In chapter two, I have examined the modern ecological crisis through a Buddhist lens, focusing on the moral state of humanity. This framework reveals that unwholesome states—greed, hatred, and delusion—drive destructive actions toward each other and the natural environment. This degraded moral condition signifies a deeper spiritual malignancy, fracturing the relationship between humans and nature. What we term an "ecological crisis" is, at its core, a "human spiritual crisis." The remedy must begin within the individual and the community.
The ecological crisis can be likened to a mirror reflecting our tangled hair. The logical and effective response is not to change the mirror, hoping for a more satisfactory reflection, nor to attempt to alter the image behind the mirror. Instead, we must untangle our own hair so that the reflection in the mirror no longer shows a disarray.
This metaphor underscores the need for internal change to address the external crisis, emphasizing the profound connection between our inner moral state and the health of our environment. The purpose of the next several chapters is to present that image, that vision of healthy and wholesome human-nature relationship which is supported by Theravada Buddhist teachings. I will turn to the very basic and essential doctrines of Buddhism in order to attempt to put forth positive notions of human-nature relationship that are both conducive to the well-being of nature as well as to the spiritual goals of the human person. I have decided to call these types of relationships “paradigms” because they represent a projected vision, a goal, or an ideal for how we conceive of human-nature relationship.
The next three chapters will be devoted to presenting three relationship paradigms, which in themselves are valuable and beneficial to promoting environmental well-being. Nonetheless, when considered in conjunction with each other, they provide us with a more complete perspective of the ideal and multi-faceted human-nature relationship. Just as the unwholesome states of greed, hatred, and delusion can be considered for their harmful impacts on human-nature relationship separately or in conjunction with one another, the three proposed paradigms have the same function in our consideration of the positive human-nature relationship. Though the three paradigms do not necessarily have a one-to-one correlation with the three unwholesome states, in various ways, they together and individually respond to and counter these poisons with their focus on wholesomeness and harmony. Thus, they represent the ideal situation that we ought to try to achieve. The intention, it is hoped, will be clearer once each of the proposed paradigms is presented in the subsequent pages.
The first paradigm of human-nature relationship that I would like to present is one characterized by “solidarity in suffering.” This paradigm approaches the matter by examining the Buddhist cosmogony and how human beings and nature are linked in their existential reality. In taking this approach, we will discover that human beings and nature constitute distinct entities existing on a cosmological continuum, and having as the basis of their continuity the experience of dukkha, or suffering that is characteristic of all unenlightened sentient lives. When human beings and nature are placed on this continuum, we will see that this reality neither makes human beings one with nature nor does it make them separate from nature. However, it facilitates the possibility for human beings to be in solidarity with nature through the shared experience of suffering.
Nature in Buddhism
Before delving into the proposed paradigm in detail, it is helpful to consider some issues regarding the notion of nature in our current context and within Buddhist teachings. The term "nature" is extremely flexible, encompassing a variety of meanings that apply to both human beings and the physical universe. It also carries philosophical connotations dating back to Plato and Aristotle. However, in this book, I will primarily use the definition employed by scholar of Buddhism, Lambert Schmithausen: nature as we refer to it "when we speak, in these days, of the destruction, exploitation, or subjugation of nature."[1] This definition includes not only untouched wilderness, comprising plants and animal species unaffected by human activity, but also ecosystems that, despite human interference, still retain characteristics that can be described as natural.
However, in addition to animal and plant species, we can also consider material entities such as mountains, caves, sand dunes, the atmosphere, and so on. In this context, nature is not simply “life on earth,” because human beings in the context of this book are excluded from what is considered to be nature. Thus, the term is employed in a more restrictive way to refer to non-human natural entities both organic and inorganic. It is purposely done in this way as to be able to approach this project with the question of “How are human beings to engage in relationship with nature from the perspective of Theravada Buddhism?” If human beings are considered to be “part of nature,” then the task set before us would be quite difficult, if not impossible. One could say that human beings are part of the “natural order,” which comprises both humans and non-human nature. While nature is exclusive of human beings, it certainly includes all the things that we often see when we watch television programs on National Geographic and Discovery channels, or other similar outlets, especially the documentary programs hosted by David Attenborough.
While I think it is beyond the scope of this book to explore the philosophical ideas of nature because it is quite a complex matter in itself, it would be helpful to consider one philosopher’s definition of nature, one which I think is adequate for our purposes here. According to the German philosopher Angelika Krebs, “nature” is understood as something contrasted with “artefacts,” where the former is not made by human beings, but the latter is. Thus, oceans and forests are considered to be nature, whereas computers and tables would be considered artefacts.[2] Krebs admitted that in certain cases, the line between “nature” and “artefact” is fuzzy, for example the monoculture Black Forest in Germany or cultivated landscapes. Nonetheless, for the general purposes of environmental concern, these categories are quite adequate.
In Buddhist literature, there is no clear definition of “nature” similar to what is defined in this book. Thus, it is not an easy task to pinpoint what exactly is the Buddhist stance towards nature as a specific category. Even prominent Buddhists themselves are not always clear when they speak of human-nature relationship. For example, in an article entitled “Buddhist Solutions for the Twenty-first Century,” the esteemed Thai professor monk Phra Prayudh Payutto pointed out one of the causes for the modern day ecological crisis is “the perception that mankind is separate from nature, and must control, conquer or manipulate nature according to his desires.”[3] In order to address this issue, Phra Prayudh exhorted human beings to look at themselves in accordance with what environmentalists claim, which is that human beings must perceive themselves as being part of nature. According to Phra Prayudh, “If we have the insight that we are part of nature, and we see that changes in nature must also have an effect on us, our actions will be constrained, clearly defined and balanced.”[4] This sentiment reflects an understanding of nature as something encompassing and much more comprehensive than what we perceive as nature in the modern scientific sense (more or less the sense that we are employing in this book).
Though the language of being “part of nature” is often used by Buddhist scholars, there is also another kind of language that is also often used that conveys the notion that human beings are, in fact, not a part of nature, but something distinct from nature, albeit in relationship with and not isolated from nature. In the talk entitled “Thai People and Forests,” Phra Prayudh spoke of human being as “friends of nature.”[5] Another Thai monk Phra Dharmakosajarn refers to human beings as protectors of nature. He commented, “Nature was for humanity to foster and develop for the necessities of living. Humanity is more like a warden or guardian to protect nature; humanity was not developed to be masters of the universe. This is the correct and positive way of thinking in Buddhism.”[6]
Thus, though there is a tendency to employ the language of “oneness” in order to counter against the Western dualism perceived to be the cause of the ecological crisis, the above mentioned Buddhist monks clearly do not mean to say human beings are but an aspect of nature as an arm is part of the body. Human beings cannot be a part of nature while simultaneously be friends and protectors of nature. To be a friend implies being distinct from the entity with whom we enter into friendship. The same is true with the kind of relationship pertaining to protectorship, guardianship, or stewardship. I believe when these good-willed people use the language of not being separate from nature, they are simply emphasizing that human livelihood and destiny are intertwined with nature in an intimate and symbiotic way. As Phra Dharmakosajarn remarked, “The fact is clear: living beings and the proper environment cannot be separated. They must live and survive together. Living beings depend on their environment and the environment relies on living beings too.”[7]
What then is nature according to early Buddhism? According to Lily de Silva, the Pāḷi word that is the closest equivalent to “nature” is loka which is usually translated as “world”.[8] However, this term is not applicable to the sense of nature that is used in this book because “nature” in the modern environmental sense refers essentially to the physical world not constructed by human beings. Loka, on the other hand, not only includes the physical entities existing in the world, but also denotes spheres of existence that are immaterial and mental.[9] Thus, loka is too wide ranging to be employed as an equivalent for our sense of nature. Other terms that have been proposed as equivalents of nature, such as saṃsāra, svabhāva, dharmadhātu, dharmatā, dhammajāti, etc. when considered, also prove to be incompatible.[10]
From the above discussion, we can surmise that when Buddhist monks speak of nature in the sense of “loka” or some sort of cosmic reality, then nature includes all the entities in existence including animals and human beings. For example, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu refers to nature as the Dhamma itself, which is inclusive of four aspects: nature itself (sabhavadhamma), the law of nature (saccadhamma), the duty of living things in accordance with nature (patipattidhamma), and the results that come about as a result of these acts (pativedhadhamma).[11] We see that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu has in mind something totally profound and all-encompassing, not restricted to the physical reality, but also to the mental and spiritual dimensions of the universe.
However, when Buddhist monks refer to nature in the environmental sense, they are only referring to the physical natural environment with its biotic and abiotic entities (animals, plants, mountains, oceans, etc.). Incidentally, in this book, my use of the word nature is of this restricted sense, which I think is necessary for a discussion that delves into aspects related to human-nature relationship. If nature is understood to be the Dhamma or something equivalent, then the paradigms proposed in this book are nonsensical, and any discussion on human-nature relationship is utterly futile.
[1]
Lambert Schmithausen, Buddhism and Nature
(Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990), 1.
[2] Angelika Krebs, Ethics of Nature (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 6.[3] Phra Prayudh Payutto, “Buddhist Solutions for the Twenty-First Century,” 1994, http://www.thawsischool.com/old/dhamma_English/pdf/P.%20A.%20Payutto%20in%20English%20for%20Web/Buddhist%20Solutions%20for%20the%20Twenty%20First%20Century.pdf, 92.[4] Payutto, “Buddhist Solutoins for the Twenty-First Century,” 107.
[5] Phra
Prayudh Payutto, Thai People and Forest (คนไทยกับป่า)
(Bangkok: Karomwichakan, 2010), 20.
[6] Phra Dharmakosajarn, Dharma and Environmental Preservation (Bangkok, Thailand: Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya Press, 2011), 29.
[7] Phra Dharmakosajarn, Dharma and Environmental Preservation, 12-13.
[8] Lily De Silva, "The
Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature," in Buddhist Perspectives on the
Eco-Crisis, ed. K. Sandell (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1987), 9.
[9] Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1997), 173.
[10] Ian Harris, "Buddhism and the Discourse of Environmental Concern: Some Methodological Problems Considered," in Buddhism and Ecology, ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Ryuken Williams (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 381.
[11] Santikaro Bhikkhu, "Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: Life and Society Through the Natural Eyes of Voidness," in Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, ed. Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 159.
No comments:
Post a Comment