My son Andrew and I went to see Thich Nhat Hanh last night at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium in Pasadena, California. We attended not as devotees or practitioners of Zen, Buddhism or the discipline of mindfulness but rather as critics interested primarily in Brother Thay as a pop culture phenomenon. We also paid close attention to the composition, nature and responses of the audience.
Brother Thay evidently is on some kind of a tour. His organization (“The Order of Interbeing”) (not sure what it is, from a corporate standpoint) sold tickets. It has its own website. The tickets were not inexpensive, particularly with Ticketmaster service charges, parking and other miscellaneous fees. The atmosphere inside the theater was reminiscent of a traveling medicine show. The first thing one noticed when entering the lobby was a proliferation of booths vending trinkets, books and DVDs, the proceeds of which presumably finance Brother Thay’s various ventures. This form of spiritual materialism struck me as being anomalous, akin to the money-changers in the temple. [Ironically it was an ethnic Buddhist, Chogyam Trungpa, who coined the term “spiritual materialism” to describe what he was seeing among caucasoid converts. Not particularly a paradigm case of his own teachings, he later died of chronic alcoholism at the age of 48. Perhaps he was depressed at the lack of mindfulness among his devotees.] When John Paul II visited Los Angeles he spoke for free. Andrew and I were engaged in conversation about the incidence of Muslims in Japan. A monk in a wheelchair who had been eavesdropping on our conversation rolled himself over to weigh in with his views.
A large banner across the stage proclaimed “U.S. Tour 2009” in the manner of a 1980s band such as Styx, Foreigner, Journey, Aerosmith or R.E.O. Speedwagon. Cursive script atop the banner proclaimed: “Our True Agenda.” An accompanying brochure clarified: “Tending to the Space Inside.” “Our True Agenda” is an infelicitous expression because of its similarities to right-wing (and left-wing) political rhetoric. It implies Brother Thay has some other kind of agenda that has been misapprehended or misconceived, which he must rebuke or have set aside before his “true” agenda can be revealed. He might have said, for example: “Our Objective …” or “Our Goal …”
The proceedings began when two grey-robed monks lead the group in a sing-along. The lyrics of the song was stupidly simple in the manner of Joni Mitchell circa 1968: “I am a cloud,” “I am the blue sky,” “I am the sunlight,” “I am a flower,” “I am a bird,” etc. One of the monks made elaborate hand gestures emphasizing the words, e.g. flapping her arms to simulate a bird. Following this warm-up act approximately 50 monks of mixed gender took their places on the stage, as did Brother Thay. They began intoning a monotonous chant, accompanied by pre-recorded music. During this performance Brother Thay made various ritual gestures known as “mudra.” It was difficult to tell the difference between these and the complex hand movements and finger signs of street gangs such as the L.A. Crips.
Brother Thay then spoke for over an hour in a dulcet, mellifluous tone of voice. Sometimes he was difficult to follow and the audience became soporific. His message was one of peacefulness, tranquility and mindfulness. As described by Brother Thay, mindfulness is focusing on one’s breathing and concentrating intently on the “here and now.” In principle one has no other concerns; to the extent one does, one uses them as an active sort of membrane to carom off of like a billiard ball in order to redirect one’s attention back to breathing and the present moment.
In practice this is very difficult to do. The psychological life of most people is fraught with practical, terrestrial concerns. These include maintenance of basic personal needs such as food, clothing and shelter; together with more complex constructs such as family, one’s role in society, one’s goals and aspirations and the personal narrative through which one gives meaning to one’s life. It is hard to resist the compelling nature of these ideations and to focus solely on the moment of the “now.” The concerns of the Buddhist monk, on the other hand, may be no more complex than having a full bowl of rice. Perhaps they simply have a lesser bombardment of impressions and ideas, facilitating an easier transition to the contemplation of temporal instants.
The problem of focusing attention is illustrated by the phenomenology of expertise. An expert is somebody like Bruce Lee in karate movies, a downhill ski racer, a championship tennis player or even driving a stick-shift. The expert transparently interacts with her environment and nonconsciously deploys skill and ability in order to accomplish an objective. If an expert starts being “mindful” of what she is doing then it is likely her fluid performance will be disrupted. The whole point of being an expert is not to stop to think about what one’s doing. The expert must be on “automatic pilot.” The best way to characterize the mental state of the expert is being “mindless,” not “mindful.”
The fact of the matter is that mindfulness is pretty exotic stuff, most likely not suitable for mass consumption. In Vietnam, for example, there is a sharp distinction between monks and the laity. Only monks practice mindfulness. The laity makes occasional contributions to the monks with offerings for food, shelter, etc. In return the monks comprise a kind of guild of funeral directors, charged with blessing and burying those who have become deceased.
From an epistemological standpoint mindfulness is a complex technique which, to be done properly, takes years to master. The version of mindfulness practice Brother Thay imports to the United States is a dilute version of an ancient religious and cultural discipline. He has tried to make it explicable in the simplest possible terms. He has made it so simple that, as proffered, there is little difference between it and being a zombie (understood as a philosophical construct, that is, a non-conscious but sentient being with no cognitive access to anything but the “moment,” caught up in the mindless “present”). In accomplishing this result though Brother Thay has converted mindfulness into a new-agey pop-culture phenomenon with only tenuous links back to its place of origin. Instead of being a benign Buddhist monk, which I am sure is the role he would prefer to choose, Brother Thay instead presents as a clever evangelical proselytizer. [An example of the zombie thesis: during World War II, Buddhist “mindfulness” doctrine successfully converted Japanese soldiers into killing automatons, abdicating all sense of personal responsibility. This also happened in Germany though not as an outgrowth of Buddhism, rather, social psychology pressures to conform as illustrated by the famous Stanley Milgram experiments. Each was an appropriate mindfulness technique for their respective territorial milieus.]
Unfortunately I was unable to accept Brother Thay’s invitation to listen to him solely in the moment. Rather I became caught up in several other concerns, which are as follows.
1. People whose cultural background is the Judeo Christian Tradition should not be Zen Buddhists. Its objectives and concerns, and its conventions and protocols, essentially remain unintelligible to Western theology. In making this observation it is not my intention to single out Zen Buddhism. The converse, such as Asiatic cultures adopting Christianity, is equally implausible. People should stick with the religion of their culture, if only for that reason. Adopting other people’s theology is a form of reverse religious imperialism. [I make an exception here for people who have become thoroughly acclimated to the other culture, for example, permanent residents, second-generation, etc. They have acquired the requisite skills, techniques and cultural knowledge to overcome the unintelligibility barrier.]
While I could cite many examples of this a particularly poignant one was reported in the September 7, 2009 issue of the Los Angeles Times in an article by Duke Helfand, “In the Arizona desert, Buddhists will embark on a three-year silent retreat.” As in, not saying anything for three years. One of the attendees is Stéphane Dreyfus, son of Hubert Dreyfus, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley (and my college advisor when I attended that institution, which is why the story particularly interested me). Dreyfus is perhaps the world’s leading expert on that branch of philosophy that concerns itself with issues such as the meaning and purpose of life. In the article he is quoted as expressing his concern that his son was “wasting his talent.” He “can’t understand why anyone would leave loved ones behind to disappear in the desert – in this case, for 1,190 days.” “I’m just torn,” he said. Based on my knowledge of Bert’s teachings, one of the reasons why he is so torn is because the disciplines and protocols of Buddhism (as exemplified by a three-year silent retreat) are so antithetical to Western values of skepticism, questioning and inquiry, which Dreyfus himself exemplifies. Both comprise and disclose separate worlds, each incomprehensible to the other.
2. The doctrine of mindfulness as espoused by Brother Thay essentially is solipsistic, perhaps even selfish. Adherents are advised to engage in “sitting meditations” and “walking meditations,” where they concentrate on somatic issues such as body posture and carefully treading upon the earth. As useful as these practices may be for the acolyte they do little for example to alleviate human suffering or contribute to species welfare. Since Buddhists believe all life is suffering there doctrinally is no point to for them to implement social improvement such as eliminating poverty. Rather then concentrating on their own personal well-being, though, it would be far more socially useful for students of mindfulness to do something practical like volunteer to help the homeless, tutor at-risk inner-city students, work with cancer patients, or the like.
3. Benedict XVI has characterized Zen Buddhism as “autoerotic.” It purports to offer “transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations.” Here is what he means. Eastern religions entail an emptying of the self. Christianity on the other hand requires an active, vibrant self in order to believe and have faith. It’s not possible to believe or to have faith unless there is a self, doing the believing and having the faith. In this respect Christianity is orthodoxic. In comparison, Semitic religions such as Judaism and Islam place their primary focus on obeying rules, and in this sense are orthopraxic. Both have elaborate scaffolds of jurists to establish rules and interpret previously-issued rules. One need for example only compare the focus or thrust of the Ten Commandments (orthopraxic) with the Sermon on the Mount (orthodoxic). Under Judaism it doesn’t necessarily matter what one believes as long as one obeys the law. Christianity on the other hand demands belief from its adherents, even to the extent of rebuking the law, both civil and canonical.
Zen Buddhism entails emptying one’s mind of both orthopraxy and orthodoxy. It lacks the social utility of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (all of which express this utility differently). Would Judaism have been able to survive for thousands of years under some of the most adverse circumstances imaginable if everybody had been in a sitting meditation, concentrating on being mindful? Would Islam have been able to become the dominant religion of the Middle East if they were walking around with their heads facing the ground, performing a walking meditation? Would Catholicism have been able to repel the Ottoman Empire’s invasion of Vienna in 1529 under similar conditions? Had it not been for this singular event there is a significant possibility that Northern Europe (and the New World) all would have become Muslims. These only are a few examples. Buddhism on the other hand was implemented by conquerors in the ancient world to pacify newly-acquired territories into non-violent mindfulness to avoid causing foment.
4. Judaism and Christianity are “linear” religions. The Tanakh is the historical record of the ancient Israelites from the dawn of time, through Moses, through the Exile in Babylon. Its second-most-prominent feature, after compendiums of rules, is elaborate genealogies. This enables contemporary Judaism to situate itself in time. [It also situates itself in space, that is, the Levant, which God promised to Abraham, Moses and their successors.] Similarly, the New Testament is the historical record of the life and teaching of Jesus, followed by various letters written in real-time by Paul. Jesus summed up the events of his life at the Last Supper. This chronology continues through Revelation, which describes an end of time. People who die remain dead until this event occurs.
Zen Buddhism, on the other hand, is a “circular” religion. Its adherents believe in reincarnation. Although reincarnation may be cross-species, it occurs fairly quickly after one’s death. In this way the distinction between death and life is blurred. One might demise only to reinstantiate oneself on earth, albeit in slightly modified form. The discipline and practice of mindfulness makes far more sense in the context of circular religions as opposed to linear ones (as I have defined them). The reason why is because they are more holistic or chthonic (“I am the earth,” “I am the sun,” “I am the blue sky,” etc.). One does not require a durable self if one will succeed to a replacement self without too much delay. This facilitates meditations that are premised on, or that attempt to achieve, an absence of self.
At the end of his remarks Brother Thay left the stage. A venerable lady monk stood up and sang a song. It was pleasant but would have benefited from an edit. Annoyingly she then launched into an appeal for everybody to go out and buy more trinkets from the vendors in the lobby.
Flyer
Lobby Vendors
2006, copyright
To disparage a spiritual tradition that is over 2500 years old is a dangerous thing to do if one has not spent an extended period of time studying it. Such criticism, after going to one event and reading the subjective reports of the authorities of other religions, does not constitute an educated or logically defensible position. It would be akin to a master pastry chef telling someone who had mastered the art of Bar-B-Q, that they were doing it wrong because they hadn’t put any whipped cream on the baby back ribs.
It is also dangerous to quote any one of the four noble truths out of context. While the first noble truth is, indeed, that life is suffering (though you should get a teaching on this to understand its full meaning), the next three, which should be taught along with it, are as follows:
2) There is a cause for this suffering
3) Therefore there can be and end to this suffering
4) There is a means to achieve this goal
It would also behoove you study bodhicitta as it is defined by the Tibetan Buddhists: the desire to reach total enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. Of course, to understand this you would need to understand the definition of enlightenment.
I enjoyed your post. There may be a flaw in some of your logic about “mindfulness” and the “experts” as in “An expert is somebody like Bruce Lee in karate movies, a downhill ski racer, a championship tennis player or even driving a stick-shift.”
Many experts, especially in sports, spend significant time learning “basic” movements before attaining mastery. For example, Bruce Lee initially learned Wing Chun, which, similar to most martial arts practices begins with very basic moves and forms. With disciplined practice, as the body and brain learn these movements–expertise develops–everyone starts somewhere.
In that respect, the mindfulness exercises do help, even out of their cultural context–as exemplified by Jon Kabat-Zinn’s work. But again, the people helped by these exercises may be far outnumbered by office workers with screen savers saying “I am Love” and desperately reading Deepak Chopra.
(I’ve ordered the 1st two books from your “recommended reading” posted in the ‘response’)
It pains me to hear that tickets to see Thich Nhat Hanh “are not cheap” – or cost anything at all, for that matter. I agree that in many instances different cultures simply cannot understand each other and that it backfires when you try to analyze one religion in terms of another from a cultural point of view. It also bothers me that trinkets were being sold in the lobby of a Thich Nhat Hanh “concert.” Still, his message to lay people and monks alike has always been one of “engaged Buddhism” – doing what we can to alleviate suffering in ourselves and others. The meditations you speak of serve to awaken us to the present moment but can be engaged in at any time of the day in any activity we are doing – including putting your life at risk to help others. His life in Vietnam during the conflict with the French, and what he does now for American Vietnam vets, are inspirational. That being so, bravo for looking into things and not just accepting what the tide pushes you to accept!
Dreyfus’s guru featured in Michael Roach “scandal” article:
http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20100211/Monk+y+Business+Controversial+NYC+guru+Michael+Roach
Sounds like a sad, B version of the Zen Center
Thanks for the link, I’ve verified the information through other sources and I have to say this does seem inconsistent with Mr. Dreyfus’ professed monkish ideations (a three-year “vow of silence” in the desert, etc.).
Excellent article that really exposes some of the hypocrisy surrounding the new-age spirituality movement, thank you for posting.
1. “The converse, such as Asiatic cultures adopting Christianity, is equally implausible. People should stick with the religion of their culture, if only for that reason. Adopting other people’s theology is a form of reverse religious imperialism.”
– The two are not equally unintelligible. It is not difficult to understand Judeo-Christian doctrine because the concepts are very intuitive and straightforward. That is, one is created by a God, one accumulates merit or demerit in the eyes of the God, and one enters either a pleasant or an unpleasant afterlife according to the judgment of God.
Correct me if I am oversimplifying it, but there is nothing difficult to understand about that concept, even to the oriental mind. For example, a Chinese Muslim or a Korean Christian would have much less trouble understanding the Christian concept of a common creator and an afterlife than an American Buddhist understanding the concept of non-duality and mindfulness.
It is doubtful even that many Asian Buddhists understand the concept of non-duality. It is completely counterintuitive, not only to the mind nurtured on Greek-style inquiry into the external world but also to the practically-oriented Chinese mind. The Chinese went through similar problems absorbing Buddhist concepts.
Buddhism is essentially an Indian religion using distinctly Indian philosophical concepts such as non-duality and illusion of self. The only community who we can say is remotely comfortable with these concepts is the Brahmin priesthood of the Vedanta community. This is the intellectual tradition which took non-duality as a premise and it is the tradition from which Buddhism sprung.
You might have something with the cultural unintelligiblity argument, but you have not yet applied it to the right facts.
2. “Rather then concentrating on their own personal well-being, though, it would be far more socially useful for students of mindfulness to do something practical like volunteer to help the homeless…”
-You bring up a very good point here. You seem to be making a social policy argument, That no religion can have merit or be desirable if it does not promote socially useful behavior.
It is a very important question with no easy answer. But I will bring up some considerations.
a) We do not all agree on what is socially useful. Many of us cause great harm to the world in pursuing what we think is socially useful, e.g. Islamic Fundamentalist fighting the good fight against the US in order to beat off US imperialism and oppression of Muslim countries.
With 6 billion people in the world who have 6 billion different ideas of what needs to be done, keeping to yourself and not harming others maybe the most socially useful thing you can do.
b) You put people in quite a dilemma by asking them to stop doing something they deem as necessary because it requires them to pass up the opportunity to do something immediately useful. But we do this all the time when we decide to work overtime instead of helping the needy, or spend time with our families instead of helping the needy, or cultivate ourselves through private study instead of helping the needy. Surely, even the most productive, saintly people have their personal time for hobbies and contemplation.
3. “Would Judaism have been able to survive for thousands of years under some of the most adverse circumstances imaginable if everybody had been in a sitting meditation, concentrating on being mindful? Would Islam have been able to become the dominant religion of the Middle East if they were walking around with their heads facing the ground, performing a walking meditation? Would Catholicism have been able to repel the Ottoman Empire’s invasion of Vienna in 1529 under similar conditions? Had it not been for this singular event there is a significant possibility that Northern Europe (and the New World) all would have become Muslims.”
Before I reply, I must take issue with some of the implicit assumptions of this argument:
a) By Judaism/Islam/Christianity, do you mean the ideas or the institutions?
b) What would be wrong with Northern Europe being Muslim? Is it not a religion of the book as Judaism and Christianity? If it serves to make people follow the one true God and brings all people to Heaven, how would it differ from the end goal of Judaism and Christianity?
-Consider the Roman conquest of Greece in the 180s BC, after which Rome adopted Greek ideas and spread them throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond. The Greeks achieved immortality through their conquest by the Romans. The Roman conqueror became the conquered.
But would you have rather had the Greek world cast out the influences of Periclean Athens for the example of the Spartans? To trade the weakness of intellectual refinement for the strength of constant military preparation. Would it be worth it to protect Greece from the Macedonians and the Romans?
4. “The discipline and practice of mindfulness makes far more sense in the context of circular religions as opposed to linear ones (as I have defined them).”
-This is a very good insight and something I have never considered.
You have some insightful observations on this site. You have a very good understanding of Judaism/Christian/Islamic doctrine and you apply it in an even-handed manner. It does not appear that you have spent as much time examining Buddhist doctrine as you have Judaism/Christian/Islamic doctrine, which is unfortunate because it looks like you have some useful points to add.
If you are trying to criticize the shallowness of the Western practice of Buddhism, you could take more care to not expand criticism of its practitioners into criticism of the doctrine. However, if you are just hoping to disparage Buddhism to deter people from pursuing it, you would only be deterring the people who are aimless and easily deterred to begin with. I hope this is not the case and I am looking forward to your thoughts on the actual doctrinal roots of Buddhism.
Axial
It is amazing that people will pay $25 to listen to this Buddhist monk when the pope offer his talk for free. This must be based on something like group mindset and consumerism hype, as you presented here. The Buddhist concept of reincarnation is as stupid and superficial as the Bible ‘s Genesis story, creationism and evangelicalism.