วารสารบัณฑิตศึกษาปริทรรศน์ ปีที่ ๑๑ ฉบับที่ ๑ มกราคม – เมษายน ๒๕๕๘ หน้า ๑๒๓-๑๔๔ (บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยมหาจุฬาลงกรณราชวิทยาลัย)
Journal of Graduate Studies Review Vol.11, No.1, January - April 2015, pp. 123-144.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_KRMS4QXPcnVngxclFLSmg0OFE
Abstract
The doctrine of paṭiccasamuppāda or Dependent Origination is one
of the most important teachings of Buddhism and serves as a source of
inspiration for reflections on all kinds of issues including social, political,
and spiritual. In this paper, the doctrine of Dependent Origination is examined
as a resource for conceiving of a relationship between human beings and nature
as one characterized by responsibility. This is done by reflecting upon the
abstract form of the teaching as a law of universal causality that contains an
environmental import. The environmental significance of this teaching appears
when we realize that human thoughts and actions can lead certain things to
arise in nature that may be either positive or negative. Based on these
reflections, a paradigm of human-nature relationship of responsibility is
proposed. In addition, the Buddhist virtues of moderation and contentment are
presented as essential ways to nourish such a relationship.
Keywords:
Dependent Origination, Theravada Buddhism, environmental spirituality
บทคัดย่อคำสอนเรื่องปฏิจจสมุปบาทหรือหลักเหตุปัจจัยที่ ต้องอาศัยกันเกิดขึ้น เป็นหนึ่งในคำสอนของพระพุทธศาสนาที่นับได้ว่าเป็นแหล่งบันดาลใจในการนำมาประยุกต์ใช้เพื่อแก้ประเด็นปัญหาไม่ ว่าจะเป็นทางด้านสังคม การเมืองและทางชีวิตจิต ในบทความนี้ ผู้เขียนได้สำรวจตรวจสอบหลักคำสอนดังกล่าวในฐานะเป็นทรัพยากรสำคัญที่เป็นจุดกำเนิดความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างมนุษย์และธรรมชาติที่ตั้งอยู่บนฐานของความรับผิดชอบร่วมกัน เพราะหลักปฏิจจสมุปบาทนั้นเป็นหลักเหตุและผลสากลซึ่งควบรวมไว้ซึ่งเนื้อหาสาระที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสิ่งแวดล้อม หลักนิเวสธรรมที่สำคัญนี้ปรากฏเป็นจริงได้เมื่อเราตระหนักรู้ว่า ความคิดและการกระทำของมนุษย์นั้นจะนำพาให้เกิดผลแก่ธรรมชาติได้ทั้งแง่บวกและแง่ลบ บนหลักการนี้ ผู้เขียนขอเสนอกระบวนทัศน์แห่งสัมพันธภาพที่เกิดจากความรับผิดชอบร่วมกันระหว่างมนุษย์กับธรรมชาติ และสัมพันธภาพนั้นจะเติบโตได้ก็ด้วยพุทธธรรมคำสอนที่ว่าด้วยการดำาเนินชีวิตอย่างสมถะและสันโดษ
คำสำคัญ: ปฏิจจสมุปบาท, พระพุทธศาสนาเถรวาท, ชีวิตจิตด้านสิ่งแวดล้อม
Introduction
When turning to
Buddhism as a resource for a religiously inspired environmentalism, perhaps no
teaching in Buddhism gets mentioned more than paṭiccasamuppāda which is commonly translated as
Dependent Origination or Dependent Arising. Many scholars, especially those
classified as “Green Buddhists”[1]
see this concept as pertinent to the issue of the ecology because of a
particular interpretation that leads to the idea of interdependence of all
things. This kind of an interpretation, it seems, easily lends itself to
environmental awareness and protection because it suggests intimacy, connectedness,
and even oneness, between human beings and nature. On the other hand, a number
of Buddhist scholars have also rejected this sort of holistic interpretation of
Dependent Origination, asserting that this doctrine only pertains to the
working of the human mind and how human suffering is generated or destroyed.
Thus, Dependent Origination cannot be utilized as a resource for promoting
environmental ethic and spirituality. In this paper, I propose a “middle way”
of interpreting the doctrine of Dependent Origination. First, I propose that
the teaching, especially in its abstract form, not only applies to the human
condition, but also pertains to all things in the universe as a whole. Second,
as a universal law of causality, it indeed contains an environmental import
worthy of consideration in the discussion on Buddhist environmental
spirituality. In particular, this teaching will serve as a resource for
conceiving of a human-nature relationship characterized by responsibility and
accountability. Finally, this relationship of responsibility and accountability
will be nourished when human beings exercise essential virtues such as
moderation and contentment. Thus, this paper aims to do the following: (1)
argues for the relevance of the law of Dependent Origination to the issue of
environmental well-being in a way that is faithful to the canonical text, and
(2) proposes a paradigm of human-nature relationship inspired by this
fundamental Buddhist teaching.
Overview of
Dependent Origination
According to the
Buddha who taught this Dhammic principle, Dependent Origination is a naturally
occurring principle that does not depend on the existence of either himself or
any other enlightened Buddhist teachers in the world. The Buddha affirmed that “Whether
an enlightened Tathagata were to appear in this world or not, this principle
would still prevail as an enduring aspect of the natural order.”[2] The Buddha also emphasized that this
principle is essential to the Dhamma, which one must comprehend in order to say
that he understands the Dhamma. “Whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the
Dhamma,” declared the Buddha. “And whoever sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination.”[3]
Though on the surface it may seem simple, as the monk Ananda once remarked, the
Buddha declared in the Tipitaka that this principle is much more
profound than what one may initially perceive. It is part of the Dhamma, said
the Buddha, that is “deep, difficult to see, difficult to realize, calm and
peaceful, subtle, not attainable through mere logic, refined, requiring a wise
one to understand.”[4]
The principle of
Dependent Origination comes in two forms, long and short. The short form is a
general formula that does not specify the main elements involved while the long
form specifies the elements and how they are connected to one another in a
chained progression. The short form succinctly states:
When this
exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises.
When this does
not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.[5]
The longer form,
on the other hand, specifies various factors linked together creating a
chronological sequence as follows:
With Ignorance
as condition, there are Volitional Impulses.
With Volitional
Impulses as condition, Consciousness.
With
Consciousness as condition, Body and Mind.
With Body and
Mind as condition, the Six Sense Bases.
With the Six
Sense Bases as condition, (sense) Contact.
With Contact as
condition, Feeling.
With Feeling as
condition, Craving.
With Craving as
condition, Clinging.
With Clinging as
condition, Becoming.
With Becoming as
condition, Birth.
With Birth as
condition, Aging and Death, Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief and Despair.
The text usually
begins with the element of ignorance (avijja) as one of the twelve
elements that form the entire chain. One sees that the existence of ignorance
gives rise to another element, which in turn gives rise to another element, and
so forth. While this formulation is meant to show how suffering comes to be in
the world, the converse, which begins with the cessation of ignorance and ends
with cessation of death and decay, depicts the process for extinguishing
suffering. Though ignorance usually appears first in the formula in the text,
Phra Prayudh Payutto warns that this does not mean that ignorance ought to be
taken as the root cause or the first cause of the other elements in the chain.
The fact that ignorance appears first in the sequence is merely for the sake of
convenience, and ignorance is seen as the most logical element with which to
begin the chain.[6]
The end result is suffering, grief, dissatisfaction, and various feelings
associated with dukkha. This reality of dukkha leads to the
accumulation of unwholesome tendencies that in turn leads to perpetuating ignorance
which keeps the cycle of suffering (saṃsāra) to repeat itself in an indefinite
continuation.
From the
specified elements listed in the long formulation, it is obvious that the
principle of Dependent Origination has a physical as well as a psychological
import in that it sets out to explain how suffering comes about and how it may
be extinguished. It describes actions and the consequences of the actions
received by the individual who is solely responsible for how he conducts his
life. This principle, thus, obviously applies to human beings who possess a
conscious mind. Though the long form apparently only applies to human beings
because of the elements unique to the human condition, the short form provides
us with a more general way of looking at reality. The short form confirms our
intuition that in the universe, causation is a natural law that applies to both
human beings as well as to all the other entities. And what applies to human
beings also is observed to occur in other aspects of life, albeit in different
manifestations. In this paper, I will not focus on how Dependent Origination
plays out in the psychology of human life, but how it holds import for
human-nature relationship that has environmental consequences. Most of the
discussion then will involve the abstract formula because it has a more
encompassing outlook.
The Relevance of
the law of Dependent Origination to the Issue of the Environment
Now, let us
begin by examining whether the law of Dependent Origination holds any import for
our concerns related to environmental well-being. As presented above, the
natural law of Dependent Origination comes in two forms – one that clearly
applies to human life, and another that is a more general formulation with a
seemingly more universal outlook. Nevertheless, a number of scholars argue that
the abstract formula cannot be taken as a universal law which can be applied to
all phenomena, but rather an abbreviated formulation of the longer chain. One
such scholar is Eviatar Shulman. In her study of Dependent Origination that is philological
in nature, Shulman asserts that the principle only applies to the working of
the mind and is not meant to refer to all phenomena. According to Shulman, to
interpret this principle as the nature of reality is to inject meanings into it
that were not present in early Buddhism, but only surfaced in later discourses
on the subject.[7]
Shulman argues that the abstract formula (the short form) refers exclusively to
the mental conditioning in human beings. Her argument lies in how the Buddha
presented the twelve links in connection with the short form:
In
the Dasa-bala-sutta of the Nidana Samyutta, the Buddha says: ‘‘Imasmim: sati
idam hoti... yad idam: avijjāpaccayā…’’ (When this is, that
is…That is: depending on ignorance…). The abstract formula is followed by yad
idam, followed by the standard articulation of the 12 links. If the yad
idam meant ‘‘for example’’
or ‘‘such as,’’
we could accept the view that the 12 links are a private case of a general
principle of conditionality. But it clearly does not. What it does express is
more akin to ‘‘that is,’’ or even more precisely ‘‘that which is.’’ Hence it
should be clear that the abstract formula relates precisely and only to the
mutual conditioning of the 12 links.[8]
Thus, for Shulman it is not possible to make
Dependent Origination a universal law of causation. I am not convinced by
Shulman’s assertion that this example indicates a rejection of a universal
application of the doctrine of Dependent Origination. The fact that the Buddha
spoke directly of the human situation after he mentioned the abstract formula in
the passage cited by Shulman does not necessarily mean that he exclusively had
the 12 links in mind when he taught about Dependent Origination. What we do
know is that the Buddha was concerned with human liberation as the ultimate
goal; thus, it would make sense that he delved into the reality of human
consciousness without beating around the bush with other matters. But this does
not mean that if someone were to ask the Buddha whether the law of causation could
be applied in any way to non-human phenomena that he would reply in the
negative. In fact, in the canonical
texts, the human situation was often explained with analogies derived from observable
events nature.[9]
For example, in the Samyutta Nikāya,
it is said that just as a seed sown in a field is able to sprout due to the
factors of soil, nutrients, and moisture, human life comes about due to certain
causes.
As
when a seed is sown in a field
It
grows depending on a pair of factors:
It
requires both the soil's nutrients
And
a steady supply of moisture:
Just
so the aggregates and elements,
And
these six bases of sensory contact,
Have
come to be dependent on a cause;
With
the cause's breakup they will cease.[10]
Another example
from the same Nikāya shows how human spiritual achievements come about
as a result of processes that parallel with those in nature. Here the Buddha
teaches that the virtuous actions done by a person repeatedly is like the
fruits reaped from work done in the field in a continuous manner.[11]
Through these examples, we can see that Buddha saw the presence of causal
forces in both nature and human lives. Things occurred in nature as a result of
various conditions. The same sort of process also took place in human mental
and physical phenomena. The difference between what took place in human beings
and that in nature is that the psychological aspect was absent from natural
phenomena, while causal forces in human life were psycho-physical. Thus, it is
reasonable to interpret the shorter form as depicting the universal causal law
that can be applied to all objects and entities in the world. The longer form,
which applies specifically to the human situation, has basis in this universal
principle; it is aimed at helping human beings to achieve enlightenment, which
is the ultimate purpose of the Buddha’s teaching.
Many scholars who accept the law of Dependent
Origination as a universal natural law quickly comes to the conclusion that
this law necessarily implies that there is an “interdependence of all things,”
and that this law has an ecological import. In the Buddhist environmental
literature, one finds a great number of discussions adopting an interpretation
of Dependent Origination as a principle of universal interconnectedness,
interdependence, and mutual causality of all phenomena. The following quotations
highlight the centrality of this principle in the Buddhist environmental
discourse:
When
one brings the vast collection of Buddhist teachings into conversation with
environmental concerns, one basic teaching stands out above all others in its
relevance. That is the Buddhist teaching of interdependence, which is also one
of the most basic aspects of the
Buddhist worldview, a view held in common by all forms of Buddhism. Simply put,
interdependence means that nothing stands alone apart from the matrix of all
else. In fact, interdependence is to date
the most commonly invoked concept in Buddhist environmental ethics.[12]
Simply
put, interdependence means that nothing stands alone apart from the matrix of
all else. Nothing is independent, and everything is interdependent with
everything else. Logically, the proof of interdependence is that nothing can
exist apart from the causes and conditions that give rise to it. But those causes and conditions are also
dependent on other causes and conditions.
Therefore, linear causality and isolating a single cause or an event
gives way to a more web-like understanding of causality in which everything
affects everything else in some way because everything is interconnected.[13]
Perhaps the most
well-known example of the interpretation of Dependent Origination as radical
interdependence of all phenomena is the American Buddhist Joanna Macy who
asserts, “This doctrine has provided me ways to understand the intricate web of
co-arising that links one being with all other beings.”[14]
For Macy, this principle does not imply that one thing simply serves as the
cause for another thing to arise in a linear sense, but itself is affected due
to the rising of that thing, thus resulting in a “reciprocal dynamic” of
co-arising.[15]
This way of interpreting paṭiccasamuppāda has led Macy and others to translate the doctrine as “interdependent co-origination” or “interdependent co-arising.”
This understanding also lends to the depiction of a Buddhist worldview that
supports a form of ecological holism, in which the natural world is seen as a
single whole. In this whole, human beings, nature, and everything else are
inseparable from one another. Joanna Macy asserts that when we are able to
dismantle the ego-self and its dualistic tendencies, we are able to attain an
expanded self that transcends “separatedness, alienation, and fragmentation.”[16]
With this encompassing sense of self, we can begin to identify with an eco-self
in which there is no longer a need for the category of “I” versus “you” or “it”
because all those boundaries and definitions have been destroyed.[17]
According to Macy, along with the expanded notion of selfhood is the extended
notion of self-interest, in which the Amazon Basin is seen just as much a part
of our self as our own arms and legs. Its protection, therefore, comes
naturally and no moral exhortation or sermonizing is necessary since the need
for virtue has become irrelevant.[18]
Despite the popularity of this way of
interpreting paṭiccasamuppāda, it has not found complete consensus, and many prominent Buddhist scholars have criticized this particular understanding of the principle. D.E. Cooper and S.P. James charge this
interpretation as hyperbolic rhetoric.[19]
Other scholars say that these conclusions are not supported by the texts. Sahni
states, “Though in early Buddhist literature it is admitted that the various
factors of the self are dependently originated, it is not claimed that such
origination confirms an interconnection with all other life or that a person
arises in interaction with everything else.”[20]
Neither does the principle say anything about a mutual conditioning rather than
a mere universal application of causation to all phenomena as depicted by the
short form. According to the Buddhist historian Lambert Schmithausen, Dependent
Origination is really “Origination in Dependence” because things arise due to
various conditions, and surmises that the interdependence interpretation was
influenced directly or indirectly by the Hua-yen/Kegon philosophy that
developed later on in the Mahayana tradition. Schmithausen states:
The
idea of a mutual dependence, inter-connectedness or interrelatedness, here and
now, of all things and beings does not seem to be expressed in the canonical
texts of Early Buddhism. They only teach that not only suffering and rebirth
but all things and events, except Nirvana, arise in dependence on specific
(complexes of) causes and conditions, which in their turn have also arisen in
dependence on causes and conditions, without any primary, absolute cause at the
beginning.[21]
The attractiveness
of the interpretation of radical interdependence is clear. It seems intuitive
that we can move from interdependence to ecological awareness quite easily. We
can make a statement such as, “Because all things in the universe are
interdependent, we ought to take care of the environment.” However, I do agree
with the charge that this interpretation is not supported by the canonical
texts of early Buddhism. In addition, I question whether this interpretation of
radical interdependence makes for a practical environmental spirituality. While
the principle affirms that our actions have consequences for ourselves and for
others, with the effects may be close to home or far reaching, I cannot fathom
how any action on my part, no matter how big or small would have effects on
every part of the world and even the entire universe. To stress this kind of
significance of my action may be good motivation to do good. However, in
actuality, it may place undue pressure on the individual if he truly
understands himself in this radical way. If we adopt Macy’s eco-self, then
whatever a person does in any part of the world that slightly harms nature, we
ourselves must feel guilt as if we are actually committing the act. To be sure,
we ought to be aware and sensitive of our role in certain events taking place
in other parts of the world. For example, our need to serve shark fin soup at
our wedding banquet contributes to the hunting and killing of sharks to the point
of near extinction is undeniable. However, a healthy environmental spirituality
cannot be developed from excessive feelings of guilt. I myself do not believe
Buddhism would support this kind of pressure on the individual. After all, the
Buddha made provisions for unintentional harm as a basis for reducing the
burden of guilt in the individual. Moreover, I question Macy’s assertion that
an awareness of an eco-self will make moral exhortation irrelevant. Experience
tells us that despite the requirement of health warnings on cigarette packs
accompanied by gruesome photos, they do not always keep smokers from filling
their lungs with harmful chemicals. Whether it is the small ego-self or the
extended eco-self, self-harming can very well take place nonetheless.
In the above discussion, I showed that the
two interpretations of Dependent Origination—either as pertaining exclusively
to the human mind or a law of radical interdependence of all phenomena—are not
reflected in the canonical texts. In context of environmental well-being, the
first interpretation virtually excludes any possibility for relying on
Dependent Origination to develop an environmental spirituality. The second
interpretation, on the other hand, takes interdependence to an unrealistic
extreme. I believe we can arrive at a more reasonable interpretation of
Dependent Origination that is not only faithful to the intention of the
teaching but also has significance for the environment. This interpretation may
be said to be the “middle way” between the two above mentioned interpretations.
First, the principle serves as a law of causation for both human beings as well
as the entire universe. In the human situation, the law is applied on a
physical-psychological level while in nature, the law plays out on a physical
level. Moreover, Dependent Origination is a natural law rather than an ethical
law, meaning that it does not place any particular value on the entities,
whether they are the causes and conditions, or the things that arise. The law
simply highlights the process of how things come into existence as a result of
various causes and conditions. That being said, when we contemplate on this
natural law, we see that it can lead us to realize truths that hold moral
implications for ourselves and for our relationship with nature. The
environmental implications appear when we see that as a universal natural law,
it includes in its manifestations a connection between human actions and
effects on the person internally as well as other people and beings externally.
The Buddha on numerous occasions highlighted this connection in his sermons. For
example, in the Cakkavattasihanada Sutta,[22]
the Buddha said that when people behaved degenerately, filling their actions
with ignorance, anger, and hatred, what resulted were war, famine, epidemics
and other calamities. However, when people changed their hearts and their way
of living, nature was restored to balance, and humanity experienced prosperity
and peace.
The claim of causal link between human
thought and action and arisen consequences can also be seen in other suttas of
the Anguttara. In one sermon, the Buddha asserted:
Bhikkhus,
when kings are unrighteous, the royal vassals become unrighteous. When the
royal vassals are unrighteous, brahmins and householders become unrighteous. When
brahmins and householders are unrighteous, the people of the towns and
countryside become unrighteous. When the people of the towns and countryside
are unrighteous, the sun and moon proceed off course. When the sun and moon
proceed off course, the constellations and the stars proceed off course. When
the constellations and the stars proceed off course, day and night proceed off
course . . . the months and fortnights proceed off course . . . the seasons and
years proceed off course. When the seasons and years proceed off course, the
winds blow off course and at random. When the winds blow off course and at
random, the deities become upset. When the deities are upset, sufficient rain
does not fall. When sufficient rain does not fall, the crops ripen irregularly.
When people eat crops that ripen irregularly, they become short-lived, ugly,
weak, and sickly.[23]
Similarly, in another sermon of the same Nikāya,
the Buddha warned:
When
people are excited by illicit lust, overcome by unrighteous greed, afflicted by
wrong Dhamma…They take up weapons and slay one another resulting in massive
human deaths; sufficient rain does not fall leading to famine and lack of
grains; wild spirits are let loose harming human lives.[24]
The examples cited above demonstrate that
the Buddha indeed saw a real connection between human action and effects that
arose in nature. Even without taking the principle of Dependent Origination as
a theory of radical interdependence of all phenomena, that is everything
depends on everything else, we can still affirm an intimate connection between
beings in the world.
The Paradigm of
Human-Nature Relationship of Responsibility and Accountability
When the law of
Dependent Origination is seen as a universal law of causality, it can certainly
help us to envision a way that human beings ought to enter into relationship
with nature that is congruent with this doctrine. In these paragraphs, I would
like to propose the paradigm of responsibility and accountability as a
meaningful way to envision human-nature relationship. Thus, relationship
between human beings and nature has to do not so much with the way human beings
and nature are ontologically, but has more to do with how human beings
and nature act towards one another in concrete happenings that take
place in every moment. Realization of this truth helps us to envision a
human-nature relationship that is based on responsibility and accountability. Human
beings, by virtue of our special status of having consciousness and capable of
achieving liberation, can affect the process of giving rise to or extinguishing
suffering, and consequently, have a special role in the world. Human beings must understand that our actions
affect not only ourselves but others since one action does not necessarily give
rise to a single effect, but can result in multiple effects. Our environmental
spirituality thus arises from the understanding that the causal law is
applicable within the individual, inter-personally, and between us and nature.
This understanding tells us that we cannot live in isolation of others, but are
subjected to the common universal causal law where our actions, thoughts, and
intentions must be taken into account.
The environmental
spirituality that results from this interpretation of Dependent Origination is
not one of nonchalance on the one end, and undue burden on the other extreme. Rather,
it is a clear-minded spirituality that comes from realization that human beings
and nature are companions in samsaric life in which both are bound
together in the natural process of birth, old age, suffering, and death. Responsibility
towards nature, therefore, is the task entrusted to all people—the lay folks,
the religious, as well as the political leaders. The Buddha indeed taught that
actions of influential individuals gave rise to things in the community; and
actions of humanity influenced the outcome in nature. Thus, everyone is expected
to be aware of the people and things that make up our relational life. In the Sigalovada
Sutta,[25]
the Buddha advised a young householder in great details on his duties on his
parents, his wife, his children, his servants, his friends and associates, as well
as other important figures such as teachers, ascetics and brahmins. Though
there is no specific mention of his responsibility towards nature in this
instance, when we consider this sutta along with the other examples
cited above, we are able to conclude that there is tangible effects on nature
due to human actions. Nature could reasonably be added to the list of
relationships that we must enter into and diligently maintain. Thus, human
beings, at the very least, bear indirect duty to nature to promote its
well-being. Our reflection on Dependent Origination, therefore, can lead us to
understand our relationship with nature as that of responsibility and
accountability. Cooper and James assert that to be responsible is to exercise
readiness and eagerness to take on one’s moral responsibilities rather than
accepting them passively as something that one is fated to do.[26]
Displaying
responsibility and accountability to each other is a natural part of seeing
each other as companions on a journey where the final destination is liberation
from suffering for all sentient creatures. The recognition of this
companionship is essential in forming an internal disposition that subsequently
is demonstrated in concrete actions and activities that give rise to positive
effects instead of negative ones. Phra Prayudh Payutto writes, “Since we must
be bound to the same natural law we are friends who share in suffering and joy
of one another. Since we are friends who share in both suffering and joy of one
another we should help and support one another rather than persecute one
another.”[27]
The principle of Dependent Origination, thus presents us with a vision of the
human community not as antagonists of nature, blindly doing things without
awareness of how these actions may affect ourselves and others, but always
conscious that all effects arise due to various causes and conditions. Human
suffering comes from causes that take place in our very own mind. We can also
be the source of the conditions that lead to suffering of other human beings
and of the destruction of nature. Awareness of this necessarily demands
awareness of responsibility and accountability. This is an important foundation
for embarking on the path that leads human beings to act more thoughtfully and
virtuously as to ensure a harmonious human-nature relationship.
Understanding of
our responsibility and accountability towards nature as superficial knowledge alone
is not sufficient for positive outcomes in human-nature relationship. A vision
remains simply a dream and not reality when it is not supplemented by concrete
actions for it to be realized. The Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha is
practically useless if there were no Noble Eightfold Path to complement it. A
harmonious human-nature relationship characterized by responsibility is
enhanced when the individual strives for mental and spiritual development
leading to inner self transformation, which subsequently manifests itself in
the exercising of the various virtues that build a more positive human-nature
relationship. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into details
about how to carry out this mental and spiritual development, it can be said
that the course of self cultivation would not be much different from how one
develops oneself in the overall Buddhist pedagogy. The only possible difference
is that one intentionally includes nature in view alongside with all the other
things that make up one’s relational life so that when one thinks and acts,
these thoughts and actions are directed positively to nature as well as to all
who may be affected by them.
In our paradigm
of relationship of responsibility and accountability, two of the most pertinent
virtues that ought to be visible in the actions and activities of the
cultivated person are moderation and contentment. Moderation and contentment
serve as the antidote for the greed that is detrimental to one’s quest for
liberation. There is a plethora of texts
in the Buddhist canon that exhorts the individual to exercise self-discipline
and restraint in behavior, resisting temptation and indulgence in the senses.
The Aggañña Suttra of the Dīgha Nikāya[28]
tells a fanciful tale of the beginning of the world where as (pre)human beings
went through moral degeneration, filling their hearts with greed, hatred, and
envy, human lives became less and less joyful.[29]
In the beginning, the beings were luminous and weightless creatures floating
about space in pure delight. However, as time passed, on earth, there appeared
a sweet and savory substance that piqued the curiosity and interest of the
beings. They not only ate the substance, but due to greed seeping in, they ate
it voraciously which led to its eventual depletion. In the meanwhile, due to endlessly feeding on
the earth substance, the weightless beings eventually would not only become
coarse individuals with a particular shape, but also lose their radiance. The
story then goes on to tell how the natural world and human society continue to
evolve in unwholesome manners as a result of the depraved actions of humanity.
This tale clearly shows that there is a causal connection between human
virtuousness and the state of the natural world. The lack of moderation, thus,
can be seen to be a cause for great detrimental effects not only to the
surrounding environment, but also to the state of one’s own spiritual
well-being. While Buddhism does not advocate abject poverty, the Buddha indeed
taught that excessive dependence on material things was a hindrance towards
spiritual progress. For the Buddha, a life that led to true happiness was not
one controlled by sense desires, but rather a life of simplicity guided by
wisdom and moral virtues.
Moderation is a virtue when it goes hand in
hand with contentment (Saṅtuṭṭhī), which Buddhism greatly advocates. In
the Suttas, time and time again the Buddha reminded the monks to be
content with simple things and avoid desire of many things. In the Aṅguttara,
the Buddha says “I do not see even a single thing that so causes unarisen
wholesome qualities to arise and arisen unwholesome qualities to decline as contentment.[30]
In the same collection of discourses, the Buddha extols the monk who is content
with whatever robe, alms food, and lodging he receives as “diligent, clearly
comprehending and ever mindful, is said to be standing in an ancient, primal
noble lineage.”[31] As new robes are received, the old ones are
not tossed away but made use of as coverlets. Likewise, the old cover-sheets
are turned into floor-sheets, the old floor-sheets become foot-towels, the old
foot-towels are used as dusters, and old dusters become floor-spreads.[32]
Thus, moderation is not only seen in how one obtains new things, but also
demonstrated in how old things continue to be put to good use. Contentment is
opposed to non-contentment and craving (tanhā) which focuses on
fulfilling one’s needs with limited things. While human craving leads us to
think that more material possessions and greater material wealth is desirous,
Buddhism teaches us that contentment is the “greatest riches”[33]
whereas destruction of all cravings means overcoming all suffering.[34]
One can
immediately see how moderation and contentment advocated by Buddhism would have
profound effect on human-nature relationship and environmental well-being. By
setting limits on our lifestyle, focusing on what we truly need rather than
what we like or what we want, consumerism, and subsequently commodity
production, is reduced. This leads to less strain on natural resources and
results in improved ecological equilibrium. Moderation and contentment also
means true appreciation of the thing that one already possesses and intends to
use it in the most meaningful way possible. Oftentimes, people discard a
perfectly good mobile phone or tablet that they have been using simply because
there is a new model out on the market that supposedly will bring about more
satisfaction to the consumer. Such behavior is indicative of not appreciating
the thing that one already possesses and how one’s life is being well-served by
it. Exercising moderation and having contentment with respect to the
environment, is ultimately a reflection of a person’s sense of responsibility
towards nature. It reflects our awareness of the limited natural resources
available for human use. It also reflects our understanding that wanting more
and owning more means placing unnecessary strains on nature. And it reflects
our understanding that our behavior becomes the condition that gives rise to
certain phenomena that take place in the world in accordance with the teaching
of Dependent Origination. Thus, any spirituality that advocates simple living
and contentment rather than constant striving for material possessions clearly
reflect a sense of responsibility and are naturally beneficial towards environmental
well-being. With the state of the natural environment as it is, there is a
great need at this time for simplicity and contentment on the part of human
beings.
Conclusion
In this paper, I
have attempted to propose a paradigm of human-nature relationship characterized
by human responsibility and accountability based on my interpretation of the
doctrine of Dependent Origination. I tried to show that while Dependent
Origination in its long form only applied to the human condition, the abstract
form has a universal application, and in particular has an environmental
import. The environmental import does not lie in the claim of radical
interdependence of all phenomena, but in the fact that this law of causality
pertains to human-human and human-nature relationships. Contemplation on this
law of causality leads us to recognize that human thoughts and actions do lead
to certain effects arising in nature that can either be positive or negative.
Realization of this reality, therefore, makes us aware that a healthy
human-nature relationship includes the dimension of responsibility and
accountability. I further proposed the
virtues of moderation and contentment, which when exercised diligently and
conscientiously, would positively reinforce this relationship and help promote
environmental well-being. The development and exercise of virtues such as these
are necessary because although the vision of a relationship characterized by
responsibility is an admirable one, it cannot be realized without the necessary
ethical actions that make this vision a reality. One may express concern as to
why in this relationship, human beings seem to bear the brunt of the
responsibility while nature seems to be the beneficiary of human efforts. The
answer is clear and simple. Human beings are entrusted with the responsibility
because we are gifted with mental consciousness and the opportunity for self
cultivation and transformation. Taking responsibility and holding ourselves
accountable to our actions is both a privilege and a duty by virtue of our
status in the world. Fulfilling this duty not only benefits others but also
brings about spiritual progress for ourselves. Thus, living out this
relationship of responsibility and accountability ought not be seen as an undue
burden but a natural part of being human and having to live out our relational
life in the most positive ways possible.
Lastly, though the focus of this paper is the doctrine of Dependent
Origination, I do not think that this teaching alone is sufficient for a full Buddhist
environmental spirituality. Indeed, a well-rounded and meaningful Buddhist
environmental spirituality must also be informed by other essential Buddhist
teachings that help us to conceive of human-nature relationship in other ways,
as well as how to make this relationship harmonious and productive.[35]
Nonetheless, in any reflection on Buddhist environmental spirituality, it would
be severely lacking if the doctrine of Dependent Origination were left out of
consideration.
Abbreviations
A Aṅguttara
D Digha Nikāya
Dp Dhammapada
M Majjhima Nikāya
S Saṃyutta Nikāya
V Vinaya
Sources Cited
Bhikkhu
Nanamoli (trans.). The Middle Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of
the
Majjhima
Nikāya. Kandy: Buddhist
Publication Society, 1995.
Bodhi,
Bhikkhu (trans.). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of
the
Samyutta Nikāya. 2nd edition.
Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2003.
Bodhi,
Bhikkhu (trans.). The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Complete
Translation
of the Anguttara Nikāya. Annotated edition. Boston: Wisdom
Publications,
2012.
Cooper, David E. and James, Simon
P. Buddhism, Virtue and Environment.
Aldershot:
Ashgate Pub Co.,
2005.
Gross, Rita M. “Toward a Buddhist
Environmental Ethic,” Journal of the American Academy
of
Religion
65 (1997): 333-353.
Macy,
Joanna. World as Lover, World as Self: Courage for Global Justice and
Ecological
Renewal.
Berkeley:
Parallax Press, 2007.
Oldenberg, H. et al. (eds). Vinaya Piṭaka.
Vol. IV, PTS, 1879-1883.
Payutto,
Phra Prayudh. Buddhadhamma. Albany: Suny Press, 1995.
______. คนไทยกับป่า. Bangkok:
Karomwichakan, 2010.
Sahni,
Pragati. Environmental Ethics in Buddhism: a Virtues Approach. London: Routledge,
2007.
Schmithausen,
Lambert. “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics,” Journal of
Buddhist
Ethics
4(1997): 1–74.
Shulman,
Eviatar. “Early Meanings of Dependent-Origination,” Journal of Indian
Philosophy
36.2(2008):
297–317.
Singh,
Arvind Kumar. “Buddhism and Deep Ecology: An Appraisal.” In the proceedings of
an
International
Buddhist Conference on the United Nations Day of Vesak on the theme
“Buddhist
Virtues in Socio Economic Development” UNDV Conference Volume
published by ICUNDV &
Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Bangkok, Thailand, held from May
12-14, 2011: 413-427.
Walshe,
Maurice (trans.). The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the
Digha
Nikāya. Second
edition. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
[1] “Green Buddhists” are also sometimes
referred to as “EcoBuddhists” because of they are enthusiastic supporters of
the point of view that Buddhism is naturally environmentally friendly.
[7] Eviatar
Shulman, “Early Meanings of Dependent-Origination,” Journal of Indian
Philosophy 36.2 (2008): 299.
[9] Pragati
Sahni, Environmental Ethics in Buddhism: a Virtues Approach (London:
Routledge, 2007), p.68 .
of
an International Buddhist Conference on the United Nations Day of Vesak on the
theme
“Buddhist
Virtues in Socio Economic Development” UNDV Conference Volume published
by
ICUNDV & Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Bangkok, Thailand, held
from
May
12-14, 2011, p.421.
[13] Rita M. Gross, “Toward a Buddhist Environmental
Ethic,”. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65 (1997):
337–338.
[15] Joanna Macy, World as Lover, World as Self: Courage
for Global Justice and Ecological Renewal (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 2007),
p.33.
[19] David E. Cooper and Simon P. James, Buddhism,
Virtue and Environment (Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub Co., 2005), p.111.
[21] Lambert Schmithausen, “The Early
Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 4:
13-14.
[29]
Although the original intention of the Buddha in telling this story to the
Brahmins is to critique the caste system as falsely deemed to be divinely
ordained, the story obviously has valuable implications for human-nature
relationship as well.
[35] Other
essential Buddhist teachings such as the Three Marks of Existence, the
principle of kamma, and the teaching of saṃsāra are
also important resources for reflecting on human-nature relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment