I am reading Susan M. Darlington's excellent book, Ordination of a Tree: The Thai Buddhist Environmental Movement. This book details an interesting research project that Darlington conducted, where she interviewed and observed communities of engaged Buddhism in Thailand. In particular, Darlington focuses on how Thai Buddhist monks are engaging in 'environmental Buddhism', particularly the struggle to protect nature from the kleshas of human greed, hatred and ignorance. It's interesting to me how controversial the positions of the monks are, and how varied their positions can be. For instance, while some of the monks advocate conserving the forests completely from all human use (including natives to the Thai forests), others favor a more integrated approach which doesn't oppress those who have lived and worked among the forests. Similarly, Buddhist rituals to 'ordain' trees are considered either a symbolic act of respect for all life (acknowledging life's source as mind), or a kind of deviation from the original use of ordaining ceremonies. Even the meaning of these ceremonies can change over time, as they are appropriated into the state ceremonies, or made into 'cosmetic' forms of environmental awareness by corporations.
I find quite interesting the question of to what extent monastics should engage in political activism. and, if so, how they can do so while maintaining the Middle Path. I don't have any clear answer to it, since my understanding is quite limited. From my limited understanding of the teaching on the Middle Path, for example, it's not so easy to determine whether a particular platform is going to always serve the interests of living beings. It always depends on the context, and whether the ideas happen to follow the function of what is needed by sentient beings in the given moment. If I protect the interests of the forests, what happens to those who make a living in cutting trees or making paper? The answers are not so easy, because there are different interests involved. Perhaps a valid respect for life would have to include a respect for all manner of diverse opinions.
But, as I reflect on my own personal life: it's extremely difficult to truly feel that all opinions and perspectives have an equal value. It's a real practice, in fact, of daring myself to let go of trying to find a safe and secure answer on how to do things or what decisions to make. This would invite the possibility that we can never fully 'know' what is absolutely true or best for all people, in all situations. Inviting uncertainty is quite dangerous and risky in political situations, where people are often faced with decisions that impact other beings. But trying to do so as best as one can is a quite revolutionary possibility, because it shifts away from a Utopian vision and toward prioritizing the process of dialogue over all else.
At the very least, I think that individuals can practice this 'view of no view' by letting go of the possibility of the "ultimate" answer that will resolve all environmental issues. Since the environment depends on diversity for its very existence (as well as interconnection), perhaps the true way to preserve all environments (social, natural, spiritual) is through a process of careful and mindful dialogue, process orientation, and a mind to not create a hegemonic understanding of ideas. From this perspective, it's not the final goal that counts but the process of dismantling or challenging the notion of a 'final goal'. This process would mirror the ecosystem itself by seeing viewpoints as part of a network or 'family' of viewpoints, all enchained together in an intricate and shifting mental space. To try to divorce one idea from the others is to push it out of its embedded context with other views, or to claim an undue supremacy of that view.
Darlington, Susan M., Ordination of a Tree: The Thai Buddhist Environmental Movement. Albany: SUNY Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment