Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:43 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab Dorje wrote:
So if you have a guy with a gun who wants to kill people and you destroy the gun it is totally against Buddhist ethics?


You have to know for a _fact_ that he wants to kill people. When people act in [legally defined] criminal ways, it is well established that they lose certain rights, for example, the right to own and use a gun. If a man walks into a crowd with a gun and threatens to shoot, of course you are well within your rights to confront the assailant and relieve him of his weapon (if you are foolish enough to try). You do not have that right unless you know for a fact that he is doing to act in that way.

Quote:
Just because monkey wrenching doesn't fit into your personal world view doesn't mean it cannot be accommodated within the framework of Buddhist ethics.


Monkey wrenching cannot be accommodated within Buddhist ethics, since Buddhist ethics also requires that people obey the laws of the country they live in. Monkey wrenching is just vigilantism, plain and simple, and itself is a criminal act.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:03 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Malcolm wrote:
You have to know for a _fact_ that he wants to kill people. When people act in [legally defined] criminal ways, it is well established that they lose certain rights, for example, the right to own and use a gun. If a man walks into a crowd with a gun and threatens to shoot, of course you are well within your rights to confront the assailant and relieve him of his weapon (if you are foolish enough to try). You do not have that right unless you know for a fact that he is doing to act in that way.
So now you are saying that it is okay to destroy private property.

Okay, so tell of one instance of mining (for example) that has not been an ecological catastrophe. And then please explain to me why one should not defend the eco-system from destruction.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab Dorje wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You have to know for a _fact_ that he wants to kill people. When people act in [legally defined] criminal ways, it is well established that they lose certain rights, for example, the right to own and use a gun. If a man walks into a crowd with a gun and threatens to shoot, of course you are well within your rights to confront the assailant and relieve him of his weapon (if you are foolish enough to try). You do not have that right unless you know for a fact that he is doing to act in that way.
So now you are saying that it is okay to destroy private property.


No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property. It is an entirely different kind of thing.

Quote:
Okay, so tell of one instance of mining (for example) that has not been an ecological catastrophe. And then please explain to me why one should not defend the eco-system from destruction.


One can defend the ecosystem from catastrophe, but one must do so lawfully and non-violently. I have no problem with corporations such as BP being stripped of their property, legally, when they prove to be negligent in the conduct of their business. But I do not think it is right, or even ecologically sane, to blow up oil pipelines, transmission lines, and so on.

For example, look at all the harm people do like releasing animals from labs. This is just plain stupid as well as dangerous. This does not demonstrate any ecological awareness at all.

To Illustrate how support of monkey wrenching is inconsistent with Deep Ecology, we see that Naess writes:

In many Western countries, environmental struggle involves direct actions and violent confrontation. The norms of nonviolent group conflict as worked out by Gandhi and others exclude violence not only against the opponents, but also against their machinery and other equipment that, from a direct, causal point of view, destroy life and life conditions on a vast scale. The norms against so-called sabotage involving such equipment are based on deep attitudes that express themselves in cultural phenomena such as inochi and kuyo.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 204). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

As you can see, we Deep Ecologists do not support in any way violence against either people or property. We Buddhists should not either, unless the special conditions of clairvoyance that I mentioned manifest in ourselves, as in the case of the Bodhisattva when he was a sea captain.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 239
Quote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property.


But this is decided by secular law.

Secular law can be changed if that is what the majority want.

What if the capitalists use their ownership of the means of production in such a way as people decide that they should lose the right to use that property?
That isn't theft, it is disarming the harmful.

_________________
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
tellyontellyon wrote:
Quote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property.


But this is decided by secular law.



And in general Buddhist ethics holds that one must obey the laws of the country one is in.

Quote:
Secular law can be changed if that is what the majority want.


Yes, but it is not as easy as you think. And Buddhist ethics generally comes down on the conservative side when it comes to issues of political change. As the Buddha mentions in the Mahāparinibbana sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.


There is never a case where the Buddha predicts the success of a society where violent and radical change is imposed.

Quote:
What if the capitalists use their ownership of the means of production in such a way as people decide that they should lose the right to use that property?


Yes, if some country wishes to try nationalization of industries and banks through entirely peaceful means, Buddhists living in that country can of course be on either side of that decision, but if the decision is made to nationalize, they have nothing more really to say about it.

But of some citizens of a country decide to enact a violent revolution and seize banks and industries through force, Buddhist ethics would describe that as theft and no Buddhist should participate in that revolution. Not only this, it will not be successful, because those citizens would not be observing not only the seven conditions upon which a successful country is based upon, but not even one.

I never once said that Buddhists could not resist injustice. We can, but we need to do so with the principle of non-violence foremost in our minds and the understanding that as limited common people without the benefit of realization we really do not have the capacity to predict the outcomes of violent upheavals. In other words, when Buddhists enter into a social struggle they may be ready to die for their cause, but they have a higher ethical obligation to strive to preserve the live's of their "enemies" at all costs, even at the cost of their own lives.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:07 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Malcolm wrote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property. It is an entirely different kind of thing.
So you give the gun back after the situation has been "defused"???
Quote:
For example, look at all the harm people do like releasing animals from labs. This is just plain stupid as well as dangerous. This does not demonstrate any ecological awareness at all.
Animal liberation does not necessarily stem from an ecological consciousness. It's a different ballpark all together.
Quote:
As you can see, we Deep Ecologists do not support in any way violence against either people or property.
This is just not true. A true statement would be: "As you can see some of us Deep Ecologists..." And, anyway, the depth of your ecological consciousness was revealed in your answer to the issue regarding sterilisation of domesticated breeds of animals. Many Deep Ecologists would go so far as to promote the sterilisation of non-indigenous humans too. But really, it is all a juggling game, no matter which side of the non-violent fence you happen to situated. I have a deep respect for non-violent political struggle but one must realise that in all situations where non-violent struggle was applied, there were parallel liberation movements which involved armed struggle too.

PS Good luck trying to reconcile Deep Ecology with notions of private property. You're going to need it! ;)

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:53 am
Posts: 25
There's an old Russian joke about two peasants. One of the peasants had a cow to provide milk, cheese, and butter. The peasant had enough for his family, and enough to sell for some extra money. His envious neighbor didn't have a cow, and was very bitter. One day he was visited by a sorcerer who told him that he could ask for his heart's desire... anything he wanted, and it would be granted. The jealous peasant sat quiet for a few minutes, then replied, "I want you to kill my neighbor's cow."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:12 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Rickpa wrote:
There's an old Russian joke about two peasants. One of the peasants had a cow to provide milk, cheese, and butter. The peasant had enough for his family, and enough to sell for some extra money. His envious neighbor didn't have a cow, and was very bitter. One day he was visited by a sorcerer who told him that he could ask for his heart's desire... anything he wanted, and it would be granted. The jealous peasant sat quiet for a few minutes, then replied, "I want you to kill my neighbor's cow."
We have the same joke here in Greece only that it involves a goat and not a cow (not many cows here in Greece).

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab Dorje wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
No. I am saying that the man in question lost the right to use that property. It is an entirely different kind of thing.
So you give the gun back after the situation has been "defused"???


In the US, such a person is then deemed a felon, and as such as barred from owning any sort of firearms for life.


Quote:
This is just not true. A true statement would be: "As you can see some of us Deep Ecologists..."


If you are not following the thought of Arne Naess, you are not a Deep Ecologist.

Quote:
Many Deep Ecologists would go so far as to promote the sterilisation of non-indigenous humans too.


Those people are not Deep Ecologists, whatever else they may be. I think you are confusing the thought of the so called "Deep Greens" with Deep Ecology. Their thought is not consistent with either deep ecological ethics nor with Buddhist ethics:

But violence is a broad category of action; it can be wielded destructively or wisely. We can decide when property destruction is acceptable, against which physical targets, and with what risks to civilians. We can decide whether direct violence against people is appropriate.

Jensen, Derrick; Mcbay, Aric; Keith, Lierre (2011-01-04). Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet (Kindle Locations 1252-1253). Seven Stories Press. Kindle Edition.

As you can clearly see, the founder of Deep Ecology, Naess, is utterly opposed to this sort of thinking.


Quote:
But really, it is all a juggling game, no matter which side of the non-violent fence you happen to situated. I have a deep respect for non-violent political struggle but one must realise that in all situations where non-violent struggle was applied, there were parallel liberation movements which involved armed struggle too.


Those people who are engaged in violence merely condemn themselves to lower births. On this the Buddha was absolutely clear. The Deep Ecology movement has no room for violence. There are those who try to derive arguments for ecotage from Naess's thinking, things like tree spiking, destroying animal traps and so on. But Naess criteria for such acts is generally grounded in one's belonging to place, not urban youths who decide to go save a forest with which they have no kinship.

Quote:
PS Good luck trying to reconcile Deep Ecology with notions of private property. You're going to need it! ;)


It's not a problem at all. If one remains grounded in the thought of Naess, deep ecology and a market economy are not incompatible. He writes:

The deep ecology movement has in common with blue [right wing] politics its aversion to bureaucracy, its emphasis on personal enterprise and initiative, and a reluctance to take certain green utopias too seriously. With the old politics of the Western European kind the common ground is more obvious, the fight on the side of the underdog, solidarity with the underprivileged or the powerless, extension of care.

And:

Rich people who work in the world of business, but are supporters of the deep ecology movement, ask in all seriousness whether the green utopian societies must look so dreary. Why portray a society which seemingly needs no big entrepreneurs, only organic farmers,modest artists, and mild naturalists. A capitalist society is in a certain sense a rather wild society. We need some degree of wildness, but not exactly the capitalist sort. The usual utopian green societies seem so sober and tame. We shall need enthusiasts of the extravagant, the luxuriant, the big. But they must not dominate.
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.ph ... ew/432/708

So you see, Naess's thinking was not exactly pro-capitialist and not exactly anti-capitalist.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 239
Quote:
...belonging to a place



This sounds like a deep conservatism... Everything has a certain place, even the social order.. every plant ... every animal ... every species ... every race.... all living in the way, and in the place NATURE intended ... survival of the fittest... natural hierarchies.. with the richest and most powerful naturally at the top?


We have bad experience in Europe of those who want things to be more 'natural'. It can be a slippery slope:


Image

_________________
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:59 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Except, my dear Malcolm, there is more to Deep Ecology than just Naess. Earth First was a deep ecologist movement/organisation too you know. ;) I have to admit that I was always more partial to social ecology, deep ecology tips towards the right (cf Ecofascism) too easily.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab Dorje wrote:
Except, my dear Malcolm, there is more to Deep Ecology than just Naess. Earth First was a deep ecologist movement/organisation too you know. ;) I have to admit that I was always more partial to social ecology, deep ecology tips towards the right (cf Ecofascism) too easily.


One can espouse an ecocentric view without it being consistent with ecosophy, aka deep ecology.

On David Foreman's supposed "deep ecology", George Sessions write:

Lee is adamant that Deep Ecology has been the philosophy of Earth First! although she admits that most EF!ers read very little Deep Ecology philosophy, and that specific mention of Deep Ecology did not appear in the E.F! Journal until mid-1984 (pp.18, 37, 57). It is rather painful to read about some of the positions taken by the Foreman faction in the E.F! Journal: for example, Foreman arguing that even a nuclear war would not be that damaging to the Earth and would hasten the end of industrial society, his remark that "wilderness is the real world" (it's all real! - it's just that the rest has to be restored and reinhabited) and his remarks elsewhere that we should "allow Ethiopians to starve"; Christopher Manes suggesting that one solution to overpopulation would be to dismantle the medical technology designed to save lives, and of AIDS as Nature's solution to overpopulation; and Reed Noss writing of genetic "deep ecology elite" as a "chosen people" out to save the Earth (pp. 64, 68, 83-84, 92-3,101-3). [Paul Shepard and E.O. Wilson have claimed that all humans have the "wilderness gene" but that it is suppressed, especially in modern urban people.] Since many, but not all, of these articles appeared under various pseudonyms, this leads to speculation as to whether Foreman, Manes, and the others were merely exercising their rights as individuals to the free expression of radical and shocking (and perhaps misanthropic) ideas; whether these ideas were meant to express the philosophy of Earth First!; and/or whether they thought they were expounding ideas which were the natural outcome of Deep Ecology philosophy. If the latter, they were radically mistaken in their understanding of Deep Ecology philosophy as espoused by Naess and other Deep Ecology movement theorists.

Lee accurately points out that Edward Abbey's ideas, expressed mainly through his novels (and his association with Earth First!) "had inspired the founding of the movement" (p. 126). Given that "since Earth First!'s inception, Dave Foreman had served as its prophet and leader" (p. 105) together with Foreman's idolizing of Abbey, the predominant philosophy and ideology of Earth First! throughout the 1980's is probably best described, not as Deep Ecology, but rather as an idiosyncratic, somewhat misanthropic Abbey/Foreman version of ecocentrism, coupled with a monkey wrenching/"rednecks for wilderness" image that some people found offensive.


http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.ph ... ew/232/333

Again, if it is not consistent with Naess or Sessions and Duvall, it is not deep ecology.

Indeed, deep ecology has been critiqued as a conservative and even a right wing movement:

Devall and Sessions do not question the distribution or ownership of land. Their first principle of land management is to "encourage agencies, legislators, property owners and managers" to flow with natural processes. 'Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered' p.145

Deep ecology is not concerned with who should own land or whether land ownership is legitimate, but only with how it is treated.

At best deep ecology is apolitical, and though it claims to be beyond such distinctions, many feel deep ecology tends towards a right-wing perspective. Social ecologists and ecofeminists agree that not enough analysis is done by deep ecology of the social forces at work in the destruction of the biosphere.


http://www.thegreenfuse.org/deepcrit.htm#oppressive

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
tellyontellyon wrote:
Quote:
...belonging to a place



This sounds like a deep conservatism...


Deep ecology is deeply conservative. But not in the modern sense of the term.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 239
M,
Could you give us some idea of any practical steps that deep ecologists would engage in. It appears to be a perspective... but what do deep ecologists either do or not do?
What practical steps do you engage in?

_________________
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
tellyontellyon wrote:
M,
Could you give us some idea of any practical steps that deep ecologists would engage in. It appears to be a perspective... but what do deep ecologists either do or not do?
What practical steps do you engage in?


I told you already, I learned an ancient medical tradition, which does not rely on industrial medicine and will survive industrial civilization should it fail, and spent more than five years of my life doing so.

I studied this form of medicine as a direct outgrowth of my longstanding commitment to the principles of deep ecology as articulated by its founder, Arne Naess.

My commitment to deep ecology does not suggest that my approach is the only approach, as Naess said "The front is long", meaning that there is room for much diversity of thought in the ecological community. But while social ecology, ecofeminism and so on have useful things to say about social justice issues, etc., their approach is "shallow", meaning ultimately anthropocentric, and not deep. I also think the deep green resistance approach is shallow, and not deep because of their trenchant misanthropy. We can say that any ecological movement based on misanthropy is shallow.

Another point of Naess is that the blue/red political axis is irrelevant to deep ecology itself:

Now a short note on three great contemporary world-wide movements which call for grassroot activism.
The three movements are: the peace movement, the oldest and at present remarkably dormant. But if military expenditures are not rapidly decreasing from about 900 billion dollars a year, I expect it will revive. Then there are many movements I put together under the name 'the social justice movement'. It includes the feminist movement and part of the social ecology movement. As the third movement, one might perhaps also use the more vague term, radical environmentalism because to use the specific terminology of deep ecology will sooner or later elicit boredom and aggression. But the name 'radical environmentalism' smacks of the old metaphor suggesting humanity surrounded by something outside, the so-called environment of humans; it does not start with ecological concepts. And in the US it will take a long time before radicalism loses its connection with the political red-blue axis which now is irrelevant.

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.ph ... ew/432/708

Some people disagree with Naess. But fundamental to deep ecology is that one develops one's own ecosophy. Each person's ecosophy is personal. To understand this, you have to understand the apron diagram he and Sessions came up. He notes:

One main point in deep ecology is the deep argumentation, that is, argumentation from ultimate (philosophical, religious) premises, but there is room for very different sets of such premises.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 108). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

And:

The platform principles of the deep ecology movement can be grounded for individual supporters in a religion or an ultimate philosophy. There is a great diversity of religions and philosophies from which people can support these principles. In a loose sense, the deep ecology movement can be said to be derived from these kinds of fundamentals. The situation reminds us that a set of very similar or even identical conclusions may be drawn from divergent premises. The platform can be the same, even though the fundamental premises differ. One must avoid looking for one definite philosophy or religion among all the supporters of the deep ecology movement. Fortunately, there is a rich manifold of fundamental views compatible with the platform of the deep ecology movement. Supporters live in different cultures and have different religions. Furthermore, there is a plethora of consequences derived from the platform because of these and other differences.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 114-115). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

And:

Personally, I favor the kind of powerful premises represented in Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Hebrew philosophy, as well as in Western philosophy—namely, those having as a slogan the so-called ultimate unity of all life. They do not hide the fact that big fish eat small ones, but stress the profound interdependence, the functional unity, of such a biospheric magnitude that nonviolence, mutual respect, and feelings of identification are always potentially there, even between the predator and its so-called victim. In many cultures, identification is not limited merely to other living things but also to the mineral world, which helps us conceive of ourselves as genuine surface fragments of our planet, fragments capable of somehow experiencing the existence of all other fragments: a microcosm of the macrocosm.

Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 131-132). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.


So, I am a Buddhist practitioner with a long standing (27 years) commitment to a deep ecological outlook, and this is what informs my political outlook.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:31 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 997
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Thank you for your recent posts here, Malcolm (and to Greg and others for prompting them). Deep Ecology is something that has been on the fringe of my thinking for years and I now realise that there is more value in it for me if only I look into it more deeply and I will try to do so. Do you have any getting-up-to-speed recommendations for me?

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:27 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is not as easy as you think. And Buddhist ethics generally comes down on the conservative side when it comes to issues of political change. As the Buddha mentions in the Mahāparinibbana sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
Seems the Buddha didn't know much about imperialism.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:36 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Malcolm wrote:
Some people disagree with Naess. But fundamental to deep ecology is that one develops one's own ecosophy. Each person's ecosophy is personal. To understand this, you have to understand the apron diagram he and Sessions came up. He notes:

One main point in deep ecology is the deep argumentation, that is, argumentation from ultimate (philosophical, religious) premises, but there is room for very different sets of such premises.
In which case one cannot judge Earth First! and say that it was not a deep ecology movement. I believe that the whole issue between people like Naess and Earth First! was the theory vs practice divide. Talking the talk vs walking the walk. The members of Earth First! sacrificed their lives putting Deep Ecology into practice (direct action to protect an ecosystem) whereas Naess produced journals and received university tenures and state sponsored awards. BOTH had a role to play in the development of Deep Ecology both as a theory and as a practice.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab Dorje wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people disagree with Naess. But fundamental to deep ecology is that one develops one's own ecosophy. Each person's ecosophy is personal. To understand this, you have to understand the apron diagram he and Sessions came up. He notes:

One main point in deep ecology is the deep argumentation, that is, argumentation from ultimate (philosophical, religious) premises, but there is room for very different sets of such premises.
In which case one cannot judge Earth First! and say that it was not a deep ecology movement. I believe that the whole issue between people like Naess and Earth First! was the theory vs practice divide. Talking the talk vs walking the walk. The members of Earth First! sacrificed their lives putting Deep Ecology into practice (direct action to protect an ecosystem) whereas Naess produced journals and received university tenures and state sponsored awards. BOTH had a role to play in the development of Deep Ecology both as a theory and as a practice.


As pointed out, the architects and theorists of deep ecology do not consider Earth First! to be an expression of deep ecology. As for direct action, Naess was a direct action kind of person. He blocked access to a dam site for twenty years.

There are certain criteria that render one's view as "deep ecological", and lacking those, one cannot describe oneself as a deep ecologist no matter how ecocentric one's views may be. That is, the basis of one's philosophy must lead inevitably to the platform of deep ecology. It can be generated by different value systems such Buddhist, Christian or Philosophical values. The "deep" in deep ecology is a gloss for "nondual". When other systems are described as shallow, it means that they stem from a dualistic perspective of the world that does not take into consideration the intrinsic non-duality which underlies dependent origination. While not formally a Mahāyāna Buddhist himself, he was a nondualist, and Naess draws upon the two truth theory as well as the tathāgatagarbha theory as he understood them, but he is educated enough to understand that there are Christians nondualisms, Islamic nondualisms and so on. He pretty much clearly states that if your ultimate philosophy is not nondualist, then you will have a hard time arriving at a deep ecology platform.


Ideally it works like this:

One's ultimate premise forms the basis. This is termed level one. Upon that one builds one's platform principles, one's view, i.e. level two. Upon that, one establishes one's policies, one's meditation, if you will, level three; and finally, one engages in practical actions, one's conduct, i.e. level four.

The way he frames this for himself is as follows, his ecosophy:

(N = norm; H=hypothesis, exclamation points represent a value norm)
N1: Self-realization!
H1: The higher the Self-realization attained by anyone, the broader and deeper the identification with others.
H2: The higher the level of Self-realization attained by anyone, the more its further increase depends upon the Self-realization of others.
H3: Complete Self-realization of anyone depends on that of all.
N2: Self-realization for all living beings!

He then offers the following for the environment:

H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N3: Diversity of Life!
H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realization potentials.
N4: Complexity!
H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.
H7: Symbiosis maximizes Self-realization potentials under conditions of limited resources.
N5: Symbiosis!

My ecosophy would, and does, run something like the following:

N1 Tathagātagarbha!
H1 All sentients beings are innately buddhas.
H2 The highest goal in life to help all sentient beings achieve that buddhahood.
N2 Bodhicitta!
H3 The way help all sentient beings achieve buddhahood is the bodhisattva path
N3 Bodhisattva!

And so on.

The problem with Foreman's platform is that it excludes humans and is overly biocentric, it is therefore shallow as it is not grounded in nondualist philosophy.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Middle Way Politics
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Thank you for your recent posts here, Malcolm (and to Greg and others for prompting them). Deep Ecology is something that has been on the fringe of my thinking for years and I now realise that there is more value in it for me if only I look into it more deeply and I will try to do so. Do you have any getting-up-to-speed recommendations for me?

:namaste:
Kim


Well, there is Sessions and Devall's "Deep Ecology: LIving as if Nature Mattered.

But a better resource is:

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.ph ... rch/search

Here are the archives that go back to 1983, thirty-one years of journal issues on deep ecology. It is very eclectic, and there are extensive articles on the role of Buddhism in deep ecology, as well as Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism and so on.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group