|
|
|
|
| "Ecologists often speak of the
'evolution of environments' over and above the evolution of organisms. For
man did not appear on earth until the earth itself, together with all its
biological forms, had evolved to a certain degree of balance and
complexity. At this point of evolution the earth 'implied' man, just as
the existence of man implies that sort of a planet at that stage of
evolution. The balance of nature, the "harmony of contained conflicts", in
which man thrives is a network of mutually interdependent organisms of the
most astounding subtlety and complexity. Teilhard de Chardin has called it
the 'biosphere,' the film of living organisms which covers the original
'geosphere,' the mineral planet. Lack of knowledge about the evolution of
the organic from the 'inorganic,' coupled with misleading myths about life
coming 'into' this world from somewhere 'outside,' has made it difficult
for us to see that the biosphere arises, or goes with, a certain degree of
geological and astronomical evolution. But, as Douglas E. Harding has
pointed out, we tend to think of this planet as a life-infested rock,
which is as absurd as thinking of the human body as a cell-infested
skeleton. Surely all forms of life, including man, must be understood as
"symptoms" of the earth, the solar system, and the galaxy - in which case
we cannot escape the conclusion that the galaxy is intelligent. If I first
see a tree in the winter, I might assume that it is not a fruit-tree. But
when I return in the summer to find it covered with plums, I must exclaim,
"Excuse me! You were a fruit-tree after all." Imagine, then, that a
billion years ago some beings from another part of the galaxy made a tour
through the solar system in their flying saucer and found no life. They
would dismiss it as 'Just a bunch of old rocks!' But if they
returned today, they would have to apologize: 'Well - you were peopling
rocks after all!' You may, of course, argue that there is no analogy
between the two situations. The fruit-tree was at one time a seed inside a
plum, but the earth - much less the solar system or the galaxy - was never
a seed inside a person. But, oddly enough, you would be wrong. I have
tried to explain that the relation between an organism and its environment
is mutual, that neither one is the "cause" or determinant of the other
since the arrangement between them is polar. If, then, it makes sense to
explain the organism and its behavior in terms of the environment, it will
also make sense to explain the environment in terms of the organism. (Thus
far I have kept this up my sleeve so as not to confuse the first aspect of
the picture.) For there is a very real, physical sense in which man, and
every other organism, creates his own environment. Our whole knowledge of
the world is, in one sense, self-knowledge. For knowing is a translation
of external events into bodily processes, and especially into states of
the nervous system and the brain: we know the world in terms of the body,
and in accordance with its structure. Surgical alterations of the nervous
system, or, in all probability, sense-organs of a different structure than
ours, give different types of perception - just as the microscope and
telescope change the vision of the naked eye. Bees and other insects have,
for example, polaroid eyes which enable them to tell the position of the
sun by observing any patch of blue sky. In other words because of the
different structure of their eyes, the sky that they see is not the sky
that we see. Bats and homing pigeons have sensory equipment analogous to
radar, and in this respect see more 'reality' than we do without our
special instruments."
(Alan W. Watts: "The
Book") |
| "Before I had studied Zen for
thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I
arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that
mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I
have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see
mountains again as mountains, and waters once again as
waters."
(Ch'ing-yuan;
from Alan W. Watts: "The Way of Zen" Pantheon Books, Inc. 1957 reprinted by Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, |
"The flowers depart when we hate to lose them;
The
weeds arrive while we hate to watch them grow."
"Things are produced around us, but no one knows the whence. They issue forth, but no one sees the portal."
"The baby looks at things all day without winking; that is because his eyes are not focussed on any particular object. He goes without knowing where he is going, and stops without knowing what he is doing. He merges himself within the surroundings and moves along with it. These are the principles of mental hygiene."
"Past things are in the past and do not go there from the present, and present things are in the present, and do not go there from the past... Rivers which compete with one another to inundate the land do not flow. The "wandering air" that blows about is not moving. The sun and moon, revolving in their orbits, do not turn around."
"The very one who pursues, who sees and knows and desires, the inner subject, has his existence only in relation to the ephemeral object of his pursuit. He sees that his grasp upon the world is his strangle-hold about his own neck, the hold which is depriving him of the very life he so longs to attain. And there is no way out, no way of letting go, which he can take by effort, by a decision of the will.... But who is it that wants to get out?"
"The Tao belongs neither to knowing nor not knowing. Knowing is false understanding; not knowing is blind ignorance. If you really understand the Tao beyond doubt, it's like the empty sky. Why drag in right and wrong?"
 |
|
|
|
|
|