Written for the AQA syllabus by Upeksacitta (Robert Ellis), member of the Western Buddhist Order and a former Head of RS.
Buddhism and environmental issues
Buddhist attitudes to nature
Buddhism, in common with some other Eastern traditions, does not make the big distinction found in the West between “nature” and human beings. It is stressed that we are not set apart from nature (as is believed in Christianity), but that we are part of it. The doctrines of karma and of rebirth put the whole of human life in the context of an endless series of cycles, which resemble those which operate in the natural world (e.g. the water cycle, the food cycle). The Buddhist stress on impermanence reminds us that our bodies are subject to the endlessly-changing processes of nature, whilst beliefs about rebirth suggest that even our consciousness is recycled in relation to a new body. The form of things changes constantly, but certain basic patterns continue.
So, it should certainly not come as a shock to practising Buddhists to discover what environmentalists are now telling us. That is, that nature is not a boundless ocean of resources (the doctrine of impermanence should have made this clear), and the actions that we perform have an effect on the world around us. In the theory of karma the effects of our actions are in proportion to the greed and hatred which motivated them, so if our spoiling of the planet through stripping its resources and polluting it was motivated by greed, we are now beginning to experience the effects of that greed. The earth is our mirror.
Buddhism thus offers some strong arguments for environmentalism, and it is quite difficult to interpret Buddhism not to at least be sympathetic to environmental concerns. On the other side there are not really any anti-environmentalist Buddhists, but there are some who have given the environment relatively little priority in their thinking, perhaps because of a focus on the personal pursuit of enlightenment.
The Precepts
The practice of the First Precept requires respect for all sentient beings, not merely human beings.
This has often meant respect for animals. The majority of Buddhists historically and in the East have not been vegetarians, but the assumption is nevertheless there that vegetarianism is the ideal and that killing animals and eating meat is a source of bad karma. Buddhists have often protected animals, for example by establishing nature reserves around monasteries, and hunting is quite rare in Buddhist countries.
Sometimes the first precept has also implied respect for plants: sometimes plants are described as “one-facultied”, having some of the sensitivity of animals through the sense of touch alone. Obviously Buddhists could not protect all plants, but the wanton destruction of trees has often been opposed. A Buddhist campaign group trying to save trees in Thailand famously did this recently by ordaining a number of trees as Buddhist monks.
However, the first precept does not give such obvious reasons for preserving natural resources (apart from trees and wildlife) and avoiding pollution, unless these are seen as indirect ways of harming others. The Second Precept might deal with this more explicitly.
If one takes things from nature which are required by future generations, this might well be seen as taking the not-given. Consuming beyond one’s own immediate needs whilst taking resources that later generations will need is not taking resources that they have actually laid a claim to as yet, but it is depriving them of their needs. There is no reason why them being further away in time should make any difference to this.
The Simple Life
However, the more profound objections to over-exploitation of natural resources and pollution in Buddhism are related to the attitudes behind these actions. It is greed or craving (tanha) which leads us to take more than we need for simple and straightforward living. The monastic life in Buddhism gives a model for what simple living without too much consumption might look like. If everyone lived as simply as a Buddhist monk or nun, it might be argued, there would be no problems with depletion of resources, and very little pollution produced, because the sources of pollution (manufacturing, transport etc) would be much more limited.
The point of the simple life in Buddhism is that it creates an environment where there is less likelihood of craving and greater likelihood of contentment. Such contentment is further cultivated through meditation practice. It is in mental states, Buddhists may argue, that the solution to environmental problems is ultimately to be found.
Middle Way
However, in real life environmental issues are a constant matter of compromise and negotiation. I might want to live more simply, but the attitude of my family, or the requirements of my job, might make this very difficult. For example, air travel and car use create a good deal of pollution, but some jobs in the modern world (which may be otherwise right livelihood) involve quite a lot of either or both of these. Also, air travel may have other important and positive purposes, such as communication with people overseas or broadening of one’s outlook through contact with other cultures.
The Middle Way might help provide a balanced and realistic way of dealing with these. Supposing the dilemma for a Buddhist is whether to make an air journey, which contributes to pollution, in order to go to hear the teachings of a great Buddhist teacher in Asia. Obviously both the desire to hear the teacher and to avoid pollution need to be considered, but a broader view of the issue might show other alternatives. Perhaps it is possible to wait until the teacher comes to this country, or perhaps it is possible to incorporate the air journey into a longer trip that will also serve other purposes. If the air journey is unavoidable, it may be possible to make restitution in other ways. Some Buddhists now are going 'carbon neutral' by making sure that they plant trees which soak up a corresponding amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to that released by the air journey.
Not all activities which use natural resources or release pollution are a result of greed, and to cease all such activities may seem an extreme reaction which interferes with people’s development towards enlightenment in other ways. Buddhists may thus end up with various compromises which take environmental issues seriously, but nevertheless do not result in complete purity in environmental matters. This fits in with the general Buddhist perception that ethics is not about gaining purity so much as following through a right intention.
Discussion Questions
1. Work out your own example of an application of the Middle Way to an issue of natural resources
2. How useful do you think it is to follow the example of the simple lifestyle of a Buddhist monk in overcoming environmental issues?
3. Do you agree that environmental problems could be solved by changes in mental states?
4. How do you think Buddhists would respond to the criticism that the Middle Way is a sell-out, not dealing with the full force of the environmental problems that face us?
Write some ideas on the following:
1. What are the Buddhist grounds for arguing that pollution should be reduced?
2. What possible grounds are there for arguing that pollution is not a problem?
3. What attitude should a Buddhist take to pollution?
4. What grounds are there for conserving natural resources (Choose one type of resource e.g. energy, forests, fish)
5. What possible grounds are there for exploiting this natural resource?
6. Should a Buddhist use this resource freely, limit consumption or avoid it altogether?
Further Reading
Peter Harvey An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics p. 150-156 & 174-186
Damien Keown (ed.) Contemporary Buddhist Ethics ch.5 (a sceptical article arguing that Buddhism gives little support to environmentalist principles)
Christopher Titmuss The Green Buddha (The strongest Buddhist statement yet of support for 'Green' principles).
Akuppa Touching the Earth: A Buddhist guide to saving the planet, Windhorse