What's wrong with the Five Mindfulness Trainings?

Last night, the Unitarian Sangha that I belong to recited the Five Mindfulness Trainings. This is something we do every month or two. The Five Mindfulness Trainings are Thích Nhất Hạnh's recasting or interpretation of the Five Buddhist Precepts. They also serve as the entryway into the Order of Interbeing. (See also this link here.) So they are kind of a big deal for the Plum Village Tradition of Buddhism.

Overall, or at a high level, I don't really have a problem with the Five Mindfulness Trainings—that is, if you see them basically as injunctions to be a nice person and don't look too closely at the details. But you all know me by now. When have I been able to avoid looking at the details? And when you subject them to that level of scrutiny, … well … there are issues with them. Problems. Things that don't make sense, or that really should be worded a different way. 

Things that I can't fully agree with.

Now, any member of the Plum Village Tradition will be quick to tell you that the Five Mindfulness Trainings are precepts—often they take this to mean suggestions or advice—and not commandments, strictly speaking. In principle they won't insist that you stick to every jot and tittle; but they will tell you that the closer you can come to abiding by these, the less suffering you will feel in your life and therefore the happier you will be. Well and good. At the same time, I don't feel that most of them want to hear the flaws—the misconceptions or simple errors—that I find in them. So you're going to have to hear them instead.

One note before I begin: Thay* rewrote the Five Mindfulness Trainings from time to time. For all I know, the community might continue to rewrite them now, after his death. The version that I quote below is the version we use these days in the Unitarian Sangha. The version you can find by following the link in the first paragraph above is already different. But I want to quote a fixed version, so that my criticisms will make sense. After all, if they corrected all the mistakes I point out here—and if that latest, corrected version were the only one you had access to—you'd wonder what on Earth I was on about! 😀 

The First Mindfulness Training: Reverence For Life

Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating the insight of interbeing and compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, or in my way of life. 

Seeing that harmful actions arise from anger, fear, greed, and intolerance, which in turn come from dualistic and discriminative thinking, I will cultivate openness, non-discrimination, and non-attachment to views in order to transform violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world.

So, just to be clear I'm fine with the goal of reducing the levels of violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world. That's an example of what I mean when I say that "Overall, or at a high level, I don't really have a problem with the Five Mindfulness Trainings." But the First Mindfulness Training says so much more than that! And so I am left wondering: How do we eat?

Notice that it is not enough simply to be a vegetarian, as many Buddhists are. Thay's training does not merely proscribe the killing of people and animals, but also of plants. Nor do the plants themselves get off easy, because Thay also wants to protect the lives of minerals—and I'm pretty sure that the plants themselves are guilty of eating minerals. If we seriously cannot "support any act of killing in the world," then it cannot be acceptable for us that anyone eats: not we ourselves, not other humans, not animals, and not plants.

But if I do not eat, then I die. If I prevent someone else from eating, then I kill him. If I prevent an animal from eating a plant, I kill the animal. If I prevent a plant from eating a mineral, then I kill the plant. So if indeed "I am determined not to kill," then I cannot stop anyone from eating.

In short: the only way to obey this precept is, among other things, simultaneously not to permit eating and also not to forbid eating.

This is impossible. 

Following the First Mindfulness Training is impossible.**

Note that there is actually a way to resolve this awkwardness within the bounds of a strict and consistent morality. Suppose that every killing were sanctified, in the classical pagan way, by making it a sacrifice to the gods? Such a restriction should still help decrease the levels of "violence, fanaticism, and dogmatism in myself and in the world," because presumably the immortal gods would not accept killing someone for, say, political or ideological reasons. But we could still eat.

It is also remotely possible, under such a dispensation, that if for some reason our life was—one day—required of us, we could with a clean conscience go to the fire with joy.

But of course Buddhism does not condone sacrifice. Oh well.

The Second Mindfulness Training: True Happiness

Aware of the suffering caused by exploitation, social injustice, stealing, and oppression, I am committed to practicing generosity in my thinking, speaking, and acting. I am determined not to steal and not to possess anything that should belong to others; and I will share my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need. 

I will practice looking deeply to see that the happiness and suffering of others are not separate from my own happiness and suffering; that true happiness is not possible without understanding and compassion; and that running after wealth, fame, power and sensual pleasures can bring much suffering and despair. 

I am aware that happiness depends on my mental attitude and not on external conditions, and that I can live happily in the present moment simply by remembering that I already have more than enough conditions to be happy. 

I am committed to practicing Right Livelihood so that I can help reduce the suffering of living beings on Earth and reverse the process of global warming.

Here is another teaching that I wish I could endorse. To be clear, I'm not in favor of stealing. And the lines about being happy in the present moment by remembering that you already have enough could have been uttered by Socrates. I wouldn't breathe a word against any of that.

Only, why did he have to bring "global warming" into it? Do we really have to commit ourselves to reverse global warming? Bad news, dude, but that's above my pay grade—and yours! I suppose someday I should write a post about my evolving thoughts on global warming, or "climate change," or whatever you are pleased to call it today. But in brief:

• We don't have the math to understand how the climate really works.
• Therefore we don't understand what input causes what change in the climate. Everything we say on the subject is just guessing.
• It's not up to us to save the Earth. The Earth is way bigger than we are. [citation needed?] She was here long before we evolved, and she will be here long after we are extinct.
• The same is true of Life on Earth. We are not nearly powerful enough to destroy Life on Earth.
• It is true that if the Earth gets a lot warmer, rising sea levels will mean that many big coastal cities will be submerged. That sucks. But, you know? Shit happens. It won't all happen overnight. Let's plan to deal with it.
• Of course it would be great if we didn't have to deal with moving a lot of major cities. But is the alternative really any easier? The alternative, remember, is to change the behavior of eight billion people in profound and significant ways. And honestly, we have no idea whether even that would be enough. Remember what I said about how we don't have the math to understand climate? That means we don't know what it takes to prevent change, just like we don't know if we are even responsible for any change. We just don't know. And even if we did know, the political obstacles to changing the behavior of eight billion people are so extreme that they make the whole idea laughable.   

In other words, most of the Second Mindfulness Training is pointed in the right direction. But committing to "reverse the process of global warming" is impossible.

The Third Mindfulness Training: True Love

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivating responsibility and learning ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. 

Knowing that sexual desire is not love, and that sexual activity motivated by craving always harms myself as well as others, I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without true love and a deep, long-term commitment made known to my blood or chosen family and my friends. 

I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct. 

Seeing that body and mind are one, I am committed to learning appropriate ways to take care of my sexual energy and cultivating loving kindness, compassion, joy and inclusiveness – which are the four basic elements of true love – for my greater happiness and the greater happiness of others. 

Practicing true love, we know that we will continue beautifully into the future.

OK, you can probably anticipate the drill at this point. You know that I'm going to say I'm not in favor of the sexual abuse of children. That's true. I'm against it. (Being involved with Marie has helped me to understand this point at a deeper-than-theoretical level.)

But other than that, am I really going to say anything in favor of the brutal and nasty kind of sex? In favor of sex with strangers? In favor of sex where "true love and a deep, long-term commitment" are conspicuously absent, and where it's all about getting off in the crudest and filthiest and most direct way possible?

Why yes. I am.

Not from personal experience, I hasten to add. My own personal experience is too sheltered, too tame, too domesticated for anything like that. (And now that I'm in my sixties, that fact is not likely to change.) I never lived a life open to the brutal and nasty kind of sex, and now I'm old enough to be well past it.

But according to "what I read in the literature," yes, sometimes brutal and nasty and anonymous sex can end up as profoundly liberating and a great goodness for the people involved. (I mean both or all people, not one at the expense of the other(s).) 

Not always, to be sure. But once in a while.

Since I can't talk meaningfully about my own experience here, let me give you some pointers to a couple of items in the "literature" that I referenced above.

• The Atlantic article "Hard Core," about pornography and sexual violence.
• My essay in this blog, commenting on that Atlantic article.
• This Salon article, which explains that marrying as a virgin was (for the author) a disaster; but nonetheless, "sex can be amazing … with a bartender who only knows your first name, [or] a pilot you meet on vacation in Costa Rica."

And after those, gosh, browse through the links on the sidebar of this blog, in the section headed "Articles, sites, and other stuff." See what you find. I think you'll end up agreeing that the world is much wider, and weirder, than anything envisioned by the Third Mindfulness Training.

The Fourth Mindfulness Training: Loving Speech and Deep Listening

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, I am committed to cultivating loving speech and compassionate listening in order to relieve suffering and to promote reconciliation and peace in myself and among other people, ethnic and religious groups, and nations. 

Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am committed to speaking truthfully using words that inspire confidence, joy, and hope. 

When anger is manifesting in me, I am determined not to speak. I will practice mindful breathing and walking in order to recognize and to look deeply into my anger. I know that the roots of anger can be found in my wrong perceptions and lack of understanding of the suffering in myself and in the other person. I will speak and listen in a way that can help myself and the other person to transform suffering and see the way out of difficult situations. 

I am determined not to spread news that I do not know to be certain and not to utter words that can cause division or discord. I will practice Right Diligence to nourish my capacity for understanding, love, joy, and inclusiveness, and gradually transform anger, violence, and fear that lie deep in my consciousness.

I have nothing to object to in this training. I wish I had understood these principles back when I was living with Wife. It might have saved me from saying so many unforgiveable things over the years. If only.

The Fifth Mindfulness Training: Nourishment and Healing

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I am committed to cultivating good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family, and my society by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming. 

I will practice looking deeply into how I consume the Four Kinds of Nutriments, namely edible foods, sense impressions, volition, and consciousness. 

I am determined not to gamble, or to use alcohol, drugs, or any other products which contain toxins, such as certain websites, electronic games, TV programs, films, magazines, books, and conversations. 

I will practice coming back to the present moment to be in touch with the refreshing, healing and nourishing elements in me and around me, not letting regrets and sorrow drag me back into the past nor letting anxieties, fear, or craving pull me out of the present moment. 

I am determined not to try to cover up loneliness, anxiety, or other suffering by losing myself in consumption. I will contemplate interbeing and consume in a way that preserves peace, joy, and well-being in my body and consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family, my society and the Earth.

Parts of this training are really clever—sorry, I guess the approved Buddhist word is skillful. Parts of it are really skillful. To extend the list of toxic nutrients so that it includes "certain websites, electronic games, TV programs, films, magazines, books, and conversations"? Brilliant.

At any rate, I can think of conversations that have been toxic to me, not to mention a number of films. I don't play electronic games, but if I did I'm sure I could add some of those to the list as well. And likewise with the others.

As I say, it's brilliant. And of course the theory behind it is absolutely sound.

But the whole precept starts with alcohol. That was there before Thay started playing with it. The original Buddhist precept forbids alcohol. 

And yes, I disagree with that. Of course you know I drink. You know that sometimes I drink more than is good for me. It's a problem when that happens, and it would be better if I didn't do it. 

But I'm not prepared to rule it out. What's more, I don't believe that is just the voice of addiction talking. Oh sure, we all know that the human mind is endlessly inventive at justifying its own failures. People can come up with any number of creative excuses for what is no more than a pathetic failure of the will.

But I believe there is a case to be made for drinking alcohol. More than that, I believe I've already made that case, almost nine years ago in this very blog. You can find it here. I just reread it, and I do believe it stands up.  

So there you have it. Those are the points on which I disagree with Thay's Five Mindfulness Trainings. I guess it means I'll never join the Order of Interbeing. Hell, I guess it means I'll never be a Buddhist. The other people in the Sangha all seem to be good people. And of course I will always dearly love Debbie, who started the Sangha and who joins us now regularly through Zoom.

But I just can't stop myself from niggling—at least in the quiet corners of my mind—over the details.

Typical, really.

__________

* That's a nickname for Thich Nhat Hanh—"Thầy" is Vietnamese for "master" or "teacher". (See here, for example.) 

** Note that I have not even addressed issues that are logically unproblematic but politically difficult. For example, most Unitarians tend to align politically with the Democratic Party. I bet most Unitarians support the right to abortion. But abortion is killing. You can argue whether the thing killed is fully human yet, but it is certainly more complex than a mineral!