The fundamental assumption of Buddhist environmental humanism is that the wellbeing and flourishing of humanity is integrally tied to the wellbeing and sustainability of nature. What is seemingly an individual effort at self-cultivation is not merely to achieve selfish aims but involves transforming all the dimensions and all of the relationships in one’s life – including the relationship with the natural environment. In the face of the ecological crisis, the present context demands awareness of the human-nature relationship as constituting a part of the totality of relationships. Therefore, the virtues and wisdom gained from the process of self-cultivation prescribed by the Noble Eightfold Path must also be applied to the relationship with nature as well as with other human beings. In other words, it is not enough for Budhist self-cultivation to only impact one’s relationship with family, friends, and fellow human beings but also need to be extended to all sentient beings, and in fact, the entire cosmos itself. Fortunately, while in ancient times, the ecological crisis was not in the mind of the Buddha or his followers, the fundamental Buddhist intuition that the boundaries of human relationships were much wider than what was in one’s realm of being allows for re-examining Buddhist scriptural texts and re-contextualizing them for the present circumstances.
According to the Buddhist outlook, any problem in human life whether experienced on an individual or communal basis, can be traced to the unwhole some roots of greed, hatred, and delusion. Therefore, what we categorize as a personal, social, economic, or political problem are essentially ethical and spiritual in nature. Interpersonal conflicts can often easily be traced to one person being envious of the other (hatred). Economic inequality plaguing societies are often rooted in the desire to accumulate wealth while others go hungry (greed). Interreligious conflict can often be traced to people’s ignorance of the faith and teachings of another religion and even of one’s own religion leading to false beliefs and assumptions (delusion). While an unwholesome root may play a more prominent role in a particular problem, in fact, all three are usually present in an intertwining manner and often fuel one another. The poison of greed can fuel hatred, which in turn fuels delusion, which in turn motivates greed in a vicious unending cycle of negativity.
The environmental crisis, therefore, must be seen within this Buddhist framework of human moral degeneration where greed leads to such actions as deforestation and the exploitation of other natural resources for economic production. The delusion of human might and grandeur inspires the belief that infinite economic growth can be achieved without negative consequences to the wellbeing of the earth and of humanity itself. The poisons of greed and delusion lead to actions of violence such as destroying habitats of animals, polluting life supporting water sources, poaching and hunting for economic gains and pleasure, etc. Therefore, the process of addressing the environmental crisis requires human beings to rectify their relationship with nature by internally rooting out the poisons that cause harm to the environment and the entities within that environment. The environmental crisis can be likened to a mirror in which one holds up to examine one’s own reflection and discovers that one’s hair is all in tangles. The logical and effective action that ought to be taken upon discovering this condition is not to change the mirror in the hope that the next one shows a different and more satisfactory reflection, or to try in vain to fix the image behind the mirror. Rather, one must untangle one’s own hair so that the image reflected in the mirror no longer displays a mess. Fundamental Buddhist teachings can help to conceive possibilities 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. The vision of harmonious human-nature relationship must be built upon wholesome and positive dynamics directly opposed to greed, hatred and delusion.
Solidarity and empathy with suffering nature
The Buddhist cosmogony envisions all sentient beings existing in a cosmological continuum comprised of six different realms with the most terrible being the hell realm and the most pleasurable the heavenly realm where the gods and other heavenly beings live out their lifetime. The realms of humans and animals fall in the middle of this continuum, with human beings experiencing less suffering and more pleasure than animals. Despite the distictiveness of the various realms, Buddhist teachings hold that all sentient beings experience some level of suffering. Even the gods who live luxurious and carefree lives for tens of eons will eventually have to deal with suffering when their good kamma runs out and they must be reborn in a lower realm (A.I.267). Human lives are pervaded by anxiety because of the fear of old age, sickness, and death. Human beings also suffer from various feelings of hunger, thirst, not getting what we desire, but getting what they do not want. They have to be with people they do not like, and must be separated from people whom they love. Even happy moments constitute suffering because they cannot last. Animals face even more suffering than human beings because they are always at risk of being preyed on by other animals. Domesticated animals also suffer because they risk being exploited by their owners. Other animals are raised but destined to be slaughtered for food. In this cycle of life-after-life, all sentient beings co-exist and play out their drama of life, and share the common experience of suffering. Thus, suffering in the Buddhist understanding is not a product of subjective human psychology, but an objective phenomenon characterizing the reality of saṃsāric life.
Admittedly, the level of suffering varies from one realm to the next, and from one individual to the next; however, it is in sharing in this common suffering that enables human beings to understand their connectedness to other beings and learn to empathize with their plight. Buddhist training then opens up the opportunity for human beings to recognize this shared experience with fellow creatures, to cultivate a sense of solidarity and empathy for others, and to take steps to remedy this suffering for both self and others. John J. Holder (2007, 123) noted, “In early Buddhism, dukkha is the vital link that connects human values to a concern for the natural world. A genuine concern for the natural world derives from the fact that the remedy for dukkha in human experience is precisely a radical shift to a concern for the well-being of all other sentient beings.” The project to relieve human suffering comes to involve also relieving the suffering of all creatures through acts of mercy and compassion. As the Buddha taught, when one acts with defilement, the suffering that results not only falls upon him/herself, but also affect others. On the other hand, when one acts in a manner that is free of greed, hatred, and delusion, one promotes well-being for him/herself and for all (A.I.157-158).
Thus, when human beings understand deeply how they are inextricably bound with other sentient beings in the life journey of birth, old age, suffering, and death, they can envision the possibility of working to mitigate the mutual suffering caused by intentional and unintentional harm done to one another. To be clear, the sense of solidarity in suffering begins strictly within the circle of sentient beings because according to early Buddhism, only sentient beings can experience suffering. However, human beings cannot care for themselves or other sentient beings if they fail to care for the physical environment which serves to support their livelihood. Therefore, displaying solidarity for other human beings and animals necessarily entails working to promote a healthy environment for the sake of all. In the process, the forests, mountains, air, and seas that support life also become beneficiaries of human care.
Responsibility and accountability towards nature
One of the most important Buddhist doctrines is the Law of Dependent Origination, which states:
In regard to the environmental crisis, the psychological aspect holds ethical import for human behavior towards nature. The environmental implications appear when it is recognized in this universal natural law a connection between human actions and the internal and external consequences exerted upon human beings as well as the natural world. The Buddha on numerous occasions highlighted this connection in his sermons. For example, in the Cakkavattasihanada Sutta (D.III.58–77), 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 made reforms to their life, nature was restored to balance, and humanity experienced prosperity and peace.
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” (M.I.167). Thus, a profound understanding of this law requires strenuous training in order to cultivate the sense of responsibility and accountability necessary for lasting positive change to human attitude and behavior towards nature. This involves human beings, by virtue of their unique mental and spiritual ability, can affect the process of giving rise to or extinguishing suffering in the world. The human ability to recognize and foresee the multiple consequences of their actions entails an understanding that human beings cannot simply pretend to live isolated lives in which their actions, thoughts, and intentions do not have to be taken into account. The Law of Dependent Origination that governs the Buddhist cosmogony further affirms the insight that human beings and nature are companions in saṃsāric 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 no matter what their status or situation in life may be.
Displaying responsibility and accountability in relating to others demonstrates the ability to see one another as fellow travelers 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 displayed in concrete actions and activities that give rise to positive effects instead of negative ones. As Cooper and James remark,
The principle of Dependent Origination then presents a vision of the human community not as antagonists of nature, blindly doing things without awareness of how these actions may affect human beings and others, but always conscious that all effects arise due to various causes and conditions. Putting an end to suffering, whether experienced by human beings or by natural entities, demands a sense of awareness of responsibility and accountability on the part of the human community.
The Buddhist cosmogony envisions all sentient beings existing in a cosmological continuum comprised of six different realms with the most terrible being the hell realm and the most pleasurable the heavenly realm where the gods and other heavenly beings live out their lifetime. The realms of humans and animals fall in the middle of this continuum, with human beings experiencing less suffering and more pleasure than animals. Despite the distictiveness of the various realms, Buddhist teachings hold that all sentient beings experience some level of suffering. Even the gods who live luxurious and carefree lives for tens of eons will eventually have to deal with suffering when their good kamma runs out and they must be reborn in a lower realm (A.I.267). Human lives are pervaded by anxiety because of the fear of old age, sickness, and death. Human beings also suffer from various feelings of hunger, thirst, not getting what we desire, but getting what they do not want. They have to be with people they do not like, and must be separated from people whom they love. Even happy moments constitute suffering because they cannot last. Animals face even more suffering than human beings because they are always at risk of being preyed on by other animals. Domesticated animals also suffer because they risk being exploited by their owners. Other animals are raised but destined to be slaughtered for food. In this cycle of life-after-life, all sentient beings co-exist and play out their drama of life, and share the common experience of suffering. Thus, suffering in the Buddhist understanding is not a product of subjective human psychology, but an objective phenomenon characterizing the reality of saṃsāric life.
Admittedly, the level of suffering varies from one realm to the next, and from one individual to the next; however, it is in sharing in this common suffering that enables human beings to understand their connectedness to other beings and learn to empathize with their plight. Buddhist training then opens up the opportunity for human beings to recognize this shared experience with fellow creatures, to cultivate a sense of solidarity and empathy for others, and to take steps to remedy this suffering for both self and others. John J. Holder (2007, 123) noted, “In early Buddhism, dukkha is the vital link that connects human values to a concern for the natural world. A genuine concern for the natural world derives from the fact that the remedy for dukkha in human experience is precisely a radical shift to a concern for the well-being of all other sentient beings.” The project to relieve human suffering comes to involve also relieving the suffering of all creatures through acts of mercy and compassion. As the Buddha taught, when one acts with defilement, the suffering that results not only falls upon him/herself, but also affect others. On the other hand, when one acts in a manner that is free of greed, hatred, and delusion, one promotes well-being for him/herself and for all (A.I.157-158).
Thus, when human beings understand deeply how they are inextricably bound with other sentient beings in the life journey of birth, old age, suffering, and death, they can envision the possibility of working to mitigate the mutual suffering caused by intentional and unintentional harm done to one another. To be clear, the sense of solidarity in suffering begins strictly within the circle of sentient beings because according to early Buddhism, only sentient beings can experience suffering. However, human beings cannot care for themselves or other sentient beings if they fail to care for the physical environment which serves to support their livelihood. Therefore, displaying solidarity for other human beings and animals necessarily entails working to promote a healthy environment for the sake of all. In the process, the forests, mountains, air, and seas that support life also become beneficiaries of human care.
Responsibility and accountability towards nature
One of the most important Buddhist doctrines is the Law of Dependent Origination, which states:
When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises.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. Although this principle has been interpreted in various ways by a multitude of scholars, fundamentally it asserts that all things in the universe arise or cease not on their own but dependent upon a specific set of conditions. In the human situation, the law is applied on a physical-psychological level while in nature, the law plays out on a physical level. According to Buddhist historian Lambert Schmithausen, Dependent Origination is really ‘Origination in Dependence,” meaning “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” (2010, 180).
When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. (S.II.21)
In regard to the environmental crisis, the psychological aspect holds ethical import for human behavior towards nature. The environmental implications appear when it is recognized in this universal natural law a connection between human actions and the internal and external consequences exerted upon human beings as well as the natural world. The Buddha on numerous occasions highlighted this connection in his sermons. For example, in the Cakkavattasihanada Sutta (D.III.58–77), 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 made reforms to their life, nature was restored to balance, and humanity experienced prosperity and peace.
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” (M.I.167). Thus, a profound understanding of this law requires strenuous training in order to cultivate the sense of responsibility and accountability necessary for lasting positive change to human attitude and behavior towards nature. This involves human beings, by virtue of their unique mental and spiritual ability, can affect the process of giving rise to or extinguishing suffering in the world. The human ability to recognize and foresee the multiple consequences of their actions entails an understanding that human beings cannot simply pretend to live isolated lives in which their actions, thoughts, and intentions do not have to be taken into account. The Law of Dependent Origination that governs the Buddhist cosmogony further affirms the insight that human beings and nature are companions in saṃsāric 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 no matter what their status or situation in life may be.
Displaying responsibility and accountability in relating to others demonstrates the ability to see one another as fellow travelers 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 displayed in concrete actions and activities that give rise to positive effects instead of negative ones. As Cooper and James remark,
To be responsible is to be ready, perhaps even eager, to assume and accept one’s moral responsibilities. To say that one ought to be responsible in this sense is to say that one should not simply accept, in an abstract way, that what one does is not ‘fated’…and that one must be answerable for the effects of one’s intentions and actions. To be responsible is, rather, to constantly keep this fact in mind and to therefore act, so far as one is able, with a view towards the effects of one’s actions. (Cooper and James 2005, 104)
The principle of Dependent Origination then presents a vision of the human community not as antagonists of nature, blindly doing things without awareness of how these actions may affect human beings and others, but always conscious that all effects arise due to various causes and conditions. Putting an end to suffering, whether experienced by human beings or by natural entities, demands a sense of awareness of responsibility and accountability on the part of the human community.
Gratitude and mutual service towards nature
The claim of non-self (anattā) constitutes a fundamental Buddhist teaching. This doctrine holds that there is no self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other permanent substance either within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence or outside of them. Reality is comprised of mere continually self-consuming process of arising and passing physical and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process. The phenomenon of life is but a composite of various mental and physical aggregates (khandha), all of which are subjected to impermanence, suffering, and changeableness. Every configuration of aggregates is a momentary force or entity separate from the next. An often-employed analogy to illustrate this assertion is the image of a cart that is essentially an aggregate of all its parts, the wheels, the axel, the pole, the cartbody, and so forth placed in a certain relationship to one another. However, the cart as a static and permanent entity is a mere illusion (Vis.M.XVIII). Because there is no static and permanent substance controlling the aggregates, it is improper to consider these khandhas as “this is mine” or “this is I” or “this is my self” (Varanasi 1999, 14). If we take Buddhist teaching to its ultimate conclusion, then when it comes to nature and human beings, given enough time, all the entities in the universe, and in particular human beings, will change and eventually cease to be because all things are ultimately impermanent.
The Buddhist insistence on not-self and the denial of intrinsic value in mundane entities, human or otherwise, forces a re-orientation of attention and energy away from the legalistic debate regarding what entities possess what rights and what duties ought to be assigned to human beings, to envisioning a more harmonious relationship characterized by selfless virtues. A positive expression of this selflessness is gratitude and mutual service. Oftentimes, the debate over rights becomes a competition where each side intently tries to garner the most rights and privileges for itself while justifying why the minimum of the same ought to be accorded to others. This mentality where selfish needs and desires trump the good of others is a source of ongoing conflict in all the various dimensions of human society. The Buddhist worldview with its negation of intrinsic self and its nullification of the intrinsic-instrumental value debate opens up for the possibility of a different and more creative way for human beings to perceive themselves and the natural world around them. The focus away from the self facilitates a disposition of gratitude and mutual service towards others, and opens up the possibility of seeing human beings and nature in a reciprocal and cooperative relationship in order to help relieve the suffering of one another and help each other to make progress in awareness and state of life. It also affirms that the journey of human beings in saṃsāra is far from a solitary sojourn, but one alongside a great number of companions and friends. The Jataka tale of the hungry tigress illustrates very poignantly how human beings ought to put themselves at the service of the other, not just for their sake but ultimately for their own sake as well.
One day, when wandering in a forest along with his disciple Ajita, the Bodhisatta saw from the top of a hill that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he thought of sacrificing his own body to feed the tigress and save the cubs. So, he sent away his disciple in search of some food for the tigress lest he might prevent him from his sacrifice. No sooner than Ajita left the site, the Bodhisatta jumped from the precipice in front of the tigress and offered his body. The noise of the fall caught the attention of the hungry tigress, who in no time scooped over him and tore him off in pieces and feasted upon them with her cubs.
When Ajita returned and did not find his guru in the same place, he looked around and was surprised to see that the tigress no longer looked hungry. Her cubs were also frolicking. But soon, he was shocked to detect the blood-stained rags of his guru’s dress scattered there. So, he knew that his guru had offered his body to feed a hungry tigress and protected her young ones as an act of great charity. Now, he also knew why he was sent away by his guru.[1]
This story of the Bodhisatta and the hungry tigress presents a way for human beings to understand themselves in relationship to others as a relationship characterized by mutual service. However, genuine service on behalf of the other never implies no personal gain whatsoever. In the story, the Bodhisattva sacrifices his own life for the hungry tigress who is about to kill its own cub to satisfy its hunger. However, with this sacrifice, not only does the Bodhisatta carry out a kammically favorable act for himself, he also prevents the tiger from carrying out a kammically unfavorable act by killing its own cub. Indeed, the Suttras in the Aṅguttara Nikāya teach that there are four types of people: those who act on behalf of oneself but not others, those who act on behalf of others but not oneself, those who act neither on behalf of oneself nor of others, and those who act both on behalf of oneself and on behalf of others. Of these four, the last type of person is considered to be “the foremost, the best, the preeminent, the supreme, and the finest of these four” (A.IV.95).
A relationship of mutual service naturally means that it is reciprocal, although not necessarily identical. Services rendered by nature on behalf of human beings are many. In addition to providing nourishment and air for human beings to sustain their life, one of the unique services that nature offers is facilitating the human activity of meditation on the Dhamma. David J. Kalupahana (2009, 5) commented that natural settings are extremely beneficial in the effort of self-cultivation because they not only create fewer distractions when it comes to sense pleasures, but also “provide a natural experiential ground for realizing impermanence and dependent arising, that is, the nature of the world.” Consequently, a human-nature relationship characterized by mutuality, reciprocity and symbiosis naturally requires human beings to respond to nature’s outpouring of service with their own modes of service. Prayudh Payutto (2010, 20) suggested that Buddhism introduces a way for human beings to value nature in a way that does not begin with the question of what they can get out of nature. This kind of attitude is self-centered and risks leading down the path of exploitation of the other. Moreover, the moment that nature no longer serves human needs, it ceases to be valued. On the other hand, the way to value in which human beings realize and appreciate all that that nature has given to them leads to gratitude for the gifts received. True gratitude makes way for good-will towards nature as well as inspires the desire to promote nature’s well-being and flourishing. As it is stated in the Khuddaka Nikāya, “A person who sits or sleeps in the shade of a tree should not cut off a tree branch. One who injures such a friend is evil.”
The claim of non-self (anattā) constitutes a fundamental Buddhist teaching. This doctrine holds that there is no self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other permanent substance either within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence or outside of them. Reality is comprised of mere continually self-consuming process of arising and passing physical and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process. The phenomenon of life is but a composite of various mental and physical aggregates (khandha), all of which are subjected to impermanence, suffering, and changeableness. Every configuration of aggregates is a momentary force or entity separate from the next. An often-employed analogy to illustrate this assertion is the image of a cart that is essentially an aggregate of all its parts, the wheels, the axel, the pole, the cartbody, and so forth placed in a certain relationship to one another. However, the cart as a static and permanent entity is a mere illusion (Vis.M.XVIII). Because there is no static and permanent substance controlling the aggregates, it is improper to consider these khandhas as “this is mine” or “this is I” or “this is my self” (Varanasi 1999, 14). If we take Buddhist teaching to its ultimate conclusion, then when it comes to nature and human beings, given enough time, all the entities in the universe, and in particular human beings, will change and eventually cease to be because all things are ultimately impermanent.
The Buddhist insistence on not-self and the denial of intrinsic value in mundane entities, human or otherwise, forces a re-orientation of attention and energy away from the legalistic debate regarding what entities possess what rights and what duties ought to be assigned to human beings, to envisioning a more harmonious relationship characterized by selfless virtues. A positive expression of this selflessness is gratitude and mutual service. Oftentimes, the debate over rights becomes a competition where each side intently tries to garner the most rights and privileges for itself while justifying why the minimum of the same ought to be accorded to others. This mentality where selfish needs and desires trump the good of others is a source of ongoing conflict in all the various dimensions of human society. The Buddhist worldview with its negation of intrinsic self and its nullification of the intrinsic-instrumental value debate opens up for the possibility of a different and more creative way for human beings to perceive themselves and the natural world around them. The focus away from the self facilitates a disposition of gratitude and mutual service towards others, and opens up the possibility of seeing human beings and nature in a reciprocal and cooperative relationship in order to help relieve the suffering of one another and help each other to make progress in awareness and state of life. It also affirms that the journey of human beings in saṃsāra is far from a solitary sojourn, but one alongside a great number of companions and friends. The Jataka tale of the hungry tigress illustrates very poignantly how human beings ought to put themselves at the service of the other, not just for their sake but ultimately for their own sake as well.
One day, when wandering in a forest along with his disciple Ajita, the Bodhisatta saw from the top of a hill that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he thought of sacrificing his own body to feed the tigress and save the cubs. So, he sent away his disciple in search of some food for the tigress lest he might prevent him from his sacrifice. No sooner than Ajita left the site, the Bodhisatta jumped from the precipice in front of the tigress and offered his body. The noise of the fall caught the attention of the hungry tigress, who in no time scooped over him and tore him off in pieces and feasted upon them with her cubs.
When Ajita returned and did not find his guru in the same place, he looked around and was surprised to see that the tigress no longer looked hungry. Her cubs were also frolicking. But soon, he was shocked to detect the blood-stained rags of his guru’s dress scattered there. So, he knew that his guru had offered his body to feed a hungry tigress and protected her young ones as an act of great charity. Now, he also knew why he was sent away by his guru.[1]
This story of the Bodhisatta and the hungry tigress presents a way for human beings to understand themselves in relationship to others as a relationship characterized by mutual service. However, genuine service on behalf of the other never implies no personal gain whatsoever. In the story, the Bodhisattva sacrifices his own life for the hungry tigress who is about to kill its own cub to satisfy its hunger. However, with this sacrifice, not only does the Bodhisatta carry out a kammically favorable act for himself, he also prevents the tiger from carrying out a kammically unfavorable act by killing its own cub. Indeed, the Suttras in the Aṅguttara Nikāya teach that there are four types of people: those who act on behalf of oneself but not others, those who act on behalf of others but not oneself, those who act neither on behalf of oneself nor of others, and those who act both on behalf of oneself and on behalf of others. Of these four, the last type of person is considered to be “the foremost, the best, the preeminent, the supreme, and the finest of these four” (A.IV.95).
A relationship of mutual service naturally means that it is reciprocal, although not necessarily identical. Services rendered by nature on behalf of human beings are many. In addition to providing nourishment and air for human beings to sustain their life, one of the unique services that nature offers is facilitating the human activity of meditation on the Dhamma. David J. Kalupahana (2009, 5) commented that natural settings are extremely beneficial in the effort of self-cultivation because they not only create fewer distractions when it comes to sense pleasures, but also “provide a natural experiential ground for realizing impermanence and dependent arising, that is, the nature of the world.” Consequently, a human-nature relationship characterized by mutuality, reciprocity and symbiosis naturally requires human beings to respond to nature’s outpouring of service with their own modes of service. Prayudh Payutto (2010, 20) suggested that Buddhism introduces a way for human beings to value nature in a way that does not begin with the question of what they can get out of nature. This kind of attitude is self-centered and risks leading down the path of exploitation of the other. Moreover, the moment that nature no longer serves human needs, it ceases to be valued. On the other hand, the way to value in which human beings realize and appreciate all that that nature has given to them leads to gratitude for the gifts received. True gratitude makes way for good-will towards nature as well as inspires the desire to promote nature’s well-being and flourishing. As it is stated in the Khuddaka Nikāya, “A person who sits or sleeps in the shade of a tree should not cut off a tree branch. One who injures such a friend is evil.”
[1]Vyaghri Jataka Jatakamala No.1. This tale is found online
at this website: http://ignca.nic.in/jatak025.htm
.jpg)
