Letters from Earth

8/6/2019 Letters from Earth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/letters-from-earth 1/28



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In a recent post, Jim Smith wrote:

"I have spent years learning to re-think my personal language in a non-sexist manner ... I have yet to find a sexist

expression that I couldn't work around."

Yes, Jim! Despite the objections of hundreds of writers who state that it's impossible to use English gracefully

without the masculine bias, it is indeed possible to do so.

Making this change is a good example of eco-politics on the personal level. It's not dependent on a vote by a local

committee or a federal congress. When one person decides to do it, it's set into motion. We do need to rewrite the

law books, but new laws follow new customs. Using equal-gender language is a custom which, if practiced by many,

will create beneficial results within the world of public policy.

Reading the posts on this newsgroup shows how effective equal-gender writing can be. People committed to deep

ecology have adopted the custom, with few exceptions.

Since I changed over in 1973, to my knowledge I've never written one sexist expression. (Speech was more

difficult to change. Old patterns burst through. I couldn't rewrite to hide my error.) I've written articles, monographs,

books -- by the 100's, bias-free. Plus, the language isn't clumsy. (No "him/her" awkwardness.) The techniques for

doing it are so simple, so elementary -- it's obvious that anyone who claims it can't be done is either a dunce, a bad

writer, or (most likely) a defender of the old order no matter how much they give lip service to equality.It's a significant issue. Like religion, language use reveals our presuppositions about reality. Masculine dominance

in language is associated with masculine dominance elsewhere in a culture. And that is associated with destructive

attitudes toward the natural world. When the sword of the yang rapes the flower of the yin, the born fruit splits, and

rots on the stem. (In fairness, we must admit that a dictatorship of the feminine would be equally as cruel.)

As recently as 400 years ago, it was standard to use "they" when referring to a hypothetical individual in English.

The practice of using "he" or "him" has become ordinary only with the ascent of the mechanical-male hero of the

gears and pulleys and Uzzis. Perhaps now that fuzzy logic and neural nets are being readied, a new hero might arise.

Or maybe not. But certainly a deep vision (of the cosmic whole that pre-exists and post-exists any human historical

phase) reveals a universe of yin and yang, goddess and god, she and he -- and an equality of feminine and

masculine nouns and pronouns.

How important it is to speak properly! How fundamental it is, and how easy it is for anyone to join this political

revolution! Here is a simple act that costs nothing, requires no meeting attendance, but reprograms social discourse

from the first bits, bytes, and strings all the way out.

I'm not suggesting it's all we need to do. It's one of those things that's not sufficient, but is necessary, to rewire

today's human brain. And of course all you have to do is start substituting.

Initially you're gawky at it. Your speech hesitates too much. Your writing takes longer as you delete and rewrite

more than ever. But after a year or two, it gets to be "second nature."

Then, it affects others. Teach by example -- that's all you have to do. Young people who grow up reading bias- free

language will use it themselves.

Whether such usage is considered significant or not depends on how much influence you think language has on

one's philosophy. I submit that language patterns do have a strong influence. Equal-gender language is, root and

branch, ecological language. To use it and to promote it is to engage in one aspect of the politics of deep ecology.

Thanks to Peter Cevallos for bringing up this topic.

Daniel Cooper Clark


Edward Maciocha wrote: "It would be interesting if members of this list could elaborate on their particular conception

of nature and if nature should be left alone to go its own way or if humans should intervene."

OK Edward, I'll bite.

Political intervention is necessary.



But the word "nature" is a puzzle. Are humans included or not? To be brief, I prefer "creation," which implies a duality

of the Creator and all the rest. Even better, though, there's "the cosmos" or "the universe." In this case we have

atoms-and-space, or Yin-and-Yang, or particles-and-waves. (Etc., etc.) The atomic aspect is, when considered as a

whole, the Goddess. The spatial aspect is God. That's the immanent world. There's also a transcendent world, where

the original Goddess and God reside. You and I are souls. We're not made of atoms-and-space. Our reality is to love

Goddess and God, and since the immanent world also worships the transcendent, we can learn from the cosmos

how to love. The cosmos is our mentor. We're doing our best when we respect the ways of the mentor -- to listen withcare to its teachings. When we try to improve on the life of the cosmos, intervening with our own ideas, we stop

hearing what it has to say to us. There's one thing given to me to improve on: my consciousness. Now of course it's

true that there's no part of the Earth that hasn't been shaped by some human culture at some time. Even without

humans, all life forms are always intervening in Earth's story. However, the activity most intrinsic to humans is the

culture of self-realization. Consciousness, not nature, is the proper field of control, manipulation, scientific

experimentation, and technological productivity. We can learn how to do this by paying attention, in a reverential

manner, to the way of the universe, which invites us to sing along with the music of the spheres.

And incites us to repeal the salvage rider.

(I know, there are many unexplained assumptions in the above -- like "since the immanent world worships the

transcendent" [?Wha'?] -- but I was squeezing a book into one paragraph. I guess poems are better at gracefully

spouting dogma.)

Daniel


Friends

There's a Christian tradition in which the whole creation worships God. Psalm 148 refers to hail and snow as praising

God. Saint Francis heard birds singing to God and wanted to join them. Christopher Smart saw his cat Geoffrey as

adoring God in all his activities. The Welsh Black Book of Carmethen spoke of silk as a devotee of the Deity.

Can this be the root of an ecological Christianity? If all the creation is already glorifying God, does that mean that we

humans, who can choose our destinies, might do best to follow the ways of Nature in our religion first and in the rest

of our life too? Does my joining matter's church guarantee that I'll stop using chemical fertilizer?

I remember a Sunday School hymn: "This is my Father's world, and to my listening ears, all nature sings, and round

me rings the music of the spheres." Did the children who repeated those words grow up to be eco-sensitive?

Personally I feel that this attitude toward the material world, which I call Pandevotionalism, is one of Christianity's best

seeds for the planting of a deep ecological culture. It can be found in other religions too. In fact I first noticed it in

Hinduism.

Am I on the right track, or am I following the wrong footprints?

Daniel


Matthew

The Christian tradition does harbor a strain of deep-ecological spirituality. Its major premise: Creation exists to

worship the Creator. The minor premise: Humans are part of the Creation. The conclusion: Humanity exists to

worship the Creator. One inference: the Creation as a whole -- what we often call "Nature" -- is greater than its parts,

so let's live according to Nature's priorities. (Of course, one must then proceed to discover those priorities.) It's a

Biblical current that runs opposite to the notion of humans controlling the universe as found in that famous passage.

Here we have instead the cosmos controlling us. I've given the name "Pandevotionalism" to this mode of

consciousness.



Daniel


Hi

At the risk of giving in to the Deeper Than Thou syndrome, I want to put in a good word for religion and spirituality.First, let me suggest that religion is not limited to an organizational or group setting, as some have stated. Religion

can also be private, solitary, secret, made-up. To be religious you don't have to be a churchgoer or part of a tradition.

You don't have to sign up and pay dues. Or all-hold-hands-in- a-circle. Following Webster's, I would use the word

"worship" as the key term. Religion is characterized by an emphasis on worship, praise, or devotion.

Spirituality, to me, is a broader concept. It may not involve worship. To be spiritual you might have a philosophy, or a

set of values, or a sense of the presence of the sublime. There are groups and communities who subscribe to beliefs

that are spiritual, but not religious, by the above definitions.

Considering deep-ecological concerns, spiritual/religious people have stood on both sides of the fence. Pious beliefs

have led some to fell the oaks, and others to hug the oaks. The anti-clerics on this list may have good arguments

about the failings of specific religions, but religion itself is not the problem.

Wasn't Thoreau, the civil disobedient, the simple liver, also the one who said "every morning I bathe my intellect in

the stupendous cosmogony of the Bhagavad Gita?"

Have we forgotten the gentle spirituality of Helen and Scott Nearing, socialists and organic gardeners?

Why are New Agers vilified when they were the ones who, during the 70s and 80s, propelled much of the back-to-the-

land, back-to-the-body movement?

In late 1977, Dan Maziarz and Bill Duryea started the New Age Caucus in Los Angeles. They both were disciples of a

swami from India (indulgers in "luxury spirituality," according to our critic of imported goods), and considered the

Caucus to be a direct expression of their religious beliefs. The NAC was a political group. It promoted "simple living

and high thinking." The members did extensive leafleting, lecturing, lobbying. I edited their newspaper, The New Age

Harmonist, which vigorously advocated economic, social, and political plans from Ralph Borsodi, Gary Snyder, Amory

Lovins, and others. With press conferences and media appearances, we backed Vasconcellos' "growing healthy

people" bill as it moved through the California Assembly and finally won passage. We supported the emerging

appropriate technologies and funded a few renewable energy projects. We traveled around California with a life-size

demo of Sim Van Der Ryn's (or was it the Farallones Institute's?) Earth House.

The NAC flourished for two years and then the money ran out. But at least for a while it helped to make known many

of the principles and practices of deep ecology, including a self-concept expanded to include the cosmos, the equality

of all life forms, human life in harmony with the biosphere, and the need for political action to make it real.

Who bankrolled NAC? Spiritualists. A few Hindus who saw it as a political extension of their religious beliefs.

Some condemn spirituality as an escape from grounded responsibilities. Try that one out on Joanna Macy and

Dolores LaChapelle, a Buddhist and a Pagan! (I'm reading them now on Faith's recommending.)

Names for social movements are helpful, and Deep Ecology is a good name. Naess birthed it 24 years ago, othersare lending a hand to shape it. As in most families, the adults often quarrel about the best way to raise the child. I

suggest, since Naess and other early shapers such as Devall, Sessions, and LaChapelle were happy to use terms

like "religion" and "spirituality" in their descriptions of the subject, that the divine is intrinsic to the deep.

Daniel


February 9, 1997



Dear Ram Giri ±

I like you, the other chelas, Kashi -- I like, admire, and revere Ma. I feel close to you all, and in my tentative way, a

part of you. Your ecumenical spirit is important to me, since I do have beliefs that are different from some of the

principles expressed by Ma (and by you, as I have described to you already in a previous letter). As an ecumenical

community, Kashi can accept me with my differences. Or, I think it can -- that's why I'm writing. Because I wonder to

what extent Kashi's ecumenism really does accept other types of spirituality on their own terms. That is, you may tellme about your path, but may I tell you about mine? Do you have an interest in sharing, which means a two-way

street? I'm not talking about preaching or proselytising. But I'm not talking about a smile and a wave, either. I wonder

if we can really care about each other's beliefs.

Forgive me if my tone gets angry or arrogant. It's just a cover-up for my fears. And forgive me for not speaking with

you about this in person. But I find it easier to tackle philosophical concepts in writing, at least as a starter. And what I

want to do is to start a dialog. You have stated your beliefs in an article. In this letter, I'll state mine.

In the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of the Kashi newsletter you quoted Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as saying,

"Whenever a devotee wishes, with unwavering faith, to worship me in a particular form, I take that very form." Also, "I

take, to welcome them, the shape in which they worship me."

As I understand your article, you brought in Krishna's words to support your thesis that God is originally formlessbut takes on a form for our sake.

As you stated it, "...the God without form... manifests in form for our benefit. In this way the transpersonal becomes

personal and speaks directly to us."

I guess you know already what the gist of this letter will be. Yes, that's right, here I am again, putting in a good

word for the personalists. First, let me present the personalist opinion on this point, at least from the point of view of

Bengali Vaishnavism.

The origin, the One, the hypostasis, the foundation, the source, is a person with form. That form is not material and

is not subject to the influences of the material world. The Primum Mobile, the Summum Bonum, the Absolute, the

Supreme Being exists as a personal form eternally in the spiritual world. God is a person -- with a form, with a home,

with family and friends, with activities, with feelings -- with a personality.

God is originally a person with form, but manifests an impersonal or transpersonal energy for our benefit. The

impersonal energy has two aspects: spiritual and material.

Spiritually, the energy has been called the Light of God, the Spiritual Radiance, the Silence, or even Nothingness

or the Void. It is a formless, unqualified, nondual state. To us, it is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, when it's considered

philosophically. But really, it's the brilliance of Krishna's body.

Materially, the energy is the stuff of which atomic forms are made. We want to have something to control, to

manipulate and shape according to the shape of our desires. So God becomes matter -- apparently impersonal, but

not really so.

God also manifests personally for our benefit. When Krishna appears within the material world, that form is not

material. Of course, any one of us can dream up a form of God as we like. But the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita is

not such a form.

That's Vaishnava personalism. There are hundreds of other isms. So why do I bring up this one? Because it's my

ism, and because you brought the Gita into your article.

The Gita verses you quote in your article -- where do they come from? They have a familiar ring to them. But I can't



find them in the half dozen Gitas at my disposal. I've translated the Gita three times and read it hundreds of times and

lectured on it a thousand times. Still, I don't know where you've drawn them from.

The closest I can come to them is two verses from the seventh chapter and another from the ninth. In my

translation, they read as follows.

In their faithfulness,people of devotion may glorify

one or another form.

Whichever or whatever form it is,

no matter who or what,

I'm the one who grants them

their unwavering faith.

Yoked by that faith,

they seek the favor of their deity

and fulfill their desires.

Who bestows those benefits?

No one but me.

(7.21-22)

Kaunteya, those who are devotees of other devas,

who make their offerings faithfully,

they too are making their offerings to me --

in ignorance of the correct rituals.

(9.23)

If these three verses are the same you have quoted, then we certainly are reading them differently. And even if

they aren't the same ones, this is the Gita, and that is what Krishna says.

Krishna does not say that he is formless and takes on whatever form a devotee wishes. He says the very opposite.

When the unrealized consider me,

they think,

"the unmanifest has become manifest."

They don't know about

my highest state of being.

I am changeless and supreme.

(7.24)

Furthermore, Krishna doesn't say it doesn't make any difference what or who you worship. He says the opposite.

Deva-worshippers go to the devas.

Ancestor-worshippers go to the ancestors.

Those who propitiate the ghosts go to the ghosts.

And my devotees go to me.(9.25)

I'm not trying to tell you what to believe. I admire you for your spiritual strength, for your deep psychological insight,

and for your genuine compassion. You're an inspiration for me, and no doubt for a lot of other people too. Also, you're

a damn good writer! So don't get me wrong. It would be neat if you'd agree with my philosophical harangues, but I

don't expect it to happen.

All I'm saying is, don't make the Gita out to be a Shankarite text! It's not. It's a personalist text. Your marga is



wonderful, but the Gita isn't really with you every step of the way. Krishna takes pains to refute the advaitist view of

the Absolute.

When Franklin Edgerton did his version of it in 1944 (Harvard Univ. Press), he wrote that "we can usually find in its

own text expressions which, in strict logic, contradict its most cardinal doctrines." Yes, Krishna both decries and

praises the Vedas, both rejects and recommends ashtanga-yoga, and honors non-violence while telling Arjuna to

fight! (Sounds like some other gurus, eh?)

Nevertheless, Edgerton agrees that the Gita has its own cardinal doctrines. As he puts it, "the Bhagavad Gita ... is

frankly monotheistic ... the Gita, while allowing man to choose, recommends the belief in a personal God ... the

impersonal Brahman is more or less distinctly subordinated to the personal God ... the Gita speaks of devotion as the

immediate and all-sufficient way to final union with God ... it is the key-road which controls all other roads to salvation

... "devotion" or "love" can hardly be felt except for a divine personali ty ."

Edgerton is not alone. I've read only one English translation which tries to twist the Gita into an impersonal knot --

that of Dr. Radhakrishnan. Other commentators have criticized his odd comprehension of the Sanskrit. (See in

particular the Gita of Dr. R. C. Zaehner.) Even Swami Prabhavananda can't bring himself to betray the personalist

spirit of the Gita, though he comes close. And of course, the version by my spiritual master, A. C. Bhaktivedanta

Swami Prabhupada, is frankly and rigorously personalist.

After all, when Krishna says, "I am the foundation of Brahman" (14.27), the case is closed.

But, let's hear it for variety! I suppose you want to provide a philosophy for Kashi that is ecumenical at its core.

And, in a way, the advaita position can accomodate all religions in its understanding. But there's at least one religion

that raises an objection, and I expect there'd be many more if they cared to think about it.

I suggest that true ecumenism does not attempt to fit all religions into a theological Procrustean bed. True

ecumenism respects and delights in the variety of ways in which the divine may be approached. It does not shy away

from admitting differences. It does not deface reality in the name of unity. It welcomes variety, even variety down to

the point of basic disagreements. We spiritualists are all one family. But remember, "a family is where you can fight in

peace." It's annoying when someone claims to love you but can't see who you really are.

Well, I've had my say. Please recognize that, along with your path, there are others "which, in strict logic, contradict

its most cardinal doctrines." In the ecumenical spirit, please receive them as family members and give them a place in

your house.

Yours,

Daniel


Good morning.

Tom Hayden is currently running in the Los Angeles mayoral race. Jesse Jackson has endorsed him. Hayden, in his

book TheLos

t Gos

pel of

theEar

th, (Sierra Club Books, 1996), calls for a "spiritual-political crusade" against "thedemonic enemy of the spirit of nature." Although he only identifies the evil one as "special interests," it's clear he's

talking about corporations. Hayden urges religious communities to lead the march. Here are some excerpts.

**********************************

The Machiavellian special-interest state is the demonic enemy of the spirit of nature. (237) The enemies of the lost

gospel, the hard-line zealots still espousing God-given entitlement over the earth, remain entrenched in all spheres of

society. (229) The electoral system is corrupted by special interests dependent on stealing environmental resources

from future generations, while externalizing the cost from themselves to those same generations. (236) There is little

chance of successfully promoting an alternative spiritual and environmental vision in the foul bowels of a system that



rewards the expedient pursuit of reckless growth. (225) The institutions themselves -- their hierarchies, their addiction

to wasting resources, their detachment from the damage they do, their rotting organizational cultures -- need to be

transformed from within by a living change of values. (236) The true solution to the crisis exists in our perception, our

hearts, our habits. If we view nature (or another person) in a detached manner, we are in danger of missing their

interior. (33) Only when enough people awaken to a deep spiritual connection with nature will environmentalism

become a global ethic. (14) As we change, our political and economic institutions will change. (229) Reverend

Vincent Rossi has urged, "What is needed is for men and women to feel religious about nature." (68) Only when webelieve the sacred is present in the living earth will we revere our world again. (5) The essence of nature mysticism is

that the earth and indeed the universe is alive and holy, pregnant with a spirit of creation. (73) We need to experience

nature and the universe w i thi n ourselves, not as external scenery. (11) An earth-based spirituality was central to the

birth of environmentalism in the time of Henry David Thoreau and John Muir. (5) Religious institutions are the source

of guidance and teaching on questions of morality and justice, and their relative silence on the fate of the earth robs

the environmental movement of the moral legitimacy it needs to change our behavior. (13) As the ecologist Aldo

Leopold wrote in 1949, ethics are not simply theoretical: they involve the "loyalties, affections, and convictions" that

are the very foundations of conduct. The creation of a new "land ethic" could not occur, he felt, unless the ecological

issue took on a religious and philosophical character. That time has come. (11) The relationship between the human

community and the natural world cannot be healed by a single, particular faith, but only by a profound understanding

that all faiths should revere a single earth. (228) If religious communities join with environmentalists in a spiritual-

political crusade like that of the civil rights movement, the lost gospel will return and the potential for profound change

will be at hand. (71)***********************************

Daniel


Hello Love

For a day or two before you left I felt strangely muted. As if to guard myself against explosive emotions? Perhaps. But

I can't really explain it. It may even have been guilt at finally having the fulfillment of my anger's fantasy -- the "get out

of my life" urge. Or the holding back of glee I would feel when at last in solitary confinement, when I could nurture a

thought for 12 hours running. I can't explain it with confident definition.

But it changed. As soon as I piloted Minnie's car along the exit from the airport I was no longer in suspense. An

emotion welled up. It was sadness. No, as I drove, it turned to grief. I grieved your absence. Tears came. I wondered

if I was scared about airplane safety. But no, there were no forebodings. It was bereavement. It was loss. Not

premonition of future loss, but loss right then and there. You were gone. Oh, I know, only for six days. How

adolescent of me. But sorrow ruled me.

Sorrow -- I felt it all day at work. I wondered if people would notice the corners of my mouth turned down. I thought of

you, of the absence of you.

When Ellie's gone, I'm just an empty shell. She is my heart. She is my ability to feel. Without Ellie I'm dead. I made up

a song fragment. Can't remember now how it went, but it rhymed "shell" with "Ellie." I sang it to myself. I felt so lonely.

Back home, grief at first. But I busied myself with music 'n' movies. By the time I went to bed -- the dead bed, only awhite slab for my corpse, where is my life, my wife -- I was once again a cold fog, without form.

Saturday I did things. Or was it me? Was it a real world? I was just catching up with unfinished projects that existed

mostly as words written on cards on my desk. My goal was to remove cards from my desk. To silently think, and thus

operations would be performed. Words would be eliminated, from my desk, from my mind. I hardly thought at all, but I

was only a mind. That is, I didn't think up words, but I existed in a realm of mind.

I was disembodied. Ellie is my body. My body's a thousand miles away.



Then, I noticed I had no spiritual passion either. The push into God's world was gone. I noticed it when I was

returning the five videos. I got five more. Five for five days for $5.99. Numbers, images, satisfying a fantasy of movie-

glutting all by myself, seeing what I want to see without having to wonder how it's going to affect somebody else. Just

me and me alone.

But the me alone is only a mind. The color and the taste is gone. Ellie is my body and Ellie is my soul. I am a ghost. I

hover in purgatory.

I wondered why I had no sexual yearning. Well, why not? A ghost has no body with which to contact another body.

We ghosts drift and drift, seeing the sights, never sleeping but never awake either.

And spiritual yearning. Why not, again? Where is the woman who arranges the flowers on the altar, who lights the

insence, who talks about God? (Have I forgotten how to talk about God, relinquishing that responsibility in our

relationship to her?)

Even the telephone calls didn't animate me. More electrons. More disembodied particles and waves.

Still, the calls must have had an effect on me. And reading your email message this (Sunday) morning. And getting

used to being here. I begin to feel the physical presence of the house, the cat, the yard. And yes, even a little of my

body. I realize how really enjoyable it is to have this chance to be alone for a few days. That I really did want it for good reasons. That I really do need it. That I really am catching up on stuff -- not only cards with words, but also

unprocessed psychological impressions without names or pictures, silent submarine flows that need this solitude to

be released to join the other currents running deep, to complete the choreography of the within that moves, first

slowly, then rushes madly to the divine love.

You are part of that divine love. You are a facet of the hidden gem. You are my saint of hearts.

I am writing this to you and coming to life as I do. My breathing deepens. My blood flow tingles. Am I writing to you or

to God? To both of you, and to me, and to the world. The love of Ellie and Dan, our embracing as lovers or spouses

or friends, joins with my solitude and your solitude. We must have more solitude so we can have more conjunction.

Paradox, and Paradise, rules us.

Love,

Dan


Ha

(That's how "hi" sounds if you talk southern.)

Thanks very much for the convincing archeological evidence of my presence among the Graftonians ca. 1950 or

1960.

To tell the truth, I had lost contact with that distant culture. I'm so intent on pushing into the future. My past is real tome in a mythical mode, but not as something that happened breakfast-lunch- dinner, day by day. The yearbook

shocked me. I was indeed the person animating that body with a striped shirt. I stood stoically for those photos. I

belonged to the D. J. Club (so claims the camera).

My first impression was, well, I wasn't as ugly as I thought myself to be. Then, I noticed a sad, lost look in a couple of

shots. But that baby photo of me in a carriage shows a merry fellow, twinkle-eyed.



My classmates came alive as I turned the pages. Alive, but of course holding their poses forever. Seeing them, I

realized, "They're the ones in my dreams!" Barry, Ailene, Pete -- and Carol, who's still there, right, doing real estate? I

looked at her a lot, admiring that warm, capable person who sent me spinning.

It's not a time, for me, but a place. It's a place where nobody changes and we're always going to class or a dance.

And there I am, a little figure among the other little figures, waving at the world, wondering about the world, joking

around and frozen with fear. But we're young and who cares!

God bless you.

Daniel


Pratyatosa

Thanks for your message.

A long time ago, I was familiar with the details of life in Iskcon. But now both the details and I have changed. Any

advice I might give would be irrelevant to your actual situation. In any case, it's up to each of us to gain our owninsight and act accordingly. I don't mean to be cold-hearted. Obviously you feel deeply that a change of some kind is

necessary. But, when I was in that state, in the end I had to listen to the inner voice and follow it.

However, I can say that my standard has been to accept whatever helps my Krishna consciousness and to reject

whatever harms it. I just ask myself, am I thinking of Krishna or not? Is what I'm doing leading me to Krishna or not?

(Of course, most of the time, the answer is no.) Prabhupad is showing the way and granting the mercy. Without him

I'm nothing. But moment to moment, day to day, Krishna consciousness is an internal experience. So it's up to me to

be the judge. I've come to that conclusion. It has led me to the making of some difficult decisions.

For instance, I know that Prabhupad would not be happy with most of the entries on my web site. I can hear him

shouting at me that it's all nonsense. Nevertheless, I am convinced that what I'm doing is the best I can do to serve

his mission of giving Krishna consciousness to both the class and the mass.

Iskcon has been able to lead a special sort of person to love of God. But Prabupad wanted a wider section of the

population to take up Bhagwat Dharma. How to do this? That's what motivates me.

I think of myself as Prabhupad's son, even though he may consider me a disobedient son. And of course the present

members of Iskcon, were they to look over my site, would condemn it vigorously.

Despite that, I carry on. The history of debates in Iskcon shows that the words of the guru and of the books can be

interpreted in many ways according to one's a priori attitude. We band together in firm commitment to the general

precepts. But the subtleties give rise to divisions. No religion has ever been free from that. I have tried to construct

my individual division without being divisive.

Regarding the ritvik controversy: to me it's just "ritvik, nitpick." Prabhupad's example is the best path. When he feltready, he started his own group. It's simple. We can argue for eternity over what Prabhupad meant by certain

ambiguous statements in 1977. But his living example is incontrovertible.

I haven't communicated much with devotees in Iskcon over the past 19 years. My way of doing things, or my way of

thinking, would just be a cause of conflict. When Vajreshvari and I go to a temple, I speak a few pleasantries and

leave it at that. It's the kirtan I want, not philosophical huff and puff. But I have sweet memories of my 11 years in

Iskcon. And I'm happy that Prabhupad's organization is still "changing the face of the earth."

Damodar



Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi ±

Apropos of our earlier thread on what first made us identify with the natural world, here's a short essay written for a

class project by a 10-year-old girl in my town. It's from an article in the local weekly newspaper.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

When I grow up, I want to be an animal rights lawyer. I don't even know if there are any though.

I don't have a role model, but I do have a good reason why. I want to be an animal rights lawyer because I love

defending animals, and I think, considering they can't stand up and fight for themselves in court, someone should,

and I want to be one of those people.

I have always wanted to be a lawyer. Now I know what kind, and why. I wish that at the age of 10 I was old enough

to go to court and fight for them. That is what I want to be when I grow up and why.

Katie Leisch

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In the accompanying article, the reporter stated that "Her interest in protecting animals came from watching nature

shows on television." Katie herself noted that "My mom always said I'm good at arguing. So I wanted to be a lawyer."

Mrs. Leisch said, "We're very proud of her. She's always had an independent mind and independent thinking ... I'mglad she comes home with ideas and thinking that wrongs need to be righted. I'm glad to know that kids today think

that."

Supportive parents and teachers, inspiring TV shows, an independent mind -- maybe that doesn't explain everything

about Katie's passion, but it sure must help. Maybe in a few years she'll be posting to this list, or an animal rights

newsgroup.

(Quotes from Drew Dixon, "Elementary students show maturity as they focus their sights on careers," S ebast ian Sun,

August 1, 1997.)

Daniel


Hi ±

Today, for the thousandth time, I'm dipping into the T ao Te C hi ng . This one's a new translation by Ursula Le Guin.

From No. 29:

Those who think to win the world

by doing something to it,

I see them come to grief.

For the world is a sacred object.

Nothing is to be done to it.

To do anything to it is to damage it.To seize it is to lose it.

This year I've also read Tom Hayden's The Lost Gos pel of the Ear th (Get thee behind me, corporations!) and

Ranchor Prime's H i nd uism and Ecology . Apart from that, I'm scarfin' my usual bagfuls of cyberpunk.

Daniel




Hi ±

Maria Esther's thoughtful remarks got me to thinking about compassion and the nature of the self. I was reminded

that, according to the personalist philosophy of Vaishnavism, a desire to help or serve others is a permanent feature

of our basic reality. Service is the eternal dharma of all souls.

Vivekananda's statement that "doing good to others constitutes a way, a means, of revealing one's own Self" is goodas far as it goes. But Maria Esther asks, justifiably, if this means helping others has value only for the helper.

A good question. Is compassion merely a self-serving sentiment? Does charitableness have any reason for existence

other than as a preliminary step along the path to one's own self-realization?

Lightwarrior responds with some illuminating points from the Gita about the proprieties of giving. On the other hand,

he observes, Buddha taught that "universal compassion," though a mark of the greatest beings, is a "barrier" blocking

access to the ultimate state of non-being.

Vivekananda implies that compassion for others is not a feature of the final or original reality. Buddha comes right out

and says that the most fundamental state is emptiness, which hardly allows for relations of any sort.

Even the Gita may be (mis)interpreted in a similar way. Arjuna's compassion for his enemies was rejected by Krishna,who advocated stoicism, knowledge, and devotion to God as the correct path. In the entire Gita, Krishna

recommends mercy for all beings only three times (12.4, 12.13, 16.2) -- though he often expresses his love for his

devotees, and their love for him.

In 6.29 Krishna does set up what could be a metaphysical context for a general compassion: "Atman is in all

creatures. All creatures are in atman. The atman yoked to yoga sees this everywhere." But he doesn't develop the

concept as part of a philosophy of universal service or love.

In defense of the Gita, I would say that Krishna's purpose there is not to promote mercy for others. Arjuna already has

plenty of that. The first hundred verses or so are given over to Arjuna's heartfelt concern for "those I'm about to fight

against." Arjuna's problem is his depression, which is not caused by his kindness, but by his lack of perspective, or

what Krishna bluntly calls his "ignorance and delusion" (18.72). Thus Krishna's method emphasizes knowledge --

even while he proclaims that devotion is greater than knowledge.

In another Vaishnava text, the Bhagavata Purana, the natural desire to help others is more pronounced. In fact, we

are able to read this scripture only by the mercy of its speaker: "Oh sage, select the essence and explain it for the

benefit of all creatures, that their souls will be fully satisfied" (1.1.11), and "Out of compassion for those in Samsara,

he recited the confidential Purana" (1.2.3). Other Vaishnava writings support this emphasis on sympathy, empathy,

compassion, and mercy for all the creatures of the universe.

This is far removed from charity of the ordinary kind. But the attitude is the same. It is an outpouring of mercy to

satisfy others' souls.

For the Vaishnava, who believes in the eternal individuality of the self, the eternal love affair between the personal

self and the personal God, and the eternal society of all selves, compassion for others is easier to affirm than it is for the Advaitist or the Voidist who believes there is no two, only one.

For the Advaitist, everything is for the sake of one's own self, because there is in truth no other existing entity. For the

Vaishnava, Otherness is a major principle, and love or compassion between selves is a characteristic of reality in its

pure state.

Some Vaishnavas are dualists. Most combine dualism and monism in various ways. They all would agree that

compassion for others is not only natural for us now, but also basic to us even beyond our liberation. The soul never

stops caring for other souls.



Daniel


Hi ±

I was getting confused about whether we're political enough, or spiritual or scientific enough.

Then I remembered a grant- writing handbook I'd read. It suggested outlining one's venture according to a three-

part structure. The three divisions were, as I recall, Principles, Goals, and Programs. It occurred to me that it might

help to apply that formula to Deep Ecology, or really, to "the Deep Ecology movement."

Here's what I came up with.

The Principles could be mutually agreed upon values such as biological diversity, a land ethic, a non-

anthropocentric understanding of ecosystems, etc.

The Goals might be statements such as "to live as part of nature," or "to restrict human population to the carrying

capacity of the earth," or "to use only renewable energy sources." (All of which have been phrased more elegantly

elsewhere.)

The Programs would be those activities we've discussed at length: legislation, civil disobedience, simple living,

advocacy through the arts, ecotage, boycotts, blockades, publishing, just talking with people, and so on.

Well, having made that orderly outline, I didn't think it had touched on the messy stuff that was confusing me. Then

I felt it was a good thing it hadn't.

The confusion arises, it occurred to me, because each of us is motivated in our commitment to DE by an

underlying assumption or belief or feeling that stems from the individual personality or temperament. Some people

come to DE for spiritual reasons, or philosophical or scientific or political reasons. Or maybe a TV nature show

started it for somebody.

The very thing that makes each of us interesting can also be a cause of disagreement between us.

In the past I've argued that DE is essentially spiritual. But I don't think that way now. I was trying to promote my

personality type. The Deep Ecology movement is not only for spiritualists. It includes lots of different people.

All of us are free to invoke our individual major premises. Still, we join together in this movement not because we

have a certain temperament in common, but because we share the Principles, Goals, and Programs that are

common to the movement.

We don't have to ask if simple living is political enough, or if ecotage is spiritual enough. In the context of the P-G-P

outline, those questions aren't meaningful. The right questions would be, do our programs further our goals, and do

our goals rest on our principles?

Daniel


Hi ±

One earth-value that means a lot to me is domesticity.



It's always been with me as a feeling or an intuition. It's been a strong feeling. But maybe because it's been so

pervasive within me I didn't see it for what it is. Until recently I never verbalized it or gave it a name. Then the word

came: Domesticity.

That's when my intellect rebelled against it. It's such a human word. It speaks to me of sofas and smugness. It's the

opposite of wildness, and we all know that "in wildness is the preservation of the world." How could that word, which

might represent everything I've fought against for decades, present itself as an inherent earth-value?

Still, I see that Domesticity has the same meaning as Ecology. The Latind omus and the Greek oikos both mean

"house" or "household" or "home."

Home. That's what the feeling is. The Earth is Home. That's how I intuit it. It's my dwelling place, and the dwelling

place of my fellow creatures. Earthness includes Homeness. And Homeness is Domesticity.

The domestic scene is one of a dwelling place, and of a family. The Earth is Home, and Mother. It's a place of

nurturing and intimacy. In the household, identity is both individual and collective. Individual family members are tied

together because their bodies are related through common ancestry. Likewise, the planet is parent to all our bodies.

Domesticity is Home, Mother, and Body.

Furthermore, d omus signifies a dome. As we live on the Earth, we see it (including sky and clouds) as ahemispherical arena, not as a sphere. The dome is the world of our experience. It can be argued that on its own

terms, the planet is a globe, and the half-sphere is merely an anthropocentric fiction. But other cultures picture the

Earth as a turtle or a cow, not a sphere. There's no "objective" truth. Everything is personal.

Also, d omus can refer to a temple. How better to understand our reverence for our planetary home?

Domesticity is much more than I'd thought. Well, that's the beauty of intuition. It digs a lot deeper than rationality can.

What we're doing to the Earth today -- would we do that to our home, our mother, our body? Are we maintaining our

household properly? Are we being responsible, loving, and aware?

No, we're not. We're not respecting the planet's Domesticity. If we keep on acting this way, we'll be kicked out of the

house and disowned by our relatives.

Daniel


Hi ±

Nobody lately has been promoting their own uni-disciplinary view of Deep Ecology. Have we buried the hatchet? It

looks like it. Maybe the lions and the lambs can appreciate each other after all. Still, the peaceable kingdom is awfully

quiet, eh? Well, maybe there's another issue or two that'll keep us awake.

A few days ago in the library I saw an old ecology textbook (Brewer, Richard, Pri nci pl es of Ecology , Philadelphia,

Saunders College Publishing, 1979).

The second paragraph of Chapter One ("Ecology As A Science") deals with a problem relevant to us. Brewer begins:

"Ecology has gone from a word that few people knew a decade ago to one that is widely misused today. A popular

entertainer has been quoted as saying that he was traveling around the country preaching ecology ... Environmental

concern is probably what is being preached; it is not ecology but is an activity to which ecology has a great deal to

contribute."

Having distinguished between ecology and environmental concern, Brewer analyzes the terminology further:



"The phrase 'environmental science' covers all the sciences -- including ecology, geology, and climatology -- that deal

with the environment. A good term for these and all the other fields that have an interest in the use of the environment

might be 'environmental studies'; a list of these would run from economics to religion and back again."

The author then proceeds to other topics.

Brewer's brief observation intrigues me. Back when "Stayin' Alive" was topping the charts, somebody was aware that

an ethical activity, which he called environmental concern, and an associated academic activity, environmentalstudies, covered a large field of interest that drew upon contributions from a number of disciplines, including geology,

economics, religion, and ecology.

That sounds like a way to begin describing deep ecology.

If so, it raises a question: why do we use the word "ecology" to designate our movement? Aren't we misusing the

term, just as Brewer says was already being done "widely" back then?

According to him, deep ecology "is not ecology." With apologies to the good Norwegian who coined the term DE, it

seems that ecology is but one of several disciplines, including religion (as Naess knew), "that have an interest in the

use of the environment." Or, as we might put it, that have an interest in the interests of the environment.

To follow this through, wouldn't a more appropriate category for our field be something broader than ecology? Nowthat we seem to agree that DE is multi- disciplinary, is the word Ecology accurate? Or does Deep Ecology just sound

so good that it doesn't matter?

Daniel


Hi ±

Thank you to the people who have responded so far to "Brewer's Textbook." Your statements on the validity of the

term Deep Ecology are a big help to me.

I'll try to summarize some of what you wrote.

Fran likes Ecology because "the focus on interrelationships is important." Lee doesn't like Deep. He prefers Broad

Ecology or Ecosophy. (Lee also suggests that Naess, the Institute for DE, and others may have differing ideas as to

what DE is.) Brett doesn't like Ecology -- it's "part of the problem," not the answer. He wants "less 'logy,' more poetry,"

naming his approach Ecotantrism or Eco-Ecstasy. Mike points out that "usage is a large part of the meaning of a

word: if it gets used in a particular way long enough by 'respectable' thinkers/writers, it acquires that meaning." Rich

agrees, and is glad the term has gained some legitimacy -- "...this does allow us to spread the word.." Still, Rich

admits an affection for Brett's "poetic stance." Steve feels Deep Ecology "is a fine name, as long as we do not

pretend that the 'ecology' part of the name is some sort of literal application of the ideas of the science of ecology."

Finally, Jon, the Australian who channels new messages from the Norwegian, reports that Arne Naess told him, "he

rejects the term 'deep ecologist' ... an ecologist is a person who practices the study of the science 'ecology' ... 'deep

ecology' is a set of ideas ... one is practice the other is philosophy."

My conclusion? I'm enjoying the contributions for their eloquence and erudition, for their honesty in revealing our

ambiguities and humorous contradictions, for their intricate splitting of hairs, and for their bold alternatives. Perhaps

because of our theoretical chaos, it's unlikely that the name Deep Ecology is going to fade away anytime soon. Hey --

it sounds so good -- that rhythm! -- that sequence of consonants and vowels! -- it's solid. As poetry, it sounds better

than my name for it (which looks like something from Stewart Brand): Whole Earthology.

Daniel




Hi ±

Maybe after eight and a half years in the humid semitropics my brain is decomposing. Anyway I keep having these

thoughts. So I want to share them. ("Hold off! Unhand me, grey-beard loon!" Oh well.) My current derangement takes

the form of a story fragment.

The year is 2050. A widely established field of study called Earthology is being taught viawave to people around the

world. Fifteen- year-old Petra, born after the war, is sitting on a rock in a forest, using a medion, interacting with an

introduction to the topic. The words come out in Petra's voice.

"The subject of Earthology is earth-knowledge.

"Earthology has three divisions: Earthics, the subject of which is earth-perceptions; Earthviews, whose subject is

earth-concepts; and Earthness, which is about earth-values.

"Earthics includes the sciences, the arts, religion, politics, business, and other well- known methods of perceiving the

planet, each with its own methods.

"Earthviews includes concepts like the Earth as a planet orbiting the Sun, the Earth as a globe, as a disc with heaven

above and hell below, as a system of integrated elements and forces, as a creation of God, as a Goddess, as a

mythological animal, as the center of the universe, as a spaceship, as a laboratory, as a photographic image, as a

machine, as a human-centered playground, as a product to be bought and sold, as a territory to be conquered.

"Earthness includes values or qualities that express the planet's inherent worth, essence, identity, or meaning.

Complexity, beauty, life, consciousness, divinity, wildness, domesticity, wealth, and political power are some earth-

values.

"Earthology, with its three divisions, has no value orientation. It's an impartial study of the various ways in which

humanity has experienced the planet as a gestalt.

"However, there is a movement, Whole Earthology, which is not impartial. It promotes earth-knowledge that benefits

the planet as a whole. It opposes earth-knowledge that benefits only part of the planet to the detriment of the rest.

Unlike Earthology in general, it has principles, goals, and programs.

"Whole Earthology is almost the same as its forebear, the Deep Ecology of the late 20th Century. What makes it

different is its context. Instead of being associated with the biological science of Ecology, it refers to Earthology, a

wider, multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural field of thought. Thus it avoids most of the theoretical confusions of the earlier

movement. Even so, many people still call it Deep Ecology because they like the sound of the old name."

The presentation goes on to discuss steady-state economy, renewable resources, bioregionalism, voluntary

simplicity, nature religion, the end of corporate unaccountability, and other fundamentals of Whole Earthology.

Petra thinks, "It must have been fun back then in the 1990s, arguing about ye olde DE. But even though it's more

boring now, it's probably better that we have WE. It includes so many more of us. How else could it have become the

dominant worldview of my g-g-generation?"

Thank you for your patience with the megalomania of a small-town library drone.

Daniel


Susan



Thanks for recommending Gary Snyder's Ear th H ouse H ol d . I got it by interlibrary loan. Lots of goods in it. From

"Why Tribe":

"Nationalism, warfare, heavy industry and consumership, are already outdated and useless. The next great step of

mankind is to step into the nature of his own mind ... to live simply, with few tools and minimal clothes, close to

nature."

I bind at his use of "mankind" and "his." Nevertheless, it's good to be reminded of the groundwork done before Deep

Ecology as such arrived. What I like here is Snyder's targeting the next step in technology as the science of

consciousness, which gets us busy tinkering with the inner self, not the outer environment.

Thanks again.

Daniel


Hello

According to Arne Naess, Deep Ecology's ethical imperative derives from a religious intuition.

In a brief article [Naess, Arne, "Deep Ecology," in Reich, Warren Thomas, ed., E nc y clo ped ia of Bioethics, New

York, Macmillan, 1995, p. 687] he reiterates his long-standing emphasis on philosophy and religion as defining

characteristics of DE. He states that lifestyle changes "can emerge only from a philosophical or religious basis that

nurtures a sense of personal responsibility," and draws a distinction between deep and shallow ecology on the basis

of the former's "philosophical and religious premises."

Is religion a topic we should be discussing here, as much as we discuss politics? In Devall and Sessions 1985, p.

76, Naess talks about Identification With The Universe. He calls it Self-realization. Others have named it Cosmic

Consciousness. My guru called it Krishna consciousness. "[The] seeming duality between individuals and the totality,"

Naess says, "is encompassed by what I call the Self and the Chinese call the Tao."

He goes on to say that "Without that identification, one is not easily drawn to become involved in deep ecology ...

deep ecology has a religious component ... those people who have done the most [to defend the Earth] have had

such religious feelings."

For Naess, not only humans have religious feelings. All entities in the cosmos do. "The self-realization we

experience when we identify with the universe is heightened by an increase in the number of ways in which

individuals, societies, and even species and life forms realize themselves. The greater the diversity, then, the greater

the self-realization."

Here is Naess' mysticism, an intuitive vision that nourishes his activities on behalf of the environment. Without such

an inner awareness, there is no ethical imperative.

That's what makes DE deep, isn't it? Naess says so.

Daniel


Mike

You mentioned Ockham's Razor. I too follow that path. Here's a humble verse of mine on the subject --



There once was a William of Ockham

whose razor-like logic could shock 'em.

He refused to accept

a complex concept

when a simple one got to the bottom.

But let's remember that William was a Franciscan monk. In his philosophy of accepting only the necessary, he saidthat in the end the only necessity is God. So I would say that religion does not violate the law of the Razor.

There are many who would disagree, and would see a contradiction between William's religiosity and his rejection

of universals. Postmodern philosophers, especially Lyotard, often consider God to be just another "metanarrative" or

myth (or universal) to be deconstructed.

Well, as somebody else said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to

say it." Our Deep Ecology list should certainly be a place where we can agree to disagree. And get on with our

defense of the Earth. You have been an inspiration to me in that endeavor.

Daniel


Esther

As you've noted, the Gita says the personal Godhead is primary. Krishna says, "I am the foundation of Brahman."

(14.27) That is, the personal Godhead is the source of the nonpersonal energy. It's like the sun, which has form,

radiating sunlight, which is formless.

If the opposite is so, then all form and personhood is illusory. How, then, can love be experienced as true? If the

foundation is nonpersonal, then love, which is a relationship between persons, is nothing.

Yes, there's a "fear of totally letting go" into nothingness. But there's also a fear of totally letting go into love. They're

both big and fearsome. Which is the right fear for me?

I prefer to think of everything as personal. Nothing is an illusion (except mistaken conceptions). God, the self, the

atom -- they're all persons. Space is a person. Everything really exists, and exists as a person.

In such a reality, personal relationships come first. The best of them are loving relationships. The best love is with

God. Brahman, or the Light, is the effulgence of the divine body of God. What a lover! That's liberation. Love doesn't

block the way. It is the way.

Yes, many spiritualists teach otherwise. The nonpersonal teaching is just as ancient as the personal. It says we must

give up God and go into the Silence.

In a way, I agree. If the word "God" refers only to a demiurge who's always in the context of the creation, God the

creator of matter and no more -- well, then do go beyond that God. Go to the Silence. But then go beyond the Silenceto the Song of the God whose only creation is Love.

That Love exists in us, as it does in God, in the form of love for all beings.

My guru said, "Everything is person."

Daniel




Hi

Lee Henderson said, "ecosophers want to apprehend the whole." Yes. The ability to do so is built into our nervous

system. It may be termed a spiritual function. Or it may be studied as a material function. Deep Ecology depends on

it. The essence of DE, as I understand DE, is exactly that perception. Deep Ecology promotes that which benefits the

Earth as a whole, and opposes that which benefits a part of the Earth to the detriment of the whole. That's why I also

like to call it Whole Earthology.

A whole system is an entity in itself, and can be perceived as such. Otherwise, how could we comprehend that a tree

is a tree, not a collection of branches, roots, and leaves? Or that a forest is something other than a list of its

ingredients?

The ability to perceive wholes is a verifiable "scientific" fact, if you want to wield the s-word. The old dictum that "the

whole is greater than the sum of its parts" motivated the work of Max Wertheimer (1880-1943), the originator of

Gestalt Psychology. His most famous example was the Phi Phenomenon. In 1912 he explained how our organs of

perception, including the mind (memory), can infer movement from a series of static images, as in the cinema.

The implication is clear. Pattern, though not "physically" present, controls our perception of data. The invisible

organizes the visible. Consciousness creates the cosmos. Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist (Nobel Prize 1945), kept his

notes in a book with the Taoist Yin-Yang symbol on its cover.

Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Kohler made use of Gestalt Psychology to campaign against reductionism in

the physical sciences and behaviorism in the social sciences. Their emphasis was on conscious experience, not

observable behaviors. They were the forerunners of the humanistic psychologists (Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls, etc.) and

of what today we call Cognitive Psychology.

This movement in psychology isn't a fad. It's founded on solid research, such as the work of Piaget, Miller, and

Chomsky in the 1950s. No one can possibly associate these rigorous intellects with trendy spiritualism or syntactical

inexactitude. However, it is true that they contributed to the ongoing development of holistic thought. And much

holism is a whole lot of nonsense. But then so is much "scientific" or empiricist drum- banging. Holism, after all, is the

moving spirit behind the science of ecology -- a study of relationships that finds systemic integrity to be the major

determinant of the welfare of the parts. That's why roadways in wilderness areas, even though they take up a

relatively small amount of square footage, destroy animals' habitat. They slice up the gestalt and kill it. Then the

inhabitants, the parts, die.

Such things happen. That's verifiable. We can discuss wholes and parts without arguing over spirituality or

materialism. Perhaps Lee's use of the word "whole" is more instructive than using "deep." Whole is more inclusive.

Deep may polarize too much. Even Naess, who coined the term Deep Ecology, has written kind words about the

"shallow" people recently.

Looking back over the past, from Naess back to Galileo back to Lao Tzu, we see how many significant thinkers

dedicated themselves to the whole. Without being "card-carrying materialists or doctrinaire transcendentalists," as

Lee put it, they deepened our appreciation of the universe of which we are a part.

Daniel


Hi

From One Riv er by Wade Davis, 1996, p. 91: "As with most peyote songs, the verses were composed of words

scattered among sounds that had no literal meaning. The effect was that of a single human voice surrounded and

echoed by the syllables of nature."



I was so glad to read Rich's words on vocalizing. That practice has been central to my life for years. But I rarely talk

about it. Singing non-cognitive syllables out in the woods strikes other Americans as being nuts. When I was a kid, I

used to whistle tunes along with the birds without embarassment -- until I heard some adults making fun of me for

doing it. Then I reserved it for solitary occasions.

That hasn't changed. But now Rich has come out of the closet, so to speak. So, OK, I do it too. The Earth's feelings

come through my feet and out my mouth. Sure, the Earth-songs are filtered through my mind. But at those specialtimes I sense a harmony of my mind and the planet's. It's like "thinking the Earth's thoughts," as I put it in 1976 while

walking with my daughter in the snow on Kratka Ridge 7000 feet above Los Angeles.

There are lots of good chants that can be memorized and sung at appropriate times. However, it sounds like what

Rich is getting at is a more individual and spontaneous experience. I'm all for it as a Deep Ecology meditation

practice.

Daniel


Hi

The word "ecology" first burst into print in 1866 in a book by the biologist Ernst Haeckel, Gener ell e Mor pholog i e Der

Or g anismen.

Unable to read German, and unable to find an English translation, I contented myself with Haeckel's life's-work

summation, published 33 years later, The Ri dd l e of the U niv erse (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1902;

originally Di e W el t rathsel , Stuttgart, Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1899.)

My purpose: to discover what the professor had to say about the field he'd invented. My discovery: he said nothing at

all about it. He didn't use the word "ecology" once in the later book.

I was bewildered. Apparently, Haeckel had spun off the term "ecology" only to then ignore it.

Haeckel's life's work as he saw it was to establish his own version of Darwinism in Germany. (He's been called "the

German Darwin.") Oddly enough, he named his approach Monistic Religion. By Monism he meant a unity of matter

and spirit, with matter being the unifying principle. Above all he wanted to defeat "the three central dogmas of the

dualistic philosophy," namely, the existence of God, of free will, and of the immortal soul. What he meant by Religion

was the sense of wonder we feel when we observe the marvels of the material world.

He preached vigorously against Anthropocentrism, the idea that "humanity is the goal of the universe." This platform

of his has become one of the central tenets of Deep Ecology. So, even though ecology itself had to be developed by

others, Haeckel did make an important contribution to DE.

I'd say the father of ecology, despite Haeckel's giving it a name, is Charles Darwin. It was he who gave new

significance to the relations between life forms and their environment. His theory of natural selection, emphasizing

adaptation to the environment as a criterion of success in speciation, moved others to develop the science of ecologyfurther.

I'm not a biologist. I'm just interested in the origins of ecology and deep ecology for historical reasons. If anybody else

has read up on this sort of thing, or can recommend something to read, can you give me a hand? Thanks.

Daniel




Hi

Rich Coon's "intentional practice" definitely includes spontaneous vocalizing as a way to sing one's place in the

ecosystem. Then how about dancing one's place? I've found stomp-dancing, in the manner of tribal people, to be

effective.

In his recent book, TheMa p of W ho W e Ar e, Lawrence R. Smith starts with stomp and then takes flight: "Stompdances, staged for the retrieval of old stories, illuminate veins inside the memory dome, lines traced by shooting

stars. There are links between all sentient beings, whether rooted in the ground or mobile on air, earth, or water. They

are the children of the Network, transcending the apparent difference between animal and vegetable, climbing up the

mountain into a universal frequency, the Mind of God."

D. H. Lawrence was also inspired by Pueblo stompers in the 1920s. And Australian stomp takes us to the endless

heartbeat. I might add that stomping is good exercise for sedentary computer-clickers.

Daniel


Hi

Nonviolent political resistance is a well-established tactic of the Deep Ecology Movement. Arne Naess has practiced

it and advocated it since the 1970s.

In Naess' book Ecology, Communi ty and Lif esty l e (Cambridge University Press, 1989), he explains that nonviolence

came to him by way of Gandhi. He says it's not only a method of political confrontation, but also part of a

philosophical outlook centering on Self- realization. Naess has named his version of the philosophy Ecosophy T. (The

T stands for the name of his mountain home in Norway.)

Naess writes, "Gandhi gathered strength and inspiration from theBhag avad Gi t a. It contains several central

statements which can be considered to be the common denominator for large sections of Indian philosophy. Most

notable is chapter 6 verse 29: "He whose self is harmonized by yoga seeth the Self abiding in all beings and all

beings in the Self." (p.194)

He continues, "In the terminology of Ecosophy T the capital S in 'Self-realisation' carries a heavy burden. It insinuates

a philosophy of oneness as does chapter 6, verse 29 of the Gi t a." (p. 195) Elsewhere he equates the term Self with

the Sanskrit Atman -- which can mean the self of a dog or the self of God.

The oneness Naess speaks of does not obliterate the particulars. "At any level of realisation of potentials, the

individual egos remain separate. They do not dissolve like individual drops in the ocean. Our care continues

ultimately to concern the individuals, not any collectivity. But the individual is not, and will not be isolatable, whatever

exists has a gestalt character." (p. 195)

John Seed's 1988 compilation, Thi nki ng Lik e a Mount ai n, includes an essay by Naess, "S elf Realization : an

Ecological Approach to Being in the World."

In that piece, Naess recounts that at the age of 20 or so, he became a "student and admirer" of M. K. Gandhi, and

that Gandhi's influence on him has remained steady ever since. "I am inevitably influenced by his metaphysics,"

Naess states.

I found striking similarities between Naess' words in the rest of the article and the words of the Bhag avad-g i t a.

(Gandhi carried the Gita with him wherever he went, read it every day, lectured from it, and wrote commentaries on

it.)



Naess says of Gandhi: "Paradoxically, it seems, he tries to reach self-realization through selfl ess ac t ion, that is,

through reduction of the dominance of the narrow self or ego." (Compare Gi t a 2.48, 2.71, 3.19, 3.27, 3.30, 4.17-4.23.)

When Naess describes his own goal of Self realization, he says, "Through the wider Self every living being is

connected intimately, and from this intimacy follows that capacity of i dent ificat ion and as its natural consequence, the

practice of nonviolence. No moralizing is necessary, just as we do not require moralizing to make us breathe."

(Compare Gi t a5.7, 5.18, 5.24-5.25, 6.29-6.32.)

The similarities go on.

As Naess has often stated, there can be many different ecosophies. They don't all have to run parallel to the Gita.

Still, since nonviolent resistance (boycotting, blockading, occupying, striking, demonstrating, marching, etc.) is an

important tactic for us, and since the Gi t a has inspired Gandhi and Naess -- and Thoreau -- in their civil disobedience,

I think it's worth giving a mention to the ancient Sanskrit poem as one of the oldest and deepest of our roots.

Daniel


Hi

Variations on a theme ±

Arne Naess, 1986: Self-realization is hindered if the self- realization of others, with whom we identify, is hindered.

Albert Camus, 1949: Who will dare tell me that I am free when the bravest of my friends are still imprisoned in Spain?

Aldo Leopold, 1948: In short, a land ethic changes the role of H omo sa pi ens from conqueror of the land community to

plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow- members, and also respect for the community as such.

M. K. Gandhi, 1924: I believe that if one man gains spirituality, the whole world gains with him, and, if one man fails,

the whole world fails to that extent.

Krishna, ca. 3000 BCE: Atman is in all creatures. All creatures are in atman. The atman yoked to yoga sees this

everywhere.

Daniel


Hi

Cycling between home and work, no car- shell separates me from the night and the day. The fresh air energizes me

and I blurt out verses. (Walking would yield better results, probably.)

Daniel

Night and Day Haikus

The sky has put on

her sunset makeup for an

evening out with God.

Cluttered karmic crud's

indoors. Get out! Receive the

moon's milky mercy.



Big moon mystery light --

revealing just enough and

hiding quiet worlds.

Cold Florida night.

Well, it's 45 degrees.

No snow, just -- starflakes!

The crescent casts her negligee of mackerel clouds

across the star waves.

Thick comforting clouds --

a tent of soft grey blankets --

it's quiet in here.

A phone is ringing

in a dark, empty office.

It rings through the night.

Milky morning moon,

low and round, nursing the earth,

in the baby blue.

Brightly colored wings --

birds flying around Buddha,singing songs of love.


Hi

If there were a Church of the Earth, it would have its hymns. Here's one I did that might be good for kids. The mood is

similar to a Protestant hymn, but it takes the "love from above" idea and turns it around. The structure is a

conventional popular song format, verse- chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus.

Daniel

Love From Below

Deep in the Earth, rivers run.

Inside the Earth, magma flows.

And when I stand on a rock,

there's a love song coming through my toes.

I learn how to praise God

when I listen to the wind blow.

I learn how to please God

when I watch the flowers grow.

I learn how to serve God

when I think about the raindrops,

and when I do, my pain stopsand I feel love from below.

Love travels up from the ground.

Love bubbles up from the sea.

And when my hand reaches down,

I can touch love coming through to me.









and when I do, my pain stops

and I feel love from below.

All the creatures

on our planet and

all its featuresmake a holy land.







and when I do, my pain stops

and I feel love from below.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi

We hear about a "higher" self and a "lower" self that each of us has -- or is. The two might be God and me. But the

usual meaning is two aspects of a single human being. They're my "higher" spiritual tendencies and my "lower"

material tendencies.

Here's a new twist. My guru said that matter can be turned into spirit by being engaged in spiritual service. My

material tendencies can be transformed (rather than transcended). Awareness driven by spiritual desire can bring my

dead zones back to life.

I practice a religion from medieval Asia. But I'm a contemporary American. Are these "higher" and "lower" aspects of

myself? Is the Asian part of me spiritual and the American part of me material? At first I thought so.

At first I found it easy to take part in Bengali Vaishnavism. The perennial philosophy, the Sanatan Dharma, was

always shining through. The "spirit of the law" could be sensed through the details, the rules, the customs, of "the

letter of the law." I accepted the letter and thus was able to feel the spirit.

But, underneath, I felt all along that my purpose was to make Bengali Vaishnavism available to Americans. And the

first American standing in line was me! I had an odd feeling that I was two people. Which one was the real me? The

Asian teacher or the American student?

I came to see that my involvement in a religion loaded with Bengali particulars was to some extent a self-deception.

My self-realization had to work through the contingent details of my existential (American) situation. That is the path

of humility, and of honesty. It's the Tantrik path my guru had taught (though he never used the T-word) -- to engage

matter in the service of spirit.

So, although for many years I "pretended" to be a Bengali, in time I took what I'd been given, stopped the play-acting,

and started applying the Sanatan Dharma to my life as an American. I held on to those Asian particulars that I felt

were still helpful.

The decision to do that was difficult to make. My spiritual master (who passed away in 1977) would have been

pleased if I'd continued as an orthodox Vaishnava. But I chose to do something I felt would please him more deeply

in the long run. It was a hunch, like the hunch that led me to him initially.



Following my hunch, I found that there's spirit in America and matter in Asia. The higher and the lower settled

together in the middle.

The same thing happened within myself. My materialism revealed itself to be a vital element missing from my

spirituality. And my spirituality fulfilled the urges of my material aspect.

The religion is changing to accomodate me. And I'm changing to accomodate the religion. We take tentative stepstoward each other. Perhaps as Vaishnavism becomes American enough, I become Vaishnavite enough. Perhaps

we're both changing enough so that the power can flow unimpeded.

Perhaps I can know who I am. Not higher, not lower, just me, in the middle.

Have you had a similar experience?

Daniel


Hi

In Starhawk's 1997 novel, Walki ng t o M erc ur y (NY, Bantam Books), the main character is looking at a pool in the

rocks on a mountain:

...simply looking, gazing into the pool

as if she were gazing into...the eyes

of a...lover...who would gaze back and

be her perfect mirror. That love, that

mirroring, she understood at last, was

what she had always searched for and

desired, was what all original religion

stemmed from. The speech of the gods

was the speech of the land. But even

to say so, to use those words, was to

intrude a false language. For "the

land" was not a thing separate from

her; they were not two separate beings...

The pool was a mirror. Looking at the earth, she saw herself. Hearing the earth, she heard the gods -- and herself.

Isn't this the experience of Self that Arne Naess places at the heart of Deep Ecology? The healing of the earth and

the healing of ourselves have to occur simultaneously. We aren't separate.

Daniel


Hi

This little haiku song came to mind one day, complete with tune.

.......................................

God Lives Everywhere

Everyone's Looking For God

God Loves Everyone



Eb Eb F# F Eb

F# F Eb F# Eb F# F

Bb Bb B Bb Ab

.......................................

What does it mean to me?

first line: Nature Gita 11.20

second line: Self Gita 4.11

third line: God Gita 5.29

I started serving Swami Bhaktivedanta in October, 1966. He emphasized the positive nature of spirituality. The above

three principles were part of the happy substratum of his teaching. I became his student because of these and other

powerful positives he taught. He also brought up negatives. They were important too. But he emphasized the pluses.

I've tried to maintain that attitude.

Daniel


Lee

Don't expect Arne Naess to conform to anybody's notions of what Deep Ecology is all about. He had a rigorous and

influential philosophical career long before his environmentalist meditations started in the early 1970s. And the scope

of his thought hasn't narrowed since then, either.

After all, here is the man who wrote I nter pr et at ion and Pr eciseness(described by his publisher as "the fundamental

book in the Oslo school of philosophy") in 1953.

Other books of his:

El ement s of A ppli ed S emant ics

An I nt rod uc t ion t o Log ic and S ci ent ific M ethod

Gandhi and the N ucl ear Age

He wrote those books before he spawned Deep Ecology. Then, after his seminal article in 1973, he wrote:

Gandhi and Group Conflic t (1974)

A S c e pt ical Dialog on I nd uc t ion (1984)

S c e pt icism (1988)

Ecology, Communi ty and Lif esty l e (1989)

One of the participants in the Dialog of 1984 says, "I love times of philosophical puberty when the most gifted among

us make the most preposterous claims on the flimsiest grounds..."

Is that Naess' opinion? Maybe. To gain entrance into the subtleties of his thought, it's helpful to read two books byDavid Rothenberg:

Wisd om i n the O pen Air (1993)

I s I t Pai nf ul T o Thi nk? : Conv ersat ions w i th Ar ne Naess (1993)

Wherein Naess says:

"In the next century I may not talk about ecosophy T but have another terminology that has grown out of it, but is no

longer inspired by the science of ecology."



"...to be a supporter of the deep ecology movement does not require answers similar to mine. Very few supporters of

the deep ecology movement know my terminology or my writings. I have merely pointed out a movement that I insist

is already there, long before I gave it a name."

In a later interview ( Al ter nat iv es Jour nal , Summer 1997) Naess said:

"With regard to indescribable poverty, someone may have to kill the last tiger, if it's available, for their children to eatthe flesh. And it's ethical in such a situation."

"There are some polemics among some of the theorists, but theorists are just theorists. They have a function but

humanity doesn't depend on them."

You can't restrict him to any dogma.

In that respect, the most revealing of his books is S c e pt icism. Here he discusses "the peculiar looseness with which

the sceptic puts forth the sentences by means of which he expresses his mind." Naess states that "The mature

sceptic decides neither for the positive nor for the negative in relation to any doctrine, but allows both possibilities to

stand open."

However, Naess' scepticism does not result in a Hamlet-like indecision: "...the greatest sceptics were also greatchampions of trust and confidence and of common sense i n ac t ion...Natural impulses lead to action."

Naess has consistently advocated a wide variety of interpretations of Deep Ecology. Even within his own remarks we

find vagueness and contradictions, which he rejoices in.

Daniel


Kalakantha

Thanks for your kind words.

Yes, as you say, "deep meditation on the Gita is wonderful and refreshing." During the six months when I was

translating it, I became aware as never before of the power of the bhakti in the verses. Krishna is speaking out of love

and all he wants is our love.

I'd translated the Gita twice before, in the 70s. But I discarded them. I'd been thinking of them as works to be

published in the marketplace. This time, I did it because I needed to do it for myself. Or, really, to be able to discuss

the Gita with full confidence. I decided that the only way I could tell other people -- scholars particularly -- about my

understanding of the Gita was to have under my belt my own diligent, detailed study of each Sanskrit word, each

verse. Shrila Prabhupad's Gita verses are enough for the faithful disciple. But when a scholar asks me, "How do you

know that?" and I say, "My guru tells me so," the conversation ends then and there. But if I answer, "Because I've

painstakingly translated each Devanagari character, taking counsel of thirty other versions, especially my guru's,"

then the discussion can continue. I must also admit that to some extent that "scholar" I'm trying to convince is me! I'vebeen conditioned by European-American academic thought processes. So, while the central me is happy to run after

Krishna in the forests of Vrindaban, there's this other me that demands certain criteria of intellectual responsibility.

And the other me hasn't stopped making demands -- yet. I must satisfy this professorial pope.

As I translated, I had three books open in front of me. In the middle was Shrila Prabhupad's Gita. On the left was

Prof. Zaehner's. On the right was Barbara Stoller Miller's. Zaehner studies previous commentaries (Ramanuja,

Shankara, etc.) and comes out in favor of a personalist, Vaishnava approach. Miller is no personalist, but she has a

verse style that I like. Shrila Prabhupad's purports were my principle source of understanding. His verses are often

quite liberal and interpretive. I wanted to be more literal. Or, shall I say my "scholar" self wanted to be more



"accurate." But I didn't want to stray from Prabhupad's meaning. Every now and then I went the poetic-license route.

(Especially 2.16, which I reworked without "cessation" -- but I see I'm not alone -- Jayadwaita changed "cessation" to

"change!")

But those are technicalities. The Gita is wonderful because the personal relationship between Krishna and Arjuna is

so strong and multi-dimensional, and so loving. It's wonderful when Arjuna complains to Krishna -- "You say one

thing, then you say the opposite. Will you please tell me which one is right!" And Krishna goes on being paradoxicalanyway. Prabhupad was no different. We want to put him in a logical box, but he won't stay put. Warring camps

among his disciples wave quotes at each other. But Prabhupad is beyond us. He's a "Vaikuntha man." I don't mean

to say nobody can learn anything from him. But the first thing to learn is love. And the last, too.

Yes, please send me your translation of the Gita. I want to read it. How wonderful it would be if we had many different

translations, all in harmony with Prabhupad's, yet each one bringing out that devotee's flavor of devotion!

I had your email address on my list from way back when.

Jai Shri Guru.

Damodaradas


END

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniel-cooper-clark
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Letters from Earth

Documents