The Dharma of Natural Systems - Joanna Macy

[Encephalon]

[starhawk]

Hi Blasto!

 

Have you read the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tse) story about Liezi, the Teacher Huzi, and the shaman on the mountain?

 

The shaman, merely a manipulator of shallow ends, is not one with Tao but we discover this gradually.

 

The Teacher gradually reveals his inner nature to the shaman in several steps in response to a challenge. The final state the Teacher shows is called "Not yet emerged from my source"

 

Read it and see what happens.

 

So, the story and the end of the story provides commentary about your post.

Edited May 14, 2011 by starhawk

[Encephalon]

Hi Blasto!

 

Have you read the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tse) story about Liezi, the Teacher Huzi, and the shaman on the mountain?

 

The shaman, merely a manipulator of shallow ends, is not one with Tao but we discover this gradually.

 

The Teacher gradually reveals his inner nature to the shaman in several steps in response to a challenge. The final state the Teacher shows is called "Not yet emerged from my source"

 

Read it and see what happens.

 

So, the story and the end of the story provides commentary about your post.

 

Perhaps you can humor me with your own feedback?

[doc benway]

I'll add a comment that is something that bothers me about Buddhist ideology as well as all others.

The ideology or conceptualization of reality seems to be given more emphasis than the experience of awakening.

I personally feel this runs contrary to the fundamental message of Buddhism. Just as Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture are emphasized as the foundation of Christian awakening, Buddhist doctrine and scripture does the same.

That is, you must see the world in this way or else you will not achieve awakening and relief of your suffering.

 

I call bullshit.

 

Perhaps handing someone a conceptual recipe can be of some limited assistance in putting their feet on the proper path but offering any particular ideology or method as an accurate and correct interpretation of the nature of reality is imprecise and inaccurate. It is reality that comes first. The words and concepts are a clumsy and limited attempt at expressing reality through human thought. When we do our own work of thoroughly understanding and experiencing ourselves and connecting to the universe through our own heart and mind and spirit, then we will know reality. Then we no longer need the words and concepts.

 

So as much as I like this post, Scott, the author seems to attached to the intellectual argument. She has too much belief in her argument. She needs to trade that belief for faith. Faith that when she opens herself up totally to the truth through awareness of everything that is going on both inside and outside of her, then she will know the truth. And the truth is not possible to capture in a method, ideology, or concept, even something as elegant as dependent origination.

[Encephalon]

I'll add a comment that is something that bothers me about Buddhist ideology as well as all others.

The ideology or conceptualization of reality seems to be given more emphasis than the experience of awakening.

I personally feel this runs contrary to the fundamental message of Buddhism. Just as Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture are emphasized as the foundation of Christian awakening, Buddhist doctrine and scripture does the same.

That is, you must see the world in this way or else you will not achieve awakening and relief of your suffering.

 

I call bullshit.

 

Perhaps handing someone a conceptual recipe can be of some limited assistance in putting their feet on the proper path but offering any particular ideology or method as an accurate and correct interpretation of the nature of reality is imprecise and inaccurate. It is reality that comes first. The words and concepts are a clumsy and limited attempt at expressing reality through human thought. When we do our own work of thoroughly understanding and experiencing ourselves and connecting to the universe through our own heart and mind and spirit, then we will know reality. Then we no longer need the words and concepts.

 

So as much as I like this post, Scott, the author seems to attached to the intellectual argument. She has too much belief in her argument. She needs to trade that belief for faith. Faith that when she opens herself up totally to the truth through awareness of everything that is going on both inside and outside of her, then she will know the truth. And the truth is not possible to capture in a method, ideology, or concept, even something as elegant as dependent origination.

 

I honestly find her treatment of what characterizes the psychological reality of an awakened state, freed from the delusions that egocentrism creates, a bold and brilliant move, even more so in that this work was a comparative analysis between systems theory and the buddhist doctrine of mutual causality, which are so elegantly reinforcing that the two together offer a potent explanatory power. The Buddhist doctrine of mutual causality is not Macy's. It is the intellectual wing of Buddha's teaching, set apart from the moral teachings that most people think of when they think of Buddhism.

 

Her book was so extraordinarily well received by the contemporary world of Buddhist scholars that I can only conclude that I have misrepresented her work, either by omission of pertinent facts or faulty delivery. It's been a staple of mine for 20 years as I try to wrap my head around the mystical dimension of environmental awareness, which buddhism and Taoism both speak to with intensity. Might there be a more ambitious treatment of the subject? Please point me in the direction if you see it.

[doc benway]

I honestly find her treatment of what characterizes the psychological reality of an awakened state, freed from the delusions that egocentrism creates, a bold and brilliant move, even more so in that this work was a comparative analysis between systems theory and the buddhist doctrine of mutual causality, which are so elegantly reinforcing that the two together offer a potent explanatory power. The Buddhist doctrine of mutual causality is not Macy's. It is the intellectual wing of Buddha's teaching, set apart from the moral teachings that most people think of when they think of Buddhism.

 

Her book was so extraordinarily well received by the contemporary world of Buddhist scholars that I can only conclude that I have misrepresented her work, either by omission of pertinent facts or faulty delivery. It's been a staple of mine for 20 years as I try to wrap my head around the mystical dimension of environmental awareness, which buddhism and Taoism both speak to with intensity. Might there be a more ambitious treatment of the subject? Please point me in the direction if you see it.

I haven't read the book and I'm a far cry from an authority (or even being well read) in Buddhist or Daoist matters.

It may well be an absolutely brilliant treatise on the topic. And to be fair, her words did resonate with my experience.

But no matter how brilliant or insightful an analysis, at the end of the day words are words.

They are a so-so descriptive tool and no substitute for the real thing.

 

Authorities sometimes present their ideas and arguments as if the idea or the argument is the truth and an acceptance of such words is a pre-requisite to the experience. There just seemed to be a bit of this type of attitude in this author, or at least what I read above. Perhaps I'll take a stab at reading more of her work.

In reality, it's the other way around. The experience is the pre-requisite to understanding and the words are never adequate.

 

And I don't think you misrepresented her work at all. I just tend to take issue with scholarship when it comes to experiential matters, that's all. It's too easy to be side-tracked by intellect and I find this to be a weakness when it comes to a scholarly approach to this subject matter. I get that from my Shifu and also from my own experience.

[Encephalon]

I haven't read the book and I'm a far cry from an authority (or even being well read) in Buddhist or Daoist matters.

It may well be an absolutely brilliant treatise on the topic. And to be fair, her words did resonate with my experience.

But no matter how brilliant or insightful an analysis, at the end of the day words are words.

They are a so-so descriptive tool and no substitute for the real thing.

 

Authorities sometimes present their ideas and arguments as if the idea or the argument is the truth and an acceptance of such words is a pre-requisite to the experience. There just seemed to be a bit of this type of attitude in this author, or at least what I read above. Perhaps I'll take a stab at reading more of her work.

In reality, it's the other way around. The experience is the pre-requisite to understanding and the words are never adequate.

 

And I don't think you misrepresented her work at all. I just tend to take issue with scholarship when it comes to experiential matters, that's all. It's too easy to be side-tracked by intellect and I find this to be a weakness when it comes to a scholarly approach to this subject matter. I get that from my Shifu and also from my own experience.

 

Joanna would be pointing to the moon also. Nevertheless, comparing mutual causality with general systems theory is one hell of a way to construct a road map for westerners without confusing the map for the terrain. I don't believe she fell prey to this, but I may be too enthralled by her. We hail from the same neighborhood and she's a dear friend of my favorite professor.

 

There ya go...objectivity right out the window.

[doc benway]

Joanna would be pointing to the moon also. Nevertheless, comparing mutual causality with general systems theory is one hell of a way to construct a road map for westerners without confusing the map for the terrain. I don't believe she fell prey to this, but I may be too enthralled by her. We hail from the same neighborhood and she's a dear friend of my favorite professor.

 

There ya go...objectivity right out the window.

It would be very cool to talk to her personally about this stuff.

It generally takes a few seconds to know.

[Seth Ananda]

[Encephalon]

Fantastic! I love you Blasto!

 

Oh my!