Buddhism and the Natural Path
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
So, I have been wrestling for a while with a question that's refusing to resolve itself. A kind of clash of ideologies if you will. First, the natural path is something that's laid out before us from the moment we are born. We have body, mind and spirit, and in the course of doing normal things we experience emotions and sensations. Food, hunting, gathering. Shelter. Love, sex, babies. This is our heritage, what evolution made us to do.
Then along comes Buddhism, with its Noble Eightfold Path, and says, don't do some of these things, they are unwholesome and damaging. Try to eliminate clinging and these unskillful emotions, those roots. Don't kill stuff. In fact it gives a bunch of precepts. If you're a monk you get a ton more and are not supposed to have sex either. Which most other religions also do.
My question then is about deviating from the natural path. Many areas of medicine and growth, physiotherapy, bodybuilding, nutrition, and so on show that it is at least good to work with the natural path, not against it. So why should we assume that in the case of religion we should move away from the natural path?
It's a puzzle, would take suggestions on a postcard 
Comments
Wish you were here
[too literal?]
Here are the benefits of meditation ...
http://opcoa.st/0gjZn
I hear Buddhism is pretty good too ... natural or not ... have they been lying to me?
It's true there's a "natural path" that nature has endowed us with. But the universe and nature doesn't give a damn about suffering. If warfare, rape and killing didn't come naturally to us, we wouldn't have spent our entire history doing it. That doesn't make it the right thing to do, not if you want to eliminate suffering.
The great thing about Buddhism is, the Noble Truths don't say anything at all about what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't demand you take up arms and inflict your moral beliefs on society. It makes a simple observation that you are unhappy, that we are all unhappy with life, and here's why and here's what we have to do, if we want to do something about it. Your choice.
Almost everyone goes through life from birth to death experiencing Dukkha. Always have, always will. But it's just as natural for some of us to look around and wonder if there's a different way to live that eliminates at least some of the suffering we inflict upon each other.
Since the 'natural path' seems to be composed in part of making things up (you know, stuff like "Buddhism"), separating the one from the other or differentiating strikes me as a bit over the top. Isn't it enough "to do" this or "don't do" that and shoulder the responsibility either way?
I'm not sure there is a real conflict here. What is the 'natural path'? Is it raw submission to impulse? Or is it, more broadly speaking, the gradual, stepwise solving of problems that inevitably present themselves in the course of living?
Surely there must be, progression on this path - both for the individual and for the species. We have evolved very large brains but have not yet, it seems, learned to use them very well. Some have learned better than others and to them many of us look for guidance.
Possibly the various precepts might be regarded as shortcuts on the natural path, a way to bypass some of the many steps that must be taken before the mind is able to function on a more refined level. Shortcuts are difficult for an individual to take, even if the individual is able to see them - they usually run counter to impulse. But for a group, they are a little easier.
I'm not sure that it is even possible to move away from the natural path, but we can travel it the long hard way, or the shorter hard way.
I'd say the natural path is growth by evolutionary standards. Nurturing our young was made possible by the evolution of the brain in birds and mammals. If things didn't come together, we simply wouldn't have made it past the reptilian stage or at least not the way we have. By "we" I mean life, not just humans.
It would seem that same mechanism applies to us as a species in compassion.
Some of these things go along with growth, some of these things help narrow the path for those who wish dedication to the path itself and some are impossible if taken to literal extremes.
My take is that there are many sub-paths along the path and the Buddhist process steers us away from getting too caught up in the distractions some of the sub-paths have to offer.
There is always a middle way.
Some very cool answers, thank you! Food for thought...
Nature may seem to have things set up a perfect way, but even among animals, not all simply follow suit. Humans have spent the whole of their existence finding ways to circumvent nature. Building shelter, growing our own food, controlling the climates inside our homes. Medical care. I don't see why the nature of who we are, our Buddha Nature, should be any different. To say nature has a set plan is to assume there was some sort of intelligent design, and that isn't a belief I hold. I think there is a lot of room for change and for things to take untold numbers of directions.
Including making the choice to not have sex in order to lessen distractions. It doesn't mean everyone has to do it. Just like everyone doesn't have to be an accountant. We all choose different paths through life. I don't agree with the negativity you seem to have associated with some of the precepts, @Kerome. I don't see or read those things, like sex, as "bad". It's just a fact that they are more likely to cause unhealthy attachment. It doesn't mean we can't have healthy sex or relationships and in fact there are quite a few major teachers in Buddhism that have said that the lay person path is more conducive to practice because of the real-life experience.
If you (whoever) view something as bad, or as a loss, or as a negative aspect, then that is what it is because you experience it as you label it. But labeling and comparing things as good/bad, loss/gain, negative/positive is just another part of what Buddhism encourages us to move past. And when you get glimpses of that through your practice, then it makes more sense. Things can just 'be' whatever they are. Labels are only necessary for communication. But it is possible to see the world and all the many paths humans (and even animals) take without the labels and comparisons. And remember those in any religious tradition struggled to put words to these things. Their writings of their experiences are just the best they could do. And then even more is lost in translation. So while we might read something and perceive a judgement of 'bad' within it, you can read another translation of the same passage and it has a completely different feel. Don't get hung up on the feel of something that was translated in a different time and different culture. Don't get hung up on the small details and miss the vast forest for the trees.
The only restrictions we have to living by "nature's rules" is in our own mind.
Natural can be unrealistic at times. Right?
I'd say nature is completely realistic and the only game in town, really.
Through natural means we have impulses and instinct and through natural means we learn to tame them.
There is nothing unnatural about Buddhism as far as I can tell and Buddha was neither magician nor illusionist.
While the topic is hot, will someone please point out to me the particulars of "the unnatural way?" A perverse little dragon within doesn't want to die without savoring a bit of that.
A simple distinction that came to me is that the natural way is only concerned with physical survival and passing on of genes.
Buddhism and many other paths offer a way for achieving mental happiness.
Maybe using the tools for physical survival doesn't work that well for creating longer term mental happiness. Like sex, comfort, rich food, etc.
I don't think Buddhism is advocating we move away from the natural path....it just makes one become more 'aware' of its middle [way]....by adding some extra lighting to the path so to speak
Realistically, we should not act out our impulses, greed, hate, and delusions. Although they are natural things, they would only subject us to suffering. And if we constantly subject ourselves then we are far from being real in my opinion.
It seems that anything that happens would have to be the natural way, as the natural world allows it to exist. Note that "natural" doesn't necessarily mean good. Lots of things are natural that are harmful to ourselves and others. Kind of similar to the idea that everything that happens has to be the right thing in that moment because everything that lead up to it could only lead exactly there. I think a lot of our idea of what is "normal" is exactly what leads to so much division among us. In the animal world, this is common. Strange or disabled animals either are killed or they at the very least do not find mates to continue their "bad genes." But humans are not that way. We can appreciate there is something special and worthy about us all because of our inherent Buddha nature. Not that animals don't have this, but as humans we know this and we can work towards doing better. Not all of us are there yet, obviously. But we know it is possible. Human diversity is vast and amazing. The normal vs abnormal is just another way to compare and divide. It's just another way for us to compare to someone else and determine what we think is right and what they think is not. It's no way to live.
"Comparison is the thief of joy." Teddy Roosevelt (maybe)
The way I was envisaging it, the natural way has within it elements of the path of least resistance, the Tao's watercourse way, the idea of natural growth.
Anything that sprouts from great mental effort in another direction would be the unnatural way, or perversely going uphill when downhill takes you where you need to go. The mind, being subject to delusion and ignorance, can take you in lots of directions which are not in accordance with where you need to go. Even the Buddha refused to answer certain questions, saying they were unbeneficial.
Tee Hee
I think we haz pre death plan for dragons ...
Impulse doesn't really go together with greed, hate and delusion and there are many good things about impulse.
Transforming the three poisons will cause impulses to change.
When or if we get to the point that thought doesn't control action then all we would be living is through impulse.
Impulse is just a call to action and everything is natural.
Look what humans do. Wholesale destruction of the environment, extinction of species and genocidal wars. Of course we also have beautiful works of art, music, taming of environment etc. What comes naturally isn't always good.
Do good
Avoid evil
Purify your minds.
This is the teachings of the Buddhas.
We're just a bunch of intelligent apes, but we can do something about our monkey minds.
The natural path leads me to think along the lines of survival of the fittest, which as a compassion being I find tough to live by. I think as humans we are more highly evolved and can make ethical decisions based on learned wisdom, not just reaction to environment or circumstances. For instance my dog will kill/eat anything that moves, just because he can, even a butterfly.
@Tara1978. Developing those ethical standards seems to require a lifetime. Learning to balance justice and mercy must require a wise man/woman.
Although people tend to romanticize nature, truth is that most of nature is ugly and brutal. The natural path would not have given us computers, medicine, even a house to live in (we'd be living in the forest, naturally). So natural path is nothing special. In fact, the fight against nature goes on, whether or not we like it.
As a great man once said, "Abolish the power of man over man, and increase the power of man over nature."
Man over nature doesn't always work out so well. Look at the numerous areas we have dammed up rivers for our gain over nature and done nothing but wreak havoc on ecosystems and eventually our own cities when the dams fail or the rivers behind them constantly flood. Just one example of many. Nature won't be controlled by man.
Nature is only ugly and brutal when you look at it from a human point of view. We look and compare and think "Boy, I'm glad I am not a rabbit, living in fear of being eaten by the wolf." But I think our brand of fear is probably worse, as the rabbit might live in fear for moments, until he either escapes or is killed. Humans live in fear for much of their lives. Animals starve, are killed by other animals, killed by humans directly, killed by poison, by traps, by cars. But I still think that overall, their lives our freer than ours are. They just are. And then they are done. Looking in at the natural world (which I am blessed to experience regularly as we live in a wilderness area) it looks quite a bit better than the human world these days. Life is brutal. Nature or otherwise. It's just how it is. Nature is not more brutal or more ugly. It just is what it is. We choose to see it as more brutal.
What seemed impossible yesterday is possible today. Internet would have sounded like a fairytale to a guy in the 1970s but today it is a normal part of our lives. Certain diseases were like death sentences in the past, but we have found cures/vaccines. So in that sense some aspects of nature have been controlled to a great degree. With more technology, more and more of nature will be conquered.
What seems impossible today may become possible or even easy tomorrow with the help of technology. Naysayers who say (for example) that we can't eliminate AIDS, well, not long ago people said the same about small pox and many other deadly diseases.
I don't see nature as something to conquer. Are there things we can, should, and do work on to improve the lives of people and other beings? Yes. I hope that continues. But to succeed, balance is needed. A full human conquering of nature will be our undoing. We are working pretty hard at it right now. We are of nature. We are part of nature. We need nature. Nature doesn't need us.
We are saying the same thing using different words. AIDS is part of nature, so eliminating it is like overcoming a challenge (thrown at us by nature). So in that sense, yes, we are slowly conquering nature. Nature is raw matter, we manipulate it to build many things, including the house we live in and the computer we're using. So perhaps 'manipulate' nature is a better way of saying it than conquer nature? Either way all this progress gives us a certain power over nature.
Personally I think conquering nature is not a particularly harmonious path, I feel it is better for us all to think of ourselves as nature's gardeners.
Conquering nature is a very 19th century approach, without the sensitivity that seeing some things become nearly extinct should have given us.
Yes. Initially, futuristic sci-fi space programmes would presume that all extra-terrestrial aliens were hostile, aggressive and out for domination, so had to be destroyed. (It all began with "Cowboys and Indians", Indians being the presumed different alien and therefore hostile element....)
People are more enlightened now (with a small 'e')....
For us to conquer nature we would have to be apart from it. The whole "man versus nature" bit goes against the grain and gives us a kind of delusion that we are not natural. That we must work against nature to survive but that isn't how it goes. We have to work with nature or we don't work at all.
Are we unnatural? Were we put here against natural means?
We learn as we go and that we can question our past to grow into the future means that we can do better. We are nature gone conscious and growing a conscience so it's taking a while but nurturing is natural and compassion is natural.
Until we stop pitting ourselves against we will never see how beautiful we all are. Again by "we" I mean everyone, not just humans.
Ever since humans have been humans we've been manipulating and controlling nature to our advantage... stone tools... fire. To me the problem isn't taking a non-natural path but its our lack of wisdom and insight into the deeper and longer impacts of our manipulations.
I like the world of today with our ability to communicate, feed people, prevent and cure disease, etc. The safety and stability in the average person's life is really at a historical high point. For sure though our meddling has made some very serious and real problems, some of which even threaten society and life is a whole.
I wouldn't want to go backwards to a natural life. But I would like to go forwards to a world that understood the importance of ecosystems and nature for our health and happiness.
Some 'Natural' things are not so easy to accept....
Hey, we learn as we go.
Do we though...?
Does that include nature in spirituality? In many ways I think that religion and spirituality don't do a very good job of including the natural.
Most religions don't. Of all the religions I know, Buddhism actually does a better job than most....
Paganism is good at that!
I suppose it depends on what aspects of nature.
I'd say yes in the sense of understanding our greater connection to the whole. But no in the sense of giving in to many of our natural inclinations.
For the most part.
Two steps forward, one step back.
Turkeys don't celebrate Xmas unlike humans. Human "turkeys" understand the significance of Christmas - there lies the crux of the problem. The "turkeys" realise there is a problem but cannot find the solution. The "best" solution is to celebrate "life" and find other turkeys who can help them forget about Christmas by celebrating.
So yes - turkeys are "luckier". And no - there is no going back to being real turkey. The fruit from the tree of knowledge has been eaten.
"From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Man can't survive without Nature...But Nature can survive without Man
Humans are part of nature. Humans are cruel.
But nature is not cruel.
Hmm...
Nature would be a lot better off without man, who is like a destructive virus.
I am no fan of humanity, but the cruelty in humans is just a reflection of cruelty in nature, that's all. Competition, bullying, violence, rape, killing, etc. are found in animals too. It has simply assumed a different form in human society. So we can say all nature is cruel, which includes humans. But we can't say nature is all good and man has somehow corrupted it.
What you say is partially true @techie ^^.
I do feel that most of us are trying to overcome our lesser tendencies. Even I am on days of the week ending in 'Y'.
Why?
I feel because of the Buddha's primary insight that existence is not perfect. Existence does not have a component of Design about it - unless it was designed by a very fishy Cod.
I would also suggest that the realised or awake component uniquely accessible to humans, is not tied to the physical, animal, cruel 'natural' instincts.
We need more Buddhas. All efforts welcome.
That's not entirely true. There are many acts which man alone commits. Take for example crucifixion or terror or genocide. Mankind because it is conscious has the ability to take nature's occasional cruelty and amplify it tenfold for the purpose of creating fear in other conscious beings.
If it wasn't the apes it would have been someone else.
I admit I find it odd that so many Buddhists have such a negative outlook.
Most other species reproduce endlessly and consume all the natural resources they can, they just usually have some form of natural limit such as predation or resource limits, think of how rampant invasive species become. Any natural balance other species have with the environment doesn't come about through some restraint or virtue. Humans have been able to overcome these natural limits. It seems to me like we'll either eventually hit our resource limit and face collapse or use our smarts and restrain ourselves. Either way nature wins.
If you ended that with "Mister Anderson" you could be quoting Agent Smith.
There is something beautiful about nature just doing what it does, without man's cities, roads or plantations. But at the same time intuition tells me it is not impossible for man to live in harmony with nature - we haven't been doing a very good job of it. I think for a lot of people there isn't as much of a connection or respect for nature.
But the way nature works in us and around us is a bit of a miracle. Our emotions and thoughts are wild and undisciplined, and we try during our lives various methods to educate and train ourselves, from a scientific university course to living as a Buddhist.
Perhaps we will end up with something fairer than we have now, perhaps a third of the planet set aside as a nature reserve, for Eco tourism.
Good you noticed the reference. He works at my local Tescos actually.