Mindfulness, Buddha-Nature, and the

Holy Spirit: On Thich Nhat Hanh’s

Interpretation of Christianity
Mathias Schneider
University of Münster

abstract
The Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the most influential contemporary
Buddhist protagonists, and also a famous interpreter of Christianity. In this paper,
I will focus on Thich Nhat Hanh’s reading of the Holy Spirit. Nhat Hanh’s
Buddhist pneumatology is mainly informed by the cornerstone of his teaching, mind-
fulness, which in turn closely connects with the doctrine of Buddha-nature. The
doctrinal framework of Nhat Hanh’s conception of mindfulness is grounded in
the psychology of the Yogācāra school, particularly in its eight aspects of conscious-
ness and the notion of seeds. According to Nhat Hanh, the transformation of
unwholesome and the nourishing of wholesome seeds via mindfulness practice is cru-
cial to overcome the hindrances to enlightenment. This is possible because the seed of
awakening or Buddha-nature is already ingrained in sentient beings. Nhat Hanh
discerns the Holy Spirit as a functional equivalent to the Buddha-nature. I will argue
that his reading of the Spirit can be described by three mutually interconnected main
characteristics: as an innate, salvific potential, an all-embracing, dynamic force, and
further as a foundation for ethical conduct. Finally, I will reflect on a crucial herme-
neutical issue emerging from Nhat Hanh’s Buddhist pneumatology: Does the right to
interpret the Holy Spirit belong to Christians alone?
KEYWORDS: Thich Nhat Hanh, mindfulness, Yogācāra, Buddha-nature, Huayan,
pneumatology, negative theology, interreligious hermeneutics

The Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh (born 1926) is one of the most prominent
contemporary Buddhist protagonists. As a peace activist, poet, and proponent of a
socially engaged Buddhism, he has gained international reputation, and as a medita-
tion teacher and author of a vast corpus of publications, he spreads his characteristic
interpretation of Buddhism throughout the world, influencing a large community of
practitioners. The main teaching Nhat Hanh promotes in books and in person can be
described with one word: mindfulness. One can easily discern the practice of mind-
fulness as the focal point of his thought and activity, making him particularly well

Buddhist-Christian Studies 41 (2021) 279–293. © by University of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.
280 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

known in Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist spiritual and also secular, in particular

medical circles. Mindfulness can further be called Nhat Hanh’s Buddhist hermeneu-
tical leitmotif that he also applies to his interpretation of Christianity. His compre-
hensive and appreciative engagement with Christianity for which he is known today
is “love at second sight,” though: Like many Vietnamese Buddhists during colonial
times and the Vietnam War, he had reservations against Christianity, perceiving it
as a handmaiden of the colonial power and a collaborator of the Diem regime working
to the disadvantage of Buddhism.1 However, encountering Christians sharing his con-
cern for peace changed his impression for the better and paved the way for dialogue
and an in-depth effort of understanding.
In this paper, I will analyze Thich Nhat Hanh’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit.
This focus has particular appeal because Nhat Hanh’s reading of the Spirit is mainly
informed by his concept of mindfulness, which in turn closely connects with the doc-
trine of Buddha-nature. To outline Nhat Hanh’s doctrinal framework for his Buddhist
pneumatology, his lesser-known side as an exegete of Yogācāra thought will be con-
sidered, which is a crucial prerequisite for his understanding of mindfulness and thus
needs to be elaborated. Finally, I will reflect on some hermeneutical issues emerging
from his interpretative approach.

thich nhat hanh’s interpretation of mindfulness

Thich Nhat Hanh elaborates the psychological and soteriological framework of
his concept of mindfulness in a comparatively unknown book of his, Understanding
OurMind.2 Here, he presents a theory of consciousness and meditation in fifty verses
and an accompanying auto-commentary inspired by key treatises of the Yogācāra
school, that is, Vasubandhu’s Twenty and Thirty Verses (Viṃśatikā and Triṃśikā),
and, most notably, Xuanzang’s Chengweishilun. For the sake of brevity, only the most
basic doctrines underlying Nhat Hanh’s concept of mindfulness can be presented
here.3

Store Consciousness and Seeds

According to Yogācāra analyses, there are eight aspects of consciousness:4 the five
sense-consciousnesses (visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory), manovijñāna
(“mind consciousness”), manas (“mind”), and ālayavijñāna (“store consciousness”),
the latter being, according to Lambert Schmithausen, “the basic, subliminal, subcon-
scious layer of the mind.”5 One function of the ālayavijñāna is to store seeds (bījas), a
metaphorical term for potentialities or mental impressions.6 These impressions are the
result of karmically wholesome (kuśala) or unwholesome (akuśala) words, deeds, and
thoughts, which are stored in a latent form in the ālayavijñāna, which itself is karmi-
cally neutral.7 Here, the bījas influence the ālayavijñāna by “perfuming” it according
to their karmic nature, which in turn creates “habit energies”8 (vāsanā) that again
influence further actions and the way we perceive the world.9
Given the right conditions, a seed arises out of its latency in the store con-
sciousness and manifests itself in the mind consciousness (manovijñāna) as a mental
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 281

formation (saṃskāra) in accordance with its original karmic nature.10 Following Nhat
Hanh, however, the simple actualization of a seed does not nullify its potential to
continue its influence on the store consciousness: Staying in the manovijñāna as a men-
tal formation for some time, it thereby creates another karmically equivalent seed that
returns to the ālayavijñāna and strengthens the habit energy of the original seed.11
This gets problematic if the strengthened seed is an unwholesome (akuśala) one:
Not only is an unwholesome mental formation created, but this formation also con-
tinues to reinforce a negative habit energy, making unwholesome acts more probable
in the future. The whole process of the emergence and storing of seeds, their perfum-
ing activity, their actualization, and their creation of equivalent new seeds forms a
circle of karmic causes and conditions. It is one of the meditator’s tasks to steer this
circle into wholesome channels.

Ignorance
Manas, the seventh consciousness with its functions of judging and thinking,12 has
the ālayavijñāna as its supporting basis (āśraya). This connection with the store con-
sciousness is crucial for the emergence of ignorance (avidyā). The ālayavijñāna appears
in two aspects: the subjective seeing part (darśanabhāga) and the objective seen part
(nimittabhāga).13 It is important to note that both merely appear in the mode of a per-
ceiving subject and a perceived object; they do not jeopardize the unity of conscious-
ness because they are “one in substance.”14 Manas, however, grasps the seeing part
(darśanabhāga) of the ālayavijñāna and misinterprets it as an independent, substantial
self.15 Thus, manas is associated with four grave afflictions defiling consciousness: self-
delusion (ātmamoha), self-view (ātmadṛṣṭi), self-conceit (ātmamāna), and self-love
(ātmasneha).16
This false sense of self originating from manas affects the lower strata of conscious-
ness, too. Just as the ālayavijñāna is the support for manas, manas is the basis for the
mind consciousness (manovijñāna). The manovijñāna organizes the sense data from the
other five sense-consciousnesses and transmits them as seeds to the ālayavijñāna.17
In reverse, seeds from the ālayavijñāna become manifest here as mental formations
(saṃskāras). However, this transmission is gravely marred by manas, which Nhat
Hanh compares to an ill-working electrical conduit distorting the electrical signal
between ālayavijñāna and manovijñāna.18 Based upon the fatal error of manas, percep-
tion is distorted by the unwholesome veil of self-illusion in two cardinal misconcep-
tions: the belief in an individual self (ātmagrāha) and the belief in distinct things
“out there” (dharmagrāha). In this way, according to Brian Brown, “the psycho-
physical organism” appears as “a discrete, self-determining center of unique identity
(an ātman) : : : over and against a plurality of similarly unrelated egos and a world of
unconnected, self-standing objects and things (dharmas).”19 The outcome is ignorance
(avidyā) in the form of a subject–object dualism incongruent with the actual nondual
nature of reality.20 This false view affects our whole interaction with the world because
it gives rise to attachment—to “me,” the false self, and to what is or is not “mine,” the
seemingly separate things “I” react to with greed or aversion. Such mental defilements
282 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

(kleśas) resulting from self-illusion proceed to perfume the store consciousness, thereby
fortifying the whole delusionary saṃsāric mirage in a vicious circle.21

Mindfulness and Interbeing

The basic soteriological problem the Yogācāra school and Thich Nhat Hanh try to
overcome is ignorance.22 According to the Chengweishilun, its manifestations as false
views of self (ātmagrāha) and independent phenomena (dharmagrāha) give rise to two
barriers or obstacles hindering enlightenment. From ātmagrāha originates the obstacle
of passions (kleśāvaraṇa), consisting of the defilements; from dharmagrāha springs
the obstacle of the knowable (jñeyāvaraṇa), consisting of the inability to see the world
in its true nondual state (tathatā).23 Thich Nhat Hanh’s conception of mindfulness
practice can be understood as a countermeasure against these two obstacles and their
seeds.
Not only in Nhat Hanh’s thought but also throughout the whole Buddhist
tradition, mindfulness (Skt. smṛti, P. sati) is a centerpiece of meditation.24 It is the
seventh member of the Noble Eightfold Path, and its soteriological relevance can
hardly be overestimated, as the Pāli Canon calls mindfulness the “direct path for
the purification of beings, for the surmounting of sorrow and lamentation, for the
disappearance of pain and grief, : : : for the realization of Nibbāna.”25 Both Nhat
Hanh and the sutta accounts emphasize that mindfulness is not just a basic-level
awareness.26 In order to be right mindfulness (samyaksmṛti), it has to be an “appro-
priate” attention (yoniśomanasikāra)27 with the meditator dwelling “fully in the pres-
ent moment”28 to be able to recognize and distinguish all manifesting seeds and to
nourish only the wholesome ones.29
Mindfulness plays a pivotal role in the Buddhist core practices of “stopping and
seeing” (Skt. śamatha and vipaśyanā, P. samatha and vipassanā), which Nhat Hanh
emphasizes as equally important for a successful and liberative meditation practice.30
By practicing śamatha, the practitioner’s mind is focused one-pointedly on the given
meditation object and is thus brought into a state of concentration (samādhi).31 A very
popular practice to develop a calm mind is mindfulness of breathing (Skt.
ānāpānasmṛti, P. ānāpānasati).32 However, the practice of mindfulness is not restricted
to a certain period of sitting meditation. According to Nhat Hanh, one’s everyday life
should be lived in uninterrupted mindfulness.33 This enables the practitioner to rec-
ognize every kind of seed manifesting in the manovijñāna in order to nourish whole-
some seeds and transform unwholesome ones.34 In this way, the practitioner can
influence his store consciousness in a wholesome way and at the same time weaken
the manifesting defilements. This eventually leads to the final surmounting of the
obstacle of passions (kleśāvaraṇa).
Thich Nhat Hanh describes three ways for the transformation of unwholesome
seeds.35 The first is an indirect transformation in which the practitioner meticulously
controls which sensory impression gets into consciousness, creates seeds and per-
fumes the ālayavijñāna. This corresponds to the Buddha’s teaching on mindfully
“guarding the sense doors” (indriyasaṃvara): Every sense faculty (from eye to mind)
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 283

is continuously guarded with mindfulness, letting no attachment to the respective

sense information arise.36 The second way is a transformation by mindful reaction
in which an arising unwholesome seed becomes the object of mindful observation.
Ordinarily, our mind state and behavior follow the nature of an actualized seed:
When the seed of anger manifests, we get angry. Precisely this automatism has to
be stopped. Through mindfulness, the practitioner observes a manifesting negative
seed “dispassionately”37 without any clinging to it and thus does not live out its inher-
ent unwholesome quality. This practice discharges the seed and weakens its influence
on the ālayavijñāna. The third way is an intentional confrontation of seeds: The prac-
titioner, knowing which subtle, hitherto untransformed seeds are still lying dormant
in the store consciousness, allows them to actualize in the manovijñāna, and transforms
them with mindfulness.
During śamatha practice, the meditator builds up the “energy of mindfulness” nec-
essary for the practice of insight meditation (vipaśyanā).38 Nhat Hanh uses the term
“energy of mindfulness” in a cumulative way denoting the five “spiritual faculties”
(indriya)—faith (śraddhā), energy/diligence (vīrya), mindfulness (smṛti), concentration
(samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā)—actualized as “powers” (bala). He likens them to five
power plants (indriya) producing electric light (bala).39 All five need to come together
in mindfulness practice to produce sufficient energy and thus strengthen the seed of
mindfulness, which in turn generates even more energy of mindfulness: “Mindfulness
is the water that nourishes the bodhi seed. The more mindfulness it receives, the more
it grows.”40
With enough energy and a mind that is equally calm and focused, the meditator is
now equipped for the practice of insight meditation (vipaśyanā), or, as Nhat Hanh
calls it, “looking deeply.”41 As described in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, its key practice
is the mindful observation of the four foundations of mindfulness (Skt.
smṛtyupasthāna, P. satipaṭṭhāna), including body (kāya), sensations (vedanā), mind
(citta), and “objects of the mind”42 (dharmas).43 The practitioner cultivates insight
by observing the true nature of the respective meditation object as described in
Buddhist doctrine, which does not only involve intellectual knowledge, but, accord-
ing to Griffiths, requires first and foremost the alteration of the practitioner’s “facul-
ties in such a way that both perception and cognition occur only in the ways described
by the doctrine(s) in question.”44 In Nhat Hanh’s case, the main emphasis lies on the
doctrine of “interbeing,” which constitutes the metaphysical cornerstone of his
teaching.45
Nhat Hanh uses a vivid example to describe the way things “inter-are”: The piece
of paper I am writing on only exists because of the tree it is made of; the tree’s exis-
tence was dependent on rain and sunshine; the rain again is dependent on clouds, the
ecosphere, and so on.46 By expanding this chain, one realizes that the whole universe
exists interdependently in this piece of paper as well as in every phenomenon, includ-
ing oneself. Early Buddhism developed the twelve-membered formula of dependent
origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which was, according to Schmithausen, originally
concerned with the description of the causes of rebirth and liberation of the individual
being.47 During its later doctrinal development, the notion of pratītyasamutpāda was
284 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

expanded, most notably in Chinese Huayan Buddhism, where it was conceived as a

“mutual,” “universal interdependence and interrelatedness.”48 Most famous in this
respect is the metaphor of Indra’s Net: The god Indra has a net outstretched in infin-
ity, containing a jewel in every knot, each reflecting in its facets all the other jewels.49
It is this Huayan understanding of pratītyasamutpāda as mutual interpenetration that
serves as the basis for Nhat Hanh’s concept of interbeing.50
According to the great Huayan systematizer Fazang (643–712), all phenomena are
forms of the ultimate, nondual dimension of reality. Because all phenomena are
equally empty (śūnya) of an intrinsic own-being (svabhāva) and exist only in depen-
dence on other phenomena, they are “instantiations”51 of ultimate reality. Thus,
ultimate reality constitutes their true nature. As instantiations, they merely differ
in their appearance as empty forms, just as waves are not essentially different from
each other when seen as water.52 In this sense, ultimate reality and phenomena (as
well as phenomena among each other) are transparent for and penetrate each other
without obstruction, which is why Huayan speaks of “mutual identity” as well as
“mutual interpenetration.”53 As mutually interpenetrating, reality consists of an inter-
dependent cluster of forms, and if any of its links were missing, the whole cosmos
could not exist. “This means,” as Paul Williams states, “that each entity is a cause
for the totality. Moreover the totality is, of course, a cause for each entity.”54 This also
entails that “each entity exerts total causal power. But if each entity in the Universe
exerts total causal power each entity must contain each other entity,”55 as described in Nhat
Hanh’s example of the piece of paper. From the perspective of insight, the practitioner
does not look at seemingly separate objects of saṃsāra anymore, but realizes him- or
herself and all phenomena as a wondrous net of interdependent knots in the fabric of
nondual reality. But only living one’s life mindfully may continuously sustain insight
into interbeing that sufficiently transforms the subtle and deep-seated seeds of
ignorance.56

Transformation at the Base and Buddha-Nature

When all the unwholesome seeds in the store consciousness are gradually transformed
through mindfulness practice, a “transformation at the base” (āśrayaparāvṛtti) takes
place.57 Kleśas can now no longer take root in the ālayavijñāna, and the eight con-
sciousnesses work in a radically new, liberated mode.58 The ālayavijñāna becomes
the “Great Mirror Wisdom” (mahādarśajñāna), reflecting everything equally in its
suchness (tathatā). Manas stops clinging to a false ātman and dissecting reality in a
dichotomy of self and other(s), thereby becoming the “Wisdom of Equality”
(samatājñāna). The manovijñāna transforms into “Wonderful Observation Wisdom”
(pratyavekṣaṇājñāna), which according to Nhat Hanh “can see things as they are.”59
The five sense-consciousnesses become the “Wisdom of Wonderful Realization”
(kṛtyānuṣṭhānajñāna), now working with equanimity for the compassionate help of
others.60 Following Dan Lusthaus, what is important to note here is the transforma-
tion from vijñāna to jñāna: Vi-jñāna, the mode of consciousness discriminating
between self and other, “loses its dichotomous, bifurcational nature (the vi-prefix)”
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 285

and turns (via āśrayaparāvṛtti) into the non-discriminating, liberated knowledge,

jñāna.61
However, for Nhat Hanh, transformation is only possible because its root, the
seed of awakening or Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha), is already innate in the
ālayavijñāna.62 No matter how many adventitious layers of delusion cover it, this seed
constitutes the latent potential that enables one to develop the mind of a Buddha.63
Thus, the difference between the ordinary sentient being and a Buddha is not
substantial, but accidental. Buddha-nature is, again, identified by Nhat Hanh with
the seed of mindfulness.64 This implies that the meditator can anticipate (albeit depen-
dent on his or her level of cultivation) the fruit of Buddhahood through practice.
Furthermore, as stated earlier, mindfulness paves the way to insight into interbeing
as the true nature of reality. Even though the perception of the unenlightened
person is clouded by the activity of a hitherto untransformed manas, sometimes
the sunlight of Buddhahood parts the clouds and reveals the soteriological aim of
practice, the nondual wisdom of a Buddha, which is—seen from an enlightened
perspective—already present from the start.

thich nhat hanh’s interpretation of the holy spirit

The doctrines of mindfulness and Buddha-nature provide the framework for Thich
Nhat Hanh’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Nhat Hanh knows Christianity quite
well. Not only did he encounter Christians like Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)
or Thomas Merton (1915–1968) who were decisive for the impressions he received
from Christianity, but also his sojourn in the United States 1961–1963 (at Princeton
Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary) was crucial for the develop-
ment of his thought.65 During that time, he did not only write his Master of Arts
thesis about Yogācāra but also read theologians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer
(1906–1945), Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971), and Paul Tillich (1886–1965) with
appreciation.66 Especially the latter exerted considerable influence on Nhat Hanh’s
perception of Christianity.

The Ground of Being

Like many Buddhists in dialogue with Christianity, Thich Nhat Hanh prefers an apo-
phatic theology pointing to God as an ineffable ultimate reality and rejects a kataphatic
approach that speaks of God as a person.67 Consequently, Nhat Hanh found a com-
mon ground with Buddhism in Paul Tillich’s notion of God as the “ground of
being.”68 According to Tillich, God cannot be conceived of as the highest ontic being
at the top of a hierarchy of phenomena, but needs to be understood as the condition of
possibility of existence itself, that is, the “ground” or the “power of being in every-
thing and above everything.”69 Nhat Hanh also appreciates Tillich’s transpersonal
concept of God in the latter’s statement “He [God] is not a person, but he is not
less than personal.”70 Read through the lens of interbeing, God as the noumenal
ground is immanent in phenomenal “persons” equally empty of a self, while the
286 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

“persons” are (as the waves related to the water) interdependently connected to their
noumenal ground.71 If God can be understood this way, Nhat Hanh sees no objection
for Buddhists to appreciate God as an equivalent notion to nirvāṇa.72

The Holy Spirit

In Thich Nhat Hanh’s eyes, the presence of the nirvāṇic noumenal ground in the phe-
nomenal dimension takes concrete shape in the seed of mindfulness or Buddha-nature.
According to Nhat Hanh, this approach is not limited to Buddhism. He discerns the
Holy Spirit as a functional equivalent to the seed-like Buddha-nature: “Christians say
that God is in everyone’s heart. The Holy Spirit can be described as being always pres-
ent in our hearts in the form of a seed. Every time we pray or invoke the name of the
Lord, that seed manifests itself as the energy of God.”73 The “energy of God” as the
manifested, active dimension of the Holy Spirit, is again nothing other than the energy
of mindfulness: “[W]e believe that the energy of mindfulness (which is the energy
of the Buddha) is the equivalent of what our friends call the Holy Spirit.”74 With these
two aspects of Buddha-nature as the innate seed and the energy of mindfulness,
Nhat Hanh’s interpretation of the Spirit can be described in greater detail by the fol-
lowing three main characteristics.
First, the Spirit is an innate, nirvāṇic potential. The cultivation of the seed of
mindfulness or the Holy Spirit is the key to experiencing ultimate reality.75
There is no infusion of the Spirit, because it is already ingrained in sentient beings.
However, it is not fully realized from the beginning: The condition to actualize this
latent seed/the indwelling Spirit is its continuous “watering” through mindfulness
practice. Nhat Hanh recognizes a similar idea in the Christian notion of deification
(theosis) especially popular in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, because in his eyes
both concepts emphasize the relationship between human and ultimate reality as
that of microcosm and macrocosm, the former being “a mini-God, a micro-theos.”76
In this light, Nhat Hanh’s wording “God made humans so that humans can become
God” comes close to Athanasius of Alexandria’s (ca. 296–373) famous formula.77
In this sense, analogous to finally realizing the mind of a Buddha, Nhat Hanh
reads deification—understood as the restitution of one’s originally divine state by
overcoming passions through ascetic practice—as the Christian equivalent to
āśrayaparāvṛtti.
Second, the Spirit is an all-embracing, dynamic force. Thich Nhat Hanh’s soteriology is
visibly optimistic,78 as deification (or “nirvāṇization”) by actualizing the latent Spirit
(or Buddha-nature) is a possibility for everyone79—there are no “incorrigibles,” so-
called icchantikas, who are unable to achieve Buddhahood due to their lack of the
innate Buddha seed. In this respect, it should further be noted that Nhat Hanh’s
interpretation also challenges a common Christian pneumatological assumption that
the presence of the Holy Spirit is only confined to the baptized. Analogous to the
Buddha-nature, Nhat Hanh perceives the Spirit as naturally present in all sentient
beings, baptized or not.80 However, the question remains why deluded beings
undertake the struggle for enlightenment at all. Perry Schmidt-Leukel points to
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 287

the Ratnagotravibhāga’s declaration that although ultimate reality is ineffable and

unmoving, it works as the driving force behind the quest for salvation through its
sheer presence as the Buddha-nature:81 “If the buddha element did not exist,
There would be no weariness of suffering, Nor would there be the wish, striving,
And aspiration for nirvāṇa.”82 Understood this way, Buddha-nature “acts” as a “deep,
but obscured knowledge of Nirvāṇa as being that which we really long for.”83
Or, following David Seyfort Ruegg, tathāgatagarbha is the “‘buddhomorphic’ Base or
Support for practice of the Path, and hence the motivating ‘cause’ (hetu: dhātu) for
attainment of the Fruit (phala) of buddhahood.”84 This aspect of tathāgatagarbha
thought might explain why Nhat Hanh can accept the Christian notion of the
Spirit as a salvific agent.85 With Buddha-nature as the real presence of the noumenal
ground in sentient beings, their self-delusion is under siege from two sides: On the
one hand, ultimate reality (in its presence as Spirit/Buddha-nature) draws sentient
beings toward itself regardless of their two obstacles hindering enlightenment
(kleśāvaraṇa and jñeyāvaraṇa). On the other hand, beings answer with their practice,
creating sufficient conditions for the energy of mindfulness as the “Spirit at work”
to overcome the obstacles and actualize the hitherto latent seed of awakening.
Within this salvific mechanism, the Spirit can be said to “guide to all truth”
(John 16:13): Ultimate reality, already ingrained as a seed-like potential but covered
by avidyā and kleśas, provokes the practitioner to mindfulness practice so that it can
manifest as the energy of mindfulness. In this way, it “shews the things to come”
(John 16:13) and leads the practitioner to its actualization as “Great Mirror Wisdom”
(mahādarśajñāna).86
Third, cultivating the Spirit is a decisive foundation for ethical conduct. As described
earlier, the energy of mindfulness enables practitioners to nourish wholesome and
to transform unwholesome seeds, thereby influencing the ālayavijñāna by cultivating
positive habit energies, which results in wholesome ethical behavior. The energy of
mindfulness is also necessary to generate insight into interbeing, which is crucial for
the development of compassion (karuṇā): “When we see the nature of interbeing, bar-
riers between ourselves and others are dissolved, and peace, love, and understanding
are possible. Whenever there is understanding, compassion is born.”87 According to
Nhat Hanh, “looking deeply” leads to the insight of the interdependence and inter-
penetration of phenomena grounded in their actual impermanent, empty-of-self
nature.88 Thus, the dualist distinction between “self” and “others” collapses and opens
up to the existential experience of equality, which is necessary to treat every sentient
being with the same non-differentiating compassion (the “fruit of the Spirit,” so to
say). This ethical dimension inextricably intertwines the cultivation of Buddha-
nature/Spirit with Nhat Hanh’s conception of a socially engaged Buddhism that tries
to foster peace and social harmony based on mindfulness practice.89

The Christ
Thich Nhat Hanh recognizes the paradigmatic actualization of the Holy Spirit in the
person of Jesus, especially in the Gospel account of his baptism and withdrawal into
288 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the desert (Mark 1:9–13).90 This also provides the hermeneutical framework for his
interpretation of the Christian doctrine of Christ’s two natures. In his human
nature as the Son of Man (born from Joseph and Mary), Jesus possessed the innate
presence of God like every human being. At baptism, Jesus realized this innate
aspect of ultimate reality, “the reality of life, the source of mindfulness, wisdom,
and understanding within Him,” and became transparent for it, so that the Spirit
(symbolized by its descending “like a dove”) revealed him as “already enlightened”
and thus disclosed his divine nature as the Son of God.91 After baptism, Jesus
withdrew into the desert for forty days, interpreted by Nhat Hanh as a meditation
retreat to fortify and cultivate his breakthrough experience via mindfulness
practice.92
Nhat Hanh’s interpretation of Jesus as an enlightened manifestation of ultimate
reality in terms of Buddha-nature also bears a challenge to mainstream Christian
interpretations of Christ as the unique Son of God. From the perspective of interbeing,
Nhat Hanh can only confirm Jesus’s status as one of many historical forms (waves) of
ultimate reality (water), just like the Buddha (or Muhammad and Socrates).93 And
although his realization of the Spirit “made Him different from other human
beings,”94 this difference consists in realization, not in nature. That means that
the two natures of Christ principally describe the true state of everybody: “We are
all, at the same time, the sons and daughters of God and the children of our parents.
This means we are of the same reality as Jesus.”95 Because of the innate seed of
Buddhahood, everybody can practice mindfulness and actualize the enlightened mind
of a Buddha. For Nhat Hanh, the same is true for Christianity: Every Son of Man can
cultivate the indwelling Spirit and become a Christ, a Son of God. Insofar one could
also speak of a “Christ Nature” analogous to the Buddha-nature.

concluding remarks
I will conclude this analysis of Thich Nhat Hanh’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit
with a few hermeneutical considerations. Nhat Hanh perceives Christianity through
his “hermeneutical lens”96 of mindfulness practice, constituting the soteriological
core element whose presence decides whether a religious tradition is salvific or
not. He discerns mindfulness (connected with the doctrine of Buddha-nature) in
the Christian concept of the Spirit which allows him to appreciate Christianity as
a salvific path. Looking back at Nhat Hanh’s Buddhist pneumatology provokes a
hermeneutical question: Does the right to interpret the Holy Spirit belong to
Christianity alone? Following Malcolm David Eckel, Nhat Hanh’s decision to inter-
pret (or to “borrow”) the Spirit and read it in terms of mindfulness/Buddha-nature
presupposes recognition in the sense that “there is already something in the borrowing
culture [or religious tradition] that corresponds and is receptive to the religious
datum that is being borrowed.”97 Eckel points to the intriguing consequence of this:
“If the borrowed item is already present in some form in the culture that does the
borrowing, in what sense is it borrowed?”98 This kind of Buddhist-Christian corre-
spondence could be the common concern for a form of immanence of ultimate reality
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 289

that allows the possibility of salvific transformation. I do not want to imply that
both concepts are identical—both are clearly informed by their different historical,
cultural, and doctrinal contexts. But it is precisely this kind of difference that allows
for learning when both “translations” of a similar existential concern meet in dialogue
and enrich each other, because neither one possesses a solely valid, non-contextual
God’s eye view on the ineffable reality they try to approach. For this reason, Nhat
Hanh’s interpretational effort might also serve as a call for hermeneutical humility
on the Christian side. As Catherine Cornille states, “in the realm of religious ideas
and practices, religions do not hold patents : : : . While this may be regarded as
regrettable from a particular point of view, it may also be seen as an opportunity
of continuous growth.”99
Viewed from the latter perspective, Thich Nhat Hanh’s interpretation can remind
Christians of neglected aspects in their own tradition. Although Nhat Hanh recog-
nizes Christianity’s salvific potential, he criticizes its contemporary forms for not
effectively putting it to use. In his eyes, contemporary Christian theology neglects
an experience-oriented, nondiscursive, and mystagogical overall approach to both
spiritual life and theology.100 And it is exactly this shortcoming that puts it in danger
of degenerating into a mere speculative enterprise, jeopardizing its power to lead its
adherents to ethical and salvific transformation. For this reason, Nhat Hanh proposes
that “it is safer to approach God through the Holy Spirit than through the door of
theology,”101 offering his mindfulness-based interpretation of Christianity as an inspi-
ration for spiritual renewal. It is important to note, though, that Nhat Hanh already
discerns the requisite elements necessary for such a renewal in the Christian tradi-
tion,102 especially in forms of negative theology.103 In this respect, he clearly states
that neither Buddhism nor Christianity can be treated as fixed homogeneous and
monolithic entities, but rather consist of various strands with different theological
emphases.104 This includes the possibility that a strand of one’s home tradition might
be nearer to a similar strand of another religious tradition than to the home tradition’s
mainline theology: “From time to time, you feel that you are very far away from your
Christian brother. You feel that the brother who practices in the Buddhist tradition is
much closer to you as a Christian.”105 By keeping this intra-religious diversity in
mind, representatives of each tradition can open dialogue for a much wider range
of theologies and thus new opportunities for comparison and learning. From a
Christian perspective, Thich Nhat Hanh’s demand for a practical renewal can be
accepted without much hesitation. Examples of the form of Christianity he envisages
can be readily found deep in the marrow of the tradition, especially in its mystical or
monastic strands. Scholars have convincingly laid emphasis on points of convergence
not only between Buddhism and “classical” mystics like Meister Eckhart,106 but also
(to name but a few) Paul107 or the theology of the Hesychast tradition.108 From this
perspective, one could agree to Brian Pierce’s statement that “[w]hat Thich Nhat
Hanh and other teachers from the East are doing for the spiritual traditions of the
West today is to help us hear the voices of our own mystics again.”109 The doctrines
of Buddha-nature and the Holy Spirit might prove to be potent resources for further
dialogue in that direction.
290 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

NOTES

1. Cf. Robert H. King, Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh: Engaged Spirituality in an Age
of Globalization (New York and London: Continuum, 2003), 121.
2. Cf. Thich Nhat Hanh, Understanding Our Mind (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2006).
3. For an earlier analysis of Understanding Our Mind, see Mihaela Andronic, “Key Philo-
sophical Teachings of Thích Nhất Hạnh” (Master’s Thesis, University of Sunderland, 2011),
at https://www.academia.edu/8197188/To_be_is_to_Inter-be._Key_Philosophical_Teachings_
of_Thich_Nhat_Hanh, accessed August 15, 2021.
4. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 23.
5. Lambert Schmithausen, “Some Remarks on the Genesis of Central Yogācāra-
Vijñānavāda Concepts,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 46, no. 2 (2018): 265.
6. Cf. Triṃśikā 2, in Stefan Anacker (trans.), Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist
Psychological Doctor, revised ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2013), 186.
7. Cf. Brian E. Brown, The Buddha Nature: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha and
Ālayavijñāna, Buddhist Tradition Series 11 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991), 207.
8. Cf. Chengweishilun 9, in Francis H. Cook (trans.), Three Texts on Consciousness Only:
Demonstration of Consciousness Only by Hsüan-tsang, BDK English Tripiṭaka (Berkeley:
Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1999), 263; Nhat Hanh,
Understanding, 49.
9. Cf. Paul J. Griffiths, On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem
(La Salle: Open Court, 1986), 85; Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 49.
10. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 78.
11. Ibid., 79.
12. Cf. Chengweishilun 4, in Cook, Three Texts, 149.
13. Cf. Chengweishilun 3, in Cook, Three Texts, 61; Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 131.
14. Cf. Chengweishilun 3, in Cook, Three Texts, 64.
15. Cf. Chengweishilun 4, in Cook, Three Texts, 129–130; Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 93.
16. Cf. Chengweishilun 4, in Cook, Three Texts, 131; Triṃśikā 6, in Anacker, Seven Works,
186; Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 111–112.
17. Cf. Dan Lusthaus, “Vasubandhu/Xuanzang and the Problem of Consciousness,” in
Consciousness and the Great Philosophers: What Would They Have Said about Our Mind-Body
Problem? Eds. Stephen Leach and James Tartaglia (London and New York: Routledge,
2017), 31.
18. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 123.
19. Brown, The Buddha Nature, 218.
20. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 132.
21. Cf. Brown, The Buddha Nature, 222.
22. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 87–88.
23. Cf. Chengweishilun 11, in Cook, Three Texts, 299; Brown, The Buddha Nature, 213;
Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 115–117.
24. Cf. Sarah Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation (London and New York: Routledge,
2009), 25.
25. Majjhima Nikāya 10.47, in Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi (trans.), The
Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya (Somerville:
Wisdom Publications, 2015), 155.
26. See for example Majjhima Nikāya 2.3, in Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The Middle Length
Discourses, 91.
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 291

27. Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace,
Joy, and Liberation (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1998), 59; see also Peter Harvey, “Mindfulness in
Theravāda Samatha and Vipassanā Meditations, and in Secular Mindfulness,” in Buddhist
Foundations of Mindfulness, eds. Edo Shonin, William Van Gordon, and Nirbhay N. Singh
(New York: Springer, 2015), 116.
28. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 59.
29. Ibid., 48, 195.
30. Ibid., 23.
31. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 143.
32. Cf. Harvey, “Mindfulness,” 124. Its locus classicus is the Ānāpānasati Sutta (Majjhima
Nikāya 118, in Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses, 941–948), see also Nhat
Hanh’s commentary: Thich Nhat Hanh, Breathe, You Are Alive! Sutra on the Full Awareness
of Breathing (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2008).
33. Cf. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 75.
34. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 107.
35. Ibid., 219–220.
36. Cf. Majjhima Nikāya 39.8–11, in Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses,
364–366; Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 223–225.
37. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 152.
38. Ibid., 236–237.
39. Cf. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 172–174.
40. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 213.
41. Ibid., 237.
42. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 70.
43. Cf. Harvey, “Mindfulness,” 129; Majjhima Nikāya 10, in Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The
Middle Length Discourses, 145–155. Nhat Hanh’s commentary is Thich Nhat Hanh,
Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness (Berkeley: Parallax
Press, 2006).
44. Paul J. Griffiths, “Indian Buddhist Meditation,” in Buddhist Spirituality: Indian,
Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Early Chinese, ed. Takeuchi Yoshinori, World Spirituality 8
(New York: Crossroad, 1994), 37; see also Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing, 56.
45. Cf. Leo D. Lefebure, The Buddha and the Christ: Explorations in Buddhist and Christian
Dialogue, Faith Meets Faith Series (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993), 159.
46. Cf. Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajñaparamita
Heart Sutra (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1988), 3.
47. Cf. Lambert Schmithausen, “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics,”
Journal of Buddhist Ethics 4 (1997): 12.
48. Ibid., 13 (emphasis in the original).
49. Cf. Francis H. Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra (University Park and
London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977), 2.
50. As he explicitly states, cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 81.
51. Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd ed. (London and
New York: Routledge, 2009), 143.
52. Fazang used the water-wave metaphor based on the Dashengqixinlun, for details
see Whalen Lai, “Chinese Buddhist Causation Theories: An Analysis of the Sinitic
Mahāyāna Understanding of Pratitya-samutpāda,” Philosophy East and West 27, no. 3 (1977):
250–251, 256. Nhat Hanh frequently uses this metaphor, see for example Thich Nhat
Hanh, Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers (New York: Riverhead Books, 1999), 3–4.
292 BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES

53. Cf. Alfonso Verdu, The Philosophy of Buddhism: A “Totalistic” Synthesis, Studies in
Philosophy and Religion 3 (The Hague, Boston, and London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
1981), 78–79.
54. Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism, 144; see also Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 82: “The
one is the result of the all. What makes the all possible is the one.”
55. Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism, 144 (emphasis mine).
56. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 210–212.
57. Ibid., 106.
58. Ibid., 88; see also Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 222–225. For a further description see
Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and
the Ch’eng Wei-shih lun (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 509–514.
59. Cf. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 223.
60. Ibid., 223–224.
61. Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology, 511.
62. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 26.
63. Cf. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 54.
64. Cf. Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ (New York: Riverhead Books,
2007), 40.
65. Cf. Elise Anne DeVido, “Thích Nhất Hạnh’s Propagation of Mindfulness in the
West,” in Meditation in Buddhist-Christian Encounter: A Critical Analysis, eds. Elizabeth
Harris and John O’Grady (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2019), 224.
66. Ibid., 224–225.
67. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 11–13.
68. Ibid., 7.
69. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Reason and Revelation, Being and God (Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), 236.
70. Ibid., 245. Nhat Hanh quotes slightly incorrect: “God is not a person, but not less
than a person.” (Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 12; emphasis mine).
71. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 12–13.
72. Ibid., 9–10.
73. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 183.
74. See Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 194.
75. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 21.
76. Ibid., 123 (emphasis in the original).
77. Ibid.; see De Incarnatione 54, in Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione, trans.
Robert W. Thomson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 269: “For he [God] became man
that we might become divine : : : .”
78. Cf. Sallie B. King, “Transformative Nonviolence: The Social Ethics of George Fox
and Thich Nhat Hanh,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998): 11.
79. Cf. Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 175.
80. Nhat Hanh’s approach parallels more recent Christian pneumatologies discerning the
Spirit at work outside the confines of the church; for an introduction, see Stanley J. Samartha, “The
Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths,” The Ecumenical Review 42, nos. 3 and 4 (1990): 250–263.
81. Cf. Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Understanding Buddhism, Understanding Faith
(Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 2006), 111.
82. Ratnagotravibhāga 1.40, in Karl Brunnhölzl (trans.), When the Clouds Part: The
Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra (Boston and
London: Snow Lion, 2014), 367.
 MINDFULNESS, BUDDHA-NATURE, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 293

83. Schmidt-Leukel, Understanding Buddhism, 111.

84. David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-Nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a
Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet,
Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 13 (London: School of Oriental and African
Studies, 1989), 18–19.
85. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 13. He also calls both mindfulness and the Spirit
“agents of healing” (ibid., 14). For a critical view, see Robert Aitken, review of Living
Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist-Christian Studies 17 (1997): 253–254.
86. See Nhat Hanh, The Heart, 222–223: “All the seeds that can become the Great
Mirror Wisdom are already present in our store consciousness. We only have to water them.”
87. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 11.
88. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Understanding, 210–211.
89. For a comprehensive introduction to Nhat Hanh’s engaged Buddhism, see Sallie B.
King, “Thich Nhat Hanh and the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam: Nondualism in
Action,” in Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, eds. Christopher S.
Queen and Sallie B. King (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 321–363.
90. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 36–38 and Going Home, 45–46.
91. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 37.
92. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 46.
93. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 189–193.
94. Ibid., 37.
95. Ibid., 44.
96. Catherine Cornille, “Introduction: On Hermeneutics in Dialogue,” in Interreligious
Hermeneutics, eds. Catherine Cornille and Christopher Conway, Interreligious Dialogue Series
2 (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010), xiii.
97. Malcolm David Eckel, “‘Show Me Your Resurrection’: Preaching on the Boundary of
Buddhism and Christianity,” in Interreligious Hermeneutics, 153.
98. Ibid.
99. Cornille, “Introduction,” xix.
100. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 139–143.
101. Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, 151.
102. Cf. Nhat Hanh, Going Home, 97–98. Here, he speaks of the rediscovery of “the valu-
able jewels in the Christian tradition.”
103. Ibid., 7–8.
104. Ibid., 15.
105. Ibid., 16.
106. See Brian J. Pierce, OP, We Walk the Path Together: Learning from Thich Nhat Hanh
and Meister Eckhart (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005).
107. See Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Buddha Mind – Christ Mind: A Christian Commentary on
the Bodhicaryāvatāra, Christian Commentaries on Non-Christian Sacred Texts 9 (Leuven, Paris,
and Bristol: Peeters, 2019).
108. For an instructive comparison of āśrayaparāvṛtti in Asaṅga and apatheia in Evagrius
Ponticus, see Thomas Cattoi, “Apatheia and Āśrayaparāvṛtti: Meditation and Epistemic
Purification in the Philokalia and Yogācāra Buddhism,” in Meditation, 349–369.
109. Pierce, We Walk the Path, 21.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.