Showing posts with label Engaged Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Engaged Buddhism. Show all posts

2022/09/05

Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion J. Carrette, Richard King: Books

Amazon.com: Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion: 8580000792539: J. Carrette, Richard King: Books





See this image
Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion 1st Edition
by J. Carrette (Author), Richard King (Author)
4.9 out of 5 stars 17 ratings

Kindle
$29.78
Read with Our Free App
Paperback
$12.60 - $18.32

From Feng Shui to holistic medicine, from aromatherapy candles to yoga weekends, spirituality is big business. It promises to soothe away the angst of modern living and to offer an antidote to shallow materialism.

Selling Spirituality is a short, sharp, attack on this fallacy. It shows how spirituality has in fact become a powerful commodity in the global marketplace - a cultural addiction that reflects orthodox politics, curbs self-expression and colonizes Eastern beliefs.
Exposing how spirituality has today come to embody the privatization of religion in the modern West, Jeremy Carrette and Richard King reveal the people and brands who profit from this corporate hijack, and explore how spirituality can be reclaimed as a means of resistance to capitalism and its deceptions.
Read less
Editorial Reviews

Review


'Selling Spirituality acknowledges that contemporary business ethics include a dimension of social responsibility ... In effect, the market has become God. As Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in his Richard Dimbleby Lecture in 2002: "The very survival of the public sphere, a realm of political argument about vision and education, is going to demand that we take religion a good deal more seriously." Carrette and King show how true this is.' - New Statesman

'In sum, Selling Spirituality offers a provocative thesis ... ' - British Association for the Study of Religions

'The scholarship behind the book is carefully researched and well documented.' - Zadok

'Jeremy Carrette and Richard King break completely new ground... [They] direct our attention to potentially fruitful areas of more systematic investigation [and] illustrate the importance of contemporary religion as a research subject.' - Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion

"Clearly written, passionate, and polemical, this book is sure to spark debate in the college classroom."

--Diane Jonte-Pace, Santa Clara University, Religious Studies Review



'This book is a long-needed, highly insightful critique of the spiritual supermarket, site of the prostitution of spirituality for personal profit and corporate gain. Jeremy Carrette and Richard King have provided a powerful indictment of the corporate exploitation of 'the spiritual,' using advertising and the media to distort the ethical and philosophical teachings of the world religious traditions to buttress their control of the minds of the people they wish to dominate as their loyal consumers. Serious students and teachers of spiritual thought or practice are well-advised to cultivate their self-critical alertness and hone their critical insight with the help of this hard-edged and illuminating book.' – Robert Thurman, Columbia University, USA


About the Author

Jeremy Carrette teaches Religious Studies at the University of Kent, Canterbury. He is author of Foucault and Religion (Routledge, 2000) and editor of Michel Foucault and Religious Experience (2003), and has also co-edited the Routledge Centenary Edition of William James's The Varieties of Religious Experience (2002). Richard King is a Professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Liverpool Hope University. He is author of Orientalism and Religion (Routledge ,1999), Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought (1999) and Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism (1995).


Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 1st edition (September 16, 2004)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 194 pages

#338,293 in Religion & Spirituality (Books)Customer Reviews:
4.9
Richard King



Richard King was born in London in 1966 and is a scholar of Indian philosophy and religion and theories of religion. He has worked in the UK and the USA and is currently Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. He has written on postcolonial approaches to the study of religion, the history of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy (especially the relationship of early Advaita Vedanta and Indian Buddhism), mysticism and spirituality and has contributed to debates on the colonial construction of modern notions of “Hinduism”.

Customer reviews
4.9 out of 5 stars



Elizabeth Bucar

5.0 out of 5 stars Well argued and easy to readReviewed in the United States on March 1, 2018
Verified Purchase
Well argued and easy to read, this is a great overview of the commodification of religion in the US context.


HelpfulReport abuse

Ann McCann

4.0 out of 5 stars Why is religion so individualized?Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2010
Verified Purchase
Selling Spirituality has an academic tone and a Chomskian perspective, but the issues it deals with are so relevant to today's pop-spirituality. Very thought-provoking.

11 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

John L. Murphy

5.0 out of 5 stars In-depth review: how corporate capitalism rebrands religionReviewed in the United States on March 25, 2014

A scholar of Foucault and another of Orientalism combine to expose how deeply the market ideology of the 1980s and 1990s has infiltrated secular and economic contexts. They argue in this clearly conveyed 2004 book a necessary thesis. This "silent takeover of religion", as British critics Jeremy Carrette and Richard King demonstrate, reveals how business repackages religion, cynically or cleverly supporting the selfish motives which underlie unregulated capitalism.

But this corporate capitalist version does not need to dominate the treatment of spirituality. Anti-capitalist or revolutionary, business ethics or reformist, individualist or consumerist, as well as capitalist spirituality, defines this typological range. The nebulous term "spirituality" expresses the privatization of religion by modern secular societies. The commodification by corporate capitalism of what was religion strips that "ailing competitor" of its assets, in a hostile takeover, while rebranding its "aura of authenticity" to convey the "goodwill" of the company, which sells off the religious models of its trappings and teachings at the marketplace. (15-21) God is dead; long live God as Capital.

They cite a 2002 interview with the late Tony Benn to telling effect: "Religions have an extraordinary capacity to develop into control mechanisms . . . If I look at the world today it seems to me that the most powerful religion of all-- much more powerful than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and so on-- is the people who worship money. That is really [the] most powerful religion. And the banks are bigger than the cathedrals, the headquarters of the multinational companies are bigger than the mosques or the synagogues. Every hour on the hour we have business news-- every hour-- it's a sort of hymn to capitalism." (23) The "religious quality of contemporary capitalism," the authors remind us, now lacks restraints of earlier societies. The market as God, as Harvey Cox herein has acknowledged, rules, and seeks a monopoly.

As the authors explain: "The 'spiritual' becomes instrumental to the market rather than oriented towards a wider social and ethical framework, and its primary function becomes the consumerist status quo rather than a critical reflection upon it." Spirituality gets harnessed to "productivity, work-efficiency and the accumulation of profit put forward as the new goals" to supplant "the more traditional emphasis upon self-sacrifice, the disciplining of desire and a recognition of community".

Over fewer than two-hundred pages, Carrette and King elaborate in four chapters the impacts of this takeover. Chapter one surveys spirituality, as it separates from religious contexts and adapts itself to individualism under liberal democracies and then corporations. Chapter two attacks the role played by psychology in "creating a privatised and individualised conception of reality" to align itself with social control and social isolation. Psychology, produced by capitalist intervention, fools people into spirituality as "an apparent cure for the isolation created by a materialistic, competitive and individualised social system." This chapter castigates James, Maslow and Jung for their compliance to cultural, political, and economic norms which fail to liberate those in pain. The sustained and potent argument advanced here indicts New Age practices linked to therapeutic cures. Carrette and King critique this as a trap for sufferers lured in to a desire for elusive remedies. Having been sold escapes from oppression, these intensify rather than ease isolation. Freedom is out of reach.

The link between New Age and esoteric teachings sold to the West and Asian traditions elaborates into Chapter three. Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist versions get sampled. The dissonance between systems advising renunciation and capitalism promoting accumulation provides logical case studies. Some of this coverage examines the careers of Osho/Baghwan Rajneesh, Deepak Chopra, and the "Barefoot Doctor" Stephen Russell. Carrette and King suggest the Socially Engaged Buddhism and related movements as alternatives, as well as a study of the Teachings of Vimalakirti as correctives (if slight taken in their original contexts where no "social revolution" or "mass mobilisation" were realistic possibilities) to the prevalent materialism.

The fourth chapter circles back to the opening critique. They find a vivid analogy to sharpen or sweeten their analysis of how "rejection of the discourse of professional 'excellence' among employees is often presented by managers as 'resistance to accountability'. What such resistance often represents however is not a rejection of accountability as such but rather a rejection of a narrow logic of accountancy with regard to such processes." (137) Similarly, they show how difficult it is amid the cult of devotion instilled in the market-driven workplace to resist "spirituality" or "excellence" as a catch-phrase repeated mantra-like by those who act as missionaries bent on preaching the bottom line.

When spirituality gets used such, it "ends up acting like a food colouring or additive that masks the less savoury ingredients in the product that is being sold to us", they demonstrate convincingly. This content throughout this short treatise remains accessible, as the authors admirably seek "to raise a series of questions in a narrative style that is more open-ended and provocative than traditional academic discourse allows," hearkening to the French "essai" to address "wider political concerns and constituencies than are usually appealed to in scholarly works." (ix-x)

This remains to my knowledge a limited area of sociological or cultural criticism, at least aimed at the masses. Since Occupy a decade after this appeared, Matthew Fox and Adam Bucko's "Occupy Spirituality" and Nathan Schneider's "Thank You, Anarchy" (both reviewed by me) covered congenial themes.

In closing, Carette and King propound Michel Foucault's strategy to resist: "move strategically and then wait for the next assertion of power," given resistance may be futile to the corporate Borg. (172) They advocate anti-capitalist, social justice, and compassion-based movements. They also realize most people who may need such movements to lessen their burdens are not secularized. Therefore, they advise strategic alliances by progressives with principled religious organizations as more practical methods of opposition to capitalist spirituality. While they remain committed to a study of religious and spiritual impacts, and never an advocacy of faith-based belief, the authors understand the limits of a lasting, convincing appeal based on only a secular disenchantment of the spirit. Instead, they seek to align radical factions to the faithful majority, who still believe, but who may be open to engagement, in solidarity against what Chomsky calls "the control of the public mind".

21 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Patrick

5.0 out of 5 stars How capitalism takes over religionReviewed in the United States on December 5, 2019

Carrette and King have written a convincing testament to the exploitation of religion for profit. The book is very accessible, and provides an excellent framework for spotting capitalism’s influence on our spiritual practices. I found it particularly insightful to how seemingly secular goals, like anxiety relief, have been completely taken over by spiritual marketing. This book definitely changed how I act as a consumer!


HelpfulReport abuse

See all reviews


Top reviews from other countries

Mrs KT Degroot
5.0 out of 5 stars Very satisfiedReviewed in the United Kingdom on April 18, 2016
Verified Purchase

Great product, well wrapped, prompt delivery nice price. Thanks!
Report abuse

Paul Goldsby
5.0 out of 5 stars A way to make money!Reviewed in Canada on February 25, 2020
Verified Purchase

Enjoyed this book although thought the price was a little steep!
Report abuse
See all reviews



2022/08/02

Korean Buddhist Philosophy - The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy

 Korean Buddhist Philosophy

Jin Y. Park

The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy

Edited by William Edelglass and Jay L. Garfield

Print Publication Date: May 2011 Subject: Philosophy, Non-Western Philosophy Online Publication Date: Sep 2011 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328998.003.0032

Abstract and Keywords

This article provides an introduction to Korean Buddhist philosophy. Korean Buddhism is a part of the East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition. During its fifteen-hundred-year history, which began in the fourth century and continues to today, Korean Buddhism has developed in a close relationship with Chinese Buddhism and at the same time generated its own unique views. Buddhism, together with Confucianism, constitutes one of the two veins of philosophical traditions in Korea. This article discusses five Buddhist thinkers: Ŭisang (625–702), WOnhyo (617–686), Pojo Chinul (1158–1210), T'oe'ong SOngchOl (1912–1993), and POpsOng (1913–), with respect to the three themes of HwaOm (Ch. Huayan) Buddhism, SOn (Ch. Chan; Jap. Zen) Buddhism, and Buddhist ethics.

Keywords: Ŭisang, WOnhyo, Pojo Chinul, T'oe'ong SOngchOl, POpsOng, Buddhist ethics, Buddhism, HwaOm

KOREAN Buddhism is a part of the East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition. During its fifteen-hundred-year history, which began in the fourth century and continues to today, Korean Buddhism has developed in a close relationship with Chinese Buddhism and at the same time generated its own unique views. Buddhism, together with Confucianism, constitutes one of the two veins of philosophical traditions in Korea. Five Buddhist thinkers are discussed in this essay: Ŭisang (625–702), WOnhyo (617–686), Pojo Chinul (1158–1210), T'oe'ong SOngch'Ol (1912–1993), and Pópsóng (1913–), with respect to the three themes of HwaOm (Ch. Huayan) Buddhism, SOn (Ch. Chan; Jap. Zen) Buddhism, and Buddhist ethics.

Ŭisang is credited as the founder of the HwaOm school. From 661 to 668, Ŭisang studied in Tang China with Zhiyan (602–668), the designated second patriarch of Chinese Huayan Buddhism. During this time, Ŭisang also became a colleague of Fazang (643–712), who later became the third patriarch of the tradition. Ŭisang's thought on HwaOm Buddhism is well articulated in a short piece titled The Diagram of the Reality Realm of the One Vehicle of Hwaöm Buddhism (HwaOm ilsüng pOpkye to), which has had a significant impact on Korean HwaOm thought up to today.

WOnhyo, Ŭisang's contemporary, is one of the most influential Buddhist thinkers in Korean Buddhism. WOnhyo joined a monastery during his teens. Without specific teachers to guide him, he read widely and wrote

commentaries on major Mahāyāna texts, making a significant contribution to the commentarial tradition in East Asian Buddhism. WOnhyo made two attempts to travel to China, neither of which was completed. A life-changing experience during his second unsuccessful journey to China is cited frequently as the moment of his awakening to the truth that the mind is the source of one's understanding of the external world. (p. 374) Wónhyo left behind him a voluminous corpus, the themes of which include HwaOm Buddhist thought, Mind-Only (Cittamātra/Yogācāra) philosophy, the Lotus Teaching, and bodhisattva precepts, among others.

Pojo Chinul was a major figure in establishing the SOn Buddhist tradition in twelfth-century Korea and is considered one of the most important figures in Korean SOn Buddhism. Chinul joined a monastery at the age of eight (1165). Like Wónhyo, Chinul mainly trained himself without specific mentors until the age of twenty-five (1182), when he passed the governmental examination for monks. Instead of taking a governmental post, Chinul continued his own practice, traveling to different monasteries, and finally settled down at the Songgwang monastery in 1200, where he trained disciples, gave dharma talks, and wrote on Buddhism until his death. Chinul's Buddhism developed around the core SOn doctrine that the mind is the Buddha. In later days, Chinul adopted Kanhwa SOn and promoted it as the most effective way to attain awakening. The Kanhwa SOn tradition has remained the most prominent SOn tradition in Korea since Chinul's time, demonstrating his lasting impact on Korean Buddhism.

T'oe'ong SOngh'Ol is one of the most important figures in the second half of the twentieth century in Korean Buddhism; he represents a SOn absolutist and subitist position. POpsOng might not be as well recognized as the other three thinkers introduced here; however, POpsOng's Buddhist thought represents engaged Buddhism in contemporary Korea, one of the important and emerging fields in Buddhist philosophy today. We will discuss POpsOng's engaged Buddhism together with WOnhyo's discussion of bodhisattva precepts. This will offer a response to the question of Buddhism's position in social philosophy and ethical theories, as has been raised in recent years among western Buddhist thinkers.

The Universal and the Particular in the Hwaöm Thought of Ŭisang

Ŭisang discusses the ultimate vision of HwaOm Buddhism in his “Verse on the Dharma Nature” (POpsOng ke), which is included in the Diagram of the Reality Realm of the One Vehicle of Hwaöm Buddhism (HwaOm ilsuing pópkye to). The verse consists of 210 Chinese characters deployed in a diagram that demonstrates the interpenetration of all beings in the phenomenal world, the core theme of HwaOm Buddhism. In the HwaOm Buddhist tradition, the original nature of a being, frequently referred to as “the dharma nature,” is characterized by its nonsubstantiality. The basic Buddhist doctrine postulates the identity of a being as conditional. A being in Buddhism is not an owner of independent and permanent substance but exists in the milieu of conditioned causality. Buddhism identifies its causal theory as dependent-arising. The traditional definition of the concept appears in early (p. 375) Buddhist texts as follows: “Because this happens, that happens; because this ceases, that ceases.” A being's identity is possible only as a differential notion in Buddhism, which challenges the identity principle in substantialist philosophy.

As one of the major East Asian Buddhist schools, HwaOm Buddhism emphasizes the reality of the conditioned

causality at the entire level of the phenomenal world and discusses it especially through the relationship between

the noumenal and the phenomenal. The ultimate teaching of the school is expressed frequently through the symbol of the jewel net of Indra. Imagine the universe as a net that stretches infinitely. Further envision that a glittering jewel sits in each knot of the net. The jewel itself is transparent and has no identity of its own. The identity of each jewel is constantly constructed through what it reflects. In the world of Hwaöm Buddhism, each entity in the cosmos is like a jewel in the net. All beings exist within the net of dependent-arising. In this interrelated world, the identity of the subject is not defined by the independent and permanent essence of the subject but already includes its other. Ŭisang defines a being's identity in this nature as interfusion and nondual. The nature of what is reflected in each jewel cannot be analyzed systematically because of its quantitative immensity and its fluctuating quality. In the “Verse,” Ŭisang describes the logic of Indra's net as follows: “Within the one is encompassed the

1

all, and within the many is the one. / The one is the all and the many are the one.” The idea of mutual penetration reaches culmination in the signature Hwaöm statement, as Ŭisang states: “In one particle of dust is contained the ten directions [the entire world]. / All other particles of dust are the same” (HPC 2.1a). In the logic of Hwaöm Buddhism, any being, however infinitesimal it might be, is identified with the entirety of the world. Since all beings already exist within the net of conditioned causality, the one and the many are not separate. Ŭisang explains this relationship between the one and the many by using the example of the number “one” and the number “ten”:

In the teaching of the great dependent-arising, if there is no “one,” the “many” cannot be established. [Practitioners] should be well aware of this nature. What is called the “one” is not the “one” by its self-nature. [By the same token], what is known as the “ten” is not the “ten” by its self-nature; the “ten” comes to be known as the “ten” by its relation to others [or by dependent-arising]. All of the beings produced out of dependent-arising do not have definite marks or a definite nature. Since there is no self-nature, beings do not exist independently, which suggests that birth actually means no-birth. No-birth means no need to abide, and no abiding means the middle path. (HPC 2.6b)

There exists no eternal, unchanging one-ness or ten-ness that grounds the nature of either the one or the ten. Both the “one” and the “ten” (and in that sense, any being (p. 376) in the world) earn their identities through the ever-changing causal transformation.2 The logic of conditioned causality, however, does not negate the existence of individual beings on the phenomenal level: that is, the one and the ten are different. Despite the individuality that is recognized on the phenomenal level, Hwaöm thought also consistently emphasizes the noumenal aspect of the phenomenally separated existence: hence, the one is the ten. Two issues deserve our attention here: first, the paradigm of one particle-qua-the world does not indicate that a specific one is the entire world all the time on every occasion. The one is the ten when we focus on the “one” at a given moment in a given situation, and the same can be said about any other entity in the world, which is represented in Ŭisang's “Verse” as “a particle of dust.” When the notion of the one in “the one is the all” is interpreted as referring to exclusively a specific one— such as the emperor (the one) as opposed to the people (the all)—the Hwaöm vision risks supporting a totalitarian vision. Second, the phenomenal (the one) and the noumenal (the all) are nondual, and so is the particular and the universal. The phenomenal and the noumenal are hermeneutically constructed concepts, not ontologically separated realities. These two issues should be the ground to respond to the criticism that Hwaöm Buddhism is a form of a philosophy of idealism.

Ŭisang further elaborates the identity of the “one” and the “all” by using the concept of the six marks. The six marks consist of three pairs: universality/particularity (K. ch'ongsang/pyólsang), sameness/difference (K. tongsang/yisang), and integrity/fragmentation (K. sóngsang/koesang). As in the case of the one and the ten, these seeming binary opposites coexist in the identity of an entity. The first in the pairs—universality, the sameness, and

integrity—characterize the totality of the world as understood from the noumenal level. The second sets of each pair—particularity, difference, and fragmentation—characterize the individual entities at the phenomenal level like each jewel in Indra's net. The six marks making up the three pairs demonstrate the contradictory identity through which Hwaöm Buddhism understands an entity. An individual entity is characterized by the marks of particularity, difference, and fragmentation, whereas the nature of its individual identity is constructed through its relationship with others, and its identity is inseparable from the marks of universality, sameness, and integrity.

In Chinese Huayan Buddhism, the mutual interpenetration of the noumenal and the phenomenal is explained through a theory known as the fourfold worldview. The fourfold worldview consists of (1) the world of the phenomenon (C. shifajie; (p. 377) K. sabópkye), (2) the world of the noumenon (C. lifajie; K. yibópkye), (3) the world of the unobstructed interpenetration of the noumenon and the phenomenon (C. lishi wuai fajie: K. yisa muae pópkye), and (4) the world of the unobstructed interpenetration among phenomena (C. shishi wuai fajie; K. sasa muae pópkye). The first of the Huayan fourfold worldview represents the world that consists of individual existences; it is the world of the many, where diversity exists seemingly without a coherent system. The second stage of the fourfold worldview postulates a world that is understood from the perspective of the principle. However diverse existence in the phenomenal world might be, no being exists outside of conditioned causality, which is the structure of the world from the Buddhist perspective. Hence, the third layer of the fourfold worldview declares that there is no conflict between the world of diversity and the world of one principle. Considering the phenomenal diversity in light of the first three stages, Huayan envisions at its fourth level that all entities in the world are mutually influential and interconnected without conflicts.

Ŭisang explains the relationship between the noumenon (the universal) and the phenomenon (the particular) as follows: there is a mutual identity of the noumena (the universal) and the phenomena (the particular); there is a mutual identity of the noumenon and the noumenon, and there is a mutual identity of the phenomenon and the

3

phenomenon (HPC 2.6a). This is the world in which the universal and the particular, and the particular and the particular, are mutually interpenetrating due to their dependently arising nature. Ŭisang identifies the nature of things arising in the law of the dependent-arising as the “middle path.” The Buddhist middle path does not indicate the meridian point of the two participating elements. Instead, it indicates that “all polarities are interfused” (HPC 2.5b). The one and the many, the noumenon and the phenomenon, the universal and the particular are interfused in the sense that neither has self-nature and that both exist in the midst of conditioned causal movements.

Language and Subjectivity in Chinul's Sŏn Buddhism

Zen Buddhism shares with Hwaöm Buddhism the idea of the mutual interfusion of beings but develops its own paradigm that addresses the main concerns of the school. The basic premise of the Zen school claims that the sentient being is the Buddha. The premise is an oxymoron: if the sentient being is the Buddha, why are (p. 378) sentient beings still not enlightened? If the sentient being is the Buddha, what is the meaning of enlightenment? Zen Buddhism challenges the traditional logic of philosophy by answering these questions with the following statement: the sentient being is the Buddha, and yet the sentient being is the sentient being.

In approaching the paradoxical nature of the existential reality of a being, Pojo Chinul underlines the importance of understanding the nature of one's mind. In his Encouragement to Practice: The Compact of the Samādhi and

Prajñā Community (Kwönsu chönghye kyölsa mun 1190), Chinul states, “When one is deluded about the mind and gives rise to endless defilements, such a person is a sentient being. When one is awakened to the mind and gives rise to endless marvelous functions, such a person is the Buddha. Delusion and awakening are two different states, but both are caused by the mind. If one tries to find the Buddha away from this mind, one will never find him” (HPC 4.698a). In this passage, one notices that the commonly held binary opposites, for example delusion and awakening, or the sentient being and the Buddha, are acknowledged but at the same time negated by attributing the ground of the existence of such dualism to the mind of a being. For Chinul, delusion arises not through a certain quality of an entity external or internal to the subject but through the subject's failure to see the nonsubstantial nature of one's ontological reality. Here one notes the fundamental difference of the focus between HwaOm and SOn Buddhism. Whereas Ŭisang's HwaOm Buddhism primarily concerns itself with the phenomenal world and understands each being within that structure, Chinul's SOn Buddhism gives priority to an individual's awakening to his own existential and ontological reality.

One way to interpret Chinul's SOn Buddhism is to understand it as an attempt to address the problem of subjectivity in the process of the individual's awareness of ontological reality, and the problem of subjectivity is closely linked to the subject's relation to language. As is well known, SOn Buddhism has been keen to the function of language in the subject's mode of thinking. However, Chinul points out that the emphasis on the limits of language and thought is not a SOn-specific feature but is found in most Buddhist schools. In explaining the meaning of SOn Buddhism, Chinul is especially aware of Fazang's fivefold taxonomy, in which Fazang placed Chan Buddhism (which he calls the Sudden school) at the fourth level, one step below the Huayan school. Fazang also characterized the teaching of the Sudden school as simply focusing on forgetting language and thoughts in an effort to create the undisturbed state of the mind. Responding to such characterizations of Chan Buddhism by Fazang, Chinul explains in his Treatise on Resolving Doubts about Huatou Meditation (Kanhwa kyOrüi ron) that all five stages of Buddhism in Fazang's fivefold doctrinal classification in their own way deal with the problem of language and of the thinking process. Chinul repeatedly emphasizes that the idea of cutting off language does not belong exclusively to the SOn school, nor is the nature of the achieved goal through SOn practice different from that described by other Buddhist schools, especially by HwaOm Buddhism. If we follow Chinul's logic here, we come to a rather interesting point. That is, the SOn school does not offer any doctrinal renovation of Buddhism; Chinul might even seem to say that the main concern of (p. 379) SOn Buddhism is not Buddhist doctrine itself, since Buddhist doctrines are all already spelled out by existing Buddhist schools. At the same time, the Buddhist teaching SOn represents is not and cannot be different from the teachings expounded by other schools. Chinul's ready admission of the identity between SOn Buddhism and other Buddhist schools at the ultimate level leads one to ask the question: if there is no difference between the two, what is the identity of SOn Buddhism? For Chinul, SOn teachings, especially SOn hwadu meditation, facilitate a state through which the subject makes a radical change in his or her mode of thinking; the doctrinal schools offer a description of the Buddhist worldview and the SOn school teaches how to activate in the mind of the practitioner what has been stated in the doctrinal schools.

Chinul does not consider the linguistic rendering as found in Buddhist scriptures deficient as it is. However, Chinul points out that the linguistically rendered reality of the objective world is not always reflected in the existential reality of the subject. What, then, are the causes of the gap between the linguistically rendered reality and the reality of the subject? In this context, Chinul cites Chinese Chan Master Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) to point out the structural problem in one's thinking process as a major cause that is responsible for such a gap: “The influence of established thought being so strong, the mind in search of enlightenment itself becomes a barrier and thus the correct knowledge of one's mind has rarely obtained a chance to manifest itself. However, this barrier

does not come from outside nor is it something that should be regarded as an exception” (HPC 4.732c). The problems of the situation at this point become internalized and subjectivized.

At the beginning of the Treatise, Chinul juxtaposes SOn with HwaOm, equating them in terms of their vision of the ultimate reality and at the same time distinguishing them in terms of how to approach this reality. For Chinul, the investigation of one's mind is critical in this sense. The mind is allegedly the locus in which the gap between the existential reality of the subject and the hermeneutical reality represented in linguistic rendering of Buddhist teaching takes place. Hence, Chinul repeatedly emphasizes that “the mind is the Buddha,” and SOn practice toward enlightenment, for Chinul, is to be awakened to the very nature of one's mind. In the later stage of his life, Chinul was firm in proposing that hwadu meditation can facilitate the environment in which the practitioner can attain this goal, and the capacity of hwadu in achieving this goal is closely related to the way in which language functions in hwadu meditation.

Chinul argues that language in Buddhist teachings other than SOn hwadu meditation functions simply as a tool to impart meaning. The hwadu meditation employs language not to communicate meaning but to facilitate an environment in which the subject makes a transition from being a mere receptor of the described meaning to an active participator in the reality described in language—that is, hwadu as it is does not present truth, nor does it offer a way to correct the problem that individuals might have. Chinul writes, “The moment one tends toward the slightest idea that the hwadu must be the presentation of the ultimate truth or that it enables one to treat one's defects, one is already under the power of the limitations (p. 380) set by linguistic expression” (HPC 4.733b). The hwadu is like a catalyst: as it is, it is not pertinent to what is happening to the subject; it simply facilitates a transformation in the subject without itself being involved or changed by the transformation. The transforming function of the hwadu is for Chinul what distinguishes SOn Buddhism from all other Buddhist schools.

In explaining the functioning of hwadu language, Chinul employs the distinction between the “live word” (K. hwalgu) and the “dead word” (K. sagu) and “the involvement with the word” (K. ch'amgu) and “involvement with meaning” (K. ch'amüi), borrowing the concepts from Dahui. These distinctions are characterized by the language's relation to the subject rather than the specific nature of linguistic expressions themselves. Chinul criticizes passages like “In this endless world, between me and others, there is no gap even as infinitesimal as the thinness of a hair” (HPC 4.733a) as examples of dead words because “they create in the practitioner's mind barriers derived from understanding” (HPC 4.733a). As opposed to dead words, live words generate “no taste”; they create a dead-end situation to the practitioner in which the practitioner loses all of the resources to exercise his or her thinking process.

When SOn Buddhists criticize language and theorizing, it is because they are the very tools for the subject to carry out the process of domesticating the external world and tailoring it according to the mode of thinking most familiar to the subject. The hwadu meditation, especially the “live word” and the “direct involvement with word,” are tools that put a break in the familiar world created by the subject. Dead words subjugate themselves to a sign-system and habituated mode of thinking. As opposed to dead words, live words become the mediator among the practitioner, language, and the world by disrupting the preexisting order and meaning structure of these three elements established in the subject's mind. The promise of hwadu meditation, for Chinul, is that this experience by the subject of the unfamiliar territory will lead the subject to the realization of her ontological reality, which from the Buddhist perspective is existence in the milieu of the conditionally arising process.

Nondualism and Mahāyāna Buddhist Ethics

Despite the differences in their emphasis, both Ŭisang's HwaOm Buddhism and Chinul's SOn Buddhism find their basis in the fundamental Buddhist vision of nondualism. In Ŭisang's HwaOm Buddhist thought, the particular and the universal, the phenomena and the noumena, are understood as being in a state of interpenetration; in Chinul's SOn Buddhism, the mind of the subject is the source of all delusions, and delusion in this context signifies understanding a phenomenon—be it an individual being, an event, or any abstract concept—as an independent occurrence instead of the result of a multilayered, causal process. If things are by nature void of independent essence and polar opposites are to be understood according to their mutual penetration, how does one construct an ethical system from such a nondual (p. 381) philosophy? In Ŭisang's HwaOm vision of the mutual interpenetration of entities, both good and bad, right and wrong, purity and impurity are understood as being empty. In this nondual world, as Ŭisang states, “saiisāra and nirvāṇa are always harmonized together” (HPC 2.1a). The same applies to Chinul's SOn Buddhist world, as he says, “there being no purity or impurity, there is no right or wrong” (HPC 4.710c). Where do ethics stand in this antinomian world of HwaOm and SOn Buddhism? Given that Buddhism involves not only philosophical but also religious tradition, and that one of the fundamental functions of the latter is to provide practitioners with guidelines to follow in the process of Buddhist practice, the issue of Buddhism's position in ethical and moral systems makes us pause and wonder what kind of ethical paradigm it might offer.

The Mahāyāna Buddhist approach to ethics is well grounded in the fundamental Mahāyāna Buddhist position on the reality of existence. A being does not have an unchanging essence, nor do moral and ethical categories. The fact that a being exists only in the milieu of conditionally arising causal processes does not negate the individual's existence on the phenomenal level, and the same applies to moral and ethical categories. In other words, Mahāyāna Buddhism does not negate the necessity of moral values or ethical categories; however, it also underlines that precepts, moral rules, and ethical definitions exist and are acknowledged always in the context of their provisional nature. WOnhyo makes clear the double-edgedness of the Mahāyāna Buddhist position toward ethics in his discussion of bodhisattva precepts. The precepts by definition indicate rules that Buddhist practitioners are obliged to observe. When one observes a rule, what is the ground for this observation? Are moral rules and ethical categories given by the absolute power and thus to be respected in all circumstances, or are they abided by because of the beneficial consequences they promise to produce?

WOnhyo discusses bodhisattva precepts focusing on the provisional nature of the value category. Precepts are rules that Buddhist practitioners are required to abide by. However, even precepts cannot escape the dependently arising nature of the world, which means that no precepts, and in that sense, no moral or ethical categories, are to be accepted as having absolute independent values of their own. In Essentials of Observation and Violation of Bodhisattva Precepts (Posal kyebon chibOm yogi), Wónhyo discusses the three categories of observing and transgressing the foundations of bodhisattva precepts. First, he discusses major and minor offenses; second, he shows the profound and shallow understandings of observing and transgressing precepts; and third, he presents the ultimate way of observing and transgressing precepts. In the first two sections, WOnhyo offers basic concepts of precepts and how the same precepts can be interpreted differently based on the subject's intention involved in a certain action. In these two sections, as in the case of most moral teachings, Wónhyo promotes the importance of respecting the existing rules. In the third section, titled “Ultimate Observation and Violation of Precepts,” Wónhyo changes the direction of his discussion and revisits the very concepts of precepts and of observing and

violating them. The result is to underline the fundamentally provisional nature of moral rules and ethical categories. Wónhyo writes:

(p. 382) That precepts exist only based on multilevel conditional causes [and thus are empty] does not negate their existence in reality. Violating precepts is also like this; so is personal identity. In dealing with precepts, if one sees only their nonexistent aspect and says that they do not exist, such a person might not violate precepts but will forever lose them, because s/he denies their existence. Also, if someone relies on the idea that precepts do exist and thinks only on the existent side of precepts, even though s/he might be able to observe the precepts, observation in this case is the same as violation, because such a person negates the ultimate reality of precepts [which is emptiness]. (HPC 1.585a, emphasis mine)

When existence is understood through a differential notion instead of being anchored on substantial essence and the particular and the universal are intersubsuming, any attempt to create a closed value system faces a problem of appropriation. Appropriation requires an appropriator, and this logic cannot but question the validity of the created system. As Wónhyo states, the ambiguity of categorized values does not completely negate the necessity of a value system itself. Instead, the awareness of the multilayered contexts out of which a value system is constructed demands a constant readjustment of the existing system. Wónhyo's thought on bodhisattva precepts in its outlook proposes an ethical theory that challenges normative forms of ethics. It was, however, not until recent years that Korean Buddhist traditions began to seriously consider the position of Buddhism as an ethical theory. In contemporary Korean Buddhism, the issue of individual practice and awakening on the one hand and the social engagement and ethical dimension of Buddhism on the other has generated a polemic that makes the issue of Buddhist ethics more visible. Two Buddhist monk-thinkers took opposite positions: T'oe'ong Söngch'öl defined Buddhism as fundamentally based on the perfection of individual cultivation, whereas Pöpsöng claimed that individual cultivation cannot be achieved without being accompanied by social engagement. Söngch'ol's Buddhism kindled a debate known as the Sudden-Gradual debate, and Pöpsöng's Buddhism offers a philosophical paradigm for a form of engaged Buddhism known as Minjung Buddhism (Buddhism for the masses).

The idea of Buddhism for the masses first appeared in Korean Buddhism at the beginning of the twentieth century, when reform-minded Buddhist intellectuals proposed changing Buddhism to be more relevant to the life of the general public, especially those marginalized in society. As a movement, however, Minjung Buddhism began together with prodemocratic and antigovernmental movements in Korean society during the military dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s. Critical of the subjectivist and solipsistic attitudes that appear in some forms of Buddhist practice, Minjung Buddhists emphasize the social dimension of Buddhist philosophy and contend that Buddhist liberation includes liberation from all forms of suppression. In doing so, Minjung Buddhists make appeals to the bodhisattva ideal and to compassion.

The Sudden-Gradual debate was ignited by Söngch'öl along with the publication of his book, The Correct Path of the Sŏn School (Sönmun chöngno 1981), in which he criticizes the “sudden enlightenment with gradual cultivation” as a (p. 383) heretical teaching in the Sön school and defines “sudden enlightenment with sudden cultivation” as the authentic form of the Sön practice. The idea of sudden enlightenment is based on the fundamental Sön claim that sentient beings are already Buddha the way they are. On the surface, Minjung Buddhism and the Sudden-Gradual debate fall into two exclusively different categories of Buddhist thought: the former focuses on the social aspects of Buddhist philosophy, whereas the latter centers on the nature of individual cultivation. At a deep level, they cannot but reflect each other because, without a clear understanding of the nature

of individual cultivation and awakening as explored in the Sudden-Gradual debate, Buddhist philosophy cannot maintain itself. However, if the subjective world of an individual cannot be linked to the public and objective domain of the social ethical realm, as Minjung Buddhism emphasizes, such a cultivation or awakening contradicts the basic Buddhist doctrines of dependent-arising and no-self. The Sudden-Gradual debate and Minjung Buddhism, then, represent the perennial core issues of Buddhism: that is, how to relate wisdom (realization of one's ontological reality) and compassion (sharing life with others).

Questions have been raised about whether attainment of wisdom (enlightenment) will naturally facilitate compassionate actions for others. Pópsóng's discussion of sudden and gradual aptly applies to this issue. Instead of understanding sudden and gradual as a process from the former to the latter within the subject, Pópsóng relates them to the subject's realization and the social and historical manifestation of that realization, that is, noumenal wisdom and its exercise through compassion in the phenomenal world. In doing so, he incorporates HwaOm Buddhist thought into his emphasis on the social and ethical dimensions of Buddhist enlightenment. Pópsóng was not the first Korean Buddhist to resort to HwaOm Buddhism to underscore the relevance of SOn Buddhism to the social and ethical realities of the practitioner's life. From Chinul in the twelfth century to S'Ongch'Ol in the twentieth century, Korean SOn masters have frequently resorted to HwaOm Buddhist philosophy in an effort to clarify the relationship between the subject and the object in the SOn Buddhist worldview and between an individual's ontological awakening (wisdom) and its social dimension (compassion) in SOn practice.

Reminiscent of the HwaOm vision of the interpenetration of the phenomena and the noumena, Pópsóng claims that the diversities characterizing the phenomenal world require endless engagement in bodhisattva activities in daily life, which Pópsóng identifies as “history.” History of Buddhism, as expressed through his term “historicization,” is contrasted with a metaphysical or transcendental understanding of Buddhism. SOn Buddhist enlightenment, from POpsOng's perspective, cannot be related solely to individual spiritual awakening, nor can it be an asocial event, as has been argued previously. Pópsóng contends that the hwadu of SOn Buddhism are not “dead words intuiting the inner spiritual mysticism. Hwadu meditation is epistemological activity that constantly negates the reification of ideas and self-absolutization of any entity; it is historical movement that actively accepts and

4

refreshes the (p. 384) nature of dependent co-arising in one's existence.” Chinul prioritized hwadu meditation in SOn practice, emphasizing the capacity of hwadu to facilitate a fundamental change in one's mode of thinking. POpsOng took this possibility of SOn Buddhism further toward the social dimension and linked the change in an individual as a path toward a social change. POpsOng thus states, “Buddhist enlightenment is not a return to absolute reality; instead, it is a sudden liberation of all the essentialist views regarding one's consciousness and existence, self and the world.” 5 This awakening or liberation of self-closure of an individual needs to take place constantly and continuously as life unfolds. This is a vision of the world in which human desire for a teleological completion needs to give way to the awakening to the openness of the world and of beings.

WOnhyo's bodhisattva precepts suggest an ethical theory that acknowledges rules but only to the degree that the moral rules and ethical categories are understood as provisional and do not have an essence of their own; POpsOng's engaged Buddhism explains the social dimension of SOn and HwaOm Buddhism, emphasizing the indissoluble nature of individual and society, or self and others in the Buddhist world. In both cases, the conventional rule-bounded moral theories are accepted only as a preliminary stage of social theory; in its place, the Mahāyāna Buddhism of Wónhyo and POpsOng proposes a context-bound ethical theory that requires a constant reawakening to one's existential and social reality as one lives in the milieu of the ever-changing causal processes of the Buddhist world.

Bibliography and Suggested Reading

BUSWELL, ROBERT E., JR. (trans.). (1983) The Korean Approach to Zen: The Collected Works of Chinul. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.

Find this resource:

——— (trans.). (2007) Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wónhyo's Exposition of the Vajrasamadhi-Sūtra (Kümgang Sammaegyóng Non). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Find this resource:

JORGENSEN, JOHN. (2010) “Minjung Buddhism: A Buddhist Critique of the Status Quo-its History, Philosophy, and Critique.” In Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, edited by Jin Y. Park. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 275–313.

Find this resource:

ODIN, STEVEN. (1982) Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpenetration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Find this resource:

(p. 385) PARK, JIN Y. (2005) “Zen Language in Our Time: The Case of Pojo Chinul's Huatou Meditation.” Philosophy East and West 55/1, 80–98.

Find this resource:

——— . (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan, and the Possibility of Buddhist-Postmodern Ethics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Find this resource:

YUN, WONCHEOL. (2010) “Zen Master T'oe'ong Söngch'öl's Doctrine of Zen Enlightenment and Practice.” In Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, edited by Jin Y. Park. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 199–226. (p. 386)

Find this resource:

Notes:

(1) Hwaöm ilsüng pöpkye to (Diagram of the Reality Realm of the One Vehicle of Hwaöm Buddhism), Han'guk Pulgyo chönsö (Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, hereafter HPC), vol. 2, pp. 1–8, p. 2.1a. For a complete English translation of this work, see Odin 1982. Throughout this essay, English translations from Classical Chinese and Korean are mine.

(2) Fazang, the alleged Third Patriarch of Chinese Huayan Buddhism, explains the relationship of the one and the ten by employing the concepts of “the same body” (C. tongti; K. tongch'e) and “the different body” (C. yiti; K. yich'e). The one and the ten in the numerals one through ten are different entities (bodies) because the one is not the ten and the ten is not the one. However, they are the same body in the sense that the one cannot obtain its meaning without the rest of the number in the series of one through ten; the same is the case with the number ten. That the one is the same body and at the same time a different body with the number ten can be further explained through the Buddhist concept of identity known as the two levels of truth.

(3) The terms “nounema” and “phenomena” are translations of the Chinese character li (K. yi) and shi (K. sa), respectively. These terms are also translated here as the principle and the particular. Noumena and phenomena in this case are not related to Kantian philosophy or phenomenology in Continental philosophy, even though Huayan Buddhism can be understood as Buddhist phenomenology as I have discussed elsewhere. See Park 2008, especially ch. 8 and 9.

(4) Pópsóng, “Minjung Pulgyo undong ǔi silch'önjök ipchang” (The Practical Standpoint of the Minjung Buddhist Movement), in Chonggyo yön'gu (Religious Studies) 6 (1990): 223–228, p. 223.

(5) Pöpsöng, “Kkadarüm üi ilsangsöng kwa hyöngmyöngsöng” (Commonality and Revolutionality of Enlightenment.” Ch'angjak kwa pip'yöng 82 (Winter 1993): 329–340.

Jin Y. Park

Jin Y. Park is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion at American University. Park's research focuses on Zen and Huayan Buddhism, Buddhist-postmodern comparative philosophy, Buddhist encounters with modernity in Korea, and Buddhist ethics. Her publications include Buddhisms and Deconstructions (2006), Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan, and the Possibility of Buddhist-Postmodern Ethics (2008), and Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism (2010).

Oxford Handbooks Online


2022/07/18

Simple living - Wikipedia

Simple living - Wikipedia

Simple living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Simple living refers to practices that promote simplicity in one's lifestyle. Common practices of simple living include reducing the number of possessions one owns, depending less on technology and services, and spending less money.[1][2] These practices can be seen throughout history, religion, art, and economics.

Mahatma Gandhi spinning yarn in 1942. Gandhi believed in a life of simplicity and self-sufficiency.

Adherents may choose simple living for a variety of personal reasons, such as spiritualityhealth, increase in quality time for family and friends, work–life balance, personal taste, financial sustainability, increase in philanthropyfrugalityenvironmental sustainability,[3] or reducing stress. Simple living can also be a reaction to materialism and conspicuous consumption. Some cite sociopolitical goals aligned with environmentalist, anti-consumerist or anti-war movements, including conservationdegrowthdeep ecology, and tax resistance.[4]

History[edit]

Religious and spiritual[edit]

Diogenes living in a clay wine jar. Painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1860), Walters Art Museum.

A number of religious and spiritual traditions encourage simple living.[5] Early examples include the Śramaṇa traditions of Iron Age India and biblical Nazirites. More formal traditions of simple living stretch back to antiquity, originating with religious and philosophical leaders such as Lao TzuConfuciusZarathustraGautama BuddhaJesus, and Muhammad. These traditions were heavily influenced by both national cultures and religious ethics.[6] Diogenes, a major figure in the ancient Greek philosophy of Cynicism, claimed that a simple life was necessary for virtue, and was said to have lived in a wine jar.[7]

Simplicity was one of the primary concepts espoused by Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism. This is most embodied in the principles of Pu and Ziran.[8] Confucius has been quoted numerous times as promoting simple living.[9]

Gautama Buddha espoused simple living as a central virtue of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths advocate detachment from desire as the path to ending suffering and attaining Nirvana.[10]

Jesus is said to have lived a simple life. He is said to have encouraged his disciples "to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics."[11] 

Similar to Jesus' statement, many notable religious individuals, such as Benedict of NursiaFrancis of AssisiHenry David ThoreauLeo TolstoyRabindranath TagoreAlbert Schweitzer, and Mahatma Gandhi,[12][6] have claimed that spiritual inspiration led them to a simple living lifestyle.

Sufism in the Muslim world emerged and grew as a mystical,[13] somewhat hidden tradition in the mainstream Sunni and Shia denominations of Islam,[13] state Eric Hanson and Karen Armstrong, likely in reaction to "the growing worldliness of Umayyad and Abassid societies".[14] Sufism was adopted and then grew particularly in the frontier areas of Islamic states,[13][15] where the asceticism of its fakirs and dervishes appealed to populations already used to the monastic traditions of HinduismBuddhism, and Christianity.[14][16][17] Sufis were highly influential and greatly successful in spreading Islam between the 10th and 19th centuries,[13] particularly to the furthest outposts of the Muslim world in the Middle East and North Africa, the Balkans and Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, and finally CentralEastern, and Southeast Asia.[13] Some scholars have argued that Sufi Muslim ascetics and mystics played a decisive role in converting the Turkic peoples to Islam between the 10th and 12th centuries and Mongol invaders in Persia during the 13th and 14th centuries, mainly because of the similarities between the extreme, ascetic Sufis (fakirs and dervishes) and the Shamans of the traditional Turco-Mongol religion.[15][18]

Plain people typically belonged to Christian groups that have practised lifestyles with excluded forms of wealth or technology for religious or philosophical reasons. Such Christian groups include the ShakersMennonitesAmishHutteritesAmana ColoniesBruderhof,[19][20] Old German Baptist BrethrenHarmony Society, and some Quakers

A Quaker belief called Testimony of simplicity states that a person ought to live her or his life simply. Some tropes about complete exclusion of technology in these groups may not be accurate though. The Amish and other groups do use some modern technology, after assessing its impact on the community.[21][22]

The 18th-century French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau strongly praised the simple way of life in many of his writings, especially in two books: Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750) and Discourse on Inequality (1754).[23]

Secular and political[edit]

Epicureanism, based on the teachings of the Athens-based philosopher Epicurus, flourished from about the fourth century BC to the third century AD. Epicureanism upheld the untroubled life as the paradigm of happiness, made possible by carefully considered choices. Specifically, Epicurus pointed out that troubles entailed by maintaining an extravagant lifestyle tend to outweigh the pleasure of partaking in it. He therefore concluded that what is necessary for happiness, bodily comfort, and life itself should be maintained at minimal cost, while all things beyond what is necessary for these should either be tempered by moderation or completely avoided.[24]

Reconstruction of Henry David Thoreau's cabin on the shores of Walden Pond

Henry David Thoreau, an American naturalist and author, is often considered to have made the classic secular statement advocating a life of simple and sustainable living in his book Walden (1854). Thoreau conducted a two-year experiment living a plain and simple life on the shores of Walden Pond. In Victorian Britain, Henry Stephens Salt, an admirer of Thoreau, popularised the idea of "Simplification, the saner method of living".[25] Other British advocates of the simple life included Edward CarpenterWilliam Morris, and the members of the "Fellowship of the New Life".[26] Carpenter popularised the phrase the "Simple Life" in his essay Simplification of Life in his England's Ideal (1887).[27]

C.R. Ashbee and his followers also practised some of these ideas, thus linking simplicity with the Arts and Crafts movement.[28] British novelist John Cowper Powys advocated the simple life in his 1933 book A Philosophy of Solitude.[29] John Middleton Murry and Max Plowman practised a simple lifestyle at their Adelphi Centre in Essex in the 1930s.[30] Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh championed a "right simplicity" philosophy based on ruralism in some of his work.[31]

George Lorenzo Noyes, a naturalistmineralogistdevelopment critic, writer, and artist, is known as the Thoreau of Maine. He lived a wilderness lifestyle, advocating through his creative work a simple life and reverence for nature. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Vanderbilt Agrarians of the Southern United States advocated a lifestyle and culture centered upon traditional and sustainable agrarian values as opposed to the progressive urban industrialism which dominated the Western world at that time.

The Norwegian-American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen warned against the conspicuous consumption of the materialistic society with The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899); Richard Gregg coined the term "voluntary simplicity" in The Value of Voluntary Simplicity (1936). From the 1920s, a number of modern authors articulated both the theory and practice of living simply, among them Gandhian Richard Gregg, economists Ralph Borsodi and Scott Nearing, anthropologist-poet Gary Snyder, and utopian fiction writer Ernest CallenbachE. F. Schumacher argued against the notion that "bigger is better" in Small Is Beautiful (1973); and Duane Elgin continued the promotion of the simple life in Voluntary Simplicity (1981). The Australian academic Ted Trainer practices and writes about simplicity, and established The Simplicity Institute[32] at Pigface Point, some 20 km from the University of New South Wales to which it is attached.[33] A secular set of nine values was developed with the Ethify Yourself project in Austria, having a simplified life style in mind and accompanied by an online book (2011). In the United States voluntary simplicity started to garner more public exposure through a movement in the late 1990s around a popular "simplicity" book, The Simple Living Guide[34] by Janet Luhrs.[35] Around the same time, minimalism (a similar movement) started to feature in the public eye.

Changing mindset[edit]

Danny Dover, author of The Minimalist Mindset, states that ideas are just thoughts, but implementing and acting on these ideas in our own lives is what will make it habitual, and allowing a change in mindset.[36] Leo Babauta believes finding beauty and joy in less, is what advocates of the thought of "more is better" fail to do. Joshua Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus share their story of what they used to see life for.[37] It is quality over quantity that minimalists prefer to follow. It is emphasized that we should value things that make us happy and are essential to us, rather than value the idea of just having things to have.[38]

This mindset has spread among many individuals due to the influence of other people living this lifestyle.

Practices[edit]

Reducing consumption, work time, and possessions[edit]

Living simply in a small dwelling

Simplicity boils down to two steps: Identify the essential. Eliminate the rest.

Leo Babauta

Some people practice simple living by reducing consumption. Lowering consumption will most likely lead to less individual debt, allowing greater flexibility and simplicity in one's life. By lowering expenditure on goods or services, the time spent earning money can be reduced. The time saved may be used to pursue other interests, or help others through volunteering. Some may use the extra free time to improve their quality of life, for example pursuing creative activities such as art and crafts. Developing a detachment from money has led some individuals, such as Suelo and Mark Boyle, to live with no money at all.[39][40] Reducing expenses may also lead to increasing savings, which can lead to financial independence and the possibility of early retirement.[41]

You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need.

Vernon Howard

The 100 Thing Challenge is a grassroots movement to whittle down personal possessions to one hundred items, with the aim of de-cluttering and simplifying life.[42] The small house movement includes individuals who chose to live in small, mortgage-free, low-impact dwellings, such as log cabins or beach huts.[43]

Those who follow simple living may hold a different value over their homes. Joshua Becker suggests simplifying the place that they live for those who desire to live this lifestyle.[44]

Increasing self-sufficiency[edit]

Robert Hart's forest garden in Shropshire, England, UK

One way to simplify life is to get back-to-the-land and grow your own food, as increased self-sufficiency reduces dependency on money and the economyTom Hodgkinson believes the key to a free and simple life is to stop consuming and start producing.[45] This is a sentiment shared by an increasing number of people, including those belonging to the millennial generation such as writer and eco blogger Jennifer Nini, who left the city to live off-grid, grow food, and "be a part of the solution; not part of the problem."[46]

Forest gardening, developed by simple living adherent Robert Hart, is a low-maintenance plant-based food production system based on woodland ecosystems, incorporating fruit and nut trees, shrubs, herbs, vines and perennial vegetables.[47] Hart created a model forest garden from a 0.12 acre orchard on his farm at Wenlock Edge in Shropshire.[48]

The idea of food miles, the number of miles a given item of food or its ingredients has travelled between the farm and the table, is used by simple living advocates to argue for locally grown food. This is now gaining mainstream acceptance, as shown by the popularity of books such as The 100-Mile Diet, and Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life. In each of these cases, the authors devoted a year to reducing their carbon footprint by eating locally.[49]

City dwellers can also produce fresh home-grown fruit and vegetables in pot gardens or miniature indoor greenhouses. Tomatoes, lettuce, spinach, Swiss chard, peas, strawberries, and several types of herbs can all thrive in pots. Jim Merkel says "A person could sprout seeds. They are tasty, incredibly nutritious, and easy to grow... We grow them in wide-mouthed mason jars with a square of nylon window screen screwed under a metal ring".[50] Farmer Matt Moore spoke on this issue: "How does it affect the consumer to know that broccoli takes 105 days to grow ahead? [...] The supermarket mode is one of plenty—it's always stocked. And that changes our sense of time. How long it takes to grow food—that's removed in the marketplace. They don't want you to think about how long it takes to grow, because they want you to buy right now".[51] One way to change this viewpoint is also suggested by Mr. Moore. He placed a video installation in the produce section of a grocery store that documented the length of time it took to grow certain vegetables.[51] This aimed to raise awareness in people of the length of time actually needed for gardens.

The do it yourself ethic refers to the principle of undertaking necessary tasks oneself rather than having others, who are more skilled or experienced, complete them for you.

Reconsidering technology[edit]

People who practice simple living have diverse views on the role of technology. The American political activist Scott Nearing was skeptical about how humanity would use new technology, citing destructive inventions such as nuclear weapons.[52] Those who eschew modern technology are often referred to as Luddites or neo-Luddites.[53] Although simple living is often a secular pursuit, it may still involve reconsidering personal definitions of appropriate technology, as Anabaptist groups such as the Amish or Mennonites have done.

Technology is a way to make a simple lifestyle within mainstream culture easier and more sustainable. The internet can reduce an individual's carbon footprint through remote work and lower paper usage. Some have also calculated their energy consumption and have shown that one can live simply and in an emotionally satisfying way by using much less energy than is used in Western countries.[54] Technologies they may embrace include computers, photovoltaic systemswind turbines, and water turbines.

Technological interventions that appear to simplify living may actually induce side effects elsewhere or at a future point in time. Evgeny Morozov warns that tools like the internet can facilitate mass surveillance and political repression.[55] The book Green Illusions identifies how wind and solar energy technologies have hidden side effects and can actually increase energy consumption and entrench environmental harms over time.[56] Authors of the book Techno-Fix criticize technological optimists for overlooking the limitations of technology in solving agricultural problems.[57]

Advertising is criticised for encouraging a consumerist mentality. Many advocates of simple living tend to agree that cutting out, or cutting down on, television viewing is a key ingredient in simple living. Some see the Internet, podcastingcommunity radio, or pirate radio as viable alternatives.[58]

Simplifying diet[edit]

Figs, berries, and cheese

Contrastingly to other diet forms, such as plant-based, ketogenic, and Mediterranean diet, among others, the simplified diet focuses on a number of principles rather than having a set of rules. It is common for individuals to use less sophisticated and cheaper ingredients, and tends to promoted dishes considered as "comfort food", including home-cooked dishes. Simple diets are usually considered as "healthy", since they include a significant amount of fruit vegetables.[59] A simple diet usually avoids highly processed foods and fast-food eating.[60] A simple diet, since it belongs to a lifestyle, also entails taking time to be present while eating, such as by following rituals, avoiding multitasking when eating, and putting time aside to consume food mindfully and gratefully, potentially in the company of others.[61] Moreover, it is common to cook one's own food, by following simple recipes that are not particularly time consuming, in an attempt to reduce the amount of energy necessary for cooking.[62]

Overall however, a simple diet looks different from person to person and can be adapted to suit individual needs and desires. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Movement for Compassionate Living was formed by Kathleen and Jack Jannaway in 1984 to spread the message of veganism and promote simple living and self-reliance as a remedy against the exploitation of humans, animals, and the planet.

Politics and activism[edit]

Environmentalism[edit]

Environmentalism is inspired by simple living, as harmony with nature is intrinsically dependent on a simple lifestyle.[according to whom?] For example, Green parties often advocate simple living as a consequence of their "four pillars" or the "Ten Key Values" of the Green Party of the United States. This includes, in policy terms, their rejection of genetic engineering and nuclear power and other technologies they consider to be hazardous. The Greens' support for simplicity is based on the reduction in natural resource usage and environmental impact.[3] This concept is expressed in Ernest Callenbach's "green triangle" of ecologyfrugality and health.

The White House Peace Vigil, started by simple living adherent Thomas in 1981

Many with similar views avoid involvement even with green politics as compromising simplicity, however, and advocate forms of green anarchism that attempt to implement these principles at a smaller scale, e.g. the ecovillageDeep ecology, a belief that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans, proposes wilderness preservationhuman population control and simple living.[63]

Anti-war[edit]

The alleged relationship between economic growth and war, when fought for control and exploitation of natural and human resources, is considered a good reason for promoting a simple living lifestyle.[opinion] Avoiding the perpetuation of the resource curse is a similar objective of many simple living adherents.

Opposition to war has led peace activists, such as Ammon Hennacy and Ellen Thomas, to a form of tax resistance in which they reduce their income below the tax threshold by taking up a simple living lifestyle.[4][64] These individuals believe that their government is engaged in immoral, unethical or destructive activities such as war, and paying taxes inevitably funds these activities.[4]

Arts[edit]

The term Bohemianism has been used to describe a long tradition of both voluntary and involuntary poverty by artists who devote their time to artistic endeavors rather than paid labor. The phase Bohemianism was coined by the French bourgeoisie as a way to describe the "non-conformists" of society.[65] Generally, Bohemians appeared to express their unorthodoxy through simplistic art; this behavior was notably seen by Amedeo Modigliani.[66] Amedeo Modigliani was known for his paintings and sculptures depicting nudity in a provocative yet unambiguous interpretation.[65] Later, this form of minimalistic art transcended in many countries, inspiring "rebel" artistic movements into the 20th century.[65]

In May 2014, a story on NPR suggested that positive attitudes towards living in poverty for the sake of art are becoming less common among young American artists, and quoted one recent graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design as saying "her classmates showed little interest in living in garrets and eating ramen noodles."[67]

Economics[edit]

A new economics movement has been building since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972,[68] and the publications that year of Only One EarthThe Limits to Growth, and Blueprint For Survival, followed by Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered in 1973.[69]

Recently, David Wann has introduced the idea of "simple prosperity" as it applies to a sustainable lifestyle. From his point of view, and as a point of departure for what he calls real sustainability, "it is important to ask ourselves three fundamental questions: what is the point of all our commuting and consuming? What is the economy for? And, finally, why do we seem to be unhappier now than when we began our initial pursuit for rich abundance?"[70]

A reference point for this new economics can be found in James Robertson's A New Economics of Sustainable Development,[69] and the work of thinkers and activists, who participate in his Working for a Sane Alternative network and program. According to Robertson, the shift to sustainability is likely to require a widespread shift of emphasis from raising incomes to reducing costs.

The principles of the new economics, as set out by Robertson, are the following:

  • Systematic empowerment of people (as opposed to making and keeping them dependent), as the basis for people-centred development
  • Systematic conservation of resources and the environment, as the basis for environmentally sustainable development
  • Evolution from a "wealth of nations" model of economic life to a one-world model, and from today's inter-national economy to an ecologically sustainable, decentralising, multi-level one-world economic system
  • Restoration of political and ethical factors to a central place in economic life and thought
  • Respect for qualitative values, not just quantitative values

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Linda Breen Pierce (2000). Choosing Simplicity. Gallagher Press. p. 304ISBN 978-0967206714Rather than being consumed by materialism, we choose to surround ourselves with only those material possessions we truly need or genuinely cherish
  2. ^ Vernon HowardQuotes about HappinessYou have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need
  3. Jump up to:a b Taylor, Matthew (2019-05-22). "Much shorter working weeks needed to tackle climate crisis – study"The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-11-02.
  4. Jump up to:a b c "Low Income/Simple Living as War Tax Resistance". NWTRCC.
  5. ^ Helena Echlin (December 2006) Yoga Journal, p. 92
    • Also see W. Bradford Swift (July/August 1996) Yoga Journal, p. 81
  6. Jump up to:a b Shi, David. The Simple Life. University of Georgia Press (2001).
  7. ^ Parry, Richard. "Ancient Ethical Theory"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 16 September 2012.
  8. ^ Tao Te Ching  – via Wikisource.
  9. ^ Analects  – via Wikisource.
  10. ^ Dhammapada  – via Wikisource.
  11. ^ "Mark 6:8 | English Standard Version :: ERF Bibleserver".
  12. ^ Slocock, N. (May 2004). "'Living a Life of Simplicity?' A Response to Francis of Assisi by Adrian House".
  13. Jump up to:a b c d e Cook, David (May 2015). "Mysticism in Sufi Islam"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of ReligionOxfordOxford University Pressdoi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.51ISBN 9780199340378Archived from the original on 28 November 2018. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  14. Jump up to:a b Hanson, Eric O. (2006). Religion and Politics in the International System TodayNew YorkCambridge University Press. pp. 102–104. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616457ISBN 978-0-521-85245-6.
  15. Jump up to:a b Findley, Carter V. (2005). "Islam and Empire from the Seljuks through the Mongols"The Turks in World HistoryOxford and New YorkOxford University Press. pp. 56–66. ISBN 9780195177268OCLC 54529318.
  16. ^ Shahzad Bashir (2013). Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam. Columbia University Press. pp. 9–11, 58–67. ISBN 978-0-231-14491-9.
  17. ^ Antony Black (2011). The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-7486-8878-4.
  18. ^ Amitai-Preiss, Reuven (January 1999). "Sufis and Shamans: Some Remarks on the Islamization of the Mongols in the Ilkhanate". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the OrientLeidenBrill Publishers42 (1): 27–46. doi:10.1163/1568520991445605ISSN 1568-5209JSTOR 3632297.
  19. ^ "Learning from the Bruderhof: An Intentional Christian Community"ChristLife. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  20. ^ "BBC - Inside The Bruderhof - Media Centre"www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-07-19.
  21. ^ Crump, Dallin (2018-08-22). "What the Amish are Teaching Me about How to Use Technology"Medium. Retrieved 2019-08-01.
  22. ^ "Unknown Christian community in Sussex lives without electricity or possessions"Metro. 2019-07-20. Retrieved 2019-08-01.
  23. ^ Marshall, PeterNature's Web: Rethinking Our Place on Earth. M.E. Sharpe, 1996 (pp. 235, 239–44).
  24. ^ Smith, M.F. (2001). Lucretius: On the Nature of Things Archived 2006-03-01 at the Wayback Machine. Introduction available online at Epicurius.info. Hackett Pub Co ISBN 978-0872205871
  25. ^ Salt quoted in Peter C. Gould, Early Green Politics, p. 22.
  26. ^ Gould, pp. 27–28
  27. ^ Delany 1987, p. 10.
  28. ^ Fiona Maccarthy, The Simple Life: C.R. Ashbee in the Cotswolds (London, 1981).
  29. ^ A Philosophy of Solitude, London, 1933. See also David GoodwayAnarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow (Liverpool, 2006), pp. 48–49, 174, for Goodway's comparison of Powys' ideas of the Simple Life to Carpenter's.
  30. ^ Hardy, Dennis. Utopian England: Community Experiments 1900–1945 p. 42. Hardy's book details other simple living movements in the UK in this period.
  31. ^ "Kavanagh's Lessons for Simple Living". Irish Times. November 23, 2009.
  32. ^ Simplicity Institute
  33. ^ Website of the Social Science Dept at UNSW
  34. ^ 'The Simple Living Guide
  35. ^ Janet Luhrs | Simple Living
  36. ^ Fox, Danny (2003), "On Logical Form", Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 82–123, doi:10.1002/9780470758342.ch2ISBN 978-0470758342
  37. ^ Millburn, Joshua; Nicodemus, Ryan (2011). Minimalism Essential Essays. Mins Publishing. pp. 9–12.
  38. ^ Babauta, Leo. "the simple guide to a minimalist life" (PDF).
  39. ^ Osborne, Hilary (23 July 2009). "Daniel Suelo: Free spirit or freeloader?"The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
  40. ^ Salter, Jessica (18 August 2010). "The man who lives without money"The Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 20 August 2010.
  41. ^ Robinson, Nancy (2 August 2012). "Retiring At Age 50 Is Realistic Using These Unorthodox Strategies"Forbes. US. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
  42. ^ Lisa McClaughlin (June 5, 2008). "How to Live with Just 100 Things"Time.
  43. ^ "Less is more: Simple living in small spaces"BBC News. 28 December 2011.
  44. ^ Becker, Joshua (2018). The Minimalist Home. WaterBrook. pp. 3–5.
  45. ^ Tom Hodgkinson (2006). How To Be FreeISBN 978-0241143216.
  46. ^ Nini, Jennifer (September 2014). "So You Think You Can Farm?". Retrieved 1 September 2014.
  47. ^ Robert Hart (1996-09-01). Forest gardening: Cultivating an edible landscape. p. 97. ISBN 978-1603580502.
  48. ^ Robert Hart (1996). Forest Gardening. p. 45. ISBN 978-1603580502.
  49. ^ Taylor, K. (August 8, 2007). "The Year I Saved The World." New York: The Sun."
  50. ^ Merkel, Jim. Radical Simplicity. British Columbia: New Society, 2003. Print, 170–71.
  51. Jump up to:a b Mark, Jason. "How Does Your Garden Grow? Watch and See" food.change.org. Sustainable Food. 26 Feb 2010. Web.
  52. ^ Scott Nearing (2006). Civilization and Beyond. p. 101. ISBN 978-1406834970.
  53. ^ Sale, K. (February 1997). "America's New Luddites." Le Monde diplomatique.
  54. ^ Anil K. Rajvanshi "How to Live Simply and in a Sustainable Way" Archived 2013-12-19 at the Wayback Machine
  55. ^ Evgeny Morozov (2011). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.
  56. ^ Zehner, Ozzie (2012). Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of EnvironmentalismUniversity of Nebraska Press.
  57. ^ Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
  58. ^ Baofu, Peter (2013-01-03). The Future of Post-Human Waste: Towards a New Theory of Uselessness and Usefulness. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-4504-5.
  59. ^ Smith, Katie (February 25, 2009). "Slow economy calls for simple living"Free Lance-Star.
  60. ^ "Women urged for changing culture of extra protein rich, spicy food". Daily Messenger (Pakistan). October 18, 2020.
  61. ^ McDonald, Glenn. "For us, simple living isn't easy - Author advocates the joy of less stuff"News & Observer.
  62. ^ Weidner, Johanna (January 8, 2005). "Food helps define life, editor says"Record, The (Kitchner, Ontario, Canada).
  63. ^ John Barry; E. Gene Frankland (2002). International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. Routledge. p. 161. ISBN 978-0415202855.
  64. ^ Picket Line Annual Report
  65. Jump up to:a b c "Famous Artists of the 20th Century Who Knew How to Live"Widewalls. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
  66. ^ "Amedeo Modigliani Paintings, Bio, Ideas"The Art Story. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
  67. ^ Neda Ulaby (Director) (2014-05-15). "In Pricey Cities, Being A Bohemian Starving Artist Gets Old Fast"War On Poverty, 50 Years Later. NPR. Retrieved 2014-05-31.
  68. ^ United Nations Environment Program (1972) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Archived 2007-04-11 at the Library of Congress Web Archives. Stockholm 1972. Retrieved on March 24, 2008
  69. Jump up to:a b Robertson, James (2005) "The New Economics of Sustainable Development". A Briefing for Policy Makers. Report for the European Commission. ISBN 0749430931
  70. ^ Wann, David. Simple Prosperity: Finding Real Wealth in a Sustainable Lifestyle. New York, St. Martin's Griffin, 2007. ISBN 978-0312361419

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]