Hemlocks and Trout

[Ishin]

Hmmmmm well these responses are very thought provoking. My simple intent was to just illustrate how interconnected everything really is, that we in our habitual minds seem to see things as completely separate entities, when in reality there are no separate entities.

Juki-My thought is we act according to our conscience, putting right action into play ( I can hear Jundo's voice here) All the while knowing that at the same time there is no problem, there is only problem/no problem. You did prompt me to ask this question...

What EXACTLY do we mean by save all sentient beings? I am not sure saving all sentient beings means rescuing trout from environmental challenges. Not that we should not try to. What are we saving all sentient beings from? Death, destruction? My take on this is different. Are we not saving all sentient beings from Dukka?

Yugen you always have such a beautiful way of expressing things. I also see this as reacting according to the suffering around us, doing what can be done, recognizing the impermanence despite our effort. The great mandala of life.

VanMeerdervoot- I understand what you are saying, but maybe the reason is someone let an invasive species into the country that is devasting the local environment. In nature aphids don't jump continents. I don't think sitting idle and letting the whole world go to destruction is the answer.

Gassho
C

[Juki]

Hello all,


Clark, my question was prompted by the fact that I had just finished a book Jundo recently recommended, David Loy's "Money, Sex, War, Karma." The issue of our responsibility vis-a-vis the environment was addressed by Loy very thoughtfully in a chapter titled "Healing Ecology." He notes that when we discuss ecological issues in terms of impermanence and interconnectedness, we must also consider the precepts and vows.


Anyway, Loy makes the following statement:


"Dependence on sophisticated, ever more powerful technologies tends to aggravate our sense of separation from the natural world, whereas any successful solution must involve accepting that we are part of the natural world. That, of course, also means embracing our responsibility for the well being of the biosphere, because its well being ultimately cannot be distinguished from our own well being."


The chapter concludes with Loy stating that "we discover the meaning we seek in the ongoing, long term task of repairing the rupture between us and mother earth, our natural ground. This healing will transform us as much as the biosphere."


So, I take it from this reading that we need to understand first that we are part of nature, not separate from and superior to it. We also have a duty to take care of the biosphere, because that is taking care of ourselves. Ultimately, however, both ourselves and the elements of the biosphere are impermanent and subject to decay.

so, where does that leave us?


Gassho,
Juki

[Shinzan]

For a long time, I struggled intellectually with this apparent dichotomy -- radical environmentalism versus "the earth abides." But being out in the wilds, or out in the backyard, or even just washing dishes, the interconnectedness and the evanescence is so immediate, so visceral. For me, where this leaves me is trying to hold both perspectives, interbeing and impermanence, at once. In the moment, trying to live in tune with my local environment, while being blown away and renewed every time I look up at he stars at night. Washing a head of cabbage like it was the Buddha's head, and yet a cabbage that will rot soon if I don't consume it to sustain this fragile body.

_/\_ Shinzan