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/
Update: 01-12-2004
