This section is from p106-115 (beginning at ‘Our Collective Predicament’ and ending just before ‘A Collective Englightenment?’).
In this part of the book, David Loy looks at how different civilisations and cultures have viewed their relationship with the natural world and natural order of things. The one we have now in the west is not the only one to have existed, or the best model for doing things.
There is always a balance in any society between the rights of individuals and collective responsibility. In previous societies, individual rights were curtailed in the pursuit of what was seen as the collective good. This clearly had downsides for individuals. Now, the freedom of individuals is mostly seen as sacrosanct in the west, which has largely been a very good thing, but also created issues when there are problems which require collective solutions.
Loy also argues that our lack of role as part of a greater collective has given rise to existential angst about our place in the world, other than for our own benefit.
If we have no role, why should we worry about what we do?
The argument is developed further that the idea of progress is now almost universally seen as increases in personal consumption and technological advancement, rather than contentment and well-being. Studies have shown that beyond a certain level of comfort, out happiness does not rise with increasing wealth and possessions, yet our culture acts as if it does with the dopamine hit of retail therapy mistaken for actual happiness.
David Loy sees the sense of lack that we strive to fill coming from our estrangement from the natural world, and the answer to filling that being found in reconnection rather than retail.
In Buddhist terms, he points out that, as with our lack of self, we do not need to return to nature, as we have never left it, we just need to realise it. We cover up our non-self by constantly reinforcing our created small self, just as we cover up our reliance on nature by trying to accumulate enough to feel independent and self-reliant, although that can never be the case. We are nature just as we are Buddha nature and the dharmakaya, and not realising that will always cause problems.
Questions for this week:
How much does what David Loy says about our collective predicament ring true to you?
Although it seems obvious how we can tackle this predicament for us an individuals (just as with overcoming the ignorance of our self), how can we make this happen on a collective scale?
In what ways do you feel both a part of and apart from nature?
Gassho
Kokuu
In this part of the book, David Loy looks at how different civilisations and cultures have viewed their relationship with the natural world and natural order of things. The one we have now in the west is not the only one to have existed, or the best model for doing things.
There is always a balance in any society between the rights of individuals and collective responsibility. In previous societies, individual rights were curtailed in the pursuit of what was seen as the collective good. This clearly had downsides for individuals. Now, the freedom of individuals is mostly seen as sacrosanct in the west, which has largely been a very good thing, but also created issues when there are problems which require collective solutions.
Loy also argues that our lack of role as part of a greater collective has given rise to existential angst about our place in the world, other than for our own benefit.
If we have no role, why should we worry about what we do?
The argument is developed further that the idea of progress is now almost universally seen as increases in personal consumption and technological advancement, rather than contentment and well-being. Studies have shown that beyond a certain level of comfort, out happiness does not rise with increasing wealth and possessions, yet our culture acts as if it does with the dopamine hit of retail therapy mistaken for actual happiness.
David Loy sees the sense of lack that we strive to fill coming from our estrangement from the natural world, and the answer to filling that being found in reconnection rather than retail.
In Buddhist terms, he points out that, as with our lack of self, we do not need to return to nature, as we have never left it, we just need to realise it. We cover up our non-self by constantly reinforcing our created small self, just as we cover up our reliance on nature by trying to accumulate enough to feel independent and self-reliant, although that can never be the case. We are nature just as we are Buddha nature and the dharmakaya, and not realising that will always cause problems.
Questions for this week:
How much does what David Loy says about our collective predicament ring true to you?
Although it seems obvious how we can tackle this predicament for us an individuals (just as with overcoming the ignorance of our self), how can we make this happen on a collective scale?
In what ways do you feel both a part of and apart from nature?
Gassho
Kokuu
Comment