[Buddha-l] Course of Nature (2)

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Jim Peavler schreef:
> But, the notions of good and evil, of vice or virtue, or progress or 
> regress are human nature. It is part of who we are. I think, for 
> example, that, as a natural human, it is evil to kill, steal, lie, and 
> to pollute our planet. (I recognize that it is also human nature for 
> some to think killing, or stealing, or lying are good or necessary.) I 
> think it is one thing for "Nature" to cause mass extinctions by use of 
> meteors, volcanos, methane eruptions, changing climates or sea-levels, 
> or whatever means, but it is not OK for humans, part of whose nature 
> it is to know the effect their activities have on the planet and its 
> organisms, to go ahead and cause severe changes that we believe are 
> bad for the planet and its organisms. (I recognize that it is also 
> part of human nature not to give a damn about all of that.)
>
> So when is Nature moving forward -- or backward. When is the supposed 
> direction a good thing to follow and when is it not? Global warming is 
> change. Is it "natural? Of course it is. It is physics. The cause of 
> the change is clearly to a large degree human caused. Are humans 
> unnatural? Of course not. Can they commit unnatural acts? I reckon 
> not. But, on the other hand it is natural (now) for humans to 
> understand quite a lot about what causes or might cause certain 
> effects. It is natural for some of us to think that the effects of 
> burning too much fossil fuel is having an effect that we think is 
> harmful to our planet. It is natural for us to want our government and 
> others to try to slow the effect we can clearly see coming.
>
> It is also natural for others to see the changes as opportunity. 
> Melting arctic ice opens land known to be lying over vast amounts of 
> even more fossil fuels. Some think that warmer climate will improve 
> agriculture and help solve the ethanol (woops, I meant food) shortage 
> (overlooking rampant desertification as has happened to mid-continents 
> when the weather got warm over the last millions of years or so).
>
> To be brief. I, a natural man, don't accept the idea that "Nature" 
> moves in any direction, neither backward nor forward. That to suggest 
> that it does suggests that change has a purpose -- that Nature is 
> going somewhere toward some kind of goal. Nothing I see in nature 
> would suggest such an assumption.
> To suggest such a thing as diretion in change would also suggest that 
> there must be something somewhere that determines or determined what 
> that direction would be.
>
> If humans follow the direction that overall existence is moving, then 
> they are probably the same ones who thought they perceived the 
> direction. So different humans see existence moving in a direction, 
> and the wise ones will try to align themselves with that direction. 
> Hebrews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Quakers, and some Buddhists 
> apparently, see existence moving in quite diverse directions, the 
> following of which results in quite diverse paths to follow. I am 
> certain that suicide bombers are giving their lives to further what 
> they see as the direction nature or some deity is moving.
>
> I, personally, like the Quaker or Buddhist paths, but, I think the 
> path to righteousness (or enlightenment, or moral rectitude, etc.) can 
> be determined without assigning some direction or goal to overall 
> existence. These are all concepts that were invented and enforced by 
> natural humans.
>
> But:
>
> Everything changes all of the time. What is is what is.
>
Nature is the expanding universe, the future explosion of the sun and 
the unification of the continents which will make the earth virtually 
uninhabitable for humans. But nature is also birds and flowers in the 
spring. John Reynolds once said to me that nature is for the human race 
what your body is to you. In a Buddhist sense nature is the correlate of 
group consciousness (if there is such a thing) or group karma. In itself 
it is not good like in Daoism or Stoicism, it is not bad like in 
Gnosticism either.  If you ruin it, it makes existence miserable for 
you. In that sense there should be some natural ethics. If you polute 
nature with radioactive materials you make your own life perhaps a 
little easier, but you make life hell for others. Since you can only 
live and survive in a group, you should support your group or tribe. 
What most people still don't grasp is that in these days the network of 
relations is not limited to the group you see everyday, but to the whole 
human race. Such little things as using and throwing away plastic bags 
has huge consequences all over the world (see
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/is-there-a-natu.html). Most 
people don't see this, because of their tribal instincts, which have 
been build up during thousands of years. So nature is destroying itself. 
We can stop it if we get smart, is this nature as well? The Buddhist 
point of view would be that it's not. Living a wholesome life and 
reaching nirvana is more like outsmarting nature. Greenpeace is not nature.


-- 


Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms  
Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 
Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio