popular versus deep buddhism/mindfulness

There seems to be a popular or broad  version of everything.
Thich Nhat Hanh uses to distinguish this kind of Buddhism from the deep one he represents.
He says that in popular Buddhism people use to pray to Buddha for wealth, fortune, career and so on.
He says that in the version of reincarnation in popular Buddhism has a wrong view. His view is that our actions or karma "reincarnates" in other persons: In our children, in the people we interact with, but also in nature and animals. Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance, will be with us after he is gone in his disciples, in his books, in the films about him and also in these lines.
But his soul will not reincarnate in another body.

And this is because we have no permanent soul, we interare with the objects that we study.
No mind without a world.
In fact, the seer and the seen are the same.

This is a sympathetic view with an ecological touch.

And I think it has more in common with philosophy, psychology and science than other religions.

But I don't think the whole buddhistic world would agree with Mr Thich.

And it will have some contradictions with buddhas idea that it is best not to reincarnate.
To reach Nirvana.

Perhaps Thich Nath Hanh is one of Buddhas children, and a rebellious one that has found out that not even buddhism has a permanent essence. It has to develop to be forever young.
So, if Buddha has reincarnated in Thich, he is both the same and not the same...

Both of them says anyway that we have to meditate and be compassionate to reach a higher knowledge. And then we would suffer less.

And that should be the goal for mindfulness in the west too.

The goal should not be to make a better career or have more energy or be more busy.

That is popular mindfulness, that is to continue the rat race....














Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more