Re: Interiority? Or inter-relatedness?

Dave K wrote:

> Yes, I've heard it said that buddhist teachings on interdependence
> tend to be met with puzzlement by folks in the east, who perhaps have
> no need for it.  The early teachings seem to view dependence on others
> as somewhat of a necessary burden. These days interdepence is taught
> more as an ideal to aspire too, or something that needs to be seen as
> it is - since it is an unavoidable fact.  But it's viewed in a
> positive light rather than as a burden.
> 
> Oddly Thich Nhat Hahn is the biggest non-western proponent of
> interdepdence.  He was exiled from vietnam.  (They recently let him
> back in)  Maybe his perspective arose as he attempted to deal with his
> own isolation?  I don't mean this as a psychological analysis, but it
> would seem to explain his popularity in the U.S.

well, well...
You seem to have gotten a bit more preachy, young man.
How's Help Desk practice? From catching up on my reading,
you still don't seem to have gotten the hang of it
(unless you have and you're Reminiscing About The Good
Ol' Days ;)

ex·ile
n.
1.
a. Enforced removal from one's native country.
b. Self-imposed absence from one's country.
2. The condition or a period of living away from one's native country.
3. One who lives away from one's native country, whether because of 
expulsion or voluntary absence.

I really should go through the OED with a big fat black Sharpie
and see how much I can reduce its volume...

Thich Nhat Hahn was not 1.a'd, which is, to me, the only
acceptable definition of the word. He is a 1.b "exile" which
simply means he left. I suspect he really *loves* the fact
that he's always called an "exile" (implying 1.a) by his fans,
just as the Deli Llama does (who is also a 1.b).  It has the
great emotional baggage of 1.a, with all the implications of a
leader who awaits return to his rightful place in his native
community. What a word, eh?

His poetry readers also call him a "Zen Master" (you gotta
wonder why Tang doesn't go after that one!), when he's
about as much a "Zen Master" as a housebroken puppy. He's
popular in the USA for all the same reasons that the rest
of the oriental (and newage) crew are:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/2-religions-that-their-parents-dont-belong-to/

Other than that he's a self-promoting coward and generally
useless, I don't have much more against him other than his poetry
which may read more fluently in Vietnamese than English.
It converts the obviousness of everyday life (take a 900 mile drive
on I95 and you'll *really* find out about "interdependence") into
the cloying stickiness of emotional appeals to People Who Drink
Lattes In Borders (Barnes and Noble is too Cor****ate).

Virtually every scientist I know understands "interdependence"
better than virtually every "buddhist" I know. They just don't
use political words to make themselves Zen Masters about it.

Having said all that, the one thing that *really* yanks my
underoos is people who simply MUST idolize somebody
(with or without Their Words Of Wisdom ) instead of taking on
the daunting task of becoming their OWN authority unto themselves.
Is that, like, too much ****in' responsibility or something?
Or is that just what I mistakenly think of as "buddhism"?