My Response to the Critique of “Comfort Food Buddhism”

The following is my response to Tom Pepper’s article on “comfort food Buddhism,” published in August 2012. Pepper’s critique centers on the idea that contemporary Western interpretations of Buddhism often distort its teachings into a form of self-help or spiritual escapism. He specifically mentioned Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen monk who has become very popular in the Western world. He argues that many practitioners seek a version of Buddhism that provides personal peace and comfort without addressing deeper issues of self, social structures, or suffering.

Pepper believes that this diluted version of Buddhism focuses too much on mindfulness and meditation as tools for stress relief, ignoring the more radical elements of Buddhist philosophy, such as the rejection of a permanent self (Anatta) and the critique of materialism and social systems. He also critiques the commodification of Buddhist practices, which reduces Buddhism to a set of techniques divorced from its ethical and philosophical roots. In essence, comfort food Buddhism offers superficial relief rather than challenging practitioners to engage with the more transformative aspects of Buddhist thought.

In what follows, I highlight the historical and socio-economic factors that shape Buddhism’s evolution, showing that the issues Pepper critiques are not specific to…