Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I live on the border of a protected wilderness area that is more than a million acres. To the north, across the Canadian border, the same wilderness expands even farther in their own provincial park. There are no roads, no buildings, no structures at all allowed. On 99% of the lakes, you cannot even use a motor on your boat. Planes must fly at a higher altitude so they don't disturb the peace and solitude of the area. It is only accessible by canoe/kayak and by foot. It offers an opportunity like few other places for true solitude and observance of nature as it is, mostly uninterrupted by people. Even if a fire starts, they observe and let it do it's thing as long as it is not threatening structures. It is a unique perspective to watch nature balance itself without much interruption.
It's true, animals do what we perceive to be horrible things to each other. But it is not out of malice, it is out of being driven strictly by biological urges. Male black bears will kill cubs in order to mate with the female (because she will go into estrus if she is not nursing). But that isn't out of hatred of the cubs or rape of the female, but the unknown to them desire to spread their own genes. As humans we can understand those things and move past them if we so choose. Thankfully, that is what most of us choose. But just because we understand and have determined that killing babies to mate with their mothers is unacceptable, doesn't mean that it is cruel in the eyes of nature. It just is. Nature doesn't know cruelty. That is a human attribute that we have assigned.
@karasti sounds wonderful. Here is a closely managed area near where I am that I filmed today, on the outskirts of London. They cut and bale the grass to simulate crops, so that the soil is impoverished and encourages wildlife associated with such land. They plant heather and traditional trees and wild roses. Land that is former landfill for rubbish is becoming a wetland ... it is a tiny area compared to real wilderness but diverse ...
We want lizards and raptor birds.
We are so enriched by our natural environment, by nature.
@techie said:
The natural path would not have given us computers, medicine, even a house to live in we'd be living in the forest, naturally).
"Natural" seems to be equated with being stagnant and uncouth. In my view, progress and harmony, wish for betterment and aquiring knowledge are all naturally goals for human existence.
It follows that the ethics of Buddhism are an attempt at guidance towards such natural states as happiness and contentment, and the wish to live in harmony with others.
You have construed a dualism that does not exist in nature. Maybe one has to go through things that appear unpleasant and are thus labeled unnatural, but that is a personal judgement.
Some fail miserably at figuring out what what makes them content but that is just a consequence of wrong judgement and wrong choices. Naturally.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@techie said:
The natural path would not have given us computers, medicine, even a house to live in we'd be living in the forest, naturally).
"Natural" seems to be equated with being stagnant and uncouth. In my view, progress and harmony, wish for betterment and aquiring knowledge are all naturally goals for human existence.
It follows that the ethics of Buddhism are an attempt at guidance towards such natural states as happiness and contentment, and the wish to live in harmony with others.
You have construed a dualism that does not exist in nature. Maybe one has to go through things that appear unpleasant and are thus labeled unnatural, but that is a personal judgement.
Some fail miserably at figuring out what what makes them content but that is just a consequence of wrong judgement and wrong choices. Naturally.
@Tara1978 said:
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.
My dog would LOVE to kill something... Anything! Until this moment i'm pretty sure she has never succeeded in her 10 years of life. I'm mean, i'm certainly not rooting for her, but i also don't want to see her fail. Pet ownership is strangely complex when Buddhism jumps in. Heh.
@SpinyNorman said:
Nature would be a lot better off without man, who is like a destructive virus.
As if "nature" was something apart from man. It is not though. Also, man is the only animal that seems to practice preservation. So...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hmmm what about GMO crops, salmon, styrofoam, silicone breast...?
Where aside from nature do you suppose these things come from?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
from it, but not always of it....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Not sure what that means but I don't think there is an unnatural world this stuff comes from.
@SpinyNorman said:
Nature would be a lot better off without man, who is like a destructive virus.
As if "nature" was something apart from man. It is not though. Also, man is the only animal that seems to practice preservation. So...
I don't see a lot of preservation, it is mostly exploitation, treating nature like a commodity.
There are now belatedly some attempts at preservation, but it feels like too little too late.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Hmmm what about GMO crops, salmon, styrofoam, silicone breast...?
Where aside from nature do you suppose these things come from?
From mankind. I think mankind does a lot of things which come from long memes and traditions which don't really come from our natural path... If you were to remove humankind from the world, it would be a very different planet.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The way we have modified ordinary, everyday foodstuffs for our own simple convenience is entirely human intervention. It's a far cry from what we would consider 'natural'.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
I'd agree that it isn't too smart or that it often leads to devastating effects but not that it doesn't happen naturally.
It's like saying honey is unnatural because bees make it or that we see it as harmful so it couldn't be natural.
The ingredients come from nature and a form of nature mixed it together.
Mankind likes to try and separate itself from the environment but that has caused a lot of suffering. We can't fix a problem with the same mind-set that created it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2016
ironically, honey is the only substance produced in Nature that we cannot reproduce. And its shelf-life is indefinite. Nothing else 'natural' (food-wise), even comes close.
Everything else - we can interfere with mechanically, or chemically.
I think we're getting or terminology definitions mixed up again.
So let's define Natural - all of us - as we see it, in relation to this discussion.
Do you mean the distinction between naturally occurring and man-made?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2016
I just want to know what the individual/personal definitions of 'natural' are, to members.
Maybe then, we can hone the discussion more meaningfully, but it seems to me (as with so many other words/topics) what one person means by 'natural' may not hold that meaning true, for others....
'Natural' to me, means occurring within a specific surrounding native to that element, and contributing to its flourishing, without hindrance or interference.
A coral reef, is natural.
A coral reef, on a sunken ship, is natural, but has human inclusion.
Seaweed is natural.
confining seaweed to an environment where cultivation is possible, on a grand scale, in order to supply a demand - is natural.
Feeding it with different chemicals or nutrients to accelerate its growth, productivity and abundance - is NOT natural. To me. but it's not necessarily wrong.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica, I do get what you mean and can agree with your statement as well, don't get me wrong. I would say that it is misguided instead of unnatural just because the word seems to indicate a false dichotomy.
I don't have much time right now but I'll have to try and reformulate my point.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@David said: @federica, I do get what you mean and can agree with your statement as well, don't get me wrong. I would say that it is misguided instead of unnatural just because the word seems to indicate a false dichotomy.
I don't have much time right now but I'll have to try and reformulate my point.
Would you at least agree that there are some things that are unnatural? Plastic pollution of the oceans for example, or genetically modified 'chimera' organisms, or a nuclear fission reactor? There are a lot of things that are man-made which are not in any way close to nature.
I think to say that everything that exists is 'natural' is short sighted and doesn't properly account for man's influence on his environment. Where do you draw the line? I think a jute bag, despite being threaded and woven, is still a natural product. Once you start chemically treating things in a way that doesn't occur in nature, I'd say it's no longer natural.
Ultimately everything that our universe allows "is what it is", and so in that way you could call it natural. But the practical distinction that most people today use, is that is what is natural is made of materials occurring freely in nature.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Natural as opposed to what, I think is the important distinction here.
Natural vs man made is where most are coming down.
I think the distinction @David is making is maybe natural vs supernatural.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Never mind what you think David's distinction is.
What do YOU think 'natural' is...?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: @federica, I do get what you mean and can agree with your statement as well, don't get me wrong. I would say that it is misguided instead of unnatural just because the word seems to indicate a false dichotomy.
I don't have much time right now but I'll have to try and reformulate my point.
Would you at least agree that there are some things that are unnatural? Plastic pollution of the oceans for example, or genetically modified 'chimera' organisms, or a nuclear fission reactor? There are a lot of things that are man-made which are not in any way close to nature.
I could agree that this stuff wouldn't be found without mankind but I couldn't agree that it isn't natural to find it with mankind around.
I think to say that everything that exists is 'natural' is short sighted and doesn't properly account for man's influence on his environment. Where do you draw the line?
I don't really.
I think a jute bag, despite being threaded and woven, is still a natural product. Once you start chemically treating things in a way that doesn't occur in nature, I'd say it's no longer natural.
Ultimately everything that our universe allows "is what it is", and so in that way you could call it natural. But the practical distinction that most people today use, is that is what is natural is made of materials occurring freely in nature.
Distinctions most people use today divides man from nature.
That's a big part of the problem in my estimation.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@David, from what you say, therefore, it seems that you have no personal definition of 'natural'... you're saying that everything existent is 'natural'?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@federica said:
Never mind what you think David's distinction is.
What do YOU think 'natural' is...?
Alright, I guess that is what I think too. So I'm kind of in agreement with @David, man is a part of nature so in that sense whatever man does can be considered natural.
It is useful too though to say that dumping plastic into the oceans isn't part of the natural environment and is harmful. The important part isn't the semantics of the word but determining what is harmful or beneficial for ourselves and the planet. The word natural in this sense is an imperfect shorthand for beneficial since there are plenty of natural things that are harmful.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well that's a good point; so, even if (by your and @David's definition) everything to be found - both man-made and not man-made - should, or could be considered 'natural' it doesn't mean it's a good thing, when it's found in a way that actually is damaging or detrimental to its environment. 'Natural' things, by your definition, are not always good, when they contribute to an imbalance that is biologically, ecologically, environmentally or socially damaging.
Right....?
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
Never mind what you think David's distinction is.
What do YOU think 'natural' is...?
Alright, I guess that is what I think too. So I'm kind of in agreement with @David, man is a part of nature so in that sense whatever man does can be considered natural.
It is useful too though to say that dumping plastic into the oceans isn't part of the natural environment and is harmful. The important part isn't the semantics of the word but determining what is harmful or beneficial for ourselves and the planet. The word natural in this sense is an imperfect shorthand for beneficial since there are plenty of natural things that are harmful.
I'm happy with the conventional definition - from Google's dictionary:
natural
ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"
It at least allows us to make useful comparisons between how the world would have been without man's interference, and how it currently is. It's an important point of reference for tracking man's impact on the environment.
The fact that we are coming across different understandings is a bit of a surprise to me, since it is a word in common usage...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2016
@Kerome I too tend to favour that - or those - definitions...
@federica said:
Well that's a good point; so, even if (by your and @David's definition) everything to be found - both man-made and not man-made - should, or could be considered 'natural' it doesn't mean it's a good thing, when it's found in a way that actually is damaging or detrimental to its environment. 'Natural' things, by your definition, are not always good, when they contribute to an imbalance that is biologically, ecologically, environmentally or socially damaging.
Right....?
I would further opine that anything found outside its natural ambience of existence, is Unnatural; just as a flood or earthquake is labelled a 'natural disaster' so an oil-spill or a gull choked and restrained by a plastic drinks can holder, isn't.... the pastic bags, condoms and sanitary tampon holders found washed up on a beach are anything BUT natural....aside from being disgusting, that is....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Kerome said:
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
Getting back to your original question, I think the prevention or denial of some things, to Monks is a discipline designed to help them detach more easily from the "objects of Desire" which go up to making dukkha and keep us in Samsara.
It's not the use or adoption of these things that is detrimental; it's the increased desire for them, the dependence upon them, that can also, in some cases lead to addiction and unhealthy behaviours, in the form of hard-to-break habits.
Opium is natural. But have too much of it....
Sex is definitely an attachment, as can be seen on many forums where Buddhist men seek to break a porn/masturbation habit (I think we had a discussion that touched on this topic a short while ago)... But as any layperson knows (and pardon that pun) a good lay, is a good lay!
I have met someone addicted to bodybuilding, much to the detriment of his physique, which was definitely showing the strain, but he seemed reluctant to even consider stopping it.
Nutrition. How many people do you know simply can't stop eating when by any standard, they should definitely have had enough? Don't we all glut a bit at Christmas? Enjoy the excess of the YuleTide feast?
Believe me, as an Italian, my kitchen is full of 'naturally-good stuff! But (certainly not in recent years) I have been known to nurse that postprandial Christmas bloat!
So, to coin a phrase, "A little of what you fancy does you good", but I think the Buddha recognised what too much of a good thing can do - remember his provenance, remember is close-to-death fasting....
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@federica said:
Never mind what you think David's distinction is.
What do YOU think 'natural' is...?
Alright, I guess that is what I think too. So I'm kind of in agreement with @David, man is a part of nature so in that sense whatever man does can be considered natural.
It is useful too though to say that dumping plastic into the oceans isn't part of the natural environment and is harmful. The important part isn't the semantics of the word but determining what is harmful or beneficial for ourselves and the planet. The word natural in this sense is an imperfect shorthand for beneficial since there are plenty of natural things that are harmful.
I'm happy with the conventional definition - from Google's dictionary:
natural
ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"
It at least allows us to make useful comparisons between how the world would have been without man's interference, and how it currently is. It's an important point of reference for tracking man's impact on the environment.
The fact that we are coming across different understandings is a bit of a surprise to me, since it is a word in common usage...
Alright, I'm not attached to a definition. I think both notions work depending on the context, so for most things the above way is how I use it.
Talking about natural in a mysterious or mystical way though you might use it in opposition to supernatural. Is postmortem rebirth a natural occurrence, does it behave according to natural laws that we just don't understand, or does it supersede natural law? Is postmortem rebirth a natural or a supernatural (or imaginary for those so inclined) phenomena?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@person said: ...Talking about natural in a mysterious or mystical way though you might use it in opposition to supernatural. Is postmortem rebirth a natural occurrence, does it behave according to natural laws that we just don't understand, or does it supersede natural law? Is postmortem rebirth a natural or a supernatural (or imaginary for those so inclined) phenomena?
This isn't really an answer to the main topic or original question, and is a diversionary discussion.
It focuses entirely on a tangential course; perhaps opening a new thread on 'natural' and 'supernatural' may be interesting; but I don't think the context applies to the thread-starter point....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2016
@Kerome said:
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
Evolution gave us the ability to manipulate the environment and it's only reasonable that we should try to be more responsible.
On that list of seven items I only see one that Buddha didn't want anyone doing (afaik) and that's hunting. For everything else there's moderation and monks have taken on responsibilities that don't really line up with being a parent.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said: ...Talking about natural in a mysterious or mystical way though you might use it in opposition to supernatural. Is postmortem rebirth a natural occurrence, does it behave according to natural laws that we just don't understand, or does it supersede natural law? Is postmortem rebirth a natural or a supernatural (or imaginary for those so inclined) phenomena?
This isn't really an answer to the main topic or original question, and is a diversionary discussion.
It focuses entirely on a tangential course; perhaps opening a new thread on 'natural' and 'supernatural' may be interesting; but I don't think the context applies to the thread-starter point....
I gave my two cents on the main topic when the thread came around for the first time. I only jumped in to try to say that I think @David makes a valid point when he says that man is a part of nature, but then somehow got pulled into a semantic debate about the meaning of the word natural.
My overall point has been to say that what natural means depends on the context. Bringing it back to the OP, it's about the distinction between our biological roots and religious paths. So idk both man made vs untouched and supernatural vs natural seem to fit.
But honestly I really don't care that much about this so however you want to define is fine.
So why should we assume that in the case of religion we should move away from the natural path?
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
^^This. And I might add that we are part of nature, yet there seems to be this strong desire to separate ourselves from it, conquer it, and bend it to our will. We struggle with nature, it struggles back. In a way it seems like wresting with ourselves.
Buddhism to me is not telling us to deviate from the natural path as much as it is telling us to make friends with it and accept who we are so we no longer struggle or wrestle.
The precepts are a tool to help us focus on the path and filter out distractions.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I think the real danger is that we won't notice how essential nature is to our lives until it is too late. Mankind is terraforming this planet, to borrow a term from sci-fi, but instead of making it fit for Earth's biome we are reducing it to a very small subset of what it was. It was a tremendously vibrant world, full of life, but instead we are responsible for the planet's sixth major extinction event.
To say that man is part of nature is ultimately true, but practically the way we behave shows a sharp division between the way mankind lives and the way nature governs the rest of the planet. Certainly there is a lot of justification for the way the word natural is commonly defined.
But I don't think mankind has yet found a good way to co-exist with the planet. The bottom line is that the more people there are, the fewer resources there are per person. If you live in a planet friendly way, the best way to live is to use less.
Which strangely gels well with the rules the Buddha set up for his monks. But there is much less guidance on this for the lay people. I would be very interested in what the Buddha would have to say about it, if he were alive today.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I was searching for a particular image yesterday evening, and came across, by chance, some photos of man's interaction with animals.
I can't unsee certain pictures.
God, we can be a disgusting species sometimes....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person said: ...Talking about natural in a mysterious or mystical way though you might use it in opposition to supernatural. Is postmortem rebirth a natural occurrence, does it behave according to natural laws that we just don't understand, or does it supersede natural law? Is postmortem rebirth a natural or a supernatural (or imaginary for those so inclined) phenomena?
This isn't really an answer to the main topic or original question, and is a diversionary discussion.
It focuses entirely on a tangential course; perhaps opening a new thread on 'natural' and 'supernatural' may be interesting; but I don't think the context applies to the thread-starter point....
I gave my two cents on the main topic when the thread came around for the first time. I only jumped in to try to say that I think @David makes a valid point when he says that man is a part of nature, but then somehow got pulled into a semantic debate about the meaning of the word natural.
I must not have done a good job at making my point or something because I'm pretty sure it's sound.
Maybe it's because it's sort of like preaching to the choir here when someone says mankind has to stop separating itself from the environment.
My overall point has been to say that what natural means depends on the context. Bringing it back to the OP, it's about the distinction between our biological roots and religious paths.
And there's the rub. I don't think there's too much of a distinction there when considering the religious experience in context with our chemistry and how the triune brain system evolved.
We measure sentience by the level of self awareness of any given organism. We can distinguish between self and other and we distinguish between mankind and the natural world.
However, it's like we sometimes take evolution for granted as if it's something that happened instead of something that is happening.
As Buddhists maybe we are biased in the assertion that our next step is to see that we are not really separate from the environment at all.
I really don't think we can help by pointing fingers. All we can really do is help where we can and influence those around us to do the same.
If we were all working together we would probably have spread to another planet with this one thriving. We are so afraid of running out of resources we kill each other over the resources of this one planet instead of tapping into and sharing in the abundance that surrounds us on all sides.
We have to live in harmony with nature but that doesn't mean we have to live in a tree.
We do not fully understand nature, therefore, we can't truly differentiate between natural and unnatural. The more we research and understand nature, the more we are realizing a need for change.
We have only begun to want change from our destructive ways it seems. It is natural to want to be happy and free of suffering, so we need to find natural ways for that to happen instead of contributing to short term unnatural ways.
Until the day comes where something is invented that makes me people happy for their entire life, until then we have to depend on nature and just live naturally.
We have to live in harmony with nature but that doesn't mean we have to live in a tree.
But if we did, I hope we can do it Ewok style.
Seems like a plan. Natural seems to have something to do with harmony perhaps, as you say. We can be a very self destructive and unnatural species. Part of which is our tendency to dominate, exploit and subjugate our environment. Which is quite natural for animals. I wonder what will happen?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
We have to live in harmony with nature but that doesn't mean we have to live in a tree.
But if we did, I hope we can do it Ewok style.
Seems like a plan. Natural seems to have something to do with harmony perhaps, as you say. We can be a very self destructive and unnatural species. Part of which is our tendency to dominate, exploit and subjugate our environment. Which is quite natural for animals. I wonder what will happen?
It's weird. I don't have faith in beliefs but I seem to have faith that there will come a time where there are more of us awake than not.
That for very obvious reasons including the evolvement of humanity on a personal, social and global level, is the plan.
The great mystics and insight developers, the awake, are always aware and working towards towards such a possibility.
Heaven on Earth? Nirvana and Purelands in this very existence? Of course. It is the only course worth pursuing.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
That's why I like Star Trek so much. Too bad it took a genetics war.
@Brownbuddha said:
"sharks have no natural enemies"...except man. :-)
And bigger sharks. But seriously, it's disgusting the way all those sharks are being slaughtered for shark-fin soup, which I heard has to be heavily flavoured anyway.
And there is still some whaling going I believe? Even more disgusting.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2016
Some of us seem to go so against the grain that it's hard to see our place in the natural world.
On the other hand, imagine where we would be if none of us learned the discipline of curbing our appetites or the benefits of compassion.
Comments
Less egocentric really. Less human-centric?
I live on the border of a protected wilderness area that is more than a million acres. To the north, across the Canadian border, the same wilderness expands even farther in their own provincial park. There are no roads, no buildings, no structures at all allowed. On 99% of the lakes, you cannot even use a motor on your boat. Planes must fly at a higher altitude so they don't disturb the peace and solitude of the area. It is only accessible by canoe/kayak and by foot. It offers an opportunity like few other places for true solitude and observance of nature as it is, mostly uninterrupted by people. Even if a fire starts, they observe and let it do it's thing as long as it is not threatening structures. It is a unique perspective to watch nature balance itself without much interruption.
It's true, animals do what we perceive to be horrible things to each other. But it is not out of malice, it is out of being driven strictly by biological urges. Male black bears will kill cubs in order to mate with the female (because she will go into estrus if she is not nursing). But that isn't out of hatred of the cubs or rape of the female, but the unknown to them desire to spread their own genes. As humans we can understand those things and move past them if we so choose. Thankfully, that is what most of us choose. But just because we understand and have determined that killing babies to mate with their mothers is unacceptable, doesn't mean that it is cruel in the eyes of nature. It just is. Nature doesn't know cruelty. That is a human attribute that we have assigned.
@karasti sounds wonderful. Here is a closely managed area near where I am that I filmed today, on the outskirts of London. They cut and bale the grass to simulate crops, so that the soil is impoverished and encourages wildlife associated with such land. They plant heather and traditional trees and wild roses. Land that is former landfill for rubbish is becoming a wetland ... it is a tiny area compared to real wilderness but diverse ...
We want lizards and raptor birds.
We are so enriched by our natural environment, by nature.
"Natural" seems to be equated with being stagnant and uncouth. In my view, progress and harmony, wish for betterment and aquiring knowledge are all naturally goals for human existence.
It follows that the ethics of Buddhism are an attempt at guidance towards such natural states as happiness and contentment, and the wish to live in harmony with others.
You have construed a dualism that does not exist in nature. Maybe one has to go through things that appear unpleasant and are thus labeled unnatural, but that is a personal judgement.
Some fail miserably at figuring out what what makes them content but that is just a consequence of wrong judgement and wrong choices. Naturally.
Pretty much.
If it's unnatural, it doesn't exist.
"If it's unnatural, it doesn't exist"
Hmmm what about GMO crops, salmon, styrofoam, silicone breast...?
My dog would LOVE to kill something... Anything! Until this moment i'm pretty sure she has never succeeded in her 10 years of life. I'm mean, i'm certainly not rooting for her, but i also don't want to see her fail. Pet ownership is strangely complex when Buddhism jumps in. Heh.
As if "nature" was something apart from man. It is not though. Also, man is the only animal that seems to practice preservation. So...
Where aside from nature do you suppose these things come from?
from it, but not always of it....
Not sure what that means but I don't think there is an unnatural world this stuff comes from.
I don't see a lot of preservation, it is mostly exploitation, treating nature like a commodity.
There are now belatedly some attempts at preservation, but it feels like too little too late.
From mankind. I think mankind does a lot of things which come from long memes and traditions which don't really come from our natural path... If you were to remove humankind from the world, it would be a very different planet.
The way we have modified ordinary, everyday foodstuffs for our own simple convenience is entirely human intervention. It's a far cry from what we would consider 'natural'.
I'd agree that it isn't too smart or that it often leads to devastating effects but not that it doesn't happen naturally.
It's like saying honey is unnatural because bees make it or that we see it as harmful so it couldn't be natural.
The ingredients come from nature and a form of nature mixed it together.
Mankind likes to try and separate itself from the environment but that has caused a lot of suffering. We can't fix a problem with the same mind-set that created it.
ironically, honey is the only substance produced in Nature that we cannot reproduce. And its shelf-life is indefinite. Nothing else 'natural' (food-wise), even comes close.
Everything else - we can interfere with mechanically, or chemically.
I think we're getting or terminology definitions mixed up again.
So let's define Natural - all of us - as we see it, in relation to this discussion.
Do you mean the distinction between naturally occurring and man-made?
I just want to know what the individual/personal definitions of 'natural' are, to members.
Maybe then, we can hone the discussion more meaningfully, but it seems to me (as with so many other words/topics) what one person means by 'natural' may not hold that meaning true, for others....
'Natural' to me, means occurring within a specific surrounding native to that element, and contributing to its flourishing, without hindrance or interference.
A coral reef, is natural.
A coral reef, on a sunken ship, is natural, but has human inclusion.
Seaweed is natural.
confining seaweed to an environment where cultivation is possible, on a grand scale, in order to supply a demand - is natural.
Feeding it with different chemicals or nutrients to accelerate its growth, productivity and abundance - is NOT natural. To me. but it's not necessarily wrong.
@federica, I do get what you mean and can agree with your statement as well, don't get me wrong. I would say that it is misguided instead of unnatural just because the word seems to indicate a false dichotomy.
I don't have much time right now but I'll have to try and reformulate my point.
Would you at least agree that there are some things that are unnatural? Plastic pollution of the oceans for example, or genetically modified 'chimera' organisms, or a nuclear fission reactor? There are a lot of things that are man-made which are not in any way close to nature.
I think to say that everything that exists is 'natural' is short sighted and doesn't properly account for man's influence on his environment. Where do you draw the line? I think a jute bag, despite being threaded and woven, is still a natural product. Once you start chemically treating things in a way that doesn't occur in nature, I'd say it's no longer natural.
Ultimately everything that our universe allows "is what it is", and so in that way you could call it natural. But the practical distinction that most people today use, is that is what is natural is made of materials occurring freely in nature.
Natural as opposed to what, I think is the important distinction here.
Natural vs man made is where most are coming down.
I think the distinction @David is making is maybe natural vs supernatural.
Never mind what you think David's distinction is.
What do YOU think 'natural' is...?
I could agree that this stuff wouldn't be found without mankind but I couldn't agree that it isn't natural to find it with mankind around.
I don't really.
Distinctions most people use today divides man from nature.
That's a big part of the problem in my estimation.
@David, from what you say, therefore, it seems that you have no personal definition of 'natural'... you're saying that everything existent is 'natural'?
Alright, I guess that is what I think too. So I'm kind of in agreement with @David, man is a part of nature so in that sense whatever man does can be considered natural.
It is useful too though to say that dumping plastic into the oceans isn't part of the natural environment and is harmful. The important part isn't the semantics of the word but determining what is harmful or beneficial for ourselves and the planet. The word natural in this sense is an imperfect shorthand for beneficial since there are plenty of natural things that are harmful.
Well that's a good point; so, even if (by your and @David's definition) everything to be found - both man-made and not man-made - should, or could be considered 'natural' it doesn't mean it's a good thing, when it's found in a way that actually is damaging or detrimental to its environment. 'Natural' things, by your definition, are not always good, when they contribute to an imbalance that is biologically, ecologically, environmentally or socially damaging.
Right....?
I'm happy with the conventional definition - from Google's dictionary:
natural
ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"
It at least allows us to make useful comparisons between how the world would have been without man's interference, and how it currently is. It's an important point of reference for tracking man's impact on the environment.
The fact that we are coming across different understandings is a bit of a surprise to me, since it is a word in common usage...
@Kerome I too tend to favour that - or those - definitions...
I would further opine that anything found outside its natural ambience of existence, is Unnatural; just as a flood or earthquake is labelled a 'natural disaster' so an oil-spill or a gull choked and restrained by a plastic drinks can holder, isn't.... the pastic bags, condoms and sanitary tampon holders found washed up on a beach are anything BUT natural....aside from being disgusting, that is....
Getting back to your original question, I think the prevention or denial of some things, to Monks is a discipline designed to help them detach more easily from the "objects of Desire" which go up to making dukkha and keep us in Samsara.
It's not the use or adoption of these things that is detrimental; it's the increased desire for them, the dependence upon them, that can also, in some cases lead to addiction and unhealthy behaviours, in the form of hard-to-break habits.
Opium is natural. But have too much of it....
Sex is definitely an attachment, as can be seen on many forums where Buddhist men seek to break a porn/masturbation habit (I think we had a discussion that touched on this topic a short while ago)... But as any layperson knows (and pardon that pun) a good lay, is a good lay!
I have met someone addicted to bodybuilding, much to the detriment of his physique, which was definitely showing the strain, but he seemed reluctant to even consider stopping it.
Nutrition. How many people do you know simply can't stop eating when by any standard, they should definitely have had enough? Don't we all glut a bit at Christmas? Enjoy the excess of the YuleTide feast?
Believe me, as an Italian, my kitchen is full of 'naturally-good stuff! But (certainly not in recent years) I have been known to nurse that postprandial Christmas bloat!
So, to coin a phrase, "A little of what you fancy does you good", but I think the Buddha recognised what too much of a good thing can do - remember his provenance, remember is close-to-death fasting....
Alright, I'm not attached to a definition. I think both notions work depending on the context, so for most things the above way is how I use it.
Talking about natural in a mysterious or mystical way though you might use it in opposition to supernatural. Is postmortem rebirth a natural occurrence, does it behave according to natural laws that we just don't understand, or does it supersede natural law? Is postmortem rebirth a natural or a supernatural (or imaginary for those so inclined) phenomena?
This isn't really an answer to the main topic or original question, and is a diversionary discussion.
It focuses entirely on a tangential course; perhaps opening a new thread on 'natural' and 'supernatural' may be interesting; but I don't think the context applies to the thread-starter point....
Evolution gave us the ability to manipulate the environment and it's only reasonable that we should try to be more responsible.
On that list of seven items I only see one that Buddha didn't want anyone doing (afaik) and that's hunting. For everything else there's moderation and monks have taken on responsibilities that don't really line up with being a parent.
I gave my two cents on the main topic when the thread came around for the first time. I only jumped in to try to say that I think @David makes a valid point when he says that man is a part of nature, but then somehow got pulled into a semantic debate about the meaning of the word natural.
My overall point has been to say that what natural means depends on the context. Bringing it back to the OP, it's about the distinction between our biological roots and religious paths. So idk both man made vs untouched and supernatural vs natural seem to fit.
But honestly I really don't care that much about this so however you want to define is fine.
I just said the word "natural" in my head like 30 times until it lost all meaning and felt utterly "un-natural".
^^This. And I might add that we are part of nature, yet there seems to be this strong desire to separate ourselves from it, conquer it, and bend it to our will. We struggle with nature, it struggles back. In a way it seems like wresting with ourselves.
Buddhism to me is not telling us to deviate from the natural path as much as it is telling us to make friends with it and accept who we are so we no longer struggle or wrestle.
The precepts are a tool to help us focus on the path and filter out distractions.
I think the real danger is that we won't notice how essential nature is to our lives until it is too late. Mankind is terraforming this planet, to borrow a term from sci-fi, but instead of making it fit for Earth's biome we are reducing it to a very small subset of what it was. It was a tremendously vibrant world, full of life, but instead we are responsible for the planet's sixth major extinction event.
To say that man is part of nature is ultimately true, but practically the way we behave shows a sharp division between the way mankind lives and the way nature governs the rest of the planet. Certainly there is a lot of justification for the way the word natural is commonly defined.
But I don't think mankind has yet found a good way to co-exist with the planet. The bottom line is that the more people there are, the fewer resources there are per person. If you live in a planet friendly way, the best way to live is to use less.
Which strangely gels well with the rules the Buddha set up for his monks. But there is much less guidance on this for the lay people. I would be very interested in what the Buddha would have to say about it, if he were alive today.
I was searching for a particular image yesterday evening, and came across, by chance, some photos of man's interaction with animals.
I can't unsee certain pictures.
God, we can be a disgusting species sometimes....
I must not have done a good job at making my point or something because I'm pretty sure it's sound.
Maybe it's because it's sort of like preaching to the choir here when someone says mankind has to stop separating itself from the environment.
And there's the rub. I don't think there's too much of a distinction there when considering the religious experience in context with our chemistry and how the triune brain system evolved.
We measure sentience by the level of self awareness of any given organism. We can distinguish between self and other and we distinguish between mankind and the natural world.
However, it's like we sometimes take evolution for granted as if it's something that happened instead of something that is happening.
As Buddhists maybe we are biased in the assertion that our next step is to see that we are not really separate from the environment at all.
I really don't think we can help by pointing fingers. All we can really do is help where we can and influence those around us to do the same.
If we were all working together we would probably have spread to another planet with this one thriving. We are so afraid of running out of resources we kill each other over the resources of this one planet instead of tapping into and sharing in the abundance that surrounds us on all sides.
We have to live in harmony with nature but that doesn't mean we have to live in a tree.
But if we did, I hope we can do it Ewok style.
We do not fully understand nature, therefore, we can't truly differentiate between natural and unnatural. The more we research and understand nature, the more we are realizing a need for change.
We have only begun to want change from our destructive ways it seems. It is natural to want to be happy and free of suffering, so we need to find natural ways for that to happen instead of contributing to short term unnatural ways.
Until the day comes where something is invented that makes me people happy for their entire life, until then we have to depend on nature and just live naturally.
Seems like a plan. Natural seems to have something to do with harmony perhaps, as you say. We can be a very self destructive and unnatural species. Part of which is our tendency to dominate, exploit and subjugate our environment. Which is quite natural for animals. I wonder what will happen?
It's weird. I don't have faith in beliefs but I seem to have faith that there will come a time where there are more of us awake than not.
^^. Yes.
That for very obvious reasons including the evolvement of humanity on a personal, social and global level, is the plan.
The great mystics and insight developers, the awake, are always aware and working towards towards such a possibility.
Heaven on Earth? Nirvana and Purelands in this very existence? Of course. It is the only course worth pursuing.
That's why I like Star Trek so much. Too bad it took a genetics war.
KHAN!
"sharks have no natural enemies"...except man. :-)
'I just want to know what the individual/personal definitions of 'natural' are, to members. "
To me basically without man's chemical intervention .
And bigger sharks. But seriously, it's disgusting the way all those sharks are being slaughtered for shark-fin soup, which I heard has to be heavily flavoured anyway.
And there is still some whaling going I believe? Even more disgusting.
Some of us seem to go so against the grain that it's hard to see our place in the natural world.
On the other hand, imagine where we would be if none of us learned the discipline of curbing our appetites or the benefits of compassion.