unlike later Buddhist teachers, the Buddha did not see the interconnectedness of conditions as something to celebration. He saw that it inevitably leads to dukkha. (p.11)
Interconnectedness is tossed around a lot and seems to be what many non-Buddhists think Buddhism is about. Andrew Olendzki begs to differ and instead calls it a Western idea (partially derived from the Great Chain of Being, for example) that has been grafted onto Buddhism.
Thanissaro also writes a bit about how interconnectedness comes out of Western psychology and nineteenth-century Romanticism.
Modern society, they saw, is dehumanizing in that it denies human beings their wholeness. The specialization of labor leads to feelings of fragmentation and isolation; the bureaucratic state, to feelings of regimentation and constriction. The only cure for these feelings, the Romantics proposed, is the creative artistic act. This act integrates the divided self and dissolves its boundaries in an enlarged sense of identity and interconnectedness with other human beings and nature at large. Human beings are most fully human when free to create spontaneously from the heart. The heart’s creations are what allow people to connect. Although many Romantics regarded religious institutions and doctrines as dehumanizing, some of them turned to religious experience—a direct feeling of oneness with the whole of nature—as a primary source for rehumanization.
So is this mainly a source of western input on eastern thought, or are there also some other roots? Maybe some vedic intermixing? A tricycle comment "It's worth noting that a universal sense of connectedness was one of the central concepts of Vedic/Hindi religion, and was called brahman."