|
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
---o0o---
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. J S
Ṃill
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.
(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.
(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.
(4) op cit: 208.
(5) Giddens, Anthony The Consequences of Modernity
(Stanford CA, Stanford University Press: 1990): 17ff.
(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.
(7) e.g. Berry, Thomas The Dream of the Earth (San
Francisco, Sierra Club Books: 1988).
(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).
(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.
(10) e.g. Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley Ecology and Life:
Accepting our Environmental Responsibility (Waco TX, Word Books:
1992).
(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).
(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.
(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).
(14) Brown, Brian, "Toward a Buddhist Ecological
Cosmology", Bucknell Review 37/2 (1993): 124-137.
(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.
(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,
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).
(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.
(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.
(20) Cf. Berry, Thomas M Religions of India: Hinduism,
Yoga and Buddhism, (Chambersburg PA, Anima Publications: 1992),
Buddhism (Chambersburg PA, Anima Publications: 1989).
(21) Harris, Ian "Causation and Telos: The Problem of
Buddhist Environmental Ethics", Journal of Buddhist Ethics 1 (1994):
46-59.
(22) op cit: 131-2.
(23) Mill, John Stuart Three Essays on Religion: Nature,
the Utility of Religion and Theism (Third Edition), (London, Longmans,
Green and Co: 1885): 15.
(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.
(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.
(26) This point is made by Schmithausen, Nature (1991):
56--in fact the rejection of dhātuvāda rules out most forms of East
Asian Buddhism.
(27) Cf. Harris, op cit, (1994).
(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.
(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.
(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).
(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).
(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).
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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".
(41) cf. Sentience (1991): 1 [n.1].
(42) ibid: 106.
(43) Schmithausen, Lambert "How can Ecological Ethics be
Established in Early Buddhism?" (Journal of Buddhist Ethics,
forthcoming).
(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.
(45) Harris op cit, (1991): 111.
(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.
(47) Huber, Toni, "Traditional Environmental Protectionism
in Tibet Reconsidered", Tibet Journal 16/3 (1991): 63-77 & 72.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Copyright 1995
--o0o--
|
