Wednesday, May 02, 2007
True Love by Thich Nhat Hanh
This is a great book for anyone curious about Zen practice, Buddhism, or anyone that wants to develop a more loving attitude. I do (just ask my wife!). It is really short but not lacking substance. Thich Nhat Hanh offers us a Buddhist view of love along with techniques for manifesting it in our daily lives. He explores the four key aspects of love as described in the Buddhist tradition: loving kindness, compassion, joy, and freedom. Thich Nhat Hanh explains that in order to love in a real way, we need to learn how to be fully present in our lives. He offers very practical techniques of meditation and conscious thought as a way of synchronizing the mind and the body and conditioning our selves for love.
Even reading the few pages of this book is guaranteed to change your perspective on love and cultivate a deeper motivation to employ it's transforming power in your life. If your life needs a little injection of love or you need to recapture the ability to love freely then read this book as soon as possible. The people around you will be blessed.
"Training is needed in order to love properly; and to be able to give happiness and joy, you must practice DEEP LOOKING directed toward the other person you love. Because if you do not understand this person, you cannot love properly. Understanding is the essence of love. If you cannot understand, you cannot love. That is the message of the Buddha." - Thich Nhat Hahn
12 comments:
Have read some posts on your blog, and I have some questions. Critical, yes, but also very honest. I think your page is very interesting.
To me, it seems that true faith always is faith practised. Faith is a body, not just "inner stuff". If this is true, it makes me wonder about some aspects of your views:
-Maybe we do not take other religions and traditions seriosly enough if we try to borrow stuff, cutting them loose from their material context and fellowship? To me, a cut and paste-strategy seems to promote liberal, individualistic , consumer values, more than development. ?
-It seems to me that you have baught into the modern, western understanding of "religion". For most people in the worlds, "religion" might not even exist as some separate entity. There are different Gods for sure, but what is "a religion". Is this concept to important for you? What if you did not have it?
Jonas Lundstrom, Sweden
Thanks for the comment Jonas. It is good to hear views from so far away. Please read a bit more of my posts. I think you will find that my ideals are actually 180 degrees from your accusation of:
"individual consumer values" and "western understanding of religion".
That is exactly what I regularly criticize. I agree that the individualistic consumerism mentality of the west is anit-Jesus. I agree with your concern about those ideals.
We may have a cultural miscommunication because of our distance and traditions. I'd love to pursue this issue and see how our different geographical and political settings may be influencing our views.
What have I said that made you assume I was interested in individualism or consumerism? Also, I wonder what made you tie "liberal" with individualism and consumerism. Here in America those would generally be on opposite ends of the religious and political spectrum. Liberals are usually people that favor community values over individualism and favor more generous support of the poor and less capitalistic values. Here in America the conservatives are the neocapitalists and the consumer driven types.
In terms of religion it works the same way (generally). Conservative Christians tend to favor large mega-churches that build a consumerism approach to religion built around entertainment and luxurious buildings. Liberal Christians tend to value service oriented communities built around tradition. There are always exceptions but that is the general "stereotype".
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to your response.
Ok. I am not talking about the right-left (liberal-conservative)-issue, but the modern, western understanding of the free, rational, choosing individual as the center of our society. In my view, you can be both right or left and still promote individualism. The leftist might say, for example, that you have to deliver people from the oppressive economic structures, and than they will be able to choose their own way, work, sex, views etcetera in a truly free way. This might be "left" politics, but it is still individualism.
I still get the view that you promote individualism if you spread the notion that we, as individuals, can freely choose what we like from
the "market" of religion and incorporate it into our own system. We are much more a part of a specific tradition, a people and a church for example, than that.
Of course I understand that you do not consciously promote consumer values, that is why I tried to use the argument. What I mean is that you may be preaching this anyway if you give us the impression that we can choose whatever fits from differents traditions/religions.
(I like Stanley Hauerwas on things like this. Have you read him?)
Peace
Jonas, I'm a little closer to understanding your point but not much. Are you saying that you feel it is individualistic to choose what you will believe rather than allowing your own cultural religious practices to make those choices for you? Let me know if that is on target.
You made this comment: "What I mean is that you may be preaching this anyway if you give us the impression that we can choose whatever fits from different traditions/religions.
Don't we all make that choice? Isn't Christianity an incorporation from jewish traditions blended with Greek philosophy and toss in a little pagan worship style (music, sacrifice, etc)? Isn't the Gospel of John a perfect example of the blending of traditions and newer philosophy? Doesn't Judaism blend certian pagan rituals (sacrifice, singing, dancing, seasonal ceremonies) and don't forget about the ideas about afterlife learned from their time in Egypt?
Now you can make the argument that we "should't" do this, but you can't make the argument that we "can't" do this. We certaily can and we certainly do. I know that I do.
If you meant to say we should't then I still disagree. Did ancient Israel do something wrong when they took the time to write down their hopes and dreams in a book called Torah? Did Paul do something wrong when he decided to craft ideas from Jewish and greek thoughts into a new "way"? Was Jesus wrong to question the path of his own misguided religious leaders or should he have submitted to their authority no matter what? Were these people being individualistic? Jesus never taught blind allegiance to authority figures and tradition. If anything, he said exactly the opposite.
Thank you for the review, I haven't read that particular book of Thich Nhat Hanh's--my favorite thus far is his "Being Peace". As far as the comment dialogue, I found it as interesting as the post itself, especially in terms of the "choose what we like from
the 'market' of religion and incorporate it into our own system" part. While I can understand the cons of "pick and choose" religion--I think it's only a con in terms of a religion. Separating spirituality away from religion--then I think it makes sense to choose what we like--or more accurately, to choose what it is that rings true, and incorporate it. Buddhism encourages the idea of testing truth and using it where we find it, and I see people in, for instance, the emergent church mindset like Rob Bell, encouraging people to find truth where it is to be found--then claim it and live it. I guess my rambling point is that it isn't about picking and choosing what people "like" from other religions--it's finding truth in many forms.
I agree Kelly. Something doesn't become true just because some person or some text says it is true. The proof is in the pudding. Or by Jesus' teaching, it is in the fruit. I find it interesting that the most untrustworthy people always say "don't worry, trust me". In contrast, I like that the Buddha says "Don't trust me, try it and if it works then I was right." (my paraphrase)
Given those two models, it seems obvious which one is more worthy of trust.
Progressive Blogger: I think that;
a) we should be careful. we might not know what elements we take over from other traditions will lead to what consequences.
b) we should do it in a way that is loving even considered the convictions of people in the groups of christians we belong to. for example - do your thought come out of a circle or people or do you stand alone in your context?
c) we should try to listen in a profound way to other traditions, not take over stuff to superficially.
d) we do well to first of all make use of the, sometimes hidden, resources in our own story and tradition
when i have said that, i want to empasize that i don`t know about you that much. maybe this works out well for you and your sisters and brothers. but what you have written have (falsely?) given me the impression that you are making this journey to much on your own.
peace
jonas
You have to start somewhere.
I find that the more vocal I am, the more people I find that connect in the same way. The most common reaction I get is: "I always felt like that but I never heard anyone else say it".
Christiany has inforced a "don't ask, don't ask" policy for so long that religious ignorance has spread like wildfire. Education starts with a few simple questions.
To address your issues:
A) How could I take over something without my being aware? Will I sleep walk through the process? The whole point is to open our eyes instead of accepting things (doctrines) with our eyes and minds closed. I'm ready to stop sleep walking.
B) More of a global community now, but as I said, I'm finding more people in my inner circle of frieds also that want to progress and finding new circles to live in.
C) I agree. Let's dig in deep.
D) I agree. The slight majority of my investigation is within my own tradition and much is aimed at removing the cloud of misinformation attached to it.
Ok. Please get me right. I am also asking loads of question and spreading "heretic" convictions in my context. (You may have noticed my words in the debate on the holy spirit on missio dei-marks page.) I agree with lots of what I have read on your page, although I hesitate for what I (probably false) feels to be a syncretistic slant.
But for me, it has been crucial to remain as long as possible in my local church, and keep the respect and love even for fundamentalist people. Getting back to the Bible, the Jesus of the gospel, and tradition (especially anabaptists) has helped me break with my conservatism and status qou.
I am also convinced that God is active outside of the christian community, whether it is called "religon", "politics" or "pop-culture". I also believe that the church is corrupt, or "fallen". So I am not arguing for conservatism.
I will try to follow your page and maybe I may comment on some issues and try to find out more about the structure and implementations of your texts.
Thanks for your prespective Jonas. I'm looking forward to more discussions. We have much to gain by reaching so far across the world for fresh perspectives.
Danutz;
I have been enjoying learning more about you and your perspective. I suggest to you that I am quite relieved that you have your “button” displayed that says “Proud Member of the Religious Left”. This is a very good descriptor for your predominant views; that is a serious compliment. You wear it on your shoulder so people will understand, yet I was slow on the uptake.
I was in error to think you were attempting to express a type of Jesus following, I am sorry for my misunderstanding I should have done greater research.
Please understand there is no sarcasm or “put down” insinuated. At the core of your mission is being proud, religious, and to the left. You say so yourself. No problem, thank you for being open about it, I respect that.
Understand that I am neither proud (I am a depraved sinner deserving relocation to the Lake of Fire), religious (Jesus clearly showed that religion, rules, or “being good” is void of true relationship with God which is the core of the Bible and God), or to the left or right for that matter (Jesus is not about politics, neither am I because my life is about Him, I want to be very clear I am NOT what you would describe as being from the “religious right”). I believe that these (pride, religion, politics) are antithetical to being a Jesus follower, and indeed are the source of many of the worlds problems.
I look forward to learning more about you, thank you for your openness, genuineness, and willingness to dialogue. I mean that seriously (just so you understand I am not being sarcastic or attacking you).
Livingsword,
I agree with you accessment of pride being a problem. Unfortunatley I didn't design that button, but thanks for pointing that word out. It should be removed because it doesn't reflect my views. I think you will realize that if you follow the rest of my site. Jesus teaches that humility is the goal not pride. Pride in anything is harmful even if the object of your pride is good.
However, relgion and politics are not a problem. Jesus was extremely political. The terms "son of god", "Lord", "Savior of the word" are perhaps the most political statements ever made. Early Christians claimed that Jesus is the son of god and NOT Caesar. Jesus is Lord, Jesus is savior of the world. The problem with modern religious right isn't that it became political but it picked the wrong values to champion. Christians should follow the history of the prophets including Jesus and be loud political critics against the values of Empire.
Post a Comment