Getting
to Grips With Buddhist Environmentalism: A Provisional Typology
By Ian Harris
University College of St. Martin,
Dept of Religious Studies and Social Ethics
ISSN 1076-9005; Volume 2 1995
Abstract:
This paper offers a survey of
current writing and practice within the area of Buddhist environmental ethics.
Consideration of the manner in which sections of contemporary Buddhism have
embraced a range of environmental concerns suggests that four fairly distinct
types of discourse are in the process of formation, i.e., eco-spirituality,
eco-justice, eco-traditionalism and eco-apologetics. This fourfold typology is
described and examples of each type are discussed. The question of the
"authenticity", from the Buddhist perspective, is addressed to each
type in turn. The emergence of eco-religiosity, a specifically religious
concern for the environment, has manifested itself as a significant theme in
the major religions of the late twentieth century. The factors at work here are
undoubtedly complex and, to date, little attempt has been made to delineate the
component features of the movement. It is clearly too soon to evaluate the long
term prospects or future direction of eco-religiosity. Nevertheless, its
historical source may be identified with rather more certainty. The first
explicit formulation of a discourse of environmental concern can be located
within the elites of 1960s liberal Christianity. As time has moved on we begin
to witness a widening of the debate into other more traditional forms of Christianity,
and ultimately beyond the confines of that faith into the other major religious
traditions. It has been argued that a decisive point, a sort of critical mass,
is reached in the 1980s with a "burgeoning of theo-ecological
literature". [1]
Not unsurprisingly, the first
significant manifestation of environmental concerns within organised Buddhism
may be placed towards the end of this decade, although several retrospectively
influential writings [2] may be identified before that period. The push by influential
Christians for dialogue with other faiths, an enterprise mainly determined by
the socio-political agenda of its liberal arm, may be seen as a contributory
factor in the development of indigenous eco-religiosities amongst dialogue
partners. A particularly striking example of this process in action is the
series of declarations published at the end of the 25th anniversary meeting of
the World Wildlife Fund in Assisi
in 1986. [3] Perusal of the declarations by representatives of the major faiths
shows a remarkable uniformity of attitude towards the environment given the
significant differences that clearly exist in other areas of doctrine and
practice.
When one seeks to explain this
high level of congruence between culturally and historically distinct
traditions the special significance of the environment as a global issue
presents itself as a potentially decisive factor. As
Beyer points out:
...environmental issues
concretize the problematic effects of the global societal system more clearly
than others. [4]
Under the conditions of
modernity, then, a certain uniformity of outlook, an erosion of
culture-specific boundaries, is likely to occur especially when the point at
issue has a global character. Indeed, it is claimed that the phenomenon of
globalization promotes a transformation of the traditional conceptions of
location in time and space, Giddens [5] , for instance, arguing that modernity
effects an uprooting of localisable referents in such a way that the customary
dimensions of social and cultural life are transformed into global or
"empty" space. Could it not be that it is this implicit appreciation
of our contemporary geographical "emptiness" that both encourages,
and is the source of, the concord that has come to characterise the arena of inter-religious
eco-dialogue? In other words, it is the impact of modernity, and of
globalization in particular, that has tended to encourage traditional
religions, such as Christianity and Buddhism, to move into a closer
intellectual and emotional harmony the more they move away from the
geographical locations that have given them their specific cultural and
historical forms.
In a sense, analysis along
such lines represents a modest reformulation and updating of the old
"perennial philosophy" thesis which holds that, if we strip away the
peculiarities of culture and history, all religions are revealed as pointing to
the same half-dozen eternal verities. However, another quite different reading
of the situation is possible. It is possible to disregard the particularities
of tradition entirely and focus instead on the specifically "religious
character" of environmentalism itself. It is, of course, commonplace to
state that religions serve to articulate the problematic character of human
existence while at the same time offering a decisive route to its resolution.
The contemporary discourse of environmental concern, despite the shades of
meaning that differentiate its various formulations, shares in this endeavour
by relating our present difficulties to discontinuities in the structure of the
natural world. The aim is to re-establish an original purity of nature. This
goal can be achieved for we possess, either as a species or, from the
perspective of deep ecology as part of a greater biospheric community, the power
to rectify the man-made dangers presently oppressing the planet. Looked at in
this light environmentalism shares many important features in common with other
more traditionally religious insights. Conversion experience and missionary
zeal are well-attested as casual scrutiny of newspaper headlines or television
news reports will reveal. It is also clear that strongly soteriological
currents may be reflected in the this-worldly activism that develops as an
expression of much eco-commitment. In other words, eco-religiosity need not be
subsumed under some presently existing tradition but could be regarded as a
virtual religion in its own right. It is, perhaps, more accurate to refer to it
as a potential religion-in-the-making.
As I have already noted,
attempts to discriminate between differing manifestations of the
religio-environmentalist spirit are still in their infancy. Kearns
[6] , working within the field of North American Christian studies for
instance, has sketched out a tripartite typology which, with some adaption is
presented by Beyer in his discussion of environmentalism and globalisation. The
first type is said to reflect an intuition that the whole of creation
represents a vast spiritually satisfying system of inter-related entities, in
which the continuity of sentience is not disrupted by the arbitrary
distinctions currently operating in mainstream western thought, such as that is
supposed to hold between human and non-human life forms. This emphasis on
radical holism is found in the writings of the Passionist priest Thomas Berry
[7] and in the creation spirituality movement of Matthew Fox [8] , amongst
others. We shall characterise this type by the term eco-spirituality. A second
or eco-justice type occurs in its most fully articulated form within the
context of the World Council of Churches [9] where environmental concerns are
now seen as part of an integrated package of measures in which social,
political and spiritual needs each play an harmonious part. The incorporation
of ecological concerns within this agenda that has its roots in the earlier
liberation theology movement and is claimed to represent a further elaboration
and extension of the concept of justice in the life of the church. A third and
final type appears to be connected with the Old Testament notion of
stewardship. Self-appointed "stewards" of creation are typically
found in the more theologically conservative ranks of Christian believers. [10]
As such, they argue that the answer to the present environmental crisis is to
be found in a return to the ways of the past--ways that are most effectively
articulated by the biblical tradition itself. Christians are urged to avoid the
pitfalls of modernism for salvation in its environmentalist form may only be
achieved by a return to tradition. The term eco-traditionalism therefore seems
appropriate for this type.
If we now turn to
consider the contemporary Buddhist discourse of environmental concern we shall
discover how helpful our threefold typology will be in determining the shape
and nature of the Buddhist debate. Naturally, it must be pointed out that the
amount of published material within the genre is not vast and any conclusions
draw from its consideration should be regarded as highly provisional.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a natural division into five reasonably
distinct categories, i.e.:
1. Straightforward
endorsement of Buddhist environmental ethics by traditional guardians of doxic
truth, of whom HḤḌalai
Lama [11] is perhaps the most important representative. The material in this
first group tends to avoid discussion of those areas of Buddhist doctrine that
may be used as support for the ethical claims made.
2. Equally upbeat
treatments by mainly Japanese and North American scholars and Buddhist
activists, such as Noritoshi Aramaki [12] , Joanna Macy [13] , and Brian Brown
[14] premised on the same assumptions as in category 1. The point that
distinguishes the two is that in this group authors seek to identify the most
appropriate Buddhist doctrinal bases from which an environmental ethic may
proceed, e.g. the Hua-Yen doctrine of interpenetration, tathāgatagarbha, etc.
3. Accounts of environmentally
engaged activity in Asian Buddhist heartlands, most notably in Thailand.
Although this material focuses primarily on the work of Buddhist monks
[so-called "development monks" (phra phattānā)], nuns and lay
persons, the specifically Buddhist character of their actions are left
unexamined or at best are accorded "authenticity" merely by virtue of
the fact that they are performed by high profile Buddhists. In this connection,
I am thinking principally of writings connected with the reformist circles of
Sulak Sivaraksa [15] and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa [16] .
4. Critical treatments
which, while fully acknowledging the difficulties involved in reconciling
traditional Asian modes of thought with those employed by scientific ecology,
are optimistic about the possibility of establishing an authentic Buddhist
response to environmental problems. The work of Lambert Schmithausen [17] is particularly
relevant in this respect.
5. Forthright denial of
the possibility of Buddhist environmental ethics on the grounds that the
doctrinal standpoint of "canonical" Buddhism implies a negation of
the natural realm for all practical purposes. Noriaki Hakamaya [18] is the most
significant and vigorous exponent of this final position.
The remainder of this
paper will address the question of how well, if at all, these materials can be
accommodated within the threefold typology mentioned above. On initial scrutiny
the first, or eco-spiritualist type, appears to offer particularly fruitful
ground for comparison. In the first place, Christian and Buddhist approaches to
ecological issues, more often than not, can be traced to the geographical
environment of the west coast of North America, or at any rate to those parts
of the intellectual thought universe that exhibit strong lines of filiation to
the counter-culture. Here, under the most extreme post-modern conditions, the
boundaries between world historical religious traditions may be said to undergo
their most radical transformation and interpenetration. In this context nominal
representatives of both traditions regularly work together, speak from the same
platform and sit on the editorial boards of the same journals [19] . Thomas
Berry, for example, is a Catholic priest, old China hand, and the author of a
number of works on Buddhism. [20] Now, it would be a mistake to regard this
essentially American form of cooperation as an example of the Christianisation
of Buddhism (the term "Protestant Buddhism" springs to mind here) any
more than it is credible to talk of a Buddhist subversion of Christianity. On
the contrary, with eco-spirituality we seem to be witnessing one of the first
blooms of environmentalism as a developing global "virtual religion",
drawing as it does on the doctrinal and motivational resources available in the
two traditions, yet fully independent of any of their institutional structures.
Not surprisingly, the
philosophical, and specifically ontological, orientation of eco-spirituality
shows considerable uniformity across the old religious boundaries. We have
already had cause to note the tendency in Christian circles to visualise
existence in a thorough-going holistic fashion. The same holds good for the
Buddhist writers of our second category, as I hope that I have already
demonstrated in an earlier publication. [21] To give a flavour of the extreme
holism demonstrated by the material, Brown, in an essay on the
ālayavijñāna/tathāgatagarbha doctrine as a sufficient basis for a Buddhist
environmental ethic, argues that:
... an adequate environmental
ethic must be grounded upon a cosmology capable of rendering the universe as a
coherent whole in which human consciousness is an intrinsic self-expression of
that larger reality... Such a cosmology and attendant ethic is indicated by the
Ratnagotravibhāga's general analysis of Tathatā--the inherent tendency of
Tathatā to know itself as the perfectly pure essence, the Suchness of all
things, embryonically moves toward perfect self-realization as the one
universal reality, or Dharmakāya. [22]
Similar arguments have been
offered by those who aim to use the Hua-Yen doctrine of the mutual
interpenetration of all things for a similar purpose.
The intention here is to show
that since all things are inter-related we should act in a spirit of reverence
towards them all. However, the category
of "all things"
includes insecticides, totalitarian regimes and nuclear weapons and the
argument therefore possesses some rather obvious problems. In short, it suffers
from a certain vacuity from the moral perspective.
Ethics has traditionally
sought to arrive at judgements about those states of affairs that are valuable
and those that are not. Generally accepted criteria are required in order to
arrive at such judgements and without such criteria there will be a tendency to
regard everything as equally valuable. This is clearly an unsatisfactory state
of affairs. JṢṂill makes
much the same point in his attempt to undermine the classical doctrine of
natural law. If the ius naturale implies a conception of nature as "the
sum of all phenomena, together with the causes which produce them", which
it does in our Buddhist case, then "there is no mode of acting that is not
conformable to nature in this sense of the term..." [23] As such there is
no essential difference between the proposition "all things are equally
valuable" and the view that "everything is devoid of value".
Now, returning to
eco-spirituality and to its central intuition, it should be noted that holism
is invoked by Buddhists, as well as by Christians, in order to underscore the
inherent value of all beings. In the light of what has been said, it is clear that
much thought still needs to be given to the derivation of a fully satisfactory
environmental ethic from the ontological ground of radical interpenetration. Of
course, this is just a recapitulation of the old problem of deriving an
"ought" from an "is". By way of an aside, it is worth
noting that both Buddhist and Christian eco-spiritualities owe a considerable
debt to the deep ecology movement, which also, incidentally, flourishes on the
western seaboard of North America. Critical appraisal of the axioms of deep
ecology also reveal a major difficulty associated with the concept of radical
holism. [24]
Before leaving the subject of
eco-spirituality we should note another potential problem, this time arising
from within the Buddhist context itself. Brown and others come dangerously
close to overturning the radically pluralist ontology on which early Buddhism
seems to have been based. By dissolving the apparent distinctiveness of
entities within a realm of over-arching and total inter-relatedness signified
by Mahāyānist terms like tathatā these scholars move close to a rejection of
the basic Buddhist insight into anattā This is, in fact, the reason that
Hakamaya [25] (category 5, above) cannot admit the possibility of a purely
Buddhist environmental ethic derived in this manner. In his view, any attempt
to posit an hypostatized and unified reality as the source from which all
particularities emerge is ultimately non-Buddhist for it is in fundamental
conflict with the doctrine of non-self (anattā). He terms this error dhātuvāda.
It must be admitted that Hakamaya places very high levels of restriction on
those manifestations of the tradition that can be regarded as authentic. [26]
However, this insistence does at least ensure that causation along the flow of time,
the Abhidhammic understanding of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda),
another cardinal Buddhist doctrine, is conserved as a workable concept. In
fact, the deconstruction of causation understood in this way, one of the
tendencies inherent in extreme holism, holds very considerable and negative
consequences from the ethical perspective. [27]
Considerations of eco-justice
have, quite recently, manifested themselves in South-East Asian Theravāda
modernist circles as part of a general broadening of social-activist concerns.
That questions of social justice have been an issue for Buddhists in the modern
period, most notably in the writings of Thai reformists, goes without saying.
However, since the late 80s both Bhikkhu Buddhadasa [28] (shortly before his
death) and Sulak Sivaraksa [29] have written about and encouraged environmental
activism as a means of building a more sustainable and just society founded on
fundamental Buddhist principles. The reformers' perception is that contemporary
Thai culture, with the connivance of international capital, has become less
egalitarian and more positively inclined to exploit the natural world for
resources to fuel the demand for unlimited consumption of consumer products.
The call, then, is for a Buddhist ethic of wealth creation [30] on the
theoretical plane alongside the emergence of practical programmes aimed at
mitigating the adverse effects of industrialisation, with particular emphasis
on the protection of forests and forest ecosystems. [31] In this connection,
the practice of ordaining trees [32] as a means to ensure their protection has
recently been employed by some Thai monks. A specifically Buddhist precedent
for tree-ordination is difficult to obtain. Perhaps the closest one can come to
a Theravāda canonical discussion of the topic is to be found in the Buddha's
prohibition on the ordination of animals. [33] Analogical treatment of this
story suggests that the ordination of trees may be equally problematic. It is
certainly difficult to see how such an "ordination" could be regarded
as valid on strict vinaya grounds. This may partly explain the difficulties
that some conservation monks [34] have found themselves in with other, more
conservative, members of the sangha. [35]
Environmental activism of the
eco-justice kind is not restricted to Thailand. In Sri Lanka the rural
development work of the Sarvodaya Sramadana movement has also moved towards an
articulation of environmental concerns as the logical corollary of its initial
insight into the twin poles of liberation, i.e., liberation of the individual
and liberation of society. As its founder, AṬ.
Ariyaratna observes with regard to the second half of the liberation dyad:
As far as possible the
relationship between human beings and the environment should be mutually
supportive and enriching. [36]
Although the charge is
rejected by Ariyaratna himself, a number of influential observers of the modern
Sri Lanka Buddhist scene, most notably Gananath Obeyesekere [37] , have
characterised the this-worldly asceticism of the Sarvodaya movement as a
typical example of "Protestant Buddhism", i.e., a form of Buddhism
either consciously or unconsciously modelled on the lay-oriented,
social-activist attitudes of liberal Christianity. Examination of the value of
such characterisations are beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, the
existence of a newly emergent South Korean People's Buddhism [38] engaged in
tackling problems of urbanisation, water pollution and the promotion of organic
gardening is perhaps relevant in this context, particularly since the movement
appears to be based on an earlier Christian People's Theology organisation. Not
surprisingly given Korea's status as the most Christianized state in East Asia,
People's Theology has its origins in the broader currents of liberation
theology. One could, therefore, argue that People's Buddhism indicates lines of
filiation to liberal Christianity and is, as such, another obvious candidate
for the category of "Protestant Buddhism". I must confess that my
knowledge of the Korean background is insufficient for me to reach any definite
conclusion in this matter. Nevertheless, of all the types of environmental
activism within the Buddhist context, it is the eco-justice type that
demonstrates the closest family resemblance to its Christian counterpart even
when our three examples represent a spectrum of responses to the agenda of
liberal Christianity ranging from the negligible in the case of Thailand
through to something far more explicit in the Korean context.
Eco-traditionalism is the
final type to be considered. We noted before that this is a type generally
associated with Biblically-based forms of Christianity. I do not wish to
suggest that Schmithausen and others [39] inhabit the same thought universe as
conservative Christians [40] although it is certainly the case that
Schmithausen's attempt to authenticate a genuine Buddhist environmental ethic
proceeds from a re-evaluation of textual resources. This was clearly a feature
of the eco-spiritualist type, although in this connection textual study tends
to be undertaken after intuitions about the Buddhist conception of the natural
world have already crystallized-- textual evidence may then be assembled to
give confirmation to the original insight! Schmithausen proceeds in a more
cautious manner and is naturally anxious to avoid the charge that he is
imposing any extraneous motivation on to the results of his historical
investigations. [41] As such, his method involves the separating out of the
various strands of the earliest Buddhist tradition, analysis of the specific
didactic context of those strands, and a final application of these results to
the contemporary context. Thus, in a discussion of the possibility of
attributing sentience to plants, he concludes that the earliest strata of
Buddhism, "where the borderline status of plants (i.e., between sentience
and insentience) served to reduce inhibitions against injuring them ... should
now be introduced to re-establish them..." [42] In other words, an ancient
monastic prohibition against harming vegetation on the grounds that it could
adversely effect spiritual development is reworked in such a way that it may be
universally applied in the contemporary situation. At another point, this time
focusing on the rather negative portrayal of the status of animals in canonical
sources, Schmithausen suggests "that in an age where establishing
ecological ethics has become imperative [such teachings]...ought to be
de-dogmatized by being relegated to their specific didactic contexts".
[43] In this manner he is prepared to face up to the difficulties presented by
the textual tradition. However, by engaging in the proper contextualization of
primary materials, he is able to rediscover and magnify neglected facets of the
overall tradition. This seems to me to be the hallmark of a properly
conservative method that avoids the temptations associated with the modernising
tendencies present in eco-spirituality. There is no obvious invention of
tradition here.
In this connection it will be
as well to mention the inclination in some quarters to idealise the ecological
credentials of pre-modern Buddhist cultures. Both western scholars and Buddhist
spokesmen from the Asian heartlands of the tradition [44] have engaged in this
process from time to time. I have already noted [45] that, in general, such
arguments remain to be supported by hard historical evidence and, in any case
the claim that pre-modern societies were ecologically aware in the modern sense
is a clear example of anachronism. [46] Nevertheless, it must be recognised
that arguments of this kind are regarded as a perfectly valid exposition of the
ecological merits of Buddhism in the eyes of its proponents even if, as Huber
observes in his clear-headed treatment of the Tibetan evidence, "we
should, as scholars, be careful not to distort the historical and ethnographic
record of those societies in order to strengthen our case". [47] Given the
evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that both textual re-examination and
the more romantic quest for cultural examples of ecological rectitude may be
admitted to the portals of eco-traditionalism.
Having worked through
this threefold typology it seems that four out of our original five categories
of contemporary Buddhist writing may be accommodated, admittedly in a rather
messy fashion. Only the first group has failed to gain entry to the schema.
Works of this kind often adopt an inspirational tone that proceeds from an
assumption, generally unsupported by any textual [48] , historical or cultural
evidence, that the compatibility of Buddhism and environmental ethics is a
self-evident fact. As such, no further justification is needed. In fact, such
an attitude may be observed as a sub-theme in much of the material already
covered, with the exception of Schmithausen and Hakamaya. In so far as any
argument is employed to support this view, it goes something like this--a
positive orientation towards environmental matters is a good thing; Buddhism
itself is a good thing; therefore Buddhism supports and is compatible with
ecological activism. I shall term this fourth type of response eco-apologetics.
The motivation underlying Buddhist eco-apologetics is not easy to characterise.
In my view three ingredients may be at work in the thinking of its proponents,
though not necessarily all at the same time.
In the first place, we should
be aware of the influential, and still largely unchallenged, assumption of Lynn
White Jnr [49] that the present eco-crisis is primarily the result of factors
that have their roots in the Judaeo-Christian worldview, most notably in the
idea of man's dominion over nature. White concludes that the correct course for
future generations is to turn away from the European religious heritage towards
those traditions that are deemed to offer a more positive view on our
inter-relations with the natural world, i.e., to the religions of the East.
[50] This is intriguing, not least because White offers very little evidence to
support the claim that Eastern modes of religiosity are more eco-friendly.
Analysis reveals that the thesis rests on the same romantically uncritical
attitudes that we have already discussed with regard to the eco-traditionalist
type. True, Asia has in modern times sustained a far lower level of economic
activity than the West, but should we conclude that this is the natural
consequence of ancient religious ideologies? There are clearly other factors in
the equation, and it may be worth noting that the reports of early European
travellers, even the most romantic admirers of Asia, often dwell on the very
obvious levels of pollution and dirt in the Asian cities to which they
otherwise were devoted. Hardly ideal credentials from the ecological
perspective!
A second ingredient that
undoubtedly plays a role in the crystallisation of eco-apologetics is the
growing and increasingly complex nature of intercourse between Christianity and
its client faiths, particularly those beyond the boundaries of Europe and North
America. I refer to the phenomenon of inter-faith dialogue--a process,
interestingly enough, that parallels eco-religiosity itself in terms of its
historical starting point and subsequent lines of development. This is not
really unexpected, for both major traditions reflect, in slightly differing
ways, the impact of globalizing forces. As we have already noted,
eco-religiosity has its roots amongst the liberal Christian elites of the
1960s, i.e., precisely the same group that was in the vanguard of the dialogic
enterprise. Having admitted this, there can be little surprise in the fact that
the eco-crisis figured as a major agenda item in meetings between Christians
and representatives of other faiths, particularly when the situation demanded
that theologians, in part as a reaction to the challenge of White and his
supporters, should work out their own specific responses to the problem. Faced
with the task of responding to an agenda item of this kind, representatives of
all traditions will inevitably speak with one voice. To break ranks on an issue
that appears so crucial to the survival of the planet is inconceivable. No
religious tradition, indeed no system of thought or culture, is likely to react
favourably to an impending global environmental catastrophe. To indicate
otherwise would be an act of the grossest folly. Nevertheless, it must be
appreciated that predictions of eco-catastrophe have their origins elsewhere.
In essence they represent a modern scientific [51] reworking of a perennial
Judeao-Christian apocalyptic theme. On the conceptual and symbolic levels at
least, the problem of the environment is scientific, not religious, although an
interface between these two competing interpretations of the world is currently
taking place, perhaps because of the deep historical roots of our romantic
attachment to the natural world. In one sense, then, the reason that unanimity
in the sphere of environmental ethics exists between religious dialogue
partners is that the matter under discussion is predominantly secular, even if
it is, from time to time, dressed up in a religious garb. As such, the
divisions that may be revealed in a discussion of matters of greater centrality
to the respective traditions are masked. Of course, this is not the only
mechanism at work on such occasions. Simple courtesy, the lack of time to
consider the implications of some of the declarations made at such events, and
even occasionally, a straightforward desire to curry favour in influential
circles may also contribute to agreement, particularly when the point at issue
does not pose any obvious threat to the doctrinal integrity of specific
traditions. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that factors of this
kind have and continue to influence the views expounded by Buddhist
representatives in inter-faith dialogue.
Use of phrases like
"curry favour" may suggest a certain cynicism in the mind of this
writer. I hope to show that this need not be the case. In order to do so, let
us turn to our third and final ingredient--realpolitik. Buddhism, in its
ancient heartlands, has been under threat from a variety of forces including
modernisation, totalitarianism of right and left, tourism, etc. Responsible
leaders of such communities may be required to look beyond their traditional
sources of support in order to protect the way of life of the people they represent.
Tibetan Buddhism is an obvious example. It is difficult to imagine that Tibetan
communities in exile in India could flourish successfully without support from
the government of India, other foreign donor countries, and a variety of
charitable non-government organisations. In particular, the inevitable
under-employment in refugee communities is a well documented fact. Now,
significant financial and moral support is available to create employment in
areas considered worthwhile by international donors and, not unsurprisingly
given the global dimension of environmentalism, ecologically beneficial
projects of rural development occupy a high priority in the minds of aid
administrators and their political masters. In the last few years the Tibetan
government-in-exile has become involved in the Buddhist Perception of Nature
Project [52] , a programme of environmental awareness with a specific emphasis
placed on education. To this end teaching resources for school children are
being prepared and a number of practical projects have been sponsored. The
programme has the blessing of HḤ.
the Dalai Lama who now regularly takes the opportunity to publicise his
environmental credentials on the international stage. [53] At the time of
writing I only have anecdotal evidence that the programme is supported by
international aid funds, [54] though the case of the Sarvodaya movement of AṬ. Ariyaratna in Sri Lanka
[55] indicates that this would not be the first time a Buddhist-inspired
environmental initiative has been sponsored in such a way. Indeed, it appears
that Sarvodaya has suffered so much from recent efforts by donor organisations
to steer it away from its strict adherence to Buddhist values in the direction
of "efficient development work" that its leaders are contemplating a
severing of ties. [56] Under the special circumstances of exile, leaders like HḤ. the Dalai Lama will be
required to raise funds, often from within that same international aid sector,
to ensure viable levels of economic and cultural activity for their people.
Employment, and cultural and environmental enrichment are likely to follow from
the injection of significant sums of money and one could argue that any change
brought about by such investment is unlikely to be in fundamental conflict with
the best interests of Buddhism. However, there is a fine distinction to be
maintained between activities that fall into this category and those that
clearly flow from the central insights of Buddhism itself. In the present case
we can speak of a general mutuality of interests between donor and recipient
with each benefiting, in their own way, from the arrangement. The ecological
development work funded in this manner ought, therefore, to be distinguished
from activities that represent a genuine expression of authentically Buddhist
traditions and this is the reason that I am inclined to employ the term
realpolitik in the context of Buddhist eco-apologetics. It is not because
anything sinister or underhand is involved but merely that there may by a very
subtle incentive to confuse the two categories, i.e., to make the claim that
donor-supported activities are central to the Buddhist scheme of things when
they are, in fact, peripheral, though clearly important for a whole range of
tangential reasons.
It is now in order for
us to draw together the various strands of the foregoing discussion. Buddhist ecological
ethics, even at this relatively early point in its development, is far from
monolithic. Four reasonably clear-cut forms may be identified, i.e., an
eco-spiritualist type, an eco-justice type, an eco-traditionalist type and an
eco-apologist type, although there is considerable overlap between the four in
practice. In the view of the present author all present some difficulties,
particularly with regard to their degree of philosophical coherence or their
dependence, to a greater or lesser extent, on non-Buddhist factors. Bearing
this fact in mind, as the global discourse of environmental concern intensifies
in volume, as it undoubtedly must, the Buddhist strand is likely to follow
suit. As this aspect of ethical discourse proliferates and deepens in
complexity so the provisional typology offered above may come to seem rather
less satisfactory. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this modest contribution to
the debate may aid in the eventual construction of an authentic Buddhist
environmental ethic.
NOTES
[1]. Beyer, Peter Religion and
Globalization (London, Sage Publications: 1994): 206. Return
[2]. I am thinking
particularly of Gary Snyder in this context. On Snyder's impact on the
development of eco-Buddhism, cf. my "Buddhist Environmental Ethics and Detraditionalisation:
The Case of Eco-Buddhism" Religion 25: 199-211. Return
[3]. The earliest example that
I have found of dialogue in this area is a WCC conference of 1979 cf. Shinn
(ed.) Faith and Science in an Unjust World Vol.1, (Philadelphia, Fortress
Press: 1980)-- particularly the article by M. Palihawadana entitled
"Buddhism and the Scientific Enterprise": 138. Return
[4]. op cit: 208. Return
[5]. Giddens, Anthony The
Consequences of Modernity (Stanford CA, Stanford University Press: 1990): 17ff.
Return
[6]. Kearns, Laurel
"Redeeming the Earth: Eco-Theological Ethics for Saving the Earth"
Paper presented at the Association for the Sociology of Religion Annual
Meeting, Washington DC, 1990. Also "Saving the Creation: Stewardship
Theology and Creation Spirituality" Paper presented at the American
Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, Kansas City MO, 1991. Both are quoted by
Beyer op cit: 217f. Return
[7]. e.g. Berry, Thomas The
Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, Sierra Club Books: 1988). Return
[8]. e.g. Fox, Matthew The
Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a
Global Renaissance (San Francisco, Harper and Row: 1988). Return
[9]. cf., for example, World
Council of Churches Signs of the Spirit. Official Report of the Seventh
Assembly, Canberra, Australia, 7-20 February 1991, Kinnamon (ed.) (Geneva and
Grand Rapids MI, World Council of Churches Publications/Eerdmans: 1991): 55.
Return
[10]. e.g.
Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley Ecology and Life: Accepting our Environmental
Responsibility (Waco TX, Word Books: 1992). Return
[11]. Tenzin Gyatso, His
Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama "A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective on Spirit in
Nature" in Rochefeller and Elder (eds.) Spirit and Nature: Why the
Environment is a Religious Issue (Boston, Beacon Press: 1992): 109-123. Also
"Bstan-dzin rgya- mtsho", Dalai Lama XIV, On the Environment
(Dharamsala, Dept of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan
Administration of HḤ.
XIVth Dalai Lama: 1994). Return
[12]. Aramaki, Noritoshi
Shizen-hakai kara Shizen-sasei e--Rekishi no Tenkai ni tsuite ( From
destruction of Nature to Revival of Nature: On a Historical Conversion), Deai
11/1 (1992): 3-22. Return
[13]. Macy, Joanna "The
Greening of the Self" in Hunt-Badiner, Alan (ed.) Dharma Gaia: A Harvest
of Eddays in Buddhism and Ecology, (Berkeley, Parallax: 1990): 53-63. Also
Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural
Systems, (Albany NJ, State University of New York Press: 1991). Return
[14]. Brown, Brian,
"Toward a Buddhist Ecological Cosmology", Bucknell Review 37/2
(1993): 124-137. Return
[15]. cf. Darlington, Susan M.
"Monks and Environmental Conservation: A Case Study in Nan Province",
Seeds of Peace 9/1: 7-10. Seeds of Peace is the newsletter of the International
Network of Engaged Buddhists [INEB], an organisation closely associated with
the work of Sulak Sivaraksa. For further information on INEB consult Kraft,
Kenneth "Prospects of a Socially Engaged Buddhism" in Kraft (ed.)
Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Non-Violence (Albany NJ, State
University of New York Press: 1992): 26ff. Return
[16]. Swearer, Donald K
"Two Perspectives on Buddhist Ecology", a Paper presented at the
Seventh International Seminar on Buddhism and Leadership for Peace sponsored by
the Dae Won Sa Buddhist Cultural Institute and the Dept of Philosophy,
University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, Return
June 1995. [17]. Schmithausen,
Lambert "Buddhism and Nature. The Lecture Delivered on the Occasion of the
EXPO 1990" (An Enlarged Version with Notes) (Tokyo, The International
Institute for Buddhist Studies: 1991) (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Occasional
Paper Series VI I). Also "The Problem of the Sentience of Plants",
(Tokyo, The International Institute for Buddhist Studies: 1991) (Studia
Philologica Buddhica, Occasional Paper Series VI); "Buddhismus und
Natur" in Panikkar and Strolz (eds) Die Verantwortung des Menschen fur
eine bewohnbare Welt in Christentum, Hinduismus und Buddhismus, (Freiburg,
Herder: 1985) and "How can Ecological Ethics be established in Early
Buddhism" Journal of Buddhist Ethics (forthcoming). Return
[18]. Hakamaya, Noriaki
"Shizen-hihan to-shite no Bukkyoo (Buddhism as a Criticism of Physis/Natura)",
Komazawa-daiguku Bukkyoogakubu Ronshū 21 (1990): 380-403. Also "Nihon-jin
to animizmu", Komazawa-daiguku Bukkyoogakubu Ronshū 23 (1992): 351-78.
Return
[19]. For example, Matthew
Fox, an ex-Dominican, officially silenced by the Vatican in 1991, and now an
episcopalian canon of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco has co-organised seminars
oriented around eco-spiritual themes with Joanna Macy, professor of Philosophy
and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and writer with a
longstanding interest and involvement in the Sri Lankan, Buddhist-inspired,
rural-development, Sarvodaya Sramadana movement. Return
[20]. Cf. Berry, Thomas M
Religions of India: Hinduism, Yoga and Buddhism, (Chambersburg PA, Anima
Publications: 1992), Buddhism (Chambersburg PA, Anima Publications: 1989).
Return
[21]. Harris, Ian
"Causation and Telos: The Problem of Buddhist Environmental Ethics",
Journal of Buddhist Ethics 1 (1994): 46-59. Return
[22]. op cit: 131-2. Return
[23]. Mill, John Stuart Three
Essays on Religion: Nature, the Utility of Religion and Theism (Third Edition),
(London, Longmans, Green and Co: 1885): 15. Return
[24]. cf. Sylvan, Richard
"A Critique of Deep Ecology Part I" Radical Philosophy 40 (1984):
2-12; Part I I Radical Philosophy 41 (1985): 10-22. In particular, cf. Part I
I: 10f. Return
[25]. For a survey of
Hakamaya's writings relating to this matter cf. Swanson, Paul "Zen is not
Buddhism, Recent Japanese Critiques of Buddha-Nature", Numen XL/2 (1993):
115-49. Return
[26]. This point is made by
Schmithausen, Nature (1991): 56--in fact the rejection of dhātuvāda rules out
most forms of East Asian Buddhism. Return
[27]. Cf. Harris, op cit,
(1994). Return
[28]. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Buddhasasanik Kap Kan Anurak Thamachat (Buddhists and the Conservation of
Nature) (Bangkok, Kamol Kimthong Foundation: 1990) and "A Notion of
Buddhist Ecology" Seeds of Peace 3/2 (1987): 22-27. Return
[29]. Sivaraksa's "True
Development" in Hunt-Badiner (ed.) op cit, 169-77 (adapted from a Paper
delivered to the World Conference on Religion and Peace, Melbourne Australia,
1989) merely notes the existence of a growing emphasis on ecology within
Buddhism but fails to develop any significant connections with social justice.
Return
[30]. Chaiwat Satha-Anand and
Suwanna Wongwaisayawan, "Buddhist Economics Revisited" Asian Culture
Quarterly VI I/4 (1979): 37-45, and Suwanna Satha-Anand, "Ethics of
Wealth: Buddhist Economics for Peace" Paper submitted for the Seventh
International Seminar on Buddhism and Leadership for Peace sponsored by the Dae
Won Sa Buddhist Cultural Institute and the Dept of Philosophy, University of
Hawai'i, Honolulu, June 1995. Also Sulak Sivaraksa "Buddhism and
Contemporary International Trends" in Kraft (ed.) op cit, and Siamese
Resurgence: A Thai Buddhist Voice on Asia and World Change, (Bangkok, Asian
Cultural Forum on Development: 1985). Return
[31]. Ecological
considerations are beginning to manifest themselves within the practice of
Buddhist monks, particularly in the north-east of the country, cf. Taylor, JḶ. Forest Monks and the Nation
State: An Anthropological and Historical Study in North Eastern Thailand
(Singapore, ISEAS: 1993). Also Sponsel Leslie E. and Poranee Natadecha
"Buddhism, Ecology and Forests in Thailand" in Dargavel, Dixon and
Semple (eds.), Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today's
Challenges in Asia, Australasia and Oceania, (Canberra, ANU/CRES: 1988):
305-25; Sponsel, Leslie E. and Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel, The Role of Buddhism
in Creating a More Sustainable Society in Thailand (London, School of Oriental
and African Studies: 1994); and Phra Thepvedi Phra Kap Pa (Monks and the
Forest), (Bangkok, Khrongkan Vanaphitdak: 1992). Return
[32]. Cf. Swearer op cit. The
practice may well have its origin in a wide-spread revival of tree-planting in
Thailand in the wake of the Bangkok Bicentennial of 1982, cf. Kasetsart
University Invitation to Tree Planting at Buddhamonton, (Bangkok, Public
Relations Office: 1987). Return
[33]. Vin.i.87, which concerns
a snake that, through the exercise of supernatural powers, takes the form of a
human and improperly gains ordination as a monk. The full circumstances only
become clear at night when, asleep, the snake reveals its true form thus
terrifying its fellow (human) monks. Cf. my "How Environmentalist is
Buddhism?" Religion 21 (1991): 105. Return
[34]. Well-known examples of
the tendency include, or have included, Pongsak Tejadhammo--Abbot of Wat Palad
and Wat Tam Tu Poo, Chiang Mai Province (cf. Sponsel and Natadecha op cit
(1988), 315) and a number of monks in the line of the charismatic teacher Ajān
Man, most notably Ajān In (Wat Pā Kham Noi, Udornthānī) and Ajān Thui (Wat Pā
Dān Wiwek, Norngkhāi), cf. Taylor op cit: 239f. Return
[35]. I understand that a
number of prominent tree-ordainers have disrobed of late. I am unable to
determine whether this was a positive decision on their part or the result of
pressure from the sangha authorities. Return
[36]. Ariyaratna, AṬ. "Buddhist Thought in
Sarvodaya Practice" Paper delivered at the Seventh International Seminar
on Buddhism and Leadership for Peace sponsored by the Dae Won Sa Buddhist
Cultural Institute and the Dept of Philosophy, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu,
June 1995. My own conversations with Dr. Ariyaratna tend to confirm the eco-justice
type credentials of the modern Sarvodaya movement. Joanna Macy (op cit (1991):
198ff), an early American supporter of Sarvodaya and a leading contemporary
eco-activist, also touches on the topic of environmentalism and social justice
in the later chapters of her book. Return
[37]. Gombrich, Richard F and
Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka,
(Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass: 1990): 245. Return
[38]. I owe my knowledge of
this movement to conversations with Dr. Shim Jae-Ryong of Seoul National
University. Return
[39]. Other writers engaged in
the textually oriented defence of environmentalist Buddhism include Lily de
Silva, e.g.. "Man and Nature in Mutual Causal Relationship" in
Samartha and de Silva (eds.), Man in Nature: Guest or Engineer, (Colombo,
Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue: 1979). Also "Environmental Crisis
and Survival" Paper submitted to the Seventh International Seminar on
Buddhism and Leadership for Peace sponsored by the Dae Won Sa Buddhist Cultural
Institute and the Dept of Philosophy, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, June
1995. Return
[40]. It should be noted here
that Beyer (op cit: 218) admits that eco-traditionalism in the Christian
context reflects an "attempt to liberalize [Christian] groups that are
generally more theologically conservative". Return
[41]. cf. Sentience (1991): 1
[n.1]. Return
[42]. ibid: 106. Return
[43]. Schmithausen, Lambert
"How can Ecological Ethics be Established in Early Buddhism?"
(Journal of Buddhist Ethics, forthcoming). Return
[44]. Some of the statements
in the Buddhist declaration at Assisi express this highly Romantic attitude,
cf. Ven Lungrig Namgyal Rinpoche "The Buddhist Declaration on Nature"
in The Assisi Declarations: Messages on Man and Nature from Buddhism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, (London, World Wide Fund for Nature:
1986): 3-7. Also cf. Yuthok, K. Gelek "The Tibetan Perception of the
Environment" Paper presented to the Sixth Conference of the International
Association of Tibetan Studies, Fagernes, Norway, 1992 (quoted in Pedersen,
Poul "Nature, Religion and Cultural Identity: The Religious Environmentalist
Paradigm" in Kalland and Brūn (eds.), Asian Perceptions of Nature: A
Critical Approach, (London, Curzon Press: 1995): 261. A final example may be
found in Sponsel and Natadecha where we hear that "Buddhism has a long
history of mutualistic relationships with trees and forests", op cit: 309.
Return
[45]. Harris op cit, (1991):
111. Return
[46]. cf. Pedersen op cit: 7f.
Peter Harvey's statement that "the values of traditional Buddhist
societies generally ensured that the environment and the species it contained
were not over-exploited" [my italics] is a good example of such
anachronism (Harvey, Peter "Buddhist Attitudes To and Treatment Of
Non-Human Nature" Paper delivered at the Seventh International Seminar on
Buddhism and Leadership for Peace sponsored by the Dae Won Sa Buddhist Cultural
Institute and the Dept. of Philosophy, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, June
1995). The best one can hope to say about pre-modern Buddhist cultures is that,
on the basis of the very flimsy evidence available to us, a sort of de facto
environmentalism, as opposed to an explicit ecological ethic, may have been at
work. Return
[47]. Huber, Toni,
"Traditional Environmental Protectionism in Tibet Reconsidered",
Tibet Journal 16/3 (1991): 63-77 & 72. Return
[48]. Prebish makes the more
general point, in a discussion of the writings of a varied group of modern
engaged Buddhist writers, that "...we must commend them for the depth of
their sincerity and commitment, the expanse of the timely issues they confront,
and wonder why there is rarely a footnote, hardly a textual reference in their
writings which might provide additional and persuasive authority to their
arguments", cf. Prebish, Charles S "Text and Tradition in the Study
of Buddhist Ethics", The Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of
Buddhist Studies (New Series) 9 (Fall 1993): 49-68 & 62. Return
[49]. White, Lynn "The
Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", Science 155 (1967): 1203-7.
The major criticism of White's thesis has come from Christian theologians who
have been anxious to demonstrate the existence of textual resources within the
Christian tradition that support an environmental ethic. Robin Attfield's work
springs to mind in this context. Very little criticism has emanated from those
quarters that have benefited the most from the thesis, i.e., from Hindus,
Buddhists, etc. Return
[50]. It is perhaps
unsurprising that White's implicit "hierarchy" of religious
traditions coincides with the outlook of many religiously active people in the
West where Buddhism is becoming more and more the religion of choice. This, in
turn, helps to explain the ecological currents at work in counter-culturally
influenced Western Buddhisms, cf. supra--the discussion of eco-spirituality.
Return
[51]. In this context, we should
beware of the naive assumption, an assumption strongly promoted by many
scientists themselves, that science somehow describes nature "as it
is". Science as a symbolic system of interpretation, in this sense shares
many of the characteristics of traditional religious explanations of the world.
In this connection cf. Bird, Elizabeth "The Social Construction of Nature:
Theoretical Approaches to the History of Environmental Problems",
Environmental Review 11/4 (1987): 255-64. Return
[52]. The BPNP was initiated
by its international co-ordinator, Nancy Nash, in 1985. cf. Davies, Shann (ed.)
Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection of Nature (Hong Kong, Buddhist Protection
of Nature Project: 1987). Thai and Tibetan strands now exist and the project
aims to disseminate selections of the Buddhist scriptures particularly relevant
to environmental awareness, etc. In Thailand it is claimed that 50,000 such
selections have already been distributed to schools, monasteries and other
institutions. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh is a significant Thai scholar associated
with the project and has published a number of works under its auspicies, e.g.
A Cry from the Forest: Buddhist Perception of Nature, A New Perspective for
Conservation Education, (Bangkok, Wildlife Fund Thailand: 1987). Return
[53]. I expect to be
criticised for this statement. In defence, may I add that the comment is devoid
of any personal animosity--the Dalai Lama is clearly a man of the highest
integrity. Nevertheless, as an international figure he must face in two
directions at once, i.e., to his Buddhist countrymen on the one hand and
towards influential international elites on the other. An enthusiastic
endorsement of the contemporary agenda of the second group, with its emphasis
on the global nature of the world's problems, may be the most effective means
of eliciting their support for the Tibetan people's fight to regain their
homeland. Return
[54]. The Thai co-ordinator of
BPNP is Sirajit Waramontri, a significant member of Wildlife Fund Thailand. It
looks likely that the WWF may, therefore, act in some donor capacity. Return
[55]. For general details of
the movement cf. Macy, Joanna Dharma and Development: Religion as a Resource in
the Sarvodaya Self-Help Movement (West Hartford Conn, Kumarian Press: 1983). For
a more critical treatment cf. Gombrich, Richard F and Gananath Obeyesekere op
cit, 1990: 245f. Return
[56]. The crisis in relations
between Sarvodaya and its donors is covered in detail in Bond, George D
"The Sarvodaya Movement's Quest for Peace and Social Awakening" Paper
presented at the Seventh International Seminar on Buddhism and Leadership for
Peace sponsored by the Dae Won Sa Buddhist Cultural Institute and the Dept of
Philosophy, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, June 1995. Return
Copyright 1995
---o0o---
Source: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/