Moving Up to a Better World
Dada Jyotirupananda
Moving Up to a Better World
Looking at the daily newspapers lately, I see that the stock market is
going up, and I'm told that that's good. Or, sorry, was it going down? I
guess that's bad.
I read that in one big city, crime is going up and that's bad. But the
government there has just raised the police budget, and that's good, isn't
it? Won't that finally bring down crime?
Though we don't directly discuss these points inside, we do suggest answers to
societal problems, which by their breadth and depth do go beyond the quick fixes
that modern society so often offers for its problems.
Our long-term view of how we can 'move up to a better world' has its base in a
philosophy or worldview called Neo-Humanism, developed by P.R. Sarkar. This is a
worldview wherein, as Sarkar says: "The underlying spirit of humanism
extends to everything animate and inanimate in the universe." Humanism, in
this view, is not a philosophy but a sense of affection and love for all humans.
Neo-Humanism applies this idea to all beings; it's a critical next step for our
immensely powerful species.
A sense of humanism, if not neo-humanism, exists in most forward-looking
people. This type of person doesn't discriminate between people of various
nationalities (and indeed may see the present nation-state as outmoded),
religions, races, gender, etc. And truly, as more people adopt this view,
we will be able to eliminate the gross inequities of income, education, civil
rights, etc, that we now face.
We would also, as Patch Adams says inside, "want a world where no one
remembers what the word 'war' means."
But, as important as a humanistic view is, it alone can't save our planet.
We must extend our love and care to all beings and realize that the plant,
animal and mineral worlds were not made only for our pleasure and use.
Our contributors this issue generally share this neo-humanisitc view. Guy
Dauncey, as always, offers us hope based on engagement and commitment. If we
just read the headlines we may, as he says, feel hopeless and forget there is a
better world out there, which is ours for the making.
Shannon Walbran and Anastasia Ashman offer oddly contrasting, but similar,
examples of communities that are using their own resources to make a better
future. Ashman shows a possible ideal future, from modern California, while
Wallbran looks at poor, rural Brazil and a state that is working to overcome
poverty and hopelessness, by avoiding big business and big government.
Meanwhile, Peter Montague tells of a new, broad victory for the
environmental movement in the USA. Large-scale environmental and health
issues there are starting to be judged on what's good for people and, yes, the
environment, rather than what's good for business. Sounds promising.
We also see how Chilean activists are taking Dauncey's advice and finally
fighting for the rights of their forests to survive. Not an easy battle,
but they are determined.
Perhaps Robert Bly, quoting Wordsworth, sums up the essence of Neo-Humanism in
the environmental movement: "Nature never did betray the heart that loved
her." Technological, scientific and political answers will always fall
short if their bottom line forgets that we are all in this world
together.
Lastly, we dedicate this issue to Ian Gottstein, a close friend and regular
contributor to New Renaissance. Ian passed away, most unexpectedly, last June,
and his departure leaves a very large gap in the hearts of many
people. A tribute to him closes out this issue.
This article was printed in New Renaissance, Vol. 11, No. 3, issue 38,
Autumn, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by Renaissance Universal, all rights reserved.
Posted on the web on November 10, 2002.
|
