This is a slightly revised version of an essay by Tom Cummings on his Substack page, The Liberal Buddhist Review. We thank Tom for his kind permission to re-post the article on the SBN website

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

In a recent essay I argued that the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians flows, at least in some part, from their mutual long-standing denial of the interconnected nature of their coexistence - with each other, within the larger interconnected arenas of the wider geopolitical region of the Middle East, and within the even vaster and more volatile polarized global space of East-West relations.

When we focus our attention on this vaster vantage point of the current global situation, signs of humanity’s interconnectedness become increasingly difficult to detect. Far easier to spot are the ever-increasing incidents of disconnectedness cropping up all over the place. Like new clouds constantly forming in the sky on a windy day and passing in rapid succession across the sun, these examples of disconnectedness continually interrupt and diminish our ability to see through to the interconnectedness of all things.

Here is a by-no-means exhaustive (though certainly exhausting) list of conflicts currently simmering at various degrees of heat all across the globe: China vs. Taiwan, North Korea vs. South Korea, Hindus vs. Moslems in India, MAGA Republicans vs. liberal/progressive Democrats in America, Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, Hamas’s heinous attack upon Israeli civilians, Israel’s genocidal retaliatory action in Gaza, Israeli settlers’ assaults upon Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel vs. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel vs. Iran, government vs. gangs in Haiti, insurgents vs. military dictatorship in Myanmar, and (according to the Geneva Academy of International Law) ‘more than 35 non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) taking place across the continent of Africa, including the countries of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.’

Pondering this critical worldwide pandemic of disconnectedness, I keep returning to Buddhist notion of ‘not-self’. Bear with me as I attempt to explain.

There are almost as many interpretations of the challenging concept of not-self as there are Buddhist teachers, but the one that’s come up most often in my years of studying the literature defines not-self as the understanding that what we refer to as ‘self’ is such a constantly changing experience that it cannot properly be described as a fixed static entity. Understood this way, the self is seen as a process of ongoing activity, rather than a state of unchanging being. Accordingly, since there is no fixed self, it’s more accurate to describe what we are as not-self.

This ontological definition of not-self leaves many Buddhist students (and not a few Buddhist teachers) confused and dissatisfied. Even if you’re able to accept this definition on an intellectual basis, it’s all but impossible to incorporate its implicit meaning into your everyday linguistic experiences. We rely on such conversational terms as ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’ in order to make sense of our interactions with others, and every time we use them, we’re inadvertently contradicting the implicit meaning of that intellectual definition.

A second, and I think more satisfying, way of interpreting not-self is to define it in terms of ethical behavior rather than in terms of ontology. From this perspective, not-self is a behavioral style we can cultivate in our interactions with others. It starts with the realization that our needs and desires are transitory, arising and fading away as temporary products of our ever-changing experience; from there, it proceeds to the understanding that our transitory needs and desires are no different in nature than - and in fact exist on an even plane with - the needs and desires of others. Accordingly, an ethical awareness of not-self prompts an attitude of ‘egoless-ness’ in our personal relationships and our interpersonal transactions - a willingness to refrain from the automatic prioritization of our wants and wishes over those of others.

Seen as egoless-ness, the concept of not-self points us squarely in the direction of interconnectedness. Not prioritizing one’s own needs and desires leads naturally to an openness toward the needs and desires of others; such openness inspires an attitude of collegiality and cooperation in one’s interactions with others; and every egoless transaction further enhances one’s awareness of the interconnectedness between us all.

We can discern a virtuous circle in this process, whereby an enhanced awareness of our interconnectedness reinforces the sense of egoless-ness that brings about that very awareness, and that reinforced egoless-ness further strengthens our awareness of interconnectedness.

Might it be possible for this model of individual egoless behavior to take hold at the nation-state level? Could we ever see a global sense of interconnectedness that would be strong enough to overcome the divisions and disconnectedness that plague so much of the world at present? What might we do to foster such a global awareness?