- About Us
- What We Offer
- Podcasts & Video
Submitted by ellen s on Fri, 1/14/2011, 4:32pm
Today's New York Times has a provoking article by David Brooks.
He's trying to provoke civility and modesty -- two words I almost never see in Buddhist writing.
Nor do I see often see sentences like these:
"Civility is a tree with deep roots, and without the roots, it can’t last. So what are those roots? They are failure, sin, weakness and ignorance."
But when I read:
"Civility is the natural state for people who know how limited their own individual powers are and know, too, that they need the conversation. They are useless without the conversation."
"But every sensible person in public life also feels redeemed by others. You may write a mediocre column or make a mediocre speech or propose a mediocre piece of legislation, but others argue with you, correct you and introduce elements you never thought of. Each of these efforts may also be flawed, but together, if the system is working well, they move things gradually forward. . . .
We find meaning — and can only find meaning — in the role we play in that larger social enterprise."
that word Interdependence pops right up in my brain.
And I know I need . . . a conversation! What do you think of Brooks's article? And of civility and modesty from a Buddhist standpoint?
Vote for this article to appear in the Recommended list.