Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Right View is right view
shanyin
Novice YoginSault Ontario Veteran
in Philosophy
Thich Nhat Hanh says that all views are wrong views and that nirvana is the cessation of all perception.
I highly disagree with both statements.
Your take on it or Any thoughts as to why he would say this?
0
Comments
I think it was "perceptions" actually
Do you mean the perceptions aggregate?
Having addressed the perception/s issue...
Because it's true ?
All views are by definition wrong.The Unborn Unmade and Unmanifest is ungraspable.
And all perceptions are the result of a false identification...false in the sense of having no inherent and unchanging existence.
To both Citta and SpinnyNorman, I can't say I highly disagree with both statements. I definetly disagree with all views being wrong views. In that the Buddha taught nothing wrong views cause suffering and that to overcome this one has to understand the four noble truths. Didn't he say that all Buddha's have realized the four noble truths?
It's 6 am here and I have a bit of insomnia. I've been meditating a little and my mind is racing to all different topics lol.
If realization of the four noble truths is the Buddha's enlightenment, can there not be perceptions?
Where to start..?
I think the word view is being used in at least two different ways here.
' Right View ' as part of the 8FP is ( as usual ) a pretty poor translation. The Pali is Samma-ditthi Which means something like 'full or complete understanding'.
This is much more than holding ideas that conform to Buddhist teaching..
It actually means seeing things as they are by the means of panna/prajna which is the arising of wisdom.
Much of the time the arising of panna/prajna which leads to Right View is non verbal.
It is not about concepts and ideas.
Although we have to use concepts and ideas to communicate which other..
The 4NT are at best signposts..they are not the destination and they are not the even the road.
Many schools of Buddhism do not reference the 4NT at all ...
The destination is not reached by a set of ideas, or ' views ' with a small 'v'.
Again you are using the word in a different way. ' Perception ' is part of the play of the skandhas.
Perception is the English translation of the Pali sanna. Which means that which understands or that which makes sense of the world.
So when our stream of consciousness meets a tree shaped object it is sanna that recognises it as a tree. Or merely a tree shaped thing.
So what TNH is saying is that with Nirvana the tendency to define ourselves by sanna ( and the other aggregates ) retires.
There is a flow of sanna, but that does not give rise to the idea of a ' self.'
I'll say that I particularly like the Theravadin school.
SpinyNorman, can you elaborate?
I agree, when the statement is taken in context of the other things he said along with it, with that being "when you touch reality in depth, you no longer have "views", you have wisdom".
So here, he is defining "view" as something that is later replaced by "wisdom". View, in this context means a mere belief, opinion, judgment or estimation as opposed to a known fact.
For example, scientists once held the "view" that invisible things called germs made people sick. Scientists once held the "view" that the world was round and not flat. But once they discovered for themselves that these things are actually true, it's no longer appropriate to say "I am of the view that germs cause disease". That does not make any sense! It is simply a fact that germs cause disease. Is the idea that germs cause disease a particular view? Well, not really, It's just an observable fact. It makes no sense to say "In my opinion, the world is round"
Thich Nhat Hanh is a wise man. He isn't simply wrong. The question to ask now is "what does he really mean by what he says?"
In my opinion.
What he actually said was "Nirvana is the removal of wrong perceptions". Context, context, context!
I'm not ready to admit defeat but you have a point about context at the very least in my opinion.
" Defeat" ? Its a discussion among peers...not a tag match !
I think "wrong" is the wrong word for him to use when talking about what he means. If I would be allowed to translate for him I'd use the term "[wrongly] fixated view."
I mean, what he's talking about is afflicted views, views that are heavily weighted down with fears, apprehensions, and the like.
I'd say it's more like rightly honed view vs. wrongly fixated view.
Perceptions are mostly our removal from reality. It's really quite interesting when you pay close attention to them when the opportunity arises. My sister and I grew up together in the same home with the same parents, same reality. Except sometimes when she talks about things from our childhood, her perception is so very different from mine (and again from our parents) that the events are barely recognizable as the same event. Somewhere in there, is reality...what really happened. But none of us really knows what that is because our previous experiences, thoughts, feelings, fears, and so on color how we see reality. It is like wearing glasses of many shades and not knowing what color we are REALLY seeing. Then you start removing those shades layer by layer and you get closer to being able to see things as they really are. Once you get to that point, "view" becomes "View." Incorrect perceptions are replaced by perceptions based on wisdom (as Citta said).
Every day, I look in the mirror, to make sure I don't have toothpaste on my face, toilet paper stuck to my pants, or whatever. A bit ago, I had my picture taken with my son. All I could think was "Wait, I see myself in the mirror every single day. Is THIS really what I look like!? This is not what I saw when I looked in the mirror 2 minutes before the picture was taken." Perception. Which one is correct and which one is reality? Who knows. Other people likely see me in again an entirely different way. And that is how we all see everything in our lives. So while we think our perception is correct, someone else sees it differently, and they think their perception is correct. So in the right context, yes, all those perceptions are wrong.
I think "wrong" is an obfuscating label. My perceptions may not be mathematically "correct" from a universal scope, but they are my perceptions. Don't tell me that my perceptions are wrong. I will not accept that. Tell me that my perceptions are skewed, though, and I'll think about it.
The main meaning of "wrong" is: "unsuitable, inappropriate, undesirable."
I simply don't think that approach can be helpful to many people. It's insulting and WRONG.
Ultimately even benign views free from fears and apprehensions are not Realisation.
@Nirvana simmer down. I meant wrong in terms of incorrect when compared to reality, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Edited to remove lack of right speech on my part. Apologies if I offended you, @Nirvana.
Re the OP, I am just trying to communicate my thoughts.
... I meant wrong in terms of incorrect when compared to reality, and I'm pretty sure you know that....
I think all that TNH is doing is contrasting Right view with Wrong view.
He is not making a moral judgement.
I have already made the point that Right View is an unsatisfactory translation of Samma-ditthi Which is actually more like 'Complete View'..a view that leads away from Dukkha.
Likewise Wrong View is a less -than -perfect translation of Miccha-Ditthi..which is a view that leads to increased Dukkha.
But ultimately even Samma-ditthi can only incline us towards Realisation. It is not Realisation.
Samma-ditthi is still a manifestation of the conditioned world.
@Nirvana, I'm confused. If your post was in response to the OP and TNH's quote, then why did you quote me in your response?
On my part, "wrong" was probably not the best choice of word but I did not mean in an insulting manner by any means.
@karasti, I PMed you. Remember it's the word TNH used that is confusing folks like Shanyin and me.
We've even in the past had threads dealing with the aptness or lack of aptness in the word "Right." My position has always been that there is nothing "wrong" with the word "Right." But not so with the word "Wrong." Indeed "Right" is a much better word than "correct" (lit. cum-rect). Nobody wants to be around someone who's always correct. "Correct" is "right" overdone and hence has too much rigidness in its nuances.
If you say you're gonna get "right" to the point, you mean you're gonna get "straight" to the point or gonna get to the point "Straight away."---If you say to somebody that they're not thinking "Right," you mean that they're not thinking clearly —or something close along those lines. "Right" is a very deep concept, involving the hand we by custom extend to show honor to an agreement, &c; it's the word for Law in many languages, etc., &c.
What then, is right view? It cannot be the long view. Most people you know will just scoff at that statement. Complete view doesn't work for me, either. TNH says it's the clear view arrived at by deep meditations over time. I daresay that sounds "right" to me. But the lacking of this clear view _is not its opposite, especially when put in terms of right and wrong._ And of course no one is thinking of anything like moral judgment here!
When it comes to language, I am concerned about the LCD, not the protocols for Full Enlightenment by an Exalted Being. The LCD is how people talk and think.
I, for one, am put off confused by TNH saying that such and such is "wrong view." To say "Incomplete view" doesn't help me, either. Also "unclear view" is inept. Perhaps any wording is doomed to ineptitude. I repeat: the lacking of this right view is not its opposite! To me that would be like saying that because all my understanding is filled with light a completely blind person is incapable of any understanding at all. It just isn't that "black and white."
The fact is that our creaturely desires do rather skew things. But then, when we are thinking about those we love and whose companionship we so much treasure, how can we help it? But, on the other hand, you cannot get there by talking. You have to dive deep and stay awhile.
Perhaps @Nirvana the solution is to internalise the meaning of Miccha-Ditthi which will save you from having to have an emotional reaction to English translations.
An emotional reaction which seems rather to miss the point of the whole thing.
@Whoever, being confused is not an emotion.
Just try to be a bit nicer and less provocative. How about it?
Being confused is a dissonant cluster of emotions.
There is something ironic about becoming angry with other people in a discussion about a way of life whose goal is peace.
This is the OP . Can anyone post TNH's actual words ?
Hi, @Citta! Here are TNH's actual words: "And that is why Nirvana is not something that you get in the future. Nirvana is the capacity of removing the wrong notions, wrong perceptions, which is the practice of freedom. Nirvana can be translated as freedom: freedom from views. And in Buddhism, all views are wrong views. When you get in touch with reality, you no longer have views. You have wisdom. You have a direct encounter with reality, and that is no longer called views". - See more at: http://www.meditationplex.com/zen-meditation/thich-nhat-hanh-nirvana-suffering/#sthash.xh6KCZPs.dpuf
I don't see any problem with any of that. Some views are less wrong than others. But ultimately all views are wrong views. Views are replaced by Panna and Panna is non verbal.
This is true. But technically he's forgetting the First of the steps of the Fourth Noble Truth: Right View.
Now I am really confused. An no, it's not my emotions. Maybe I'm not confused at all. Maybe it's Awe.
Solomon Say that Awe is the beginning of Wisdom.
Awesome stuff this Buddha taught.
Too bad he didn't speak in plain English. It would eliminate most of these unnecessary posts of OURS.
The Buddha didn't speak English either.
And 'Right View' is at best a very incomplete translation of Samma-Ditthi.
If you base your response on an incomplete translation only its a recipe for confusion.
The meaning has to be dug and out and worked at.
But some accessibility of meaning is very important. You can't get a hopeful message across using negative words —at least most of the time to most of the people.
All I am saying is that "wrong" is probably a very poor choice of words. And unfortunate.
How about "Unfortunate View?"
I repeat: The lacking of right view is not its opposite. It's Right View, on the one hand, and Partial View on the other. Is not the same meaning conveyed?
Don't blame me! I didn't start this thread. I was just trying to empathize with the guy who did. And I do!
Well as you have reported me for ad homming ( ! ? ) clearly its best if I stay out of the conversation.
So he said nirvana is the removal of wrong perceptions. Don't wrong perceptions pretty much evoporate with some meditation alone? Is nirvana not an experience?
EDIT
I don't know if I was ready to debate as I havn't been studying the Dharma for a long time. My mind was going all over to different topics like the American invasion of North Vietnam. What he says sounds fraudulent to me.
Of course, it's not my school of Buddhism either, so I don't want to get myself neck deep in the mud here.
All depends on how you look at it. Perhaps he means that to have a view means you don't yet see, and so it's not yet Right View. Or that if it can be expressed in words, it's not "it".
By "perception" I think he means the labeling and differentiating, as a matter of fact, that is the way the "worldly" mind works. So when the labels don't come first (they become a utility instead of how we really see the world), that's the end of "perception". Sorta like removing the veil maybe?
Just some random conditioned thoughts. Back to you, Al.
>
I agree with him because all views originates from a form a self or self identification. Such as having an opinion, idea, thought, or an imagination. If it feeds into impermanence, stress, and anatta then it cannot be considered "correct" in regards to the true nature things.
There is a difference between stating an opinion and making a factual statement. One cannot be the other, and can't have similar meanings. A view has to be considered just a view until the facts are revealed.
I'd be interested to hear vilyn and federica's take on it.
Our perceptions are as limited as our ability to perceive, therefore our take on the world is per force slanted and biased.
It's the work of a lifetime to finally manage to attain higher ground, to rise above our personal views and opinions.
Ideally, that's what we're practicing for, and nobody said it were easy.
I wonder what this reality that TNH describes as free of views looks like...
Sometimes we have glimpses of it, and then we fall back on our old trusted quirks.
One of the things that I don't personally ascribe to is being overly philosophical in re Buddhist thought. I leave that to the ivory tower types.
I am more into applying Buddhist (and other) wisdom to every day life.
So the idea that all views are wrong views is...a lotta crap. If that's true, then there is no reason for us to ever discuss viewpoints on Buddhism on this website.
I say that, despite the fact that I have read a couple of TNH's books, and like his general stances very much.
That's the prasangika view on emptiness. All views are merely contrived.
So how does this apply to a bus speeding towards you say "how can a bus hitting me be only contrived?" You don't and that is where the teaching of 'the two truths' comes into play.
The Shentong view says that the prasangika has a subtle attachment to negation. So in Shentong view the self protectiveness not to get hit by a bus is part of the mind; it could be Buddha nature. The mind is ungraspable but it has qualities that operate in situations such as the bus. The mind is definitively the vajrayana view whereas one could otherwise say that the mind is definitively emptiness of essence and the vajrayana is a skillful means (as opposed to the definitive mind).
Suggestion for a sticker on the cover of all TNH's books: "Don't buy this book because there is no sense of paying to read my wrong views."
at that point one sees (realizes) 'perception is just a shadow brings by the consciousness (mind)' [this is the Noble Right View]
and
before, one sees 'perception as real' and reacted to such (shadows) perception
and
now, one knows 'reacting to such shadow' makes him a fool
and
he tries not to react to perception (shadows) any longer
however, how much one would be successful would depend on one's mindfulness (sathi) and wisdom (Noble Right View)
TNH actually has written about the experience about the invasions in Vietnam during the war. He was there. He experienced the brutality and everything else that went with it. As far as nirvana, I don't get the sense it is an experience. To me, experiences are something that come and go. Nirvana is something else. I think. Obviously, none of us knows, lol.
I have certainly read things by people whose words don't resonate with me, don't reach me. I don't pick them up again.
Yes TNH teaches in his book that when rice was short he knew that it was time to put the dharma he taught to go into a test. He gave away his rice to the people in his area. They respected that and returned his generosity so that he was soon a steward of the people getting the rice to who needed it. He is very well spoken. When he was invited to speak to the UN during some meeting he said that he lead them in mindful breathing to attain peace in their minds even if he couldn't help in any way to come to peace in the world. I would say TNH is the 'real McCoy'.
I really like TNH myself. He was the first author I read when I started learning about Buddhism. His idea of engaged Buddhism really appeals to me. I don't always agree with him on some things, because I practice a different tradition, but that is ok. I still get a lot of value from his teachings. Not a fraud at all in my opinion. Just because we might not understand something, doesn't make the other person fraudulent.
Let's not forget TNH is a Vietnamese monk and even though his grasp of English is quite excellent, English is not his native tongue. I doubt he is deliberately trying to confuse people.
A bodhisattva monk summing up the nature of nirvana by saying that all views are wrong views and that nirvana is the removal of wrong perception seems... I just don't know about that
Anything interpreted by the senses is an opinion. They are all we have to work with though. Not sure if this is applicable but its what came to mind. Bob
Why not ask him?