|
Throughout the past several decades,
Buddhist practitioners in both Asia and the West
have engaged in a wide variety of efforts to protect
the environment. A Buddhist priest led a recent
campaign to save an ancient urban forest in Tokyo
from being turned into an apartment complex; the
priest erected a large sign near the grove stating
that the trees have “Buddha-nature.”
Similar efforts in forest conservation from a
Buddhist perspective have occurred in Thailand,
where a number of environmentally minded monks
have selectively “ordained” trees in
the forests. Traditionally, a Thai Buddhist novice
is ordained by the shaving of the monk’s
hair and by his acceptance of saffron robes. Thai
monks have used this symbolic act of initiation
to “ordain” the trees in the rain forest
as “members of a Buddhist order” by
tying strips of saffron cloth around them. This
rather unique tactic has actually prevented the
logging of quite a number of acres of forest.
This creative adaptation of Buddhist concepts
and practices for environmental concerns has been
taking place since the early 1960s in three larger
communities: the academic, the Buddhist, and the
environmental.
In the academic community, scholars
from a variety of disciplines have evaluated Buddhist
perspectives on nature, ecological ethics, and
actions taken by Buddhists for environmental causes.
While Buddhologists have focused on Buddhist sutras
and other textual sources, as well as on individual
Buddhist thinkers’ perspectives on nature,
environmental philosophers have turned to Buddhism
as a conceptual resource for a new ecological
ethics. At the same time, scholars in the fields
of anthropology and sociology have studied contemporary
Buddhist movements and individuals who have been
involved as “engaged Buddhists” in environmental
activism.
Members of the second group, both
ordained and lay members of the Buddhist community
in Asia and the West, have been speaking, writing,
and organizing activities leading toward a more
active Buddhist role in addressing the environmental
crisis. Well-known ordained leaders, such as the
Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, and Thich Nhat
Hanh, have recognized the need to address such
contemporary issues as ecology if Buddhism is
to continue to be relevant to many members of
the Buddhist community. Institutionally, such
organizations as the International Network of
Engaged Buddhists, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship,
and Buddhists Concerned for Animals have served
as vehicles for expressing particular Buddhist
positions on ecological and peace concerns. Furthermore,
the efforts of local temples and lay Buddhists
in environmental education, activism, and conservation
have been noteworthy. In Japan, for example, even
without institutional backing, local temple priests
have played key roles in protecting marine life
in the Himeiji region, protesting nuclear power
and waste in western Japan, and preserving the
few ancient groves left in Tokyo. Perhaps even
more remarkable have been key lay Buddhists in
both Asia and the West, such as Sulak Sivaraksa,
Yanase Giryo, Gary Snyder, and Joanna Macy, who,
through their writings and activism grounded in
a Buddhist perspective, have made a significant
contributions to ecological awareness.
Finally, a number of environmentalists
have found Buddhist doctrines, such as Buddha-nature,
and Buddhist practices, such as meditation, to
be extremely useful. Many environmentalists are
familiar with the deep ecology movement, inspired
and influenced in part by Buddhism, which espouses
a nonanthropocentric worldview. Moreover, many
environmentalists are familiar with the Council
of All Beings, a ritual in which one places oneself
in the position of another species, which was
designed by Buddhists Joanna Macy and John Seed.
Environmental activists who are drawn to Buddhism,
but who are not officially Buddhists, might be
what Thomas Tweed has called “Buddhist sympathizers,”
or persons who are positioned between adherents
and nonadherents. Although Buddhism has certainly
been influenced by the environmental movement,
these last examples suggest ways in which Buddhism,
in its worldview and practice, has penetrated
the environmentalist community.
This volume was based on a three-day
conference at the Harvard University Center for
the Study of World Religions that brought together
scholars of Buddhism and environmentally engaged
Buddhists. While it reflects some of the juxtapositions
of those two groups, the significance of this
volume lies in the fact that it is primarily a
scholarly one. Previous publications in this area
have largely been written by practitioners and
environmentalists. Moreover, the two previous
scholarly Books of note, Lambert Schmithausen’s
Buddhism and Nature and the collection
Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought,
edited by J. Baird Callicott and Roger T. Ames,
are limited in both their scope and treatment
of the range of Buddhist traditions. This volume,
although scholarly in nature, is intended for
undergraduate and graduate students as well as
for an educated public with some basic knowledge
of Buddhist teachings. Rather than being exhaustive,
it should serve as a modest beginning so as to
encourage further research on the topic of Buddhism
and ecology.
The volume begins with an essay
by Lewis Lancaster, an overview highlighting some
of the key issues and complexities inherent in
a study of this topic. One of these involves the
problem of generalizing about the Buddhist tradition
as a whole. Lancaster signals the need to be aware
of the cultural and geographical diversity of
Buddhism as well as of the historical contexts
of particular Buddhist teachings and practices.
Moreover, methodological issues, such as utilizing
ideas from the past to inform contemporary issues,
are also recognized as problematic in certain
respects. Yet, the spirit of this volume is one
that, while acknowledging these difficulties,
also notes that traditions have always been changing
in relation to present circumstances. In addition,
it accepts the premise that views of nature are,
to a large extent, conditioned by religious and
cultural worldviews. Hence, it is important to
probe these views historically so as to shed light
not only on the past but also on present circumstances.
The issue may be described as the coexistence
of traditional ideas with modern conditions—or
the adaptation of the former to the latter. While
this may be an uneasy coexistence, it is not without
historical precedent, given the manner in which
traditions have adapted themselves to particular
times, places, and situations.
The first five sections of the volume
reflect cultural, thematic, and denominational
approaches to the study of Buddhism in general
and the study of Buddhism and ecology in particular.
The cultural areas represented in this volume
include Southeast Asia, East Asia, and North America,
and specific examples are drawn from Thailand,
Japan, and the United States. The section on Thailand
includes an essay by Donald Swearer on two key
figures in the Theravada Buddhist world—Buddhadasa
and Dhammapitaka—who have figured prominently
in contemporary discussions of Buddhist ecological
theories and practices in Thailand. The anthropological
essay of Leslie Sponsel and Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel
complements this with a discussion of how the
Thai Buddhist monastic community is involved in
promoting environmental awareness and action.
The following three chapters focus
on particular Japanese Buddhist thinkers’
views of nature as a starting point for a discussion
of what the Japanese tradition offers in terms
of environmental worldviews and ethics. Paul Ingram
discusses the case of the medieval Shingon monk
Kukai and his mandala-like world of interconnectedness
that Ingram terms the “jeweled net of nature.”
Graham Parkes also begins with Kkai’s doctrine
of this earth being the manifestation of Buddha-nature.
He then moves on to discuss the similarly nonanthropocentric
and nature-affirming worldview of the medieval
Zen monk Dogen. Parkes concludes with reflections
on the philosophical and practical problems in
the undifferentiated affirmation of all things
“natural,” including tuberculosis or
toxic waste dumps. Steve Odin considers a wide
range of sources to highlight an aesthetic and
salvific aspect to a specifically Japanese concept
of nature. He links this perspective to the environmental
ethics and conservation aesthetics of Aldo Leopold
to propose what he calls an “East-West Gaia
theory of nature.”
The third geographical and cultural
area taken up in the volume is the United States
where, despite its relatively brief history, Buddhism
has played an important role in the formation
of a Buddhist ecology and in the creation of environmentally
friendly Buddhist temples. David Barnhill analyzes
the work of the Buddhist poet and environmental
activist Gary Snyder, who was one of the first
Westerners to recognize the rich potential of
the interface between Buddhism and ecology. In
particular, Snyder articulates a Buddhist-inspired
bioregionalism and a Buddhist form of deep ecology.
His concept of wildness and his shamanic/mythological
orientation is drawn, Barnhill suggests, from
his feelings for the dramatic landscape of the
Pacific Northwest and his affinities with Native
American views of community and land. Stephanie
Kaza’s essay focuses on two environmentally
sustainable rural communities in Northern California,
namely, Green Gulch Farm, a Zen meditation center,
and Spirit Rock, a vipassana meditation
center. Kaza draws on Gary Snyder’s ecological
guidelines for reinhabitation of the land to evaluate
the environmental stewardship and educational
practices of these centers. Jeff Yamauchi’s
essay complements this discussion with another
case study of the process of “greening”
a Buddhist retreat center, the Zen Mountain Center
in Southern California. He surveys efforts to
protect the flora and fauna of the region and
discusses fire prevention and management of the
forest.
This volume also includes a thematic
section on the place of animals in Buddhism, in
which the particular cultural areas and traditions
of India and Japan are examined. Christopher Chapple’s
essay deals with various images of animals as
found in the early Indian Buddhist stories known
as the Jataka tales. Chapple suggests that the
wise, compassionate, and foolish animals appearing
in these narratives illustrate that Buddhists
had a keen awareness of animals and their place
in Buddhist cosmology. My essay takes up the Buddhist
ritual of releasing animals for merit that has
been practiced in both East and Southeast Asia.
The study of this ritual in medieval Japan reveals
the ironic relationship between the effort at
“animal liberation” in the Buddhist
tradition and the unintended consequence to this
ritual of the loss of animal life.
Another approach to the study of
Buddhism in general is to examine different traditions
or denominations of Buddhism. In this volume,
Ruben Habito and John Daido Loori look to the
possibilities and limitations of what the Zen
Buddhist tradition can offer to this discussion
of environmental issues. Habito points to the
experiential realization in Zen of nonseparation
of oneself and the world as the starting point
for embracing an ecologically engaged way of life.
This affirms living in the present moment. However,
Habito acknowledges another impulse in Zen that
may promote detachment from this world and absorption
in cultivating the inner life. Loori, the head
abbot of Zen Mountain Monastery, gives a Zen interpretation
of the Buddhist precepts as a map for an environmental
ethic. In his article, originally delivered as
a Zen Dharma talk at the monastery, he suggests
interpreting the Buddhist precepts so as to develop
a way of life that is in harmony with the natural
world.
The last two sections of the volume
focus on practical/policy-level contributions
that Buddhism can make and on theoretical/methodological
issues that ought to be considered for future
research. The section on the practical application
of Buddhism to environmental problems begins with
Kenneth Kraft’s chapter on the issue of nuclear
waste. Kraft documents the background of Buddhist
concern over this unresolved issue and reflects
on the responsibilities of the scholar and the
engaged Buddhist in facing this particular aspect
of the environmental crisis. Rita Gross draws
from the wide-ranging spectrum of Buddhist thought
to construct a position that undercuts what she
calls a pronatalist view toward population. Gross
suggests that particular Buddhist teachings on
desires and sexuality could help to moderate the
more polemical discussions of population and consumption.
She thus points toward a middle way between irresolvable
extremes on these two issues. In his essay, Steven
Rockefeller outlines the core elements of a Buddhist
contribution to an emerging global ethics. He
focuses particularly on the Earth Charter, which
is expected to be submitted to the United Nations
General Assembly by the year 2000. The Charter
is intended to function as a “soft law”
document to undergird efforts at sustainable development
in the international community. The practical
problems and initiatives discussed by these three
authors provide models for future considerations
of ways in which Buddhist values can be applied
to environmental issues.
The final section of the volume
focuses on broader theoretical and methodological
questions regarding the interface between Buddhism
and ecology. David Eckel and Ian Harris both question
facile assumptions that Asian, and particularly
Buddhist, worldviews are inherently environmentally
friendly. Indeed, they ask when and why Buddhism
came to be seen as ecofriendly. They both argue
that this conception is relatively recent and
that the term “nature” is itself a complex
and somewhat problematic term in Buddhist history.
Eckel proposes a means of circumventing the complexity
of Buddhist views of nature, while Harris advocates
continued vigilance in translating Western environmental
discourse into a Buddhist setting. Alan Sponberg
also observes that there are limits to what he
calls “Green Buddhism.” In particular,
he questions the view that Buddhism advocates
a notion of interrelatedness between all beings
that is entirely egalitarian. Sponberg suggests,
instead, the need to assess traditional Buddhism
more accurately, first, by noting that Buddhism
often advocated a hierarchical conception of the
human and natural world, and second, by recognizing
the usefulness of what he calls the “hierarchy
of compassion” in contributing to a specifically
Buddhist approach to environmental ethics.
The essays in this volume, then,
span a wide range of possible approaches to the
study of Buddhism and ecology. The chapters adopt
various methodological perspectives, including
anthropology, sociology, textual analysis, historical
studies, and philosophical or theological approaches.
The essays also share tensions between a descriptive
and a critical perspective on the one hand and
a more interpretive and engaged perspective on
the other. In his response at the conference,
Charles Hallisey identified this tension as one
between the historical and the prophetic. This
may be a fruitful tension between an approach
that descriptively historicizes certain Buddhist
views of nature, or particular examples of Buddhist
engagement with environmental issues, and an approach
that reinterprets and advocates, with a prophetic
voice, Buddhist involvement with particular issues.
This volume represents the full spectrum of these
orientations and suggests that various approaches
are necessary for an adequate understanding of
Buddhist views on ecology.
There has never been any one Buddhist
perspective on nature or ecology that might be
considered definitive. There have been Indian,
Tibetan, American, Thai, or Japanese Buddhist
perspectives on the natural world, and they differ
considerably according to each one’s place
and time in history. There is no core “Buddhistic”
element to each cultural worldview but rather
a diversity of perspectives that might all legitimately
be identified as Buddhist.
The essays in this volume may, however,
begin to reveal some general orientations that
would elicit what might be a more Buddhist than,
say, a Christian approach to ecology. Or, as it
is a religious tradition, perhaps we can see a
Buddhist perspective in contradistinction to a
secular one. It is hoped that this volume might
spark a continuing inquiry, both to further a
more diverse understanding of Buddhist views on
ecology (for example, in underresearched areas,
such as Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism) as well
as to help ascertain common Buddhist themes that
might be offered as resources for a new religious
contribution to environmental problems.
In conclusion, the editors would
like to acknowledge the contributions made by
several scholars and engaged Buddhists who participated
in the conference upon which this volume is based.
These include Joe Franke, Larry Gross, Joan Halifax,
Charles Hallisey, Joanna Handlin-Smith, Jeffrey
Hopkins, Leslie Kawamura, William LaFleur, Susan
Murcott, Marty Peale, Christopher Queen, and David
Shaner. The editors are particularly grateful
for the assistance of Donald Swearer and Kenneth
Kraft in shaping this volume. They also wish to
acknowledge the initiative of Masatoshi Nagatomi
in teaching a course on Buddhist views of nature
at Harvard University for several years before
his retirement in 1996. His opening address and
his presence throughout the conference was a source
of inspiration for the participants.
|
