J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 137

Environmental Ethics in Mahayana Buddhism:
The Significance of Keeping Precepts (ß¥la-påramitå) andWisdom (prajñå-påramitå)Shuichi Yamamoto

Introduction

I

N today’s world we face a range of environmental problems, such as
global warming, ozone layer depletion, deforestation, and a reduction
in biodiversity. The problems caused by a reduction in biodiversity are
regarded as some of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. Thisis because a reduction in biodiversity affects our ecosystem, which inreturn also affects the life of human beings. Based on a consideration of
the consequences of biodiversity reduction, a proposal for accepting theright to life of all living things has been made in recent years.1
In this paper, I appeal to upholding the dignity of human life, andregard loss of life as of gravest consequence. It is for that reason that in
the field of medical science, bioethics entails investigating what affects
the life of human beings. In Buddhism, human life and other forms oflife are regarded as being of the same matter.2,3 Therefore, since they arealways related to living things, Buddhism regards environmental problems as essentially an issue of ethics.
The ultimate purpose of the practice of Buddhism is to attain Buddhahood, which in modern terms means to become as ideal a humanbeing as that of a Buddha. Representative practices in Buddhism are thesix kinds of practices by which a bodhisattva attains Buddhahood (∑a†påramitåh). The six kinds of practices consist of giving donations(dåna-påramitå), keeping the precepts (ß¥la-påramitå), being forbearing(k∑ånti-påramitå), being assiduous (v¥rya-påramitå), practicing meditation (dhyåna-påramitå), and cultivating wisdom (prajñå-påramitå).
These six virtuous practices are required to become an ideal humanbeing. It is thought that living with wisdom and upholding the precepts
are especially appropriate as ethical norms.
In other words, the practice of Buddhism for solving environmental
problems is in direct accord with the intention of Buddhism in that it137

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 138

138

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

results in removing pain from all sentient beings. This means that developing ethical norms and plans of action based on Buddhist practices not
only leads to solving environmental problems but also simultaneously
fulfills the purpose of Buddhism. In this paper, I will discuss environmental problems related to living things, and examine how an ethicalnorm that accords with Buddhism could be created.

Environmental Problems Related to Living Things
As I have discussed in a previous paper, there are various environmental
problems related to living things. In this section, I would like to discuss
some typical environmental problems as they relate to living things, aswell as examine how they concern the question of human nature or
ethics.
PROBLEMS OF DEFORESTATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF WILDLIFE
Deforestation and commercialization of wildlife have become a profitable business. Deforestation, however, destroys not only forests but
also reduces bio-intensity5 and biodiversity, which means a reduction in
the amount, as well as variation of, living things that, in turn, causes
havoc on whole ecosystems. The cutting down of tropical rain forests isparticularly detrimental to wildlife and other living things. The livelihood of local people, however, often depends on clearing forest areasusing slash-and-burn farming techniques to make way for agricultural
production, or harvesting trees for energy or export material. Commercialization of wildlife, either exported as food, pets, or fur, or usuallyfurther aggravated by over-hunting and deforestation, also reduces
wildlife in some cases, to the point of extinction.
On the more positive side, even forest and wildlife can be recovered
if given sufficient time and proper habitat. An often cited example ofthis is the whale. Although at the point of extinction due mainly to overfishing by Japan and other countries, the whale population has
improved due to the prohibition of commercial whaling and the creationof protected areas. Likewise, environmental problems are caused by the
speed at which forests are felled, wildlife killed, and ecosystems
destroyed, all which exceeded the reproduction capacity. As the above
example illustrates, we can observe that given a reduction in the speed
at which destruction takes place, living things can be recovered with theregenerative power of nature.
It is important to also consider problems such as deforestation andthe commercialization of wildlife at the level of human nature, orJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 139

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

139

ethics. It is clear that deforestation and commercialization of wildlife
result in destroying and taking/killing living things. Decreasing theamount and kinds of living things, as well as their habitat means nothing less than pillaging such life from the ecosystem. Such behavior
originates from certain violent and cruel aspects of human nature. This
makes solving such problems fundamentally an ethical issue.
This action is particularly relevant to developing countries where
poverty plays an important factor in environmental destruction. Deforestation and commercialization of wildlife are often the only activities
that support local people’s lives and economy. Thus the problem
becomes much more complex than to be solved simply by unilaterally
denying local people the right to cut down trees or engage in commercialization of wildlife.
Moreover, it is important to consider the desires of people in developed nations as one of the causes of environmental destruction. Living
things provide people of developed nations with wealth, as well as an
improved lifestyle, exemplied by enriched economies, food sources, andleisure activities. Another reason for environmental destruction is thepoverty of developing countries. In the above discussion I have attempted to show that there are three oppositional, although highly interdependent interests: wealth and lifestyle of people in developed countries; thelivelihood of disadvantaged people in developing countries; and the survival of ecosystems and living things. One can not simply be given priority over another, which makes it a question of ethics.
PROBLEMS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND THE USE OF CHEMICALSLand development, transgenic crops, and chemical pollution can also be
seriously harmful to living things and ecosystems. The development offarmland, cities, dams, recreational facilities, land reclamation etc.
seems obvious examples of activities that impose various environmental
hazards. Ecosystems and the habitats of living things are destroyed as aresult of such developments, which, in turn, impacts biodiversity andbio-intensity. The reduction in biodiversity and bio-intensity in developed countries has mainly been attributed to such developments asmentioned above. Transgenic crops are another technology that has also
caused a reduction in biodiversity and a transformation of ecosystems.
Through a recombination of genes, transgenic crops at first glance
appear beneficial to human beings as they have built-in protection
against noxious insects, cold or dry weather, and specific agriculturalchemicals. However, a closer look reveals rather frightening drawbacks.

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 140

140

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

As transgenic crops introduce extraneous genes into the ecosystem, theycreate the potential for destroying or seriously changing the structure ofecosystems and mechanisms of evolution.
There are also problems with chemical pollution, including heavy
metals, agricultural chemicals, food additives, as well as endocrine disrupters. These problems are rooted in two main activities: extraction ofnaturally occuring materials such as heavy metals, and the synthesizingof artificial compounds by using, oil and chlorine, for example. In general, living things throughout history have acquired the capacity to copewith various chemicals. However, as new chemicals are released into
the biosphere, living things have had difficulty in adaptation. Many artificial chemicals tend to turn toxic when accumulated in the human or
animal body. One clear example is agricultural chemicals, which aredesigned to kill insects that damage crops. Insects are killed by extraneous chemicals that destroy the mechanism of living. However, because
all living things are fundamentally functioning by the same principle,
agricultural bioaccumulate and become detrimental all living things.
Endocrine disrupters have been shown to affect reproduction throughlower sperm count, as well as ontogeny seen through higher risk of
deformity. As pointed out in Silent Spring by Rachel Carson,6 Our
Stolen Future by Thea Colborn,7 and The Feminization of Nature by
Deborah Cadbury,8 this problem is qualitatively different from pastenvironmental problems. Although past environmental problems were athreat to the survival of individual lives, they did not function as
endocrine disruptors do in acting against posterity.
Now how do the above mentioned problems relate to human natureor ethics?
In addition to the problems associated with deforestation and commercialization of wildlife, the fundamental cause is associated with violence and pillaging, which indicates that there is a problem in humannature or ethics. This is clearly seen when developments violently
destroy nature, where wildlife habitat is reconstructed and pillaged tosuit the desire for comfort and profit. Furthermore, if human beings areincapable of considering or predicting how certain developments would
affect an ecosystem, it becomes either a question of arrogance or ignorance. If we do not feel a sense of responsibility for our actions on theecosystems, it then becomes an issue of irresponsibility. We are deceiving ourselves if we fail to consider the consequences of certain developments and instead only emphasize advantages such as convenience andsafety. Naturally, these developments are carried out to profit humanbeings by making life more comfortable and safer. From this we canJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 141

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

141

conclude that profit and desire are usually intertwined.
If we also remain indifferent to the adverse effects of chemicals on
our ecosystems, the problem then becomes an issue of arrogance. However, if we are unable to predict the influence of the use of chemicals on
our ecosystems, it then becomes a question of ignorance. Moreover,since agricultural chemicals were made with the aim of killing living
things, there is an aspect of cruelty to be found in human nature thatmust be considered. The desire for profit, however, tends to overrule
this ethical dilemma and encourage the development of chemical compounds such as agricultural chemicals and food additives. Such newdevelopments aim to increase profits for producers by manufacturing
attractive, easy-to-preserve, and cheap food items as well as increase
the purchasing power of consumers. The desire of consumers for cheap
and attractive food further sustains this process. But the synergistic
effect of producers and consumers stimulating each other’s desires is
tends to increase in food and environments polluted by artificial chemicals. Such developments have also brought many disadvantages, such as
general health hazards, destruction of ecosystems, and impediments to
reproduction capacity in forms of lower sperm count and sterility which
are detrimental to the posterity of living things. Considering these problems we can draw up two opposing interests: profits and disadvantages
for human beings and disadvantages for ecosystems or living things. In
the end, the problem is an ethical one.
PROBLEMS WITH ECO-PROTECTION MANAGEMENTThe killing of wildlife in order to protect the ecosystem has been a controversial. For example, measures have then been taken to reduce thenumber of animals that have been shown to breed abnormally, such as
the Japanese monkey or the Japanese serow. These measures were taken
to combat the increase of Japanese monkeys, which had caused a foodshortage, resulting in their descending on a village, injuring people anddamaging agricultural products. Moreover, the Japanese serow eats thebark and young leaf buds of newly-planted trees, thereby having a damaging effect on forestry.
In recent years the numbers of captured and exterminated monkeys
have reached several thousand per year, becoming a hotly debated issue.
The issue goes straight to questioning the violent and cruel aspect ofhuman nature. This question deals with the dilemma of whether it ismorally justifiable to solve the problem by taking the lives of these animals in order to reduce their number.

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 142

142

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

On the other hand, a reduction in numbers carries certain benefits forhuman beings as well as for the ecosystem; fewer monkeys prevent
harm being inflicted on people and economic losses, and regenerate theecosystem. Thus on the one hand, the beneficial outcome of exterminating animals for human beings and the ecosystem, and on the other, theobvious detrimental effect this has on the animals themselves.
THE PROBLEM OF ANIMALS USED FOR FOOD AND EXPERIMENTS
Although this is not an issue directly related to environmental problems,
the fact that human beings consume living things, as in the case of medical research, give rise to certain ethical dilemmas. A large number ofanimals serve as food for human beings. The annual number of mammals used as meat for human consumption, mainly pigs, cows, sheep,and goats, is about 4 billion.9 Moreover, in 1989 11 billion chickens
were consumed in the world.10 In Japan alone, the number of chickens
consumed is now (in 2001) at 0.7 billion per year.11 In addition, it isestimated that as many animals as 200 million animals each year end up
being used for experiments. In the United States alone for examples,
there are an estimated 70 million rats per year are used in experiments.12
However, animals used for food contribute to the survival of humanbeings, just as they contribute to the development of medicine that
improves our health. To find a substitute for using animals in this way isappear to be impossible. Therefore, how we justify the taking of animallife needs to be treated as an ethical problem; there is a dilemma inusing animals for the benefit of human beings but at the expense of theanimals killed.

Biological Conservation and Buddhist Thought
Before examining the Buddhist view on problems of biological conservation, I will describe some fundamental concepts in Buddhism.
WISDOM
The attainment of wisdom (prajñå-påramitå) is part of the six kinds ofpractices by which a bodhisattva attains enlightenment (sat påramitåh).
This concept originally referred to the attainment of absolute wisdom(prajñå-påramitå). Here, I would like to examine the idea of wisdom in
relation to two fundamental Buddhist concepts as a way to solve environmental problems. They are “dependent origination” (prat¥tyasamutpåda) and “the middle way.”J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 143

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

143

The doctrine of dependent origination teaches that an entity does notexist and generate independently. Instead it is characterized by its fundamental interdependence and interconnectedness to all phenome-na.13
This concept of fundamental interdependence and interconnectedness ofall phenomena indicates a relation of space (ontology) and a relation oftime (formation). The ecological environment of today is included in
the relation of space and relation of time. This means that all living
things on earth are related including the circulation of organic or inorganic matter. Moreover, the time means not only movement between
one generation and the next, i.e. a living thing is produced from its parents, but also indicates a historical relationship, such as the process ofevolution over time. The transmigration of life as explained by Buddhism means rebirth of life. However, since in Buddhism the transmigration of life is based on the concept of non-self, it does not refer tothe transmigration of life with a permanent entity. Broadly speaking, thetransmigration of life exists in relation to time based on the concept of
dependent origination.
The second concept is the wisdom of the middle way. Akira
Hirakawa14 has quoted “the metaphor of a koto” propounded by Shakyamuni, to describe in an easily comprehendible manner the principle of
the wisdom of the middle way as “the middle way of pleasure-andpain.” According to Hirakawa, “the metaphor of a koto” declares thatthe strength of a bowstring for a koto is most useful when it is neither
too loose nor too firm. “The middle way of pleasure-and-pain”
describes the method of practice of Shakyamuni. Although Shakyamuni
carried out austerities for six years together with five Buddhist monks,
he was unable to attain spiritual enlightenment. After this long attempt,
he realized the futility of trying to attain enlightenment through punishing himself. Indeed, after receiving rice gruel with milk from a woman
named Sujata he recovered from his physical ordeals, and did in fact
attain enlightenment.
The ‘pain’ of the penance principle indicates that although perhaps
useful for developing strength of mind it does not lead to attaining
absolute wisdom, or spiritual enlightenment. Instead, the ‘pleasure’ of
hedonism shows that absolute wisdom can be acquired without taking
recourse to punishing oneself. Therefore, the concept of the middle wayof pleasure-and-pain denies a deterministic stand towards either hedonism or austerity. That is, while accepting the value of both principles,the middle way demands harmony between the two and does not accept
an inclination to either side.
What I have been attempting to discuss in this section is how two

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 144

144

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

fundamental principles in Buddhism, the wisdom of dependent origination and the wisdom of the middle way, offer us an ethical frameworkthat can be used to arrive at a solution for environmental problems.
Moreover, understanding the workings of these two concepts will work
as a driving force for wanting to keep the Buddhist precepts, which will
be discussed later on in this article.
THE VALUE OF LIFE
The problem of biological conservation necessarily entails a consideration of how we rank the value of living things. To examine what Buddhism has to say about the value of life, in this section I will use the following example from the Brahma-carya chapter of the Nirvana Sutra
which propounds that killing living things constitutes a crime.
“There are three degrees of killings: the lower, middle, and upper
degrees. The lower degree constitutes the killing of any humble being,from an ant to any of the various kinds of animals. But the killing of
any being that a bodhisattva has chosen to be born as [to help other living beings] is excluded. As a result of a killing of the lower degree, onewill fall into the realms of hell, animals, and hungry spirits, and will
suffer all the pains appropriate to a killing of the lower degree. Why
should this be? Because even animals and other humble beings possess
the roots of goodness, insignificant though those roots may be. That is
why a person who kills such a being must suffer full retribution for his
offense. Killing any person from an ordinary mortal to an anågåmin
(Anagon in Japanese)15 constitutes what is termed the middle degree. As
a consequence of such an act of killing, one fall into the realms of hell,
hungry spirits, and animals, and will suffer all the pains appropriate to akilling of the middle degree. The upper degree of killing refers to thekilling of a parent, an arhat (Arakan in Japanese),16 a pratyekabuddha(Byakushi-butsu in Japanese),17 or a bodhisattva who has reached thestage of non-retrogression. For such a crime one will fall into the great
Av¥chi (Av¥ci) hell (Abijigoku in Japanese)18.”19This passage clearly expresses a hierarchy in the value of different
life forms. For sure, Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism ofChina or Japan asserts that all living things including animals and plants
deserve respect since they possess the state of Buddhahood. On theother hand, the above passage points out that the seriousness of killingis hierarchical, namely in the descending order of killing parents, arhats,pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas being the worst crime one can commit, killing ordinary mortals and anagamins the second worst, and theJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 145

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

145

killing of animals the less heavy crime of the three. This hierarchy inthe seriousness of killing also depicts how Buddhism ranks the value ofdifferent life forms.
Therefore, although in principle all lives are regarded as equal in
Buddhism, the value of human life is regarded is higher than that ofother living things. I believe this means that although Buddhism isbased on the spirit of egalitarianism priority is still given to human life.
KEEPING THE PRECEPTS
Keeping the precepts in the six kinds of practices by which bodhisattvas
are able to attain enlightenment specifically means keeping “the five
precepts” (for laymen and lay-women) or “the ten good precepts.” Thefive precepts consist of the precepts of “not killing living things,” “notstealing,” “not committing adultery,” “not telling lies,” and “not drinking intoxicants.” On the other hand, the ten good precepts are categorized into precepts that refer to good deeds, good words, and goodthoughts. Good deeds, or bodily acts, are “not killing living things,”“not stealing” and “not committing adultery.” Good words, or verbal
acts, are “not telling lies,” “not engaging in idle talk,” “not utteringharsh words,” and “not uttering words which cause enmity between two
or more persons.” And finally good thoughts refer to “not being
greedy,” “not being angry,” and “not having wrong views.” For the sakeof establishing an ethical norm for solving present environmental problems, I consider the concept of keeping precepts an important contribution to that project.
Since Yoichi Kawada20 has already discussed “the ten major precepts” and “the forty eight light precepts” in the Brahma-net Sutra fromthe point of view of the role of Buddhist precepts in solving environmental and peace problems I will not go into further details here.
Instead, I will examine the significance of two particular precepts,
namely, the precepts of “not killing living things” and “not stealing” inthe Brahma-net Sutra as they relate directly to the challenges facing
biological conservation today.
The Precept of “Not Killing Living Things”
The “First Major Precept on Killing” of the Brahma-net Sutra propounds:“A disciple of the Buddha shall not kill himself, encourage others tokill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing
killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not cre-

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 146

146

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

ate the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall notintentionally kill any living creature. As a Buddha’s disciple, he ought
to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to
restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy he commits a
Parajika21 (major) offense.”22This precept forbids the killing of any living thing, and further adds
that although killing itself is an offense; the state of mind of the personat the time of the killing, i.e. whether a person kills intentionally or for
no apparent reason, determines the graveness of the offense. Therefore,
it is an offense to kill a living thing, but it is a major offense if “he fails
to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy,” or out ofpleasure. This ethical standard of Buddhism described in the precept of“not killing living things” can be used as the basis for solving problems
or dilemmas related to the killing of living things.
The Precept of “Not Stealing”
The “Second Major Precept on Stealing” of the Brahma-net Sutra
states:“A disciple of the Buddha must not himself steal or encourage others
to steal, steal by expedient means, steal by means of incantation ordeviant mantras. He should not create the causes, conditions, methods,
or karma of stealing. No valuables or possessions, even those belonging
to ghosts and spirits or thieves and robbers, be they as small as a needleor blade of grass, should be intentionally stolen. As a Buddha’s disciple,
he ought to have a mind of mercy, compassion, and filial piety—always
helping people earn merits and achieve happiness. If instead, he steals
the possessions of others, he commits a Parajika offense.”23
This precept also forbids stealing especially when it is done intentionally (without reason). Since the standard of judgment is based on
the life-state of a bodhisattva, which is to help people earn merits andachieve happiness, stealing is regarded as of gravest consequence (aParajka offense). In today’s world it is necessary to interpret this precept more widely and consider it an offense to not only steal from otherhuman beings but also from nature, or the ecosystem.
The Meaning of Keeping Precepts
In considering environmental problems, it is helpful to examine thecharacteristics of Buddhist precepts, that is, the meaning and the role ofkeeping such precepts. Many of the precepts, such as the ten major precepts, and the forty eight light percepts of the Brahma-net Sutra, regu-

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 147

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

147

late the behavior of human beings. However, as described above, there
are also many precepts to which the conditions of “without reason,” or“intentionally” for example are attached. This means that precepts in
Buddhism are not absolute.
Does that mean that any justification is acceptable? For example, inthe tenth light precept “on storing weapons” (I will discuss this later)
the statement “he must not even avenge the death of his parents”24
appears. This sentence clearly states that killing in retaliation is unacceptable even if it is for the sake of revenging one’s parents’ murder.
This means that retaliation is not recognized as sufficient justification
for killing.
Then, what kind of justification is acceptable? If we kill living thingsin order to support our own survival it is in fact justifiable. (How we
decide on what we need to survive is of course something we must consider very carefully. It is not my intention, however, to delve into thatquestion here.) Eating a living thing, however, is still equivalent tostealing the body from such a living thing. But since this is the minimum requirements for supporting human life, the condition of “without
reason” attached to the precepts of “not killing” and “not stealing” need
not apply here.
Reasons for killing living things, which are contrary to Buddhist wisdom, are also prohibited. That is, human behavior which destroys relations in ecosystems, is also considered an offense since it runs counterto the concept of dependent origination, i.e. disrupting ecological andhistorical relations, and thereby undermines our own survival.
In modern society, some precepts may be more relevant than others.
However, regarding to environmental problems, what is the relevancy of
keeping precepts in the first place? I suggest that the significance of
keeping precepts is relevant in that it develops:
1) An understanding that wanting to achieve a particular end
does not necessarily justify the means. We should judge
what is permissible according to Buddhist thought,
2) The ability to put a halt to the continuation of reckless
behavior that is controlled by our desires, and
3) The awareness of the need to control our actions.

Biological Conservation and Ethics of Mahayana Buddhism
In the following sections, I offer a few guidelines found in Mahayana
Buddhism that are useful when considering the basis for biological conservation. These guidelines are pertinent to deforestation and over-hunt-

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 148

148

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

ing, ecosystems protection, use of agricultural chemicals, and the use ofanimals for food and experiments.
ETHICS FOR DEFORESTATION AND OVER-HUNTINGFirst, I will consider the problem of deforestation, and its impact on
wildlife, which is, for example, further reduced by over-hunting andcommercialization. As stated earlier, there are certain problems withdestroying species and pillaging living things from the ecosystem. Froma Buddhist frame of reference, these acts constitute breaking the notkilling-living-things precept, as well as the not-stealing precept. An
understanding of the concept of dependent origination makes thedestruction of life, capture, or pillaging of living things a problem to betaken seriously. As described above, we should forbid such behavior inprinciple because it means, first, that we destroy the relation between
each living thing, and second, that we destroy its future potential forbeing born again. Especially causing the extinction of a species shouldbe absolutely forbidden according to the Buddhist canon because it
destroys its future potential for reproduction.
Apart from the seriousness of species extinction, we must also giveconsideration to how the capture of wildlife and felling of forests are ameans of support for local people. This corresponds to having a justifiable “reason” as discussed from the passage of “intentionally (without
reason).” Moreover, according to the ethics of the middle way, thedestruction and capturing of living things will be acceptable as long as
the generative power of an ecosystem is not destroyed. I think that the
ethics of the middle way neither denies the survival of local people, noraffirms the destruction of an ecosystem, as long as securing the benefits
for local people does not mean destroying the generative power of an
ecosystem. However, in order to secure the protection of ecosystems it
is important to have a system of surveillance and proper management
put in place.
It is also necessary to consider that living things support the accumulation of wealth and general well-being of people in developed countries. There is no denial in Buddhism of comfort and wealth. Insteadwhat Buddhism refutes is making desires for comfort and profit thebasis of one’s life. Surely desires are needed to motivate human beings
to make effort towards achieving something. But it is when a life-styleis caught up in overindulgence that Buddhism sees life as being excessively governed by desires. Therefore, excessive or unnecessary
destruction and capturing of living things is considered to correspond toJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 149

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

149

the offense “he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without
mercy” described in the precept on “not killing living things.” Moreover, if developed countries exploit local peoples for the sake of obtaining wealth, this would correspond to the offense described as “rejoice at
witness killing” also expounded in the percept on “not killing living
things.” Therefore, when a consumer pursues a comfortable or profitable life, self-control that prevents him or her from becoming ‘greedy’is a must. This should be the basis of a Buddhist ethical norm.
ETHICS FOR ECO-PROTECTION MANAGEMENT
Here, I would like to examine the problem of killing animals by ecoprotection management. The extermination or capture of monkeys andserows in Japan is a common problem, as was described earlier. In thiscase, from the viewpoint of dependent origination it is considered‘allowed’ because it is done to protect the ecosystem and done so without cutting off ecological and historical relations. This is because theecosystem itself may be destroyed if no intervention takes place. However, it is undoubtedly more desirable to develop a method which does
not kill living things, a method that avoids committing the offense of“killing” in the first place. This view is also prominent in the concept of“Land Ethics” advocated by Aldo Leopold who points out the appropriateness of maintaining the beauty and stability of the totality of a community of living things.25
ETHICS FOR USING CHEMICALS
I now turn to the question of how we should view the use of chemicals,such as agricultural chemicals. The answer is to be found in the tenthlight percept “on storing deadly weapons” of the Brahma-net Sutra. It
says:“A disciple of the Buddha should not store weapons such as knives,
clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any other weapons, nor may hekeep nets, traps or any such devices used in destroying life. As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his parents—
let alone kill sentient beings! He should not store any weapons ordevices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he deliberately doesso, he commits a secondary offense.”26
This precept admonishes against the possession of tools used forkilling living things. According to this precept, we should make it aprinciple not to produce artificial chemicals aimed at killing living
things such as is the purpose of agricultural chemicals. Furthermore, asJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 150

150

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

the production of artificial chemicals is considered to be the cause ofchange in reproduction such as endocrine disruptors, and destroys thepotential for continued reproduction, i.e. destroys the historical relationship described in the concept of dependent origination, it should be forbidden.
Still, although the tenth light precept, as well as the first or second
precept cited above, forbids possession of tools used for killing living
things, it also stresses without reason (“deliberately”). For example, if,like the present day, it is difficult to secure the harvest of crops and to
supply enough food without agricultural chemicals, its use could be justified. However, I believe we should develop alternative methods toincrease the yield of crops to agricultural chemicals. I have discussed
this in a previous paper from the standpoint of the consciousness-only
doctrine.27
What can we then conclude from the above discussion on killing living things by using agricultural chemicals from the viewpoint of dependent origination? Certainly it is evil to kill a living thing using agricultural chemicals. At the same time, however, it increases food production
and supposedly the supply to many people who would otherwise starve.
In Buddhism, all living things are respect worthy because they areendowed with Buddha Nature. However, when the value of human life
is compared with that of other living things, human beings are given
priority. Therefore, as a matter of course, priority should be given to
supplying food to human beings, and people suffering from starvation.
However, it goes without saying that if we can develop a way to supply
enough food without using agricultural chemicals, such methods should
be used. Taking into account the influence on human health or on otherliving things of residual agricultural chemicals, we should naturally
move in the direction of discontinuing this technology. Transgenic
crops may appear to meet such expectations. However, if the genetic
code of an ecosystem is disturbed, such transgenic crops would need tobe reconsidered.
In the case of food additives, technology that does not use preservation agents, such as dried or frozen technology where the microbe is
suppressed rather than destroyed is considered more desirable. That is
because from the Buddhist standpoint of “not killing living things”
technology that does not kill, in this case, microbe is considered to be
more ethically sound. Such a standpoint is derived from the concept of
the wisdom of the middle way. Making full use of the wisdom of the
middle way and the wisdom of dependent origination is also considered
to correspond to the ethics of the middle way in Buddhism.

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 151

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

151

ETHICS FOR USING ANIMALS FOR FOOD AND EXPERIMENTS
Finally, I would like to examine the ethics for eating livestock and conducting experiments on animals. Although these issues are seemingly
not directly related to environmental problems as described above, they
are important issues related to our daily life. It is difficult to separate
such issues from environmental problems because they are directly
related to how we treat living things.
The “third light precept on eating meat” of the Brahma-net Sutra
states:“A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should
not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seedof Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and causes[animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are
guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat theflesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats
meat, he commits a secondary offense.”28
The above precept forbids the eating of all meat. The reason is that“the meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seedof the Buddha Nature.” Moreover, the “twentieth light precept on failure
to liberate sentient beings” of the Brahma-net Sutra states:“A disciple of the Buddha should have a mind of compassion andcultivate the practice of liberating sentient beings. He must reflect thus:
throughout the eons of time, all male sentient beings have been myfather, all female sentient beings my mother. I was born of them. Therefore, the sentient beings in the six worlds are all my parents. If I now
slaughter them, I would be slaughtering my parents, as well as eating
flesh that was once my own. This is so because all elements, earth,water, fire and air—the four constituents of all life—have previously
been part of my body, part of my substance. I must therefore always
cultivate the practice of liberating sentient beings.”29
This precept promulgates from the viewpoint of the transmigration oflife that we should not eat meat. To be sure, it is important to view thetransmigration of life in light of the ethical foundation of Buddhism.30
However, we must consider the fact that human beings and other animals can sustain life only by eating living things. Plants greatly differ
from animals on this point. On the other hand, if there is Buddha Naturein all things, a plant could also possess Buddha Nature. Then, even eating vegetables becomes conduct that tramples on the respect-worthy
Buddha Nature.
The last thing to be considered is the statement “restricting a transmi-

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 152

152

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

gration of life to a sentient being.” We generally draw the line between
sentient and insentient beings at the level of animals. However, since
there are also animals without a brain, we can not come to a definite
conclusion that all animals have sentiments (consciousness). Moreover,a plant without a brain is independently equivalent to various situations
and its environment. For example, a plant changes direction of a leaf tolight and stretches a root to water or nutrients. That is, a plant recognizes the environment and acts to that as an animal recognizing theenvironment by the five sense organs (the five consciousnesses of Buddhism) of an eye, an ear, a nose, a tongue, and a body and acting to that.
Therefore, from a broad perspective, a plant is considered to have sentiment.31 If we were to follow this logic, however, we would have little
left to rightly eat.
This dilemma can be addressed using the doctrine of dependent origination. As described previously, the historical relation of a living thing,including inorganic matter, can be considered to be a transmigration oflife. The sentence “all elements, earth, water, fire and air—the four constituents of all life—have previously been part of my body, part of mysubstance” in the “twentieth light precept” suggests that the transmigration of life include inorganic substance. Judging from this frame of reference, it will be evil to destroy any relationships within an ecosystem.
Therefore, if an ecosystem is destroyed by taking wildlife from its habitat, it will be necessary to admonish against such behavior. However,since human beings manage agriculture or livestock farming, eatingthese animals would not destroy the ecosystem, i.e., the historical relationship of the animal, and the elemental cycle. Therefore, the act ofeating meat will be allowed in Buddhism.
Thus from the viewpoint of ecological and historical relationships(transmigration of life) derived from the concept of dependent origination, Buddhism regards the existence of human beings and living things,
as well as the future lives of human beings and other living things, as ofequal importance.

Conclusion
The view of Buddhist ethics with regards to living things, as I havementioned, depicts actions based on wisdom of dependent originationand of the middle way. The pursuit of profit has been discussed as being
neither confirmed nor dinied. However, as living things are usually only
beneficial for human beings, we have to examine what we are able togive in return.

J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 153

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

153

First, since a valuable life is lost by eating, we need to have a senseof obligation. Since human beings survive through consuming living
things, we also have to have a sense of gratitude. Also, human beings
can not only be born because of the ecosystem, but also continuously
gain from the circulation of substances in such a system. According to
Buddhism, this means that we should have a sense of obligation, as well
as appreciation towards other living things.
In Buddhism there are various forms for obligation: obligation to aparent, to a sentient being, to a king, and to the three treasures32 as
expounded in the “Meditation on the Mind-base Sutra (H®dayabhËmidhyåna-sutra).”33 For the purpose of our discussion here, I will elaborateon the meaning of “the obligation to a sentient being.” According to
Shigeo Kamata,34 this obligation is categorized as “close relationships”
and “distant relationships.” Specifically, a close relationship includes
family relations, social relations, state relation, and other living things
closely related to human beings, such as a horse or a cow. A distantrelationship is considered to include not only all living things but also
even inorganic matter. Therefore, Buddhism elucidates one’s obligation
to all things.
Let us consider what this means in concrete terms. As stated previously, even if we assert that deforestation, the capturing of living things,
and the eating of animals are necessary acts to support human beings,
we can not deny that these acts are regarded as evil in Buddhism, andthat “the meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion.” Moreover,eating animals, felling trees, and capturing wildlife are expressions ofdesire. Naturally overeating and excessive-drinking, the thoughtless
felling of trees, and over-hunting should be condemned from a moral
point of view. It is, however, important not only to condemn such evil
acts, but also to accumulate much good karma by doing good acts.
The “twentieth light precept” stresses the importance of cultivating“the practice of liberating sentient beings” as described above. That is,
we should seek to refrain from restraining a living thing and instead aim
to provide it with freedom. Considering this from the precept of “notstealing”, the notion of granting enough space for living things to thriveis necessary. Such actions as releasing fish into rivers or lakes, reforesting, and developing methods for riverbank construction suitable to thehabitation of marine life and others, are examples of habitat development for living things. Reforestation and proper riverbank construction
methods are especially important affirmative actions that contribute torecreating habitat for animals. It is also important to construct policies
that are based on an understanding of ecosystem management. SuchJ/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 154

154

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

well-thought out policies are equivalent to the practice of donation of
the six practices mention in the introduction. We should aim to act“with mercy,” and should strongly admonish acts “with evil intention.”
This is also stressed by many of the other light precepts.

Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to Anne Mette Fisker-Nielsen for editing the English version of this article.
I also express my gratitude to Dr. Mike Curtis for reading this article
and providing some useful comments.
NOTES
Kato, Hisatake (1991), Kankyo Rinrigaku No Susume, (Introduction to Environmental Ethics), Maruzen, Tokyo, 1991
2
Yamamoto, Shuichi (1998), “Contribution of Buddhism to Environmental
Thoughts,” The Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 8, 144–173.
3
Yamamoto, Shuichi (1998), “Kankyo-rinri to Bukkyou no Kadai” (Environmental
Ethics and Issues of Buddhism), Nihon Indo-gaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyu (The Journal ofIndia and Buddhist Studies), vol. 47, No. 2, 78–84
4
Yamamoto, Shuichi (1993), “Seibutsu-hogo notameno Rinri to Kyouiku (1)”(Ethics and Education for Biological Conservation (1)), The Bulletin of Institute of Oriental Philosophy, vol. 9, 59–81.
5
I am here using the word ‘bio-intensity’ to refer to the quantity of living things in agiven environment
6
Carson, Rachel (1987), Chinmoku no Haru, Shincho-sha (in Japanese), (Silent
Spring, 1962, Houghton Mifflin Company.)
7
Colborn, Theo (1997), Our Stolen Future, Abacus, (translated in Japanese,(Ubawaresi Mirai, Shoueisha, 1997)
8
Cadbury, Deborah (1997), The Feminization of Nature: Our Future at Risk, (Mesuka-suru Sizen, Shuei-sha, 1998) Hamish Halilton.
9
Singer Peter ed. (1985), In Defence of Animals (Doubutsu no Kenri, Gijutsu to Ningen-sha, 1986) Basil Blackwell.
10
Ibid.
11
Statistics and Information, 2001, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ofJapan (2002). http://www.maff.go.jp
12
See endnote 9.
13
See endnote 2.
14
Hirakawa, Akira (1998), Dajou Bukkyo Nyumon (Introduction to Mahayana buddhism), Daisan Bunmei-sha, Tokyo.
15Anågåmin (in Sanskrit) means the third degree of the four degrees to be attained bya follower of Hinayana Buddhism.
16
Arhat (in Sanskrit) is a person who is freed from all craving and rebirth, and is oneof the ten appellations of the Buddha.
17
Pratyekabuddha (in Sanskrit) is a person who is a self-enlightened Buddha.
18
Av¥chi Hell means the worst kind of hell, where sinners suffer interminable pain.
1J/Orient/02 03.1.17 1:26 PM ページ 155

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN MAHAYANA

155

19
Daihatsu-Nehangyo, Nehanbu vol. 1, p. 338, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo, Daito Shupansha. This text is translated into English in: The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin,
p.19–20, Soka Gakkai, Tokyo, 1999.
20
Kawada, Yoichi (1994), Chikyu Kankyo to Bukkyo Shiso (The Global Environment
and Buddhist Thoughts), Daisan Bunmei-sha, Tokyo.
21Påråjika (in Sanskrit) is the four gravest offenses for a Buddhist monk.
22
Bonmo-kyo (Brahma-net Sutra), Ritsubu vol. 12, p. 336, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo,
Daito Shupan-sha. http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/Buddhism/bns/bnstext.htm (Foran English Translation)
23
Bonmo-kyo (Brahma-net Sutra), Ritsubu vol. 12, p. 336, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo,
Daito Shupan-sha. (English translation as cited in endnote 22)
24
Bonmo-kyo (Brahma-net Sutra), Ritsubu vol. 12, p. 340, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo,
Daito Shupan-sha. (English translation as cited in endnote 22)
25
Aldo, Leopold (1986), Yaseino Uta ga Kikoeru, Shinrin-Shobo (A Sand County
Almanac, 1966, Oxford University Press.)
26
See endnote 21.
27
Yamamoto, Shuichi (2001), “Environmental problems and Buddhist ethics: Fromthe perspective of the consciousness-only doctrine,” The Journal of Oriental Studies,vol. 11, 167–180.
28
Bonmo-kyo (Brahma-net Sutra), Ritsubu vol. 12, p. 339, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo,
Daito Shupan-sha. (English translation as cited in endnote 22).
29
Bonmo-kyo (Brahma-net Sutra), Ritsubu vol. 12, p. 341, Kokuyaku-issai-kyo,
Daito Shupan-sha. (English translation as cited in endnote 22)30
See endnote 17.
31
Yamamoto, Shuichi (1999), “Kankyo-rinri to Bukkyou no Kadai II” (Environmental Ethics and Issues of Buddhism II). Nihon Indo-gaku Bukkyo-gaku Kenkyu (The Journal of India and Buddhist Studies), vol. 48, No. 1, 250–256.
32
Three treasures indicate the Buddha, the Buddhist law and the Buddhist monk.
33
Kamata, Shigeo (1998), Gendai-jin no Bukyo (Buddhism for humans of today),
Koudan-sha.
34
Ibid.