Two days ago I put up a piece here called “Thich Naht Hanh is Wrong.” It was a deliberately provocative title. I said in the comments to that piece that the title was meant to ask, “Who is Thich Naht Hanh?” Someone said that smelled like fresh bullshit to him. I’d like to ask that guy, “Then who is Thich Naht Hanh?”
Some folks got upset that I was being disrespectful to a man who has dedicated his life to bring peace to the world. But was I? If I had any reason at all to believe that Thich Naht Hanh would ever see what I wrote, then possibly. Although even then I’d say “disrespectful” was not the right word. But let’s get real here. Thich Naht Hanh will never see what I wrote about him.
So who was I being disrespectful to?
Who is Thich Naht Hanh?
A few people got bent out of shape that I said I believed that Thich Naht Hanh did not write his own Twitter posts. It turns out I was right. He doesn’t. His Twitter profile says, “My twitter account is managed by senior students, both monastic and non-monastic.” He probably didn’t even write that!
I’ve also been told by people who seem to know what they’re talking about that Thich Naht Hanh doesn’t write his own books. His talks are recorded and transcribed. Then senior students edit them into books, which Thich Naht Hanh approves before publication. Of course the covers of these books simply say “by Thich Naht Hanh.”
Ask anyone who writes for a living what they think of that sort of thing and I guarantee they’ll get a little wrankled by the idea. Writing is hard work. People who claim to be writers but don’t actually do the work annoy those of us who really write our own stuff. It’s not a big deal. But it irks me enough when I see this very common practice that I like to point it out. I would guess that about half of the “authors” whose books are shelved near mine at your local Book Barn “write” their books in pretty much the same way. I don’t think it’s disrespectful to say this. I think it’s truthful.
Who is Thich Naht Hanh?
One commenter said, “Brad is a wannabe Zen master who is envious of the big boys in the Buddhist world. It’s so obvious: His passive-aggressive sleight-of-hand barbs at Dalai and Thich betrays a desire to be the ‘bad boy of Buddhism’. Grow up, Brad.”
Envious of the “big boys in the Buddhist world?” Moi? Not really. Rather I am amused by the idea that there is a class of people we can call “big boys in the Buddhist world.” Zero Defex, the hardcore band I play bass for were not envious of the “big boys in the rock and roll world.” Rather, we found them boring and wanted to provide an alternative. While we might have wanted to be a bit more popular than we were, we certainly did not want to be among the “big boys.” That would have run completely counter to what we were trying to accomplish. Part of being an alternative to the big rock bands involved staying small. I feel pretty much the same way now about the “big boys in the Buddhist world.”
The idea that the “big boys in the Buddhist world” are somehow qualitatively better teachers than the less well-known ones is a very troubling notion to me. And I’m not talking about myself as an example of one of the less well-known teachers. I’m starting to fear that my growing popularity is making me ineffective as a teacher.
The rise of this new class of Mega Masters troubles me. Such teachers cannot possibly have direct contact with the massive numbers of students who claim them as their teachers. I met some people once who talked about feeling some kind of magic mojo when the Dalai Lama walked by them thirty feet away, deep in a crowd of fawning fans, surrounded by secret service guards. Such fantasies are extraordinarily damaging.
It’s precisely the same kind of thing a fan feels when he gets to be near a celebrity he admires. I know I felt it when I got to meet Gene Simmons of KISS in person. But I didn’t add to that feeling some kind of weird idea that my being in proximity to Gene Simmons conveyed some sort of spiritual shaktipat, or that I got a big ol’ ZAP of pure Zen energy or some such nonsense. When Genpo Roshi charges suckers $50,000 to have personal contact with him you’d better believe he’s implying that some of his supposed enlightenment will rub off when they’re close. I’m not sure I want any part of what rubs off of Genpo Roshi, though!
When I said in the comments that Thich Naht Hanh is no more a simple wandering monk than Bruce Springsteen is a blue-collar working man, some people pointed out that I have an image as well. Why Mr. Holmes, your powers of deductive reasoning are astonishing! Of course I have an image! So do you. So does everyone.
Who is Thich Naht Hanh?
Is it you? Is it your image of Thich Naht Hanh that I’ve disrespected? If so, why does that bug you? Is it you that I’ve disrespected? Who are you?
These are important questions.
Someone in the comments section seemed worried that maybe I had some inside dirt on Thich Naht Hanh. He asked, “Do you know of Thay’s actions that bring him into disrepute?” The answer is no. I do not. As far as I’m aware Thich Naht Hanh is a totally scandal-free guy. But I don’t know that much about him.
Suffice it to say, I am not trying to imply that Thich Naht Hanh is a disreputable teacher who should not be trusted. He seems like a decent guy. I like most of the quotes I see from his books. Even the quote I criticized last time might be fine in context. It might be fine as it is, too. But we all need to be careful how we take things.
Even when someone says something 100% true, sometimes you need to question it. Because your interpretation of what was said may not be correct. It’s not the fault of the speaker when his words are misconstrued. Everybody’s words are misconstrued. Misconstruing what we hear people say is what we human beings do. This is why we have to be careful.
Jeez, there was even a commenter on my previous blog posting who thought I said that Hitler and Charles Manson were enlightened beings! I never said that Hitler and Charles Manson were enlightened beings. But I can’t shut up forever just because some doofus might misconstrue the things I say. As Katagiri Roshi pointed out, “You have to say something.” And most of the time what you say will be completely misunderstood.
So I stand by what I said before. Thich Naht Hanh is wrong.
But who is Thich Naht Hanh?
I am Thich Naht Hahn.
"Nhat" not "Naht".
Who's there?
Thich Nhat Hanh.
Thich Nhat Hanh who?
He's Tetsujin 28…or Ultraman.
This quality vs. popularity question reminds me of that when people are not willing to listen to bands who have more than 30 fans :).
Anyways if we talked about Thich Nhat Hahn, what about Ajahn Brahm for example? His talks get quite many Youtube-views too, and/but he is from the Western world.
Ever noticed how hard it is to discuss how to not attach meaning to things, without accidentally attaching meaning to the discussion?
I can now understand why Brad is so hesitant to teach via the internet. It's such an open medium, exposing oneself to all sorts of interpretations.
Yet, I had appreciated his last post about Thay. I had never really considered "mindfulness" from the Zen perspective before, and it was a bit of an eye opener for me.
I don't think that there was any insult made to Thay. A person can be respected and wrong at the same time. And I like Thich Nhat Hanh, but the minute he talks or engages in the world, he opens himself to criticism, just as Brad does in his post. To place Thich on a pedestal of absolute correctness, does him no favours.
But I do find the idea that a Buddhist leader must write his own works as somewhat amusing. The Buddha after all wrote no sutra, but many are attributed to him or have him explicitly agreeing to the statement at the end. Just as Thich Nhat Hanh seems to do in his "writing."
I don't think this has anything to with Thich. I don't think a lot people know that much about him.
It's really about something else.
It's really very clear.
Its the question he has been avoiding.
Was Brad a writer for "Life" the Zen master detective show?
Well then answer me this Mr. Hard Core Zen Booji boy.. You have publicly written that you liked Shunryu Suzuki's book which was transcribed from his talks.. But Thick Not Hand's books annoy you? Why does one man's book bug you but the other is on your list of favorite Bhuddist books.. The answer is you just don't like Thick. You don't like him because his Zen is different from your Zen. What do you say to that Brad? Crum got your tongue?
I'm starting to fear that my growing popularity is making me ineffective as a teacher.
Thank you for your honesty. I was wondering whether you were feeling this aversion to the dualistic effects of focused attention.
In my experience, in the space & time outside of space & time, I realized what the downsides would be of transmitting dharma, even in a "positive" fashion, for the purpose of illumination.
What unfolded in my satori event was an immense empathy for any guru, skillful or not, who took a bit too long to understand the unpleasant side of being exalted by others.
Buddha, Jesus, Genpo, Osho, Hitler, etc.., all of them. It broke my heart to see what they had lost in the process of becoming a "guru" or "leader". All they had desired was to be helpful and they discovered yet another variation of the problem of the flip-side to the confidence trap.
This resolves my decision to write under a pseudonym.
Thank you,
Not GrandCamel
Hardcore I is diggin it's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDO-7JrvjEI
It is brad like. maybe he was a anonymous writer.
This is how I see brad actually. Like Charlie Crews.
"Rather I am amused by the idea that there is a class of people we can call big boys in the Buddhist world."
Really? What about Dogen? Hell, what about Shakyamuni himself?
I'm pretty sure that the Thich Nhat Hahn I admire (admittedly the one I've constructed out of reading "his" books) doesn't mind mind a statement of his being questioned by a serious student of Zen.
The order of Interbeing's first precept is, after all "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth." I've never got the sense that Thich Nhat Hahn exempted his own teachings from this.
He's human, of course, but he seems to have a firm grasp of the idea that we should hold to the dharma and not attach to teachers.
I agree this has nothing to with Thich Naht Hanh.
Brad: Now you have a real reason to be angry..
Not only does Gniz makes more money than you do online but Thich Nhat Hanh does too.
Body and Mind Are One: An Online Training Course in Mindfulness with Thich Nhat Hanh
Online Course + Audio Download: US $99
Begins Apr 16, 2012
Bradley, check this out:
I've read 4 or 5 of Thich Naht Hahn's wish-washy 70-80 page books that you can practically read in one sitting. They just don't seem authentic in the sense that they're clearly edited very strictly in a way that allows them to be geared to an audience of millions and millions. Not really my thing.
But following your stuff for the past year or so, coupled with at least a few years of daily zazen practice has allowed me to let go of pretty much all of that mysterious, mystical idea I naturally had of Zen in the beginning when I had virtually no clue of what I was getting into. In addition, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to "run from reality", as you have described in the first chapter of Hardcore Zen.
As a result of this I have been able to make many drastic changes around certain things, most notably substance abuse issues. And of course, letting go of things like this are always difficult and not fun, and are especially hard because they've become such a serious part of your own identity over the years.
But at the same time I like a lot of hip hop music that has lyrics that explore mystical, gothic, fantasy, sci-fi related stuff that's just cool to listen to. I know you like reading science fiction books and listening to psychedelic rock so you probably understand this.
Quite recently I have also taken to playing Castlevania on my computer after smoking a little bit of weed (lol). Reality can be harsh sometimes – a realization that I encounter more and more the longer I sit, and sometimes I just like to surround myself with other-worldy stuff just for the experience. Although I do my best not to let it go overboard and take over my psyche, which it really doesn't at all.
Furthermore, I enjoy tuning into certain late night radio talk shows, particularly Coast to Coast AM, a show that – if you're not already familiar – explores topics like religion, spirituality, time travel, occult, cryptozoology, ghosts, space aliens and all types of farfetched shit as if it is 100% reality. I'm not a gullible person and I take everything with a brick of salt when I listen. And while the host and guests seem to have real legit beliefs in all the outlandish tiopics they cover, I just enjoy it for the novelty of submersing myself in that sort of atmosphere for a while, the same way someone would enjoy a horror movie or a sci-fi book.
I like the eerie music that they play throughout and a month or so ago I fell asleep while listening to it and had this strange dream where I was picking these very bizarre worms out of the ground and had a hideous revelation that there was a supernatural force altering the biological make-up of the universe. I woke up in a mysteriously pleasant mood after this pseudo-nightmare and I can't put my finger on why.
What I want to know is if you think it's damaging to do stuff like this when you make sure to do it in moderation and stay aware of the downside this stuff may have?
This is a job for charlie Crews
How dare you critically analyse our cute and beloved religious icon.
Satanist! Egotist!
Thich is just a nice old man whose poop reportedly smells like a summer field and has zen abilities to beam rainbows into your brain. Further, he would never be mistaken like us unenlightened folk.
We'll get you for this Brad!
Why are you defending yourself?
Why can't you ignore critic that is obviously playing with you.
Why are you talking about your image as an author – it doesn't interest me.
Why aren't you answering the questions of people who are confused about the topic – mindfulness.
I would like to read about that too. What is mindfulness or however you will name it, even without a name for it.
Please go more into detail, and cut the personal stuff.
You don't have to understand 'here' to be 'here.
Better question might be, "Who the fuck is Brad Warner?"
One of his, Thich Nhat Hanh's, books got copied out by hand, over and over, and distributed very widely that way among the Vietnamese. This was whilst they were having the shit bombed out of them – what phrase can do it justice ? – by the Americans.
I think it was 'Peace is Every Step, or possibly 'The Miracle of mindfulness.'
It seemed to me that it was a shit hot book which he honed to a state of ripe fecundity, profundity and power. It was about the furthest thing I can imagine from a casual, or committee assembled peice of work. The authorial intent for the thread and integrity of the whole peice was clear at every stage. He does crack on fairly regularly about various aspects of being a writer, and about writing poetry. So at least the early ones were written by him quite sincerely.
"Who is TNH?"
He's jus dis guy y'know!
I think the last two posts bring up good questions about the concept of "authenticity" and the role it plays in being a spiritual "guru" or "authority" or whatever else it might be called.
Like Brad, I'm pretty amicable to Thich Nhat Hanh's "writing." He's not my favorite writer, but he much more sufferable than most Zen or Buddhist writers out there. However, I do have to admit that it rubs me the wrong way that he is so powerful and is so disconnected from the trials and tribulations of being a real person. Anyone can come off as enlightened when they have other people doing all the hard shit in their life (as in the example of Thich probably not actually writing his own books). But someone who is relatively level-headed and happy in the midst of ordinary life is much more "enlightened" in my opinion, and is much worthier of my attention.
If he's giving the talks that's basically the same as writing a book, he's just not doing the typing and editing. Who cares. I think you're jealous too. All you do is complain about other people. You're the strangest Zen teacher in the universe. Your hyper-criticism of everything seems highly unproductive in terms of Zen practice. Almost every other post makes some comparison between you doing things correctly and someone else doing them incorrectly. You always make sure to say something like "not that I really care", but that's obviously nor true because you wouldn't be writing it otherwise. I want to like your blog, but every time I check in it more of the same negativity and dualist un-Zen examinations of the Buddhist world.
Oh and Katagiri didn't write "You Have to Say Something". His students did based on his talks. Let's write him off!
"If you open your mouth, you've already missed it." Or so I've heard…
#1 Thick Fan said:
Well then answer me this Mr. Hard Core Zen Booji boy.. You have publicly written that you liked Shunryu Suzuki's book which was transcribed from his talks.. But Thick Not Hand's books annoy you? Why does one man's book bug you but the other is on your list of favorite Bhuddist books.. The answer is you just don't like Thick. You don't like him because his Zen is different from your Zen. What do you say to that Brad? Crum got your tongue?
I'm not saying it's bad that TNH doesn't write his own books. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't.
The comparison to Suzuki isn't quite right, I think. Because Suzuki only "wrote" one book that way (when he was alive). TNH comes out with a new one every few months.
Which is fine. Whatever. More power to him.
William Shatner writes books too!
Samsara said:
If he's giving the talks that's basically the same as writing a book, he's just not doing the typing and editing.
I can tell you've never written a book.
Could well be that some of the small books were put together from transcribed dharma talks and ghostwritten by students. I'm willing to give some slack on that, especially for someone working in a second language.
But I can't picture Old Paths, White Clouds being done that way. He (or someone) wrote it in Vietnamese and had it translated. He also has a fairly dense book called Zen Keys that I can't see being ghostwritten.
Of course, as Brad points out, what I'm talking about is the TNH inside my head, the mental construction based on what I've read, not the "real" TNH. (If there is such a thing.)
Thanks Tom. I've seen those books and they do seem to be actually written, unlike the bulk of his books.
I'm not saying that transcribed books of talks are without value. Some of my favorite books are transcribed talks. I'm just saying there's a difference between writing a book and having someone take down your dictations and asking them to make a book out of it.
Plus there's the ones where he analyses sutras. Their structure is so developed and idiosyncratic, with the authorial plan made explicit repeatedly, that it's obvious they're by him.
I've no idea what the proportions are, but have a hunch it's more misleading to say TNH doesn't write his books than that he does.
an interesting koen
naht is not nhat
nhat is not naht
BTW there are many high status people who use ghost writers – including the Dali Lama. I thought everyone already understood that. Guess not.
Instead of debating whether certain books are authentic, why don't more people spend time reading the suttas/sutras?
I read once that American would rather take a pill to lose weight than diet and exercise. In the same way, so may wish to have dharma spoon fed to them by so-called Zen Masters. It might be more beneficial if people returned to sutra study, and tried to make sense of what Gautama really said, and why he said what he said.
Well I'm a biologist, and I've written lots of scientific publications, and I've given lots of scientific talks, and they take about the same amount of time for me to prepare when you take in to account how much time is needed to produce the material. The research takes years, but the writing/putting together of the talk is a fraction of that time. True, it takes a bit longer to write something out than to make notes on it and talk about them. But ultimately all that matters is the material. It's very easy to write a meaningless book, and lots of silly people do it every day.
And thanks for proving my point that you can't help but compare yourself to others CONSTANTLY. "I can tell you've never written a book before (because I have)". Very Zen. Why don't you write something positive or helpful for a change.
All that I've read of Shakyamunni leads me to believe that he didn't really want to teach what he had learned, even doubting that it could be taught.
I think that we think of the "big boys" of Buddhism from the past in that way because what they said and taught got written down. That might be partially true today as well. There are almost certainly teachers out there who are quite good that nobody has ever heard of except for a handful of students who are working with them.
My opinion is that you're using somebody as an example. To make your points, you could replace the person with somebody else, and make the same points.
The problem comes in however, when you cherry-pick small little phrases or tweets to use as examples, as if they summarize that person as a whole. This wouldn't be fair if somebody did the same to you either. And I'm sure people do that to you a lot.
So, you were able to make your points (and I feel they were good ones), but slightly at the expense of the person you're using as an example. You of all people should know that if somebody did the same using your books, they could very easily be used out of context. Visions of drugs, hookers, sex, come to mind. But does picking one sentence out of one of your books sum up you or your books up properly? Of course not.
I'm not saying I have a problem with what you did… I'm just saying that we should look at it for what it is. Lets not make a bunch of drama out of it. What you did using Thich as an example to make a point, could just as easily been done to you. To anybody. People should simply realize that you saw an opportunity to make a point.
It wasn't about Thich… and yet he got involved somehow 🙂
I don't presume to speak for you, but this is just my personal take on the whole thing.
One more little point I'd like to make. Sometimes you can't control the fame you become. Should a musician or band be faulted just because people really started to like them? I'm starting to see this a lot in indie music. A band has good indie cred, and what they put out is resonating well with others, and they become popular. Then all of a sudden all the hipsters start to turn their backs on them and say "you sold out" and "you're not indie anymore" — even if they just wanna make cool music. If the band is Zen enough, they won't buy into all the hype good or bad, they'll just keep on trying to be themselves. Funny how our society likes to build people up then tear them down.
How do we know that this isn't the case with many of the "big boy" Buddhist personalities?
Anyway, I'm done for the time being 🙂
Doug
You've actually managed to embarrass yourself with this post, Brad. NO ONE thinks that you said Hitler was enlightened.
You've officially become an old, humorless fogey.
My question is this: why do you spend your time on topics like these (finding fault with others or fault with what they do or teach) when you have much better to offer? Seems to me, anyway.
Is talking about other people like this considered "right speech?" Not saying it isn't. Just wondering because I haven't felt it's right speech for me–whether anyone will ever read it/see it or not. Doesn't matter.
Not my business, of course; it's your blog. But I wonder. When we find fault with others, it says much more about us than the other person. I mean, while reading this and the last post I find myself wondering what's going on with you rather than Thich Nhat Hanh. So I'd better not come back 🙂
Also just thought I'd mention that it's very common for busy people to have an assistant handle social media (I've done it, as the assistant that is). No news there, and at least it's fully disclosed in this case. I mean, we all know Pres. Obama or Michelle aren't posting on the presidential FB account, and if we don't, OY 🙂
He didn't teach that Hitler was enlightened? Bullshit! He did and I've been worshipping der Führer for several months, both publicly and privately. I've even grown a mustache like his.
Hitler = God, right Brad?
Sounds to me that Brad is using the question "who is Thich Naht Hahn" to bring up the concept of "no-self" in Buddhism. At what point is one not actually writing a book but having it be done by "others." And who are they? A bit like the the care an maintenance of a ship. As it gets old, the wood panels are replaced by new ones. Is it still the same ship?
Hi Brad,
I have read and enjoyed your first 2 books, so I have a sense of your way of teaching and being in the world I suppose. I have some insight into Thich Nhat Hanh's way of teaching and being because I spent 6 weeks in his monastery in France. From my time there, I have written a book that will be published this Fall in the U.S., Canada, The Netherlands, and Brazil.
It is my opinion that your post is disrespectful to Thich Nhat Hanh, his monks and nuns and students/writers like me, for the following reasons:
1. You didn't take the time to find out the correct spelling of Thich Nhat Hanh's name and it appeared countless times in your article.
2. It is difficult to write insightfully about someone simply from second hand information.
3. Because of decades of Buddhist study and practice, as well as deep commitment to students and endless generosity, along with a capacity to live ethically, there are a few teachers in the world who deserve a basic level of respect. Thich Nhat Hanh is one of those people. That is absent in this post.
4. I can tell you first hand that The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh is an extraordinary teacher, monk and person. Beyond my first hand experience as a student of his for 40 days, and from talking to many of his monks and nuns, I have also done a lot of research on his life. He is a stellar Buddhist practitioner (in all ways) and teacher. He is also 86 years old and the fact that this humble monk is still teaching when it must be very tiring for him, shows his devotion to everyone's well-fare. He genuinely cares deeply about all life on the planet.
I have to stop this post now or it would be very, very long, but suffice to say, I have left out many more reasons that Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the few stellar teachers that deserves to be recognized as such, valued and respected in print.
I see that you operate in a controversial way. Controversy is useful if you know what you're talking about. In this case, you don't know what you're talking about.
Sincerely,
Mary Paterson
y u all bein so mean?
Brad better answer the questions/critics/comments on mindfulness/awareness thats a ton more interesting. Who cares for Nhat he won't even read your stuff man!
Danny
Mary Paterson just SHIT words of wisdom in Brad's FACE!
Mary Paterson follows TNH while the guys here (me included) follow Adolf Hitler.
Who has the right of it? Hell if I know.
You gonna take that shit off a fucking yoga teacher, Brad? LOL, she just called you a disrespectful asshole and you do nothing back at her? Wow. I never thought I'd see the day that you pussed out when some hot yoga chick called you out.
You've sold out.
It's an interesting conundrum…
On one hand, Brad's got the Hardcore image to represent. Pulling tiger's whiskers and whatnot. BUT not SO hardcore that he invalidates his own credentials in a puff of anti-establishment smoke.
Those books wont sell themselves!
That's a fine line to have to walk 24/7.
When I said in the comments that Thich Naht Hanh is no more a simple wandering monk than Bruce Springsteen is a blue-collar working man, some people pointed out that I have an image as well. Why Mr. Holmes, your powers of deductive reasoning are astonishing! Of course I have an image! So do you. So does everyone.
Ahhh that might be so, Brad. But one man's monk is another man's dilettante in today's world.
You are no more a monk than Thich Naht Hanh is. The tragedy is that in today's world being a monk is nothing more than a set of black robes and a bullet point on a resume'.
I went to the TNH retreat here in Vancouver in August of 2011. My understanding is that in Zen a lot of emphasis is place on experience, rather then intellect. My experience with TNH says that he is not what he projects himself as. I felt it was a lot of staged production and no emphasis placed on meditation. Why do think there would be no emphasis placed on meditation? The name of the retreat was "Awakening The Heart", and the focus seemed to be on joy. Not much said about suffering. And his monastics seemed to be, not very knowledgeable. Some simply seemed like actors.
As far as I can tell Buddhism is more culture specific in Canada. European Canadians aren't that familar with "Buddhism", as opposed to say the large Chinese Canadian population in Western Canada. But my experience with both suggests that "Thay" is out to take advantage of the niave in search of fame and profit. The majority of the people at the retreat were European Canadians.
I in my experience I felt that the lure of "Thay" was that he never asks for money on his on-line videos(during my interest in him anyways), he appeals to many peoples on a basic spiritual level(pan-religous, pan-Buddhist sect), and with his knowledge of PureLand Buddhism he able to dumb down the Dharma to the point that anyone should get it. He appeals to the human nature within us all, which he examplifies through his interaction with childern. All good things in a teacher. Very very romantic, very appealing to me.
I might compare my experience with "Thay" to on line dating, meeting someone on line in hopes of "Awakening the Heart" Then meeting them in person and discovering that all they were ever interested in was getting into your pants. You feel hurt, disgusted, and stupid. "Thay" is also a very good teacher in this way. But I realized afterwards that a good teacher would never refer to themselves as "Teacher(Thay)." A good teacher once taught me that "We teach each other Zen".
Thay's mistake with me was that he left rest periods in my retreat itinary that I took advantage of by meditating in my room.
But, he is still human.
Jason Farrow