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.
"Resurgence" on Consciousness
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
Dear friends,
Some of you may know the periodical Resurgence edited by Satish Kumar. The current issue (Sept./Oct. 2009) is devoted to the topic of consciousness. The printed edition [and the online subscription( http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/)] contains an article by Thich Nhat Hanh entitled "Indra's Net" which explores something of the notion of "interbeing", which informs so much of Thay's teaching.
Whilst I cannot post the whole article here - and it is worth searching out - these are his closing words:
For those of you who may not yet have come across Thay's work and, particularly, his concept of interbeing, which he calls "perhaps the most important (of the Buddha's) teaching to help us free ourselves from suffering," I would strongly urge you to investigate. Here is a taster:
Some of you may know the periodical Resurgence edited by Satish Kumar. The current issue (Sept./Oct. 2009) is devoted to the topic of consciousness. The printed edition [and the online subscription( http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/)] contains an article by Thich Nhat Hanh entitled "Indra's Net" which explores something of the notion of "interbeing", which informs so much of Thay's teaching.
Whilst I cannot post the whole article here - and it is worth searching out - these are his closing words:
Each of our afflictions, our unwholesome mental formations, contains Buddha nature and liberation. Compost contains many fragrant flowers. A skilful gardener does not get rid of kitchen scraps but turns it into compost. In the course of time, the scraps will turn into a basket of fresh, green vegetables. If we know how to compost our afflictions of greed, hatred, ignorance, pride, doubt, agitations, topor and forgetfulness, we can transform them into peace, joy, liberation and happiness.
All we need to do is transform our forgetfulness into mindfulness.
For those of you who may not yet have come across Thay's work and, particularly, his concept of interbeing, which he calls "perhaps the most important (of the Buddha's) teaching to help us free ourselves from suffering," I would strongly urge you to investigate. Here is a taster:
From: The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
Thich Nhat Hanh
Interbeing
If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we ha vea new verb, inter-be. Without a cloud and the sheet of paper inter-are.
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And wesee the wheat. We now the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
Looking even more deeply, we can see we are in it too. This is not difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also. So we can say that everything is in here with this sheet of paper. You cannot point out one thing that is not here-time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this sheet of paper. That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be. You cannot just be by yourself alone. You have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.
Suppose we try to return one of the elements to its source. Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think that this sheet of paper will be possible? No, without sunshine nothing can be. And if we return the logger to his mother, then we have no sheet of paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper elements.” And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without “non-paper elements,” like mind, logger, sunshine and so on, there will be no paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thay's words offer wonderful clarity as always.
Inter-be. That's a very good way to put it.
(I had to look up 'interbeing' to see if it was in my dictionary. It wasn't. I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh. It should be.)
(I am quite sure this one does not convene buddhist teachings. Yet I am sure I will be quickly corrected if not, but I am trying to correct my beginner ways.
Without the sun, nothing can be. So it is always prudent to listen to the light. And if Mr Sun were to grow arms and legs, and a mouth and tongue. Make sure to listen to him. Because if nothing can be without him. You surely do not want to be on his dark side. Of course, it seems childish and silly to think of the sun suddenly walking around with arms and legs, talking and whatnot, so you are probably safe and sound, one would think.
same as everything else.....
Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term "inter-being" himself. How is this considered a teaching of the Buddha, then, when the Buddha did not teach anything even vaguely resembling what we see described above?
Who can sort all branches in the tree and throw away the sick leaves? That is the question.
Sounds like a wilderness of views, a thicket of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & misery.
I think this raises a very interesting point about the development and growth of our understanding of the Dharma across time. Indeed, I recall that Jason and I had many a debate about this back a year or two ago. It is my view that we need to avoid the sort of literalist, reductionist approach to sutras and the three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma which has afflicted Christian exegesis in the Twentieth Century.
Of course, as with all teachings, we must test them both from the point of view of their source and as they apply to our challenge us in our lived reality.
Perhaps, Stuka, friend, I can clarify with TNH's own words anent "interbeing":
You are right that TNH uses the neologism 'interbeing' but is it not essential that, as our understanding expands, we develop appropriate language.
The use of these sort "isms" distorts the fact that what we are talking about is adherence to the teachings of the Buddha himself vs. indulging in the great many eisegeses that have attempted to "turn" his teachings into something resembling Brahminism or Hinduism. The Buddha declared only one "Turning of the Wheel of Dhamma", and also declared that his teachings were complete and not in any need of embellishment or further "development".
Such a view as you expouse promotes the sort of eisegeses and resultant corruption of the teachings that has turned much of today's "Buddhism" into something that only vaguely resembles the teachings of the Buddha.
The Buddha suggested that when we hear statements like this that are stuffed into the mouth of the Buddha, we should "trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'"
TNH's theory of "interbeing" is not to be found among the teachings of the Buddha.
The Gavampati Sutta is irrelevant to this matter and does not justify this sort of eisegesis. What the Buddha said on this matter was this:
Simon. I did not say that I "can't see the value" in TNH's work. I have said that the Buddha did not teach this "inter-being" business.
Very good. Great to read something like this. But I don't want run of the mill to hear me, I want people like you to hear me, as it's hard to speak to people when they all challenge your view, for the sake of challenge itself rather than knowledge itself, so sometimes I like to put up a thicket that only those worth challenging can squeeze through. Secondly, sometimes the fetter of views, can avoid suffering and misery, for those that do not understand it would often suffer most from acceptance of that view. It is like putting a waiting room in place, before you go for surgery.
I'm pretty sure you got my point in that fetter of views. But for once, to take your advice, and ease some suffering and misery, or maybe even create some. I wonder why someone who can write such an insightful comment as above, wastes his time arguing about the pedantics of what Buddha said and what he did not say as appears to me to be your favourite past time, such as Christians worry about whether the sabbath is Saturday or Sunday, and forget to pray in their worry. Do I have a point my friend? Or perhaps your intention of finding complete orthodox teachings has a mission beyond which I have overlooked, that in your eyes is perhaps a road worth travelling? If so, perhaps share this insight with me, so I can decide whether I too, will do the same. For I do deem you worth listening to.
If I wish to study Beethoven, I do not do so by listening to the Ramones.
I could play tennis with you forever. Seriously, I could. Many ground strokes come to mind, but I want just a friendly rally, for my own sake. Cool beans, study Beethoven, and when you have tired of it.....well who knows, perhaps something else, maybe a bit of trip hop
Would I be right in thinking that you follow a personal path which excludes any text, treatise, commentary or sutra which is outwith words attributed to the historical Buddha? You will know that many, both here and elsewhere, include in their study and practice additional teachings, familiarly termed "Mahayana".
If this is the case, of course I understand that you will reject, for example, the Heart Sutra. It is your choice but to assert that those of us who treasure this and similar texts are "wrong" or "non-Buddhist" (although you do not use either term - I extrapolate) does seem to me to be outwith the norms of discussion here. Would it not be more respectful simply to ignore those of us who take this view?
Why do you continue to make this personal, Simon? I have made no such assertions, and your "extrapolation" that I do is a straw man and a personal attack. I have made objective statements concerning THN's claim that the "inter-being" idea he coined is a teaching of the Buddha Himself, and you are misrepresenting these statements as if they were attacks on others' faiths. Why? Would it not be more respectful to refrain from such insinuations and simply ignore those of us who seek truth and authenticity?
I make no secrewt of the fact that it is an insight that has been of great help to me.
It has not been my intention to engage in any personal attacks, nor, when I re-read my posts, do I think I have done so. Nevertheless, if you feel that I have crossed the bounds, I submit to your judgment.
My only intention was to challenge your (Stuka's) assertion that TNH's notion of "interbeing" is an accurate representation of the Buddha's teaching. Nothing that has been said so far appears to contradict this view, although I am open to changing my opinion. So far, I have seen nothing which causes me to believe Stuka, whose credentials are unknown to me, over TNH, whose are well-established.