Being Peace
My philosophy reading time this week was actually spent in theology, so i have not had much to say. The text i have mulled over the last couple days is Thich Nhat Hanh's "Being Peace". I'll make a few comments on the text.
The five positive notes i made in the book are these:
1) I like his conception of dharmakaya. Often in the West it is interpreted along the lines of a root of being, an ontological interpretation. In Hahn it is simply element in any thing in the world that can remind the viewer/listener of joy (of his or her buddha nature).
2) Many Buddhists push for the annihilation of feelings, or at least the negative feelings. Hahn does not want to waste energy fighting that battle. Rather, the focus is on noting the felling, such as anger, and why you have it, and then look at the origin, the cause, from other angles to charitably interpret the events from the views of the others, the persons that caused your state. That is, he hopes to turn the anger energy into sympathy energy.
3) The Meditation Center is not, for Hahn, a place to escape from society. It is a place merely to re-invigorate oneself for one's tasks in and for society. The Meditation Center is a place of rest and healing, but once accomplished, one must return to the world.
4) The book is about become peaceful oneself before one can bring peace into the world. He notes that the peace protesters are themselves angry and without peace and therefore cannot possibly accomplish their goals. To bring peace, one must be peaceful.
5) He states that every country must form its own version of Buddhism. An interesting thought. As a Nietzschean philosopher i like the angle. I need to review some of the classic texts, though, to determine if it is defensible. Would it still be Buddhism, or just "like" Buddhism?
Hanh has a lot of what i describe as Middle Path Buddhism beliefs, and since that is my prefered school of Buddhism [Narajuna!] (with Zen/Chan being a close second, though in a very different mode of rigor) i did like the Hahn book.
That said ... for those who know my mode of thought it will probably not be a surprise that i have heavy epistemological issues with many Buddhist claims. Its that rationalism -vs- anti-rationalism thing.
But i very much enjoy the reading.
The five positive notes i made in the book are these:
1) I like his conception of dharmakaya. Often in the West it is interpreted along the lines of a root of being, an ontological interpretation. In Hahn it is simply element in any thing in the world that can remind the viewer/listener of joy (of his or her buddha nature).
2) Many Buddhists push for the annihilation of feelings, or at least the negative feelings. Hahn does not want to waste energy fighting that battle. Rather, the focus is on noting the felling, such as anger, and why you have it, and then look at the origin, the cause, from other angles to charitably interpret the events from the views of the others, the persons that caused your state. That is, he hopes to turn the anger energy into sympathy energy.
3) The Meditation Center is not, for Hahn, a place to escape from society. It is a place merely to re-invigorate oneself for one's tasks in and for society. The Meditation Center is a place of rest and healing, but once accomplished, one must return to the world.
4) The book is about become peaceful oneself before one can bring peace into the world. He notes that the peace protesters are themselves angry and without peace and therefore cannot possibly accomplish their goals. To bring peace, one must be peaceful.
5) He states that every country must form its own version of Buddhism. An interesting thought. As a Nietzschean philosopher i like the angle. I need to review some of the classic texts, though, to determine if it is defensible. Would it still be Buddhism, or just "like" Buddhism?
Hanh has a lot of what i describe as Middle Path Buddhism beliefs, and since that is my prefered school of Buddhism [Narajuna!] (with Zen/Chan being a close second, though in a very different mode of rigor) i did like the Hahn book.
That said ... for those who know my mode of thought it will probably not be a surprise that i have heavy epistemological issues with many Buddhist claims. Its that rationalism -vs- anti-rationalism thing.
But i very much enjoy the reading.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 11:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home