created by throwy4444 on 18/03/2025 at 01:40 UTC
31 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)
The Plum Village monastery lost an important building to fire. It was where Thich Nhat Hanh had his room and welcome guests. This was a huge loss to the community.
https://www.lionsroar.com/thich-nhat-hanhs-plum-village-monastery-loses-building-to-fire-seeks-funds-to-rebuild/[1][2]
I listened to the wonderful The Way Out is In podcast, where they discussed the fire. Brother Phap Huu was obviously saddened by the loss, but he also appeared to express some annoyance at some who said in effect that this was just an example of impermanence or it was Thich Nhat Hanh's lesson about attachment. I believe he called these remarks insensitive.
On a conventional level, I can absolutely see why this community would grieve the loss of their precious structure. It was a home for Thich Nhat Hanh and was a fundamental part of their community. But on other hand, if all things are impermanent and unsatisfactory as the teachings explain, why mourn the loss of a building that was always in a constant state of change.
I'm trying to reconcile the monks' entirely human and natural reaction to a loss with the teachings that we have received through the Dharma. If an important building to me burned to the ground, I would feel great sadness too.
Comment by waitingundergravity at 18/03/2025 at 02:28 UTC
39 upvotes, 4 direct replies
I think that there is a point to be made about people insensitively making *other people's losses* lessons in impermanence in a way that implicitly admonishes the deprived for caring or being upset. To use Thich Nhat Hanh himself as an example, he did not make it his habit to go around to the funerals of dead children in order to ask the parents of the deceased why they grieved over something impermanent. However correct the question might be, it would clearly be unhelpful and unconscionably cruel to do something like that unrequested at a funeral.
In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha has this to say about the monks at his deathbed:
"But here, Ananda, the Tathagata knows for certain that among this community of bhikkhus there is not even one bhikkhu who is in doubt or perplexity as to the Buddha, the Dhamma, or the Sangha, the path or the practice. For, Ananda, among these five hundred bhikkhus even the lowest is a stream-enterer, secure from downfall, assured, and bound for enlightenment."
However, after the Buddha passes into parinirvana, this happens:
Then, when the Blessed One had passed away, some bhikkhus, not yet freed from passion, lifted up their arms and wept; and some, flinging themselves on the ground, rolled from side to side and wept, lamenting: "Too soon has the Blessed One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Happy One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Eye of the World vanished from sight!"
But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"
So we see here that even stream-enterers (at the very least) are capable of being driven to paroxysms of grief and sadness at the disappearance of something impermanent.
Consequently, I feel somewhat uneasy at the idea of simply responding with a point about impermanence to someone else's loss. I consider "if instead of that loss, the loss was instead my own child dying in front of me, would I be equally unmoved?" If the answer to that question is no, then it means that I am not unmoved by that loss because I have any insight at all about impermanence, but that I simply care less about other people's losses than my own.
Comment by ChanCakes at 18/03/2025 at 02:37 UTC*
20 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There is a weird attitude in western circles it seems where impermanence is used to suppress or bypass real issues whether emotional or other. Telling someone who has lost their home - “things change bro” is not a helpful attitude, nor the one to be cultivated in Buddhism.
That’s not to mention, such a major event will cause real upheaval in a community. The time, money, and effort needed to rebuild will be no small thing. Telling someone who needs to gather enough funds to reconstruct the building, completely change their life for the next few years - “oh well” is not good enough.
Comment by seeking_seeker at 18/03/2025 at 01:46 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Monks are human. Simple as that.
Comment by W359WasAnInsideJob at 18/03/2025 at 02:58 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What Brother Phap Huu experienced is similar to what many of us have experienced; you do something entirely human, like get upset, lose you temper, whatever, and some asshole who doesn’t know anything about anything says something to the effect of “that’s not very Buddhist of you” or whatever.
But, sure it is? Because Buddhists are human beings, and having an emotional response is a very human thing to do.
Grief is natural, and impermanence can help us work through it / have a healthy relationship to it. But by “healthy” I don’t mean “become a robot”. We’re not Vulcans, learning to repress all of our emotions. The dharma doesn’t demand a dispassionate, emotionless response to your parent dying; that would be absurd.
We also need to consider that some kind of constructed, artificial reaction to loss - where we don’t grieve, but instead yell “impermanence” and go back to meditating, I guess - is probably aversion and not enlightenment.
Would the Buddha say “hey, all good things come to an end”? Yeah, probably. But I don’t think he’d scold you over it, and I don’t think it’s an admonishment; rather understanding this is a tool for our navigation of samsara. We feel grief at loss, and an understanding of impermanence allows us to process, work through, and let go of that grief.
There’s also the whole “Buddhism isn’t Nihilism” thing, but that’s another conversation.
Comment by ascendous at 18/03/2025 at 06:44 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
But on other hand, if all things are impermanent and unsatisfactory as the teachings explain, why mourn the loss of a building that was always in a constant state of change.
You talk as if mourning, sadness and suffering is a choice and we can just turn it off by educating people that feeling them is irrational. This is constant mistake I see people do in this sub in every post talking about Buddhism and attachment/desire/impermanence. That is not what Buddha taught. Buddhism is not a philosophy. It is a religion. If intellectual realisation of impermanence and non-self was all that was needed to end suffering then eightfold path would be just one fold path. Just right view. But right view is not enough, it is just starting point, motivation for religious practice of rest of seven folds. End of attachment to impermanent things will only come after spiritual/mystical/supramundane transformation. Sila, samadhi and then panna will arise.
I'm trying to reconcile the monks' entirely human and natural reaction to a loss with the teachings that we have received through the Dharma
There is nothing to reconcile if we understand Buddha never taught we could end our attachments and resultant suffering through sheer willpower after rationally understanding dhamma. Buddha taught a path, living which for long long time, maybe even after many lifetimes attachments will disappear. But they can not be rationalised away or willpowered away. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying willpower has no part to play in Buddhism. Willpower is essential to practice of five precepts, to sit down for meditation, to focus on breath/Buddha's name etc. None of these things we want to do. We must force ourselves do.
Comment by Traditional_Kick_887 at 18/03/2025 at 02:10 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Many followers of the dhamma may not be aware, but there used to thousands of Buddhist temples, monasteries, libraries, schools, universities, stupas, dwellings across Asia.
For around a thousand years, Buddhism(s) used to be the dominant religion of those trade routes that stretched from East Asia all the way to Central and Western Asia. It was the Golden Age of the Dharma. There were dozens of schools and even within schools, sub-schools.
But eventually followers of other faith traditions went on armed campaigns to conquer these territories. They literally put entire sects and schools to the sword. Some of it was sadistic, intentional. Some of it was because they mistook the monasteries for forts, government buildings, etc.
Countless (thousands of) temples, universities, monasteries, libraries, were destroyed. Thousands carried off as slaves or worse. Tens of thousands or more killed. Heads were removed and put on spikes and streams flowed red. Books were burned, entire communities destroyed.
For those who follow Theravada, it is very fortunate that these conqueror armies were really bad at swimming and naval expansion, thus unable to get to Sri Lanka, otherwise we would not have the Pali canon today much in the same way we don’t have most of the entirety of canons of the other Buddhist schools that existed.
Of course some suttas and even a book here or there translated into Chinese, Tibetan, or Sanskrit, Gandhari the Vinayas preserved, yes. Even if many treatises and histories were lost, we have Mahayana suttas and texts that also survived, many brought with them by the survivors who fled. But most of the Tripitakas? Gone, much like the house, burnt to the foundation.
The scale of destruction that occurred to our dharma over a period of 200-400 years is truly unfathomable, beyond imagination. It is here one would expect one to say that it’s way worse than a singular house burning down. But it’s not; it’s just like Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh‘s house.
What some feel about the historical destruction of the dhamma is exactly what the monastic feels with that building. Something deeply precious, important, and cherished was taken away from the world. Not just something that was personally cherished but something important to the sangha. And it caused him and others great pain. Small or large, the size matters not as the pain is the same.
For all his years with the Buddha, all the teachings he memorized to a T, even Ven. Ananda wept when the Buddha passed. And if the loss of someone or something precious can affect Venerable Ananda, it could affect any of us.
When such loss occurs, we must remind our friends that by whatever one grasps at in the world, by that Mara is said to follow a person. That everything is burning and is subject to burning literally, someday, in one form or another.
We are lucky much of the dhamma still survives. With with how much or how little of the sangha or dhamma is left, it is from that we may find peace. And when it is possible or necessary, Venerable Hanh would want us to use that loss as an opportunity for learning, and an inspiration to continue striving even after difficulties transpire.
We may not have his room, but we have his texts, his example, and his teachings. With what we have to left work with we must encourage conviction (and hope) in those who are experiencing the despair or shock that accompanies a loss.
Comment by Borbbb at 18/03/2025 at 03:36 UTC
-8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is the most hillarious thing i have read today.
Being mad over established Monastic pointing at impermamence, is quite amusing.
Anyway, you know what is human? To kill, steal, torture, and much worse.
As a monastic, you go beyond that. That´s a good thing.
You don´t do what common stuff, you try to do what is better.
This in a sense is like if someone from one´s family dies, and a family member attends the funeral without expressing grief. You know what happens? Some people, not family members, will get mad over it. " How dare he not express grief? How disgusting that is, does he even care ? ! "
- People simply make lot of things about themselves, without looking at bigger picture.
The truth is, it is but a building that was burnt down. No need to go crazy over it.
Even our body is gonna break down eventually. It´s nothing but a certainity. Is that really something unexpected? It isn´t. When it comes, so be it.