Thich Nhat Hanh’s Naturalism and Nondualism in a Trans-Different Perspective

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe Thich Nhat Hanh’s naturalism and nondualism and to situate his views in a “trans-different” perspective. I ask whether his thoughts are compatible with other worldviews that work with the notion of justice. I first describe Nhat Hanh’s attitude towards nature. I then demonstrate how his non-separation from nature paves the way for an interconnectedness with all and how his nonduality leads him to a universal belonging. Finally, juxtaposing Nhat Hanh’s nondualism and a justice-oriented approach, I argue that in a “trans-different” perspective different approaches to suffering and peace may learn from each other and complement each other.

1. Introduction

With his poetic meditations, Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh (1926–2022) opens our eyes to the marvel and sublimity of nature. He pays special attention to the body as a means to mindful living. Thay or “teacher” as his students and friends call him developed a partnership with the natural world. Amid a cruel war fought between two world powers, he founded and took refuge in a monastery in the highlands of central Vietnam to diminish suffering and to counter des-humanization. In this essay, I ask whether his thoughts are compatible with other worldviews that work with the notion of justice. Many people greatly suffer in war situations. Could Nhat Hanh’s acts and thoughts have some importance in war zones? Is his sitting, walking and breathing meditations and his refuge in nature in some way beneficial in war-torn countries? Or are these illusions that have no impact on the horrific situation on the ground? In other words: is Nhat Hahn’s oneness of all irreal? How far does his worldview fit concerns for justice? Does it have limits? To what extent could his non-violent ideas be applied to the always harsh reality? Is his approach a panacea for every situation?

I first describe his attitude towards nature and his attention to the body as ways to cultivate a tranquil mind and to heal. I then demonstrate how his non-separation from nature paves the way for interconnectedness with all and how nonduality leads him to a belonging to all. Finally, I answer the question if his nondualistic Buddhist thoughts go together with approaches that operate with the notion of justice. I argue that cultures have different approaches to suffering and evil, but that they may learn from each other and fructify each other in “trans-difference”.1

2. Learning from Nature

In his meditative poetical teachings, Thich Nhat Hanh frequently refers to nature as a reality from which we can learn. Observing nature is of utmost importance in his teaching. He wants us to open our eyes to the generosity of the earth and the sublimity of a blue sky and of sunshine. Earth is a beautiful mother, giving flowers, birds and animals (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 248).

Frequently, Nhat Hanh speaks about seeds that must be watered. There are different kinds of seeds (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 272). There are negative and positive seeds, so that we need “selective watering” (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 25). Specifically, one must avoid the “seed” of suffering (Nhat Hanh 2011, pp. 90, 317). The seeds of mindfulness, on the contrary, shine by their light (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 250). One must develop the seeds of compassion, understanding and love. Negative seeds will have to be transformed (Nhat Hanh 2011, pp. 28, 107). The “universal seed” grows and allows us to enjoy the miracle of life (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 80). Nhat Hanh’s thoughts on taking care of the “universal seed” contrasts with the accusations of people in North and South Vietnam that he was sowing “seeds of dissent” (Nhat Hanh 2020, pp. 44–45). In his “humanistic Buddhism” or “Buddhism for the people”, Nhat Hanh did not give up hope and sowed “seeds” that began to grow (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 45). He sat at the bedside of Sister Dieu Am who was ill and “tried watering seeds of faith in her” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 48). In his Plum Village, people are invited to sign a Peace Treaty in the presence of the whole Sangha (community). By signing, one recognizes that one has “the seeds of unkindness and anger” (Nhat Hanh 2001, pp. 101–2). One promises to “water the seeds of joy, understanding, and happiness” and not to water “the seeds of anger and jealousy” (Nhat Hanh 2001, p. 97).

Trees also frequently appear in Nhat Hanh’s mediations. He talks, for instance, about the presence of trees as inviting people to be present. There is the miracle of an apple tree, which is as one’s peaceful presence (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 189). One must take care of trees.2 They are sentient beings that prepare for their future. In the same way, human beings have to be ready to face the storm (Nhat Hanh 2020, pp. 58–59). Gardening itself can be a practice of mindfulness (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 103). If we see a dying tree, we are sad. But the rest of the garden is still beautiful (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 19). Breathing in and out, one is like a strong tree in the storm (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 157). Being conscious of breathing makes one strong. This makes one like a tree, or a mountain: no wind can blow it down (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 308).

In a leaf meditation, Nhat Hanh approaches a leaf as made from non-leaf elements. In a parallel way, we may become aware that the I stems from non-I and that we are not separate from others (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 49). Flowers too are a favorite subject for Nhat Hanh. He advises to let the heart blossom like flowers (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 175). If people live mindfully together, they are watering flowers (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 263). An orange is for Nhat Hanh not less than a miracle (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 125).3

Describing the Buddhist teaching on the historical and the ultimate dimensions in life, Nhat Hanh uses similes of waves and water (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 12). The waves are only the historical dimension; the ultimate dimension is represented by water, in which the waves manifest themselves and disappear. We may learn from the relation between the sea and its waves. Nhat Hanh distinguishes between them (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 87). Emotions come and go like waves, but finally they are simply water. We are waves, but we are also water (Nhat Hanh 2024, p. 123).

Using another simile, Nhat Hanh claims that we rest and can become like the pebble that falls to the bottom of the river (Nhat Hanh 2011, pp. 99, 240). When we are unhappy, agitated and excited, we may become calm water. We will have to unlearn running to learn the art of resting and establish ourselves in the here and the now (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 16). It is an art to stay calm in a storm. We may be like a boat in a storm: we may remain calm and be an island. If not, the boat capsizes. In the same way, we have to take refuge in mindfulness (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 79). Breathing in and out, one avoids damage: one becomes like still water (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 117). In this manner, one practices non-violence when dealing with pain and anger (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 170).

Finally, the sun and the moon are the natural phenomena that appear in Nhat Hanh’s meditation. Observing the sunset, one is in contact with the beauty of nature, and this makes life more beautiful and real (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 169). Even if it is raining, the sun is always there. Rain is a symbol for anger and the sun a symbol for love. The positive elements are always there (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 233). A beautiful sunset or the song of a bird exist and are accessible. Mindfulness makes these things beautiful and splendid (Nhat Hanh 2011, pp. 341, 345). Looking at the moon, Nhat Hanh says that the moon is travelling freely in the sky, producing beauty and happiness (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 102).

3. Paying Attention to the Body

The body is a part of nature and Nhat Hanh enjoins his audiences to go back to the body (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 144). Breathing meditation is an essential part of his practice. It occupies a central place in his meditations (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 38). It is “the bridge that connects life to consciousness” (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 45). The bridge of breathing connects body and mind and teaches us to be present (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 90). There is the “peaceful refuge” of our own breath (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 13). Joy and peace come from mindful walking and breathing (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 42). We must unlearn running and practice breathing (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 153). We do not have to run, we have already arrived (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 100). Breathing is natural like air and light. It illuminates everything (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 277). We can always come to “the peaceful refuge of our own breath” (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 13). Breathing consciously provides solidarity (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 97).

Nhat Hanh pays much attention to the materiality of the body, to sitting, standing and walking (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 31). He also practices mindfulness in eating. We can become aware that food is a gift from the earth and sky and from the people who cook (Nhat Hanh 2002, pp. 25–26). Walking in nature is a real miracle (Nhat Hanh 2011, p. 55). It is touching the earth (Nhat Hanh 2011, pp. 113, 232). Nhat Hanh encourages us to relax in nature, to walk in the hills, in a park or along a riverbank (Nhat Hanh 2015b, p. 43). He advises us to withdraw in nature.

4. The Marvel of Belonging

Nhat Hanh’s extensive use of natural phenomena as similes to teach his audiences proves that his thoughts on nature go much further than care for environment. He was aware of the crisis brought by climate change. But his thoughts were more radical than those people who know about this crisis and who are active in reversing the situation. In his nondualistic way of seeing, he deems that the earth is in us: we are part of the earth. We are in inter-being. Taking care of the earth is taking care of oneself. Mother earth is beautiful; she does not discriminate and gives life. For Nhat Hanh the earth is not separated from the cosmos, it contains the whole cosmos. The one contains the whole.

He identifies with nature and participates in it. He feels responsible for climate change but links our existence to nature. Forest land is destroyed by acid rain, which is partly due to our cars. “If the trees die, humans are going to die also. If trees and animals are not alive, how can we be alive?” (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 70). Meditating on the river, he is aware that he is a river with its fears and hopes (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 71). He distinguishes between “a small self” and the “larger self”. One day, he writes, “I suddenly saw that the sun is my heart, my heart outside of this body” (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 71). He continues, “we should be able to be our true self. That means we should be able to be the river, we should be able to be the forest, we should be able to be a citizen of any country in the world. We must do this to understand, and to have hope for the future. That is the non-dualistic way of seeing” (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 72). To cultivate a big heart, we should stop the war in ourselves (Nhat Hanh 2015a, p. 8).

Nhat Hanh’s life is, therefore, not separate from nature. He participates in nature. This shows him the way to an awareness of the interdependence and interconnectedness of all. His life and teaching testify to the possibility of a healing process that could start if one practices one’s belonging to the entire world and to the cosmos. Just as a tree is made up of non-tree elements, the I is made up of non-I: all inter-are. Belonging is not only belonging to one’s own group: it is belonging to all.

Significantly, the monks in Vietnam wear brown and Nhat Hanh identifies with the peasants who also wear brown (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 10).4 These peasants were not interested in communism or non-communism. He was one with the victimized highlanders, with these illiterate and exploited peasants who lived in unity with nature. He wanted to build an alternative, peaceful world. Victor Thasiah calls this Nhat Hanh’s “liberation Buddhism” (Thasiah 2022, pp. 28, 37).

Belonging to nature for Nhat Hanh goes far. It is not only about ecological awareness. Mother earth generously gives flowers, trees, water, shadow, tea plants, fruit and vegetables. Nature provides us with majestic dawns and colorful sunsets, with rain, moonlight and sunshine. For Nhat Hanh, belonging to nature implies generously giving even so that the boundaries between giver and receiver disappear. If one gives out of superiority, this poisons you. Being is inter-being with other-than-human nature, with flora and fauna, with winds and clouds.

In this way, Nhat Hanh puts into question the distinction between subject and object (Nhat Hanh 2008, p. 12). He relates the story of the grain who wants to know how salty the ocean is. The only way to know that is to jump in the water (Nhat Hanh 2010, p. 58). The principle of nonduality implies that all are linked and responsible. “If we want to continue to enjoy our rivers -to swim in them, walk beside them, even drink their water- we have to adopt the non-dual perspective” (Nhat Hanh 1995, pp. 91, 105). In this unitive thinking, one does not recognize a self or an other. A flower “can only inter-be” (Nhat Hanh 2009, p. 88). Nhat Hanh challenges the subject–object dichotomy.

5. The Consequences of Nonduality

With his interpretation of being as inter-being, Nhat Hanh develops a radical view on belonging. Since all is one, he belongs equally to good and evil. This comes into expression in the poem “Please call me by my true names” (Nhat Hanh 2005, pp. 66–68). In the poem Nhat Hanh writes,

“I am the mayfly metamorphosing

on the surface of the river.

And I am the bird which, when Spring comes,

arrives in time to eat the mayfly.”

“I am the twelve-year-old girl,

refugee on a small boat,

who throws herself into the ocean

after being raped by a sea pirate.

And I am the pirate,

my heart not yet capable

of seeing and loving.”

The end of the poem goes as follows:

“Please call me by my true names,

so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,

so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names,

so I can wake up

and the door of my heart can be left open,

the door of compassion.”

In this poem, Nhat Hanh expresses his belonging to all. With his all-encompassing heart, he recognizes himself in the young girl who throws herself in the ocean after being raped by a pirate. He recognizes himself not only in the twelve-year old girl, but also in the pirate. He is the young girl and the pirate. They are his “true names”.

The natural reaction to evil is to take sides: one wants to kill the pirate. Yet, this is not Nhat Hanh’s way. For him, shooting the pirate is shooting all of us, because all are responsible (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 66). He proclaims, “One is all, all is one” (Nhat Hanh 2008, p. 45). Instead of condemning and blaming, he comprehends the deep structure underlying the situation. He says that if he was born in the same village as the pirate, with the same upbringing and in the same conditions, he also would be a pirate (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 65). In upeksha (equanimity) one is not discriminative and one does not take sides.5 In the case of Nhat Hanh, he refused to take the side of North Vietnam or of South Vietnam. He wanted to stop the fighting. He did not want victory but reconciliation by understanding both sides and the suffering of both sides (Nhat Hanh 2005, pp. 72–73). In nonduality he understands that all is connected. One does not react in anger and does not lose control. For Nhat Hanh we have to hold our running horses and take control of ourselves (Nhat Hanh 2005, p. 8). One had to stop the war in oneself. Nhat Hanh is aware of the interconnectedness of all. For him, all pairs of oppositions, such as evil and good or pure and corrupt, are creations of one’s own mind (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 189). We can start to see evil and good in a non-discriminative, nondualistic way, in great compassion (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 191). “Flowers don’t know how to hate” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 185). Nhat Hanh recognizes himself in all others. As a peacemaker, he understood the specific experiences and suffering of both sides. In 1966 he was exiled by the government of South Vietnam because he opposed the war and advocated peace with North Vietnam. Only in 2004 was he allowed to return to his homeland.

6. Interconnectedness and Its Limits

For Nhat Hanh, there is no separation, no discrimination, and no separate self. Humans inter-are with nature and with other humans. Just as flowers inter-are with water, earth and air, humans are linked to each other like fingers of the same hand (Nhat Hanh 2015a, p. 50). In striving for happiness, understanding and healing, Nhat Hanh’s attitude is communicative, transformative and non-judgmental. With his “inter-being” (Tiep-Hien, formed in the mid-sixties of the preceding century, denotes Nhat Hanh’s “Order of Interbeing”) he brings people out of their confinement. All is one and one is whole. “In one sheet of paper, we see everything else, the cloud, the forest, the logger. I am therefore you are. You are, therefore, I am. That is the meaning of the world ‘interbeing’. We inter-are” (Nhat Hanh 1998, pp. 3–113; 2005, p. 88). For Nhat Hanh, we inter-are with one another and with all life (Nhat Hanh 2017, p. 13).

However, the non-I may be someone whose behavior must be rejected as utterly unacceptable (Meir 2019, pp. 212–21). The notion of justice is absent in Buddhism but plays an important role in other cultures. These cultures emphasize that one does not have to hate criminal people, but one must reject and hate their monstrous inhumanity. The other may appear as violent and threatening. Of course, people have in them a potential dialogical kernel and one may return from one’s bad deeds. Yet not all share Nhat Hanh’s radical non-violence that is in line with the ideas of David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King (Campbell 2019). Not all partake in Nhat Hanh’s interconnectedness in which one sees themselves in any other. In a different worldview, people claim that it is not enough to notice and analyze radical evil or to cope with it by shaping a tranquil mind. They are ready to employ proportional violence to avoid greater violence. They protest, condemn and eventually fight with appropriate means against evil that prevents good life and destroys innocent people.

Of course, one always must be careful not to generalize or shape negative images of others and not to project our own problems on others. But in the real world, “belonging” understood as belonging to all may become a problematic word, when people become violent and kill others. How can one “belong” to fanatic people who destroy lives? Interconnectedness and belonging are not always possible. People may perform inhuman acts and become so caught up in their totalizing and totalitarian (collective) I that dialogue with them becomes extremely difficult and even impossible (Jospe 2013, pp. 60–61).6 There are limits to dialogue which, nevertheless, remains a challenge especially in difficult times.

Nhat Hanh concentrated upon his own self: he believed that one may turn the garbage of negative feelings into flowers, which leads one to dwelling in the ultimate reality (Nhat Hanh 2009, pp. 4–5, 39; 2015a, p. 37). He believed in transforming suffering: no mud, no lotus (Nhat Hanh 2014, pp. 10–18; 2015a, p. 47). Focusing upon inner peace would bring outer peace. Reacting violently against violence and bloodshed was not the way. Although Nhat Hanh’s (and Gandhi’s) non-violence was not absolute, he endeavored not to take sides. One should not separate the non-violent from the violent, creating us versus them (Ingram 1990, pp. 87–88).

7. Differences and Trans-Difference

Worldviews may be quite different. Reactions to what occurs may be varied. In other words, plurality characterizes our relation to what is. Nhat Hanh lived his Buddhism in a profound, non-conventional, creative way.7 He was interconnected with all. For him, Buddha received Mara, representing the dark side of existence, as an honored guest: “A Buddha with enemies was not a Buddha at all” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 36). For a Buddhist like Nhat Hanh, there are no enemies: “[…] man is not our enemy” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 164).

In other cultures, for instance the Jewish one, reactions to what happens are different. The prophet Amos of Teqoa wrote that God had to be served in justice and righteousness: “Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream” (va-yigal ka-mayim mishpat u-tsedaqa ke-nachal etan; Amos 5:24). Avraham Joshua Heschel protested the American war in Vietnam (from 1965 until 1973). He accused the American government and admonished Henry Kissinger, a fellow Jew. In the perspective of justice, the pirate of Nhat Hanh’s poem had to be condemned. The unjust situation should not only be understood and explained. In the thirties, Martin Mordechai Buber disagreed with Gandhi who wanted Jews to become satyagrahi, people with truth-force or love-force, and to adopt ahimsa, non-violence. Sometimes, one had to save oneself and one’s family (Buber and Magnes 1939, p. 19). For Emmanuel Levinas, justice is important, since the life of my family and of my people are already “others” and for them, he claims justice (Levinas 1992, p. 95). The lives of those near to me are also worth something.8 For Levinas, no suffering can be justified, except for my justified suffering for the non-justified suffering of the other. Suffering for Levinas is a cry for help (Levinas 1988). The victims of the Shoa were innocent and so are the victims of the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. Not everything is about earning bad karma. In conclusion, world visions can be very different. The word for “justice” does not appear in Buddhism. But are the Jewish and the Buddhist reaction to evil incompatible? In February 1938, Heschel lectured before a public of Quakers (Kaplan and Dresner 1998, pp. 259–62). He quoted the Ba’al Shem Tov: “If a person sees something evil, he should know that it is shown to him so that he may realize his own guilt—repent for what he has seen”. In difficult times, all had to repent, victims and evildoers alike. Does this not come close to Nhat Hanh’s permanent purification and to his thoughts on interdependence of all?

According to Nhat Hanh’s Buddhism, peace is foremost the cessation of suffering as the result of being awakened. It lies in cultivating a tranquil mind. It is living life as the wind blows and flowers bloom (Nhat Hanh 2020, pp. 94–95). In Jewish culture, peace is rather arrived at in the realization of justice, by paying attention to human rights. Heschel became engaged with Martin Luther King in the struggle for civil rights. He used the Exodus motive with the aim of claiming civil rights for the Black people in America. It was no surprise that the central message of his friend Martin Luther King was poignantly formulated in the saying “Let my people go” from the Exodus story (Ex. 8:30). Jewish culture is busy with mending the world (tiqqun olam). The Buddhist culture focuses more on inner life and on peace that starts in oneself. One has to be peace in order to bring peace. Yet, cultures may complement each other.

Both Jewish and Buddhist cultures developed a common concern for working in concrete situations and changing them. The accents in the Buddhist and the Jewish soteriology are different, but not irreconcilable. It must be noted that Nhat Hanh himself was not only concerned with changing the mind. He combined meditation and social work. Serrán-Pagán y Fuentes calls Nhat Hanh (and Thomas Merton) a “true contemplative[s] in action by fully embracing the Mary-Martha engaged spirituality model” (Serrán-Pagán y Fuentes 2020, p. 83). With his “engaged Buddhism” (Nhat Hanh 1998; 2020, pp. 47, 127–29; King 2009) he was actively involved in many projects. He took care of the environment, created self-help villages, tried to rescue boatpeople who fled the war in Vietnam, and he co-founded the School of Youth for Social Service (SYSS), a very active organization. He was the chairperson of the Vietnamese Buddhist peace delegation in the Paris peace talks. He influenced Western leaders, including Martin Luther King, and endeavored to persuade them to end the war. Nevertheless, he emphasized that one has to reconcile with oneself before one commit to others: come home and then open your home (Nhat Hanh 2015a, pp. 60–70). He opposed an oppressive and corrupt regime in his own, unique way. Notwithstanding clear differences, a “trans-different” dialogue between cultures is possible and necessary.9

In “trans-different” thoughts, one preserves the own, the particular without forgetting the universal, and one is linked to all without forgetting the concrete embeddedness in a specific culture. With “trans-different” thoughts, one may be open to learn from the experiences and insights of (religious) others to enrich one’s own world. Nhat Hanh is a great teacher and many set themselves before his feet to hear his compassionate and healing words. Could his words have any relevance to other countries with warring parties, for instance in Israel and Palestine? Or is his culture so different that we must conclude that we live in parallel worlds?

8. Escapism of the Flower-Power Generation or Ecological Humanism?

In a recent article, Victor Thasiah asks the critical question if Nhat Hanh’s special kind of naturalism does not “trade one form of dehumanization for another”, in which the “uniquely or distinctly human” disappears (Thasiah 2022, p. 37). He quotes Nhat Hanh: “Life is lived just as the wind blows, clouds drift, and flowers bloom… If asked a philosophical question, you might answer with a poem, or ask, ‘Have you had your breakfast? Then please wash your bowl’. Or point to a mountain forest” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 95). Thasiah formulates a similar critical question when asking, “[I]s this sixties ‘flower power’ enough […] to resist, dismantle, and transition from structures as formidable as the colonialities of North and South Vietnam, and related, broader neo-colonial strategies, not to mention current structures like white supremacy?” (Thasiah 2022, p. 41). I deem that these questions are important since Nhat Hanh’s soft power, and his naturalism, are one way of coping with life’s difficulties. As a Zen Master, he developed an eminently peaceful lifestyle. Other ways to realize peace are possible and necessary. In a world dominated by power blocks and power structures Nhat Hanh’s non-power is a welcome remedy. Prophetic voices like those of M.L. King and A.J. Heschel who wanted structural changes in outer society could complement Thay’s more inner-centered quest for peace.

Thasiah studies Nhat Hanh’s 1962–1966 memoirs (Nhat Hanh 2020) and his 1963 poem “Butterflies over the Golden Mustard Fields” (Nhat Hanh 2022, pp. 76ff.) as documents that testify to Nhat Hanh’s resistance to dehumanizing sociopolitical systems through his close relation to and deep affinity with nature. Against oppressive systems, in which people get instrumentalized, Nhat Hanh builds a different, peaceful world. He identifies with peasants, who are not taking sides and who are not politically interested. Thasiah call this Nhat Hanh’s “liberation Buddhism” (Thasiah 2022, pp. 28, 37).

In his literary memoirs written during the time of his teaching at Princeton and Columbia universities (1962–1963), Nhat Hanh describes how Ho Chi Minh (uncle Ho) and Ngo Dinh Diem both employed censorship, torture, executions and concentration camps. He conceives a more human, renewed Buddhism and was criticized by the Buddhist hierarchy (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 44).10 As in ancient times in Vietnam, he preferred living in a relatively wild natural setting to living in an oppressive regime (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 44). He founded Phoung Boi Hermitage. The name of the refuge on what they called the “Montagnard Hill” refers to the fragrant palm leaves on which the Buddha wrote. The monastery was founded “to heal our wounds and enjoy life deeply” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 3). He was watched by the Diem regime and suspected to belong to the Viet Cong. To be himself, he opposed any government in power (Nhat Hanh and Berrigan 2001, pp. 94–95). Thasiah writes about Nhat Hanh’s “anarchism”. Beyond the control of oppressive sociopolitical systems, Nhat Hanh withdrew in a relatively wild place as a counter-power. He paid attention to the body, to breathing, and resisted systematic dehumanization. Nhat Hanh wrote: “I felt the urge to leave civilization behind, throw away my bookish knowledge, tear of my clothes, and enter the forest naked” (Nhat Hanh 2020, pp. 20–21). He identified with the highlanders who defended political autonomy. For Thasiah, Nhat Hanh’s identification with nature enabled him to recover his own human nature (Thasiah 2022, p. 36). “I wanted to be a bird testing the strength of its wings against the wind. I wanted to run outside in the rain and scream, dance, whirl around, laugh, and cry” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 27). By becoming “empty of ideals, hopes, viewpoints, or allegiances” he had “the deep feeling” that he had “returned” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 76). He imagines himself as a grasshopper: “When a grasshopper sists on a blade of grass, he has not thought of separation, resistance, or blame […] it knows nothing of philosophy or ideals. It is simply grateful for its ordinary life” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 77).

The “Butterflies” poem was written when Nhat Hanh was asked to come back to Vietnam to rebuild the country. In the poem, he gives his view on how he understands public service. Like a butterfly he is “not dreaming of some distant future”. He writes,

“Smile. Life is a miracle.

Be a flower. […]

If you have suffered, it is only

because you have forgotten

you are a leaf, a flower. […]

The stars never build prisons for themselves. […]

Let us sing with the flower and morning birds.

Let us be fully present.”

Nhat Hanh collapses time and space (Nhat Hanh 2020, pp. 182–84). Thasiah remarks that, in this, peace scholar Johan Galtung’s “‘Gandhism’ […] resonates with Nhat Hanh’s ecological humanism” (Thasiah 2022, p. 42). Galtung’s idea of the unity of life opposes the self–other divide and prohibits driving wedges in social space. His idea of the unity of means and ends implies that if the end is livelihood, the means has to be life-enhancing: it forbids to drive wedges in social time. Thasiah deems that Nhat Hanh has a similar program: Nhat Hanh identifies with the other-than-human nature and with the peasants. He views the future as extensions of human action in the present (Thasiah 2022, p. 42).11 Space and time dissolve (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 110). Thasiah concludes that, for Nhat Hanh, identifying with nature could be humanizing and enlivening amid much violence. It enhances all life. Nhat Hanh’s memoirs and poetry allow for conceiving the wholeness of being in difficult times (Thasiah 2022, pp. 43–44).

Nhat Hanh’s way is not an escapism. His meditations are not leading away from life. It allows us to look deeply, to deal with despair, anger and fear, and to preserve compassion. His exercises on inner peace are perhaps the condition for working actively on more humanizing sociopolitical structures. Realizing peace by interconnectedness and changing outer structures go hand in hand. Creating a tranquil mind and finding our “true self” conditions the active defense of human rights that is the eminent expression of a peaceful mind. Nhat Hanh was aware that his withdrawal would create the condition for a healing process. This was the distinctly human element in his naturalism. With the awareness that the I is composed of non-I elements and that we inter-are, Nhat Hanh found his “true self” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 4). This “true self” is actually the discovery of the non-self, an-atmata, or being interconnected. This interconnectedness leads activists to a change in external structures and to protest the violence inherent in the power structures of states. Dissimilar to Gandhi, he did not engage in political action. But he shares with Gandhi a nondualism and, like Gandhi, he did not distinguish between means and goal. Like Gandhi, he admitted that there are situations in which one has to use force in order to protect life and prevent greater violence.

9. Diminishing Suffering in Multiple Ways

At the start of this essay, I asked whether Nhat Hanh’s worldview has limits and whether his non-violent nondualism fits concerns for justice. Are his meditation-based ethics compatible with traditions that focus on social change? I answer the question by referring to the concept of “trans-difference”, which I discussed in several books (Meir 2015, 2017, 2021). In light of a “trans-different” thought, the specificities of cultures are maintained and bridges between them are built. Each culture has a unique approach to reality, but cultures are not separated from each other. Communication and bridging between them are possible. They may learn from each other and fructify each other. The praxis, ideas and ideals of one culture cannot be simply transposed and pasted into another one. Yet, becoming inspired by another culture is certainly possible and could be beneficial. “Trans-difference” brings together differences and a bridge between differences. In this way, one avoids the danger of a particularity that neglects one’s belonging to the entire world. At the same time, one recognizes one’s belonging to universal mankind, without forgetting one’s belonging to a particular world. “Trans-difference” combines both realms of belonging. It respects contextualization and, at the same time, promotes connectivity and communication (Meir 2021, pp. 308–9).

There is no one way to decrease suffering. Different cultures develop different approaches to war situations. Nhat Hanh sensed that Phoung Boi in Vietnam had a healing effect: it “lifted my spirits, I felt I had arrived” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 15). He and his monks “were sheltered from the harshness of worldly affairs” (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 18). They felt that the full moon and the omnipotent forest were one: if the moon and the forest ceased to be, they would not look at it (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 20). This interconnectedness made it possible that they did not feel they owned Phoung Boi, but that Phoung Boi owned them (Nhat Hanh 2020, p. 22). In the forest, they became almost insignificant. They left conventional life and created an oasis for peace, becoming one with the rain, the sun, the forest, the earth and the wind. They vowed not to kill and to protect life. They liberated the mind and exercised non-attachment to views (Nhat Hanh 1998, pp. 24, 26).

Nhat Hanh’s refuge in an untamed nature could easily be qualified as fleeing from the harsh reality in North and South Vietnam. Yet, his “mystical” thoughts and his relation to nature do not cut off from society but strive to overcome divisiveness and create a better society. The concrete fight for a more just social, economic and political situation with just means could complement his eminently peaceful co-existence with non-human nature. In a “trans-different” perspective, the Buddhist discovery of the “true self” as emptiness of allegiances and as interconnectedness with all and the prophetic demand for the creation of a just society are hand in glove.