about truth.
ReplyDelete3. Yes, I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism. Buddhism is not about escaping from something, but rather it is about finding something- reaching enlightenment and achieving nirvana. If one begins to follow a religion for the sole intention of escaping worldly life and problems, they would not be able to fully embrace the religion. This especially applies to Buddhism, since the most important teachings, the 4 Noble Truths, directly state that all life is dukkha, or suffering, and for one to move on and achieve nirvana one must accept this sad, inescapable truth. Someone can find true strength in their beliefs if they face their problems rather than flee from them. However, one could argue that Buddhism does preach escapism since Buddhists strive to "escape" dukkha by extinguishing tanha (desire). Nevertheless, I think this means that to overcome dukkha, one must first accept that dukkha is present in everything and everyone and is a part of our daily lives. One cannot enter into Buddhism with the intention of escaping from all suffering and thinking that Buddhism will immediately provide solutions for their problems. On the contrary, one must completely immerse themselves in meditation and search within themselves for a long time before finding answers to their problems. No one can accomplish anything by running away from obstacles. So one should not view religion as an escape from problems, but rather as a way to face problems and find answers.
ReplyDelete4. When I first read this passage, I was a bit confused but after reading it a couple times, it became super clear and very logical. What I took away from this passage was that Buddhism is not a religion where there is a concrete interpretation, or answer. One of the most important parts of this passage is, “without the fear of being condemned or excommunicated.” I find this very important because in many other religions, or even cultures, people find themselves in a lot of trouble simply for different thoughts on religious texts, or views. Also, because most religions were created many years ago, some aspects aren’t very clear (and therefore left up to your own interpretation), so it is very important that not only one person, or group, is able to dictate. Moreover, religion is part of your soul and mind; therefore, you should be able to interpret things as to what you believe they are. However, I do not mean to say that you can interpret things as to what you want them to be; changing something so that it benefits you would not be a good use of this religious freedom. Another problem could arise if too many people interpret things vastly differently because then you no longer have a central core to the religion. Although you might not believe it, even Christianity has room for interpretation. For example, one can believe that some of the stories from the Old Testament aren’t completely nonfictional and that they simply mean to symbolize what occurred. No matter what religion, I think that every religion should leave its followers some space to interpret, otherwise it isn't what your heart and soul feel, its what some religious figure believes.
ReplyDeleteYes, this makes sense to me because in relation to Buddhism, believers need to take the answers they get from people around them or while meditating and apply those answers in relation to their faith. It doesn't really matter what the answers are, it is really the way they use the answers to deepen their enlightenment, or decrease their flame of desire. The disciple who got the answer "no" was probably holding onto something, and idea or belief, that he thought would help him reach enlightenment, but was actually deterring him from nirvana. So, when the master replied, it caused him to take everything into account. He then had to look critically at all "answers" and meditate on them. On the other hand, the disciple who received the answer "yes" probably needed that answer to deepen his meditation and enlightenment. Maybe that answer would cause him to look at all "answers" with a Buddhist mind and further his progress of reaching enlightenment. As referred to by other classmates above, Buddhism is an individualized religion. There is no main God that everyone believes in, just a common goal and steps that can help you reach that goal. Because it is so individualized, it makes sense that the answers were different for each person because each person practices the religion individually through meditation.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism. Buddhism is a very practical religion or way of life; the main aspect of the religion is coming to terms with our own reality. If anything Buddhism is the complete opposite of escapism. Furthermore, Buddhism teaches us that there is suffering in the world, and there is no way to avoid it. Since there is suffering among us, then there are ways to get through our suffering. In THN, this friend wants to become a monk for the wrong reasons. He wants to escape his own reality, and he believes joining the Sangha will stop his suffering. What this person does not understand is there is no way to escape suffering, you can only endure it and try to get through it. Also, this friend is making a spur of the moment decision that will affect the rest of his life. He doesn't understand that you have to want to become apart of the monastic lifestyle, not use the lifestyle as a last resort. You have to deal with your own sufferings, that is the true Buddhist way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that dictatorial teachings can be useful in the sense of guidance, but I also agree that this can be unnecessary and seen too much as a help in Buddhism. In Theravada Buddhism one is to be individualized and self sufficient, if a teacher was too help than that would be going against the religion. Overall, in our lives, teaching is a good thing in my mind to help guide students. We all need a little push, especially as children and this is important because we are all going to grow up someday and have a job and we need to learn different things from others to see what best suits us. Teaching can lead to something bad when power is taken too far, we are all human, and we all have desires of power. This can even be taken out of hand in a school setting with a teacher taking power of the student. In a more serious matter someone with power can misuse it or take it for granted.
ReplyDeleteThere are many positive aspects of this teaching. First of all, people need to know that there will not be risks to their ingenuity. So many aspects of spirituality are personal, so one should not have to live in the fear, of any sort, as a result of being able to discover new layers of spirituality when it varies from one person to the next. Personally, I would live in fear of my own opinions and ideas if I knew that they could result in my excommunication. Let’s say I were to come upon a revelation pertaining to one of my classes. Naturally I would want to share it with my teacher, but if he or she were to throw me out of the classroom because my new idea didn’t abide by the already established facts, then I would never want to voice my opinion or contribute anything to the class again. Also, living by this statement allows for more growth and development within a religion. However, there are some possible negative effects to such a teaching. If too many people come upon radical spiritual discoveries, then a religion may begin to loose its shape. Also, sometimes it is good to have at least one person question someone’s discovery, because an argument is only an argument if you can support both sides of the contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism. In this passage, Thich Nhat Hanh is trying to explain to Vinh that Buddhism should not be used as an escape into the outside world. I believe he is trying to say that one must be very centered and stable in order to enter a monastery life, for the path to enlightenment is theoretically the ‘hardest’ path of all. In order to succeed as a monk, one must find the monastery life interesting and rewarding, not a way to avoid greater society. Buddhism, similar to what others said, is about finding enlightenment and nirvana, not about hiding from one’s problems. In addition, the literal definition of escapism is ‘the avoidance of reality by absorption of the mind in entertainment,’ which is almost the exact opposite of Buddhism. Instead teaching that one should face reality, escapism almost teaches a way of avoiding reality.
ReplyDelete3. Yes, I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism. In fact, the essence of Buddhism is anything but escapism. Buddhism teaches that you must face suffering head-on in order to overcome it, rather than just seeking a way to distract yourself from it. Similarly, Buddhism morality rules explicitly state to not engage in sensual conduct or use intoxicants – actions that might serve as an escape. Furthermore, the Buddhist morality rules for monks add that you must not watch dancing shows, or use perfumes, garlands, or other ornamentations – luxuries that could also serve as a distraction or escape from suffering. So clearly Buddhism preaches strongly against escapism.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the beginning of this story, I was confused. How could a teacher/master give his students/ disciples two different answers to the same question? Wouldn’t he just be contradicting himself? After reading the story over a couple of times, though, I began to understand what Thich Nhat Hanh was saying, about what the point of the story was. From my understanding, what he was saying, the answers “Yes” and “No” are there to get you thinking; they are there to help you get to another way of think and another state of mind. That it is what the person who receives the answer does with it not what the answer is. I found this to be a very interesting way of thinking because in life most people are always just looking for the answer, for that set thing that will solve all of their problems, and most people are looking for the same answer. For instance, many people try to find out what the meaning of life is, but maybe the set answers to these types of questions aren’t what we should be looking for because the answer is different for everyone, and the key isn’t finding the answer, but our understanding of it, and what we do with it. Lastly, this reminded me of the essence of Buddhism because in Buddhism it is not about finding all the answers to Siddhartha’s teachings or understanding them in a set way, but about using your understanding of them to find the “truth”, to reach enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1
Delete1. Yes this makes sense to me, but only after I read over this passage multiple times. At first I was very confused how he answered yes or not to the same questions, contradicting himself. Then he explains that "Yes or 'no' here were not the truth, but were just a means to point to the truth", which did not clarify my confusion much. Yet I see what Thich Nhat Hanh means by the explanation depending on the person. It is very interesting that he chooses his answer based on who is asking the question. The person he answers yes to is earnestly asking to understand. Yet the other man to whom he answers no was someone "who enjoyed discussing theories and made it into a dogma", and "this 'no' most likely shook the one asking the question". I think this is very interesting and practical in a sense that Hanh answers the question depending on the person because everyone is different. This particularly accentuates the individualistic teaching in Buddhism. Hanh then adds that nevertheless, we cannot understand the effect of the answers on the people who asked the questions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how 'yes' or 'no' are just a means to point to the truth shows that everyone needs different answers or different ways to get to the truth. Yes, Buddha left us a set of rules to reach nirvana, but each person must do it their own way; not everyone will reach nirvana in the same way.
3. I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism teaches against escapism. The goal of any Buddhist is to reach nirvana, or enlightenment. One could argue that in order to reach enlightenment Buddhists must escape the world around them and focus on nothing else, but I believe that instead of escaping the world around you, you are searching the world around you. Becoming enlightened is not about hiding away from something, it's about searching until you find it. You may have to push past obstacles in the world around you, but you must acknowledge them first. That cannot be done if your only goal is to escape something. The Four Noble Truths provide us with a direct path to enlightenment. The very first step to enlightenment is realizing that all the world is "dukkha" or suffering. How can one start the journey to enlightenment if they are trying to escape from suffering instead of facing it head-on? When you try to run away from your problem or "escape" it, it just gets bigger and bigger, and the path to enlightenment becomes more difficult. Facing obstacles and problems in the world is a key teaching of Buddhism, and escapism is a clear contradiction of this teaching.
ReplyDelete1. After having to read through the passage a few times, I realized that the story does make sense to me. The fact that the teacher answered the same question with two contradicting answers was confusing at first, but I soon realized that he was trying to say that there is no definitive answer. It's all about perspective. As said in the story, the explanation is dependent on the person. In order to reach enlightenment, each student might have needed a different answer in order to broaden his thoughts or realize that his thoughts needed to be taken in a new direction. Not everybody thinks the same way, acts the same way, or connects with their beliefs in the same way. One seeks and receives answers based on their own individual thoughts; if they were to try to take someone else's thoughts or beliefs and make them their own, they would have a hard time connecting with the issue or story not only because every person's mind works individually, but because that might not be the way they have been called to reach their enlightenment. This just emphasizes that fact that Buddhism is a very individualistic religion, and must be treated as one.
ReplyDelete3. I think it is accurate to say that buddhism preaches AGAINST escapism, but also preaches FOR it. It all depends on when or what the person is "escaping" from.
ReplyDeleteBy escapism, I mean running from the harsh realities of the world for various reasons. Buddhism does not preach this. However, it does preach that one should confront those harsh realities in order to let go of the desire, or tanha; thus, escaping, or being freed, from all other suffering.
The 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism state that (1) all life is suffering, (2) suffering is caused by desire, (3) to be freed from suffering you must extinguish the desire, and (4) to extinguish the desire you must follow the 8-Fold Path. This includes right aspiration, right behavior, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness--something that Vinh's suffering "friend" does not have (at the moment).
His "friend" (Vinh) was suffering from a lost love. He wanted to become a monk to escape his present suffering--not to escape samsara (reincarnation/rebirth) and endless suffering as a whole. He would be entering the monastery for all the wrong reasons. He had the wrong mind set and the wrong incentive. He probably did not even want to sincerely become a monk. He was just looking for a way out, which people tend to do when they're suffering. However, whether it's through drinking, drugs, self-harm, or entering a monastery, running from one's suffering and sorrows is not going to solve the problem. In a way, Buddhism ENCOURAGES people to FACE what they're suffering by telling them sever the cord of desire that is keeping them so attached, and to learn to move on.
Confrontation is sometimes the only key to liberation.
Thich Nhat Hanh is recommending Vinh to stay out in the real world and to keep living. He needs to heal before he puts himself through any harsh conditions or rules, such as those that come along with becoming a monk. He needs to learn to live WITH himself before he takes the steps to reaching enlightenment and living BY himself.
4. "Buddhism does not tolerate dictatorial thinking[...]You can[...]make new spiritual discoveries without fear of being condemned or excommunicated by any power, even that of the congregation" (168). I believe that this liberal teaching of Buddhism is a very positive aspect, mainly because Buddhism is very individualistic. Buddha told his followers that it is in their hands whether they reach nirvana or not; “individuals determine their own future and take responsibility for their actions, whether they be constructive or destructive” (168). In this way, I think that the only way for Buddhists to reach enlightenment, or nirvana, is through their own spiritual and liberal thinking. Buddhists need to have the ability to question themselves and the world that they live in. They must challenge what they already know to discover the true way of life. It is through this questioning that they grow spiritually. How would one be able to do this if they were subject to dictatorial thinking where there is only one right answer? I think that dictatorial thinking defeats the idea of a mystery, which is what most religions are built upon. The mystery no longer exists if there is already a known answer.
ReplyDelete2. Like Keiko has previously stated, Thich Nhat Hanh’s experience with the leaves floating in water is a direct analogy to the Buddhist teaching against desire, or tanha, and by abandoning desire, one can reach Nirvana, or ultimate bliss. This particularly reminds me about the Buddhist teaching of desire, because Thich Nhat Hanh wanted to, or desired, to remove the leaves from the water. After many attempts at removing the leaves, driven by his personal desire, he failed, and he became frustrated, which is an example of suffering on a much smaller scale. After he abandoned his goal along with the desire of achieving it, it came to him easily, for moments after he got up and left, the stirring continued naturally, and the leaves rose to the top. This symbolizes the ultimate Buddhist goal: Nirvana, and for one to achieve it, they must abandon all desire, including desire to reach the state as well. Thich Nhat Hanh’s analogy is on a much smaller scale, and includes a few main teachings of Buddhism, such as the second of the Four Noble Truths (the cause of suffering is desire), and the third of the Four Noble Truths (the way to escape suffering is by extinguishing desire).
ReplyDeleteBeing allowed to open your mind to making new discoveries and creating your own opinions in a religion is positive in many aspects. It allows for an individual to not be bound to one specific way of thinking. Like Alex said, everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs within Buddhism and through this, they will become enlightened because they will have found their own path. If they weren’t so liberated, they would have to believe every single teaching in Buddhism, but not everyone always agrees with all the teachings of their religion. Buddhism is a religion that doesn’t only have one way or a way that everyone must follow, but instead everyone has their own way and is free in this aspect. If the religion wasn’t so lenient, people would be condemned for having a different opinion and this is what causes trouble in certain religions. I think it benefits the people of this religion to have such freedom to form their own thoughts, but for some religions it can cause problems when people stray too far away from the teachings. The Buddhists are able to have different beliefs but that are still linked together by one common religion, belief, and one goal of being enlightened.
ReplyDelete2. Thich Nhat Hanh’s story of the leaves rising to the surface as soon as he stopped trying to get them out mirrors both traditional and Zen Buddhism. In traditional Buddhism, the only way to achieve Nirvana is to no longer desire anything, and by some teachings, not even to desire Nirvana. The idea that Nirvana can only be achieved when you stop trying to reach Nirvana is very similar to the idea of the leaves. In both cases when one stops trying, what they need comes to them. The leaves are also a metaphor for the Zen practice of sesshin. In sesshin a Zen student takes part in a period of concentration on questions posed to them by the master. However once these periods of concentration end may often be the time that the answers come to them, just like the leaves did to Hanh.
ReplyDelete3. Yes, I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism teaches against escapism. Like Mara said Buddhism is anything but escapism. The main goal for Buddhists is to reach nirvana or enlightenment. In the Four Noble Truths it states all life is dukkha, which translates to all life is suffering. It teaches us to face suffering head on, and since life is full of suffering and you cannot escape it. In order to reach enlightenment one must not escape the world, but open one's eyes to see the world for what it is. Also, one cannot hide or escape away from something but must search until they find what they are looking for. For example, you can never fully run away from your problems and the only way to solve these problems is to face them, similar to how Buddhists face dukkha by destroying tanha. Buddhism definitely teaches strongly against escapism.
ReplyDelete3) Yes I think that it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against escapism. The goal of Buddhism is to reach Nirvana, and this is done by facing and finding the reason for suffering. One cannot run from there problems because then they will never solve them. The goal for Buddhists is to see the world for what it truly is. In order to do this you must conquer suffering; furthermore showing that escapism is not a teaching of Buddhism. Also Buddhists teach the principle of the middle way, which is the balance between meditation and action in one’s life. If a person enters the monastery only to escape there troubles and hide from life, you will not be following the middle way because you will never want to go out into the world and confront suffering. Thich Nhat Hanh was correct in advising Vinh from entering the monastery.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that Buddhism preaches against escapism. First of all, a Buddhist’s main goal is to reach nirvana, or enlightenment. In order to achieve nirvana, a Buddhist must follow the path of the Four Noble Truths. As Laura said, the first of the Four Noble Truths states that all life is “dukkha”, or suffering. Someone who tries to escape dukkha, instead of embracing and facing it, will never reach nirvana. This is why the Four Noble Truths teaches Buddhists how to conquer dukkha, (by extinguishing “tanha”, or desire), rather than how to escape it. Thich Nhat Hanh also explains that a monk’s goal is to free himself from suffering and then to help others do the same; one cannot and should not become a monk in order to escape his own suffering and to avoid obstacles in life. Overall, Buddhism teaches its followers to conquer suffering, rather than escape it. In fact, I do not think that any religion embraces escapism. The purpose of religion is to be a guide to its followers, not an escape from life and suffering.
ReplyDelete4) Many times in religion we find ourselves a little confused on the meaning of different things. Sometimes we interpret passages differently from how priests, or higher authoritative people explain it to be. We then decide to stray away from our own beliefs and listen to theirs. But truly, how are we so sure that they have the correct view and we have the wrong one? We are so scared about what people will think of us if we interpret thins on our own, or if we intent on explaining our discoveries and then are proved wrong. But, what is harm in trying? Well, many times people’s reactions to it and how they treat us afterwards are what scare us the most. That is why I believe that being liberal is a good thing as it pushes you to make spiritual discoveries on your own, and you do so without having the fear of being shunned or corrected. At the same time, though, I believe that through that statement Buddhism might be a little too liberal. By giving people this security that they will still be accepted even if they create their own interpretations, many people could stray too far from essential beliefs, essential teachings and essential meanings of Buddhism.
ReplyDelete2. This does remind me of the Buddha's teaching on desire. In this case, the leaves rising to the top symbolize the reaching of nirvana, and the constant attempts to retrieve them is desire. Once he stopped trying, the leaves came to the top themselves; once you rid yourself of desire, nirvana comes. The water kept swirling as a result of his past attempts, but once he stopped really trying the leaves rose. This also reminds me of the issue with desire for nirvana; is that considered bad as well? In this story, what he was attempting to do was not at all bad, he simply put in effort to remove the leaves, yet he was not successful. It reminds me of how even though desire for nirvana doesn't seem the same as other desires, or perhaps a "good" desire, it is desire nonetheless, and prevents one from reaching nirvana.
ReplyDelete2) On page 161, when Thich Nhat Hanh states, “After I stopped stirring, the water in the jar continued to swirl, and the leaves rose to the surface” I believes this refers to the Buddha’s teaching of desire. The Buddha preached that the cause of suffering is desire, and that the way to escape suffering and reach nirvana is by extinguishing desire. This is exactly like Hanh’s reference to the leaves. Once Hanh let go of the desire to remove the leaves, that is when they rose. When they were left alone and he released his yearning to remove them and walked away, nature was able to take over and let the leaves rise. This supports the Buddha’s teaching; when we are able to let go of what we want and just let nature take over can then we find peace with the world. Therefore instead of trying to control everything we can release that desire and find nirvana.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is accurate to say that Buddhism preaches against
ReplyDeleteescapism. When the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, was a
young boy, his father trained him to be a recluse, and avoid all types
of suffering. Through this, his father thwarted all outlets from
urging his son to become a religious leader. As he grew up, Siddhartha
began to realize that suffering is inevitable. Soon after this
realization, Siddhartha Gautama left his father’s house because
neither did he support, nor concur with this idea of “escapism” that
his father was enforcing on him. Eventually, Siddhartha Gautama
theorized the idea of the Middle Way, the idea of achieving nirvana,
and the idea of the 4 Noble Truths. Through these theories, the roots
of Buddhism are sown. The 4 Noble Truths, for example, state that all
life is suffering and in order for one to achieve the goal of nirvana,
one must accept this inexorable fact. Moreover, Buddhism enforces that
it won’t provide one with a tool for an escape, but with the tools to
search within one’s self to find answers.
3) It makes sense for most monasteries to be against this type of escapism. Becoming a monk is about devoting your whole life to spirituality and in turn giving up many comforts in life, such as decoration, soft beds, and money. Just as in the movie, The Sound of Music, the main character wanted to become a nun so she did not have to confront her feelings. She was convinced out of it because it was not the life for her. Buddhism in particular voices this type of thought, since the goal of a Buddhist is to achieve nirvana, and this is what monks devote most of their time to. If Vinh were to join without a full understanding of this goal and a full need to accomplish it, then he would not live a happy life there. Buddhism is a religion that has to be appreciated in an inward reflection of the self, and escapism is the exact opposite. Vinh’s approach afterward is the more appropriate path—trying to understand everything in Buddhism first.
ReplyDeleteNumber 3
ReplyDeleteAs contradictory as it seems, I think that Buddhism does and does not preach against escapism at the same time. In the Zen tradition, you are detaching yourself from your former mind frame, so that could be considered escapism. However, teachings say that the Buddha, even though he is thought not to be a god in every sect, is everywhere. His Enlightenment and the search for a greater knowledge are everywhere in this universe, so essentially, you cannot escape the world by practicing Buddhism because it brings you more in touch with the world.
It is simply a matter of whether or not you consider using Buddhism to attain Enlightenment as escapism of your own former mind and ways. (As opposed to the literal escapism, which Buddhism definitely preaches against, as explained above.)