Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962),
Jonathan Schell’s The Fate of the Earth
(1982) and Bill McKibben’s The End of
Nature (1989) addressed three different global
environmental problems—toxic contamination
of the food chain, the worldwide consequences
of nuclear proliferation, and the impact of global
warming. These warnings led to major changes in
national and international policy: the banning
of the widespread use of DDT as a pesticide, the
START treaties that negotiated nuclear arms reduction
agreements between the United States and the Soviet
Union, and the Kyoto agreements to cut carbon
dioxide emissions. Each utilizes science to advance
a public policy agenda. In addition, each shares
a similar holistic worldview, namely, that all
life-forms are interdependent or, as the 1975
National Academy of Sciences Report stated, our
world is a whole “in which any action influencing
a single part of the system can be expected to
have an effect on all other parts of the system.”
The “Religions of the World and Ecology”
project brings the rich historical and contemporary
resources of the world’s religions into critical
dialogue with the global environmental crisis.
In particular, it seeks to broaden and deepen
the symbolic, conceptual, and practical dimensions
of their distinctive holistic worldviews for an
understanding of human flourishing, community,
the natural environment, and their interactions.
The project also seeks to influence both social
behavior and public policy by encouraging ongoing
collaboration among various interdisciplinary
arcs that must be forged if the environmental
crisis has any hope of being resolved.1
This paper explores ways in which the Buddhist
traditions might contribute to this discussion
and to the practice of a more ecologically aware
lifestyle.
Despite significant variations among the different
Buddhist traditions that have evolved over its
2,500 year journey throughout Asia and now in
the West, Buddhists see the world as conjoined
on four levels: existentially, morally, cosmologically,
and ontologically. Existentially, Buddhists affirm
that all sentient beings share the fundamental
conditions of birth, old age, suffering, and death.
The existential realization of the universality
of suffering lies at the core of the Buddha’s
teaching. Insight into the nature of suffering,
its cause and its cessation, and the path to the
cessation of suffering constitutes the capstone
of the Buddha’s enlightenment experience
(Mahasacakka Sutta, Majjihma Nikaya)
as well as the content of the four noble truths,
the Buddha’s first teaching. That the Buddha
decides to share this existential insight into
the cause and cessation of suffering is regarded
by the tradition as an act of universal compassion.
Buddhist environmentalists assert that the mindful
awareness of the universality of suffering produces
compassionate empathy for all forms of life, particularly
for all sentient species. They interpret the Dhammapada’s
ethical injunction not to do evil but to do good
as a moral principle advocating the nonviolent
alleviation of suffering, an ideal embodied in
the prayer of universal loving-kindness that concludes
many Buddhist rituals: “May all beings be
free from enmity; may all beings be free from
injury; may all beings be free from suffering;
may all beings be happy.” Out of a concern
for the total living environment, Buddhist environmentalists
extend loving-kindness and compassion beyond people
and animals to include plants and the earth itself.
The concepts of karma and rebirth (samsara)
integrate the existential sense of a shared common
condition of all sentient life-forms with the
moral dimension of the Buddhist cosmology. Not
unlike the biological sciences, rebirth links
human and animal species. Evolution maps commonalities
and differences among species on the basis of
physical and genetic traits. Rebirth maps them
on moral grounds. Every form of sentient life
participates in a karmic continuum traditionally
divided into three world-levels and a hierarchical
taxonomy of five or six life-forms. Although this
continuum constitutes a moral hierarchy, differences
among life-forms and individuals are relative,
not absolute. Traditional Buddhism may privilege
humans over animals, animals over hungry ghosts,
male gender over the female, monk over laity but
all forms of karmically conditioned life-human,
animal, divine, demonic—are related within
contingent, samsaric time: “In the long course
of rebirth there is not one among living beings
with form who has not been mother, father, brother,
sister, son, or daughter, or some other relative.
Being connected with the process of taking birth,
one is kin to all wild and domestic animals, birds,
and beings born from the womb” (Lankavatara
Sutra).
Nirvana, the Buddhist highest good, offers
the promise of transforming karmic conditionedness
into an unconditioned state of spiritual liberation,
a realization potentially available to all forms
of sentient life on the karmic continuum. That
plants and trees or the land itself have a similar
potential for spiritual liberation became an explicit
doctrine in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism but
may even have been part of popular Buddhist belief
from earliest times—in sum, a realization
that all life-forms share both a common problematic
and promise.
Although the Buddhist doctrines of karma
and rebirth link together all forms of sentient
existence in a moral continuum, Buddhist ethics
focus on human agency and its consequences. The
inclusion of plants and animals in Buddhist soteriological
schemes may be important philosophically because
it attributes inherent value to nonhuman forms
of life. Nonetheless, humans have been the primary
agents in creating the present ecological crisis
and will bear the major responsibility in solving
it.
The myth of origins in the Pali canon describes
the deleterious impact of human activity on the
primordial natural landscape. Unlike the garden
of Eden story in the Hebrew Bible where human
agency centers on the God-human relationship,
the Buddhist story of first origins describes
the negative impact of humans on the earth created
by selfishness and greed. In the Buddhist mythological
Eden, the earth flourishes naturally, but greedy
desire leads to division and ownership of the
land that in turn promotes violent conflict, destruction,
and chaos. In short, in the Buddhist myth of first
origins, human agency destroys the natural order
of things. Though change is inherent in nature,
Buddhists believe that natural processes are directly
affected by human morality.2
Within the Buddha’s enlightenment vision
(Nirvana) all the major dimensions of the
Buddhist worldview are found. Tradition records
that during the night of this experience the Buddha
first recalled his previous lives within the karmic
continuum; then he perceived the fate of all sentient
beings within the cosmic hierarchy; finally he
fathomed the nature of suffering and the path
to its cessation formulated as the four noble
truths and the law of interdependent coarising.
The Buddha’s enlightenment evolved in a specific
sequence: from an understanding of the particular
(his personal karmic history), then to the general
(the karmic history of humankind), and finally
to the principle underlying the cause and cessation
of suffering. Subsequently, this principle is
further generalized as a universal law of causality:
“On the arising of this, that arises; on
the cessation of this, that ceases.”
Buddhist environmentalists find in the causal
principle of interdependence an ecological vision
that integrates all aspects of the ecosphere—particular
individuals and general species—in terms
of the principle of mutual codependence. Within
this cosmological model individual entities are
by their very nature relational, thereby undermining
the autonomous self over against the “other,”
be it human, animal, or vegetable.
Buddhist environmentalists see their worldview
as a rejection of hierarchical dominance of one
human over another or humans over nature, and
as the basis of an ethic of emphathetic compassion
that respects biodiversity. In the view of the
Thai monk, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, “The entire
cosmos is a cooperative. The sun, the moon, and
the stars live together as a cooperative. The
same is true for humans and animals, trees, and
the earth. When we realize that the world is a
mutual, interdependent, cooperative enterprise
. . . then we can build a noble environment. If
our lives are not based on this truth, then we
shall perish.” A Western Buddhist, observing
that the Buddhist worldview or dharma not
only refers to the teachings of the Buddha but
also to all things in nature, characterizes Buddhism
as a “religious ecology.”3
In later schools of Buddhist thought the cosmological
vision of interdependent causality evolved into
a more substantive sense of ontological unity.
Metaphorically, the image of Indra’s net
found in the Hua Yen (Jp. Kegon) tradition’s
Avatamsaka Sutra has been especially important
in Buddhist ecological discussions. For Gary Snyder
the image of the universe as a vast web of many-sided
jewels each constituted by the reflections of
all the other jewels in the web and each jewel
being the image of the entire universe symbolizes
the world as a universe of bioregional ecological
communities. Buddhist environmentalists argue,
furthermore, that ontological notions such as
Buddha-nature or Dharma-nature (e.g., buddhakaya,
tathagatagarbha, dharmakaya, dharmadhatu)
provide a basis for unifying all existent entities
in a common sacred universe, even though the tradition
privileges human life vis-à-vis spiritual realization.
For T’ien-t’ai monks in eighth century
China, the belief in a universal Buddha-nature
blurred the distinction between sentient and nonsentient
life-forms and logically led to the view that
plants, trees, and the earth itself could achieve
enlightenment. Kukai (774–835), the founder
of the Japanese Shingon school and Dogen (1200–1253),
the founder of the Soto Zen sect, described universal
Buddha-nature in naturalistic terms, “If
plants and trees were devoid of Buddhahood, waves
would then be without humidity” (Kukai);
“The sutras [i.e., the dharma]
are the entire universe, mountains, and rivers
and the great wide earth, plants and trees”
(Dogen). Buddhist environmentalists cite Dogen’s
view as support for the preservation of species
biodiversity.
Two types of criticism have been leveled against
Buddhist environmentalists (sometimes characterized
as ecoBuddhists or Green Buddhists); scholars
who argue that ecologizing the Buddhist worldview
distorts the philosophical and historical integrity
of the tradition; and, practioners who see a tendency
in Green Buddhism to reduce the tradition to a
one-dimensional teaching of simple interrelatedness
at the expense of its classical emphasis on the
development of spiritual and ethical transformation.
The four dimensions of the Buddhist worldview
as proposed above offer a framework for understanding
both the advocates of Buddhist environmentalism
and their critics.
Buddhism arose in north India in the fifth century
BCE at a time when the region was undergoing a
process of urbanization and political centralization
accompanied by commerical development and the
formation of artisan and merchant classes. The
creation of towns and the expansion of an agrarian
economy led to the clearing of forests and other
tracts of uninhabited land. These changes influenced
early Buddhism in several ways. Indic Buddhism
was certainly not biocentric and the strong naturalistic
sentiments that infused Buddhism in China, Korea,
and Japan appear to have been absent from early
monastic Buddhism, although naturalism played
a role in popular piety. Nonetheless, the natural
world figures prominently in the Buddhist conception
of human flourishing perhaps, in part, because
of the very transformation of the natural environment
in which it was born. As we shall see, while nature
as a value in and of itself may not have played
a major role in the development of early Buddhist
thought and practice, it was a necessary component
of the tradition’s articulation of an ecology
of human flourishing.
Although the picture of the Buddha seated under
the tree of enlightenment has not traditionally
been interpreted as a paradigm for ecological
thinking, today’s Buddhist environmental
activists point out that the decisive events in
the Buddha’s life occurred in natural settings:
that the Buddha Gotama was born, attained enlightenment,
and died under trees. The textual record, furthermore,
testifies to the importance of forests, not only
as an environment preferred for spiritual practices
such as meditation but also as a place where laity
sought instruction. Historically, in Asia and
increasingly in the West, Buddhists have situated
centers of practice and teaching in forests and
among mountains at some remove from the hustle
and bustle of urban life.
The Buddha’s own example provides the original
impetus for such locations: “Seeking the
supreme state of sublime peace, I wandered . .
. until . . . I saw a delightful stretch of land
and a lovely woodland grove, and a clear flowing
river with a delightful forest so I sat down thinking,
‘Indeed, this is an appropriate place to
strive for the ultimate realization of . . . Nirvana’”
(Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya).
Lavish patronage and the traffic of pilgrims
often complicated and compromised the solitude
and simple life of forest monasteries, but forests,
rivers, and mountains constitute an important
factor in the Buddhist ecology of human flourishing.
Recall, for example, the Zen description of enlightenment
wherein natural phenomena such as rivers and mountains
are perceived as loci of the sacred. Although
religious practioners often tested their spiritual
mettle in wild nature, the norm appears to be
a relatively benign state of nature conducive
to quiet contemplation as suggested by the above
quotation, or by the naturalistic gardens that
one finds today in many Japanese Zen monasteries
originally located on the outskirts of towns.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu called his forest monastery
in south Thailand “the Garden of Empowering
Liberation,” observing: “The deep sense
of calm that nature provides through separation
from the stress that plagues us in the day-to-day
world protects our heart and mind. The lessons
nature teaches us lead to a new birth beyond suffering
caused by our acquisitive self-preoccupation.”
For Buddhist enviromentalists, centers like Buddhadasa’s
Garden of Empowering Liberation also present an
example of a sustainable lifestyle grounded in
the values of moderation, simplicity, and non-acquisitiveness.
Technology alone cannot solve the ecocrisis. More
importantly, it requires a transformation of values
and of lifestyle.
Buddhadasa intended the Garden of Empowering
Liberation not as a retreat from the world but
as a place where all forms of life—humans,
animals, and plants—live as a cooperative
microcosm of a larger ecosystem and as a community
where humans can develop an ecological ethic.
Such an ethic highlights the virtues of restraint,
simplicity, loving-kindness, compassion, equanimity,
patience, wisdom, nonviolence, and generosity.
These virtues represent moral ideals for all members
of the Buddhist community— religious practioner,
lay person, political leader, ordinary citizen,
male, female. For example, political leaders who
are mandated to maintain the peace and security
of the nation, are also expected to embody the
virtue of nonviolence. In this connection, King
Asoka is cited for his rejection of animal sacrifice
and protection of animals. The twin virtues of
wisdom and compassion define the spiritual perfection
of the bodhisattva (saint) but these prized
moral qualities, associated especially with the
Buddha or monks, are represented in narrative
and didactic literature by a variety of human
and animal life-forms. For contemporary engaged
Buddhists—the Dalai Lama especially—a
sense of responsibility rooted in compassion lies
at the very heart of an ecological ethic: “The
world grows smaller and smaller, more and more
interdependent . . . today more than ever before
life must be characterized by a sense of universal
responsibility, not only . . . human to human
but also human to other forms of life.”4
For many Buddhist environmentalists compassion
necessarily follows an understanding of all life-forms
as mutually interdependent. Others argue that
a mere cognitive recognition of interdependence
is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
for an ecological ethic. These critics emphasize
the centrality of practice in Buddhism and the
tradition’s insistence on training in virtue
and the threefold path to moral and spiritual
excellence (morality, mindful awareness, wisdom).
Among contemporary engaged Buddhists, the Vietnamese
monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, has been the most insistent
on the central role of mindful awareness in the
development of a peaceful and sustainable world.
Critics of the ethical saliency of the traditional
Buddhist vision of human flourishing argue that
philosohical concepts such as not-self (anatman)
and emptiness (sunyata) undermine human
autonomy and the distinction between self and
other, essential aspects for an other-regarding
ethic. What are the grounds for an ethic or laws
that protect the civil rights of minorities or
animal species threatened with extinction when
philosophically Buddhism seems to undermine their
significance by deconstructing their independent
reality as an epistemological fiction? Furthermore,
they point out that the most basic concepts of
Buddhism—Nirvana, suffering, rebirth, not—self,
and even causality-were intended to further the
goal of the individual’s spiritual quest
rather than engagement with the world. They conclude,
therefore, either that Buddhism serves primarily
a salvific or soteriological purpose or that the
attempt to ecologize the tradition distorts the
historical and philosophical record. Buddhist
environmentalists respond that their tradition
brings to the debates about human rights and the
global environment an ethic of social and environmental
responsibility more compatible with the language
of compassion based on the mutual interdependence
of all life-forms than the language of rights.
Furthermore, to apply Buddhist insights to a broad
ecology of human flourishing represents the tradition
at its best, namely, a creative, dynamic response
to its contemporary context.
A related but more sympathetic criticism from
within the Buddhist environmental movement suggests
that for Buddhism to be an effective force for
systemic institutional change, the traditional
Buddhist emphasis on individual moral and spiritual
transformation must be adjusted to address more
forcefully the structures of oppression, exploitation,
and environmental degradation. While preserving
the unique Buddhist emphasis on the practice of
mindful awareness and a lifestyle of simplicity,
today’s engaged Buddhist activists are, indeed,
addressing head-on international issues ranging
from the disposal of nuclear waste to human rights
violations in Myanmar and a just and peaceful
resolution of the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
The most internationally visible leaders in this
movement are the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh
but they are joined by many others from around
the globe including Sulak Sivaraksa, Ahangamage
T. Ariyaratna, Joanna Macy, and Kenneth Kraft.
Donald Swearer joined the Harvard Divinity School as Director of the Center for the Study of World Religions and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies after he retired from Swarthmore College in 2004 as the Charles and Harriet Cox McDowell Professor of Religion. His recent publications include: The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia (SUNY, 1995/rev. ed. Silkworm Books, 2007); The Legend of Queen Cama (SUNY, 1998); Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand (Princeton, 2004); and The Sacred Mountains of Northern Thailand and Their Legends (Silkworm Books, 2004).
|
