Symbiosis and Sustainability through the Lens of Buddhism

Shuichi Yamamoto andVictor S. Kuwahara

1. IntroductionC

onferences focusing on development and environmental
problems, which include the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference) in
1972, the Nairobi Conference in 1982, The United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (also known as the Rio Summit) in
1992 and The World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth
Summit) in 2002, have been held every ten years. In addition, aninternational conference addressing global problems has been held every
year since 2002. Unfortunately, not much progress has been made as awhole. In recent years, optimism towards resolving global environmen­
tal issues has waned, and recent research suggests continued negative
prospects for resolving the vast majority of problems we face. This
pessimism is partly due to the continuous conclusions that the present
global human civilization is headed towards unavoidable collapse.
Under these desperate circumstances, a clear and determinative policy isnecessary to manage human desires, encourage symbiosis and develop
sustainability. Concrete policies should be divided into larger frame­works which include improvements in technology, social systems, life
styles, civilization and the implementation of humanistic views. How
can Buddhist philosophy contribute to improving the policy and frame­
work? In this study, I describe the possible contribution of Buddhist
philosophy towards symbiotic and sustainable solutions of environmen­
tal problems.

2.	Scenarios of Collapse for Modern Civilization
Matsui (2010) who specializes in planetary physics defines humancivilization as a unique system called the “human-sphere” which isdifferent from the biosphere within the Earth’s traditional systems, i.e.
52

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

53

atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, etc. (Matsui, 2010)1. Humanbeings used to be categorized within the biosphere amongst other livingorganisms during the hunting-and-gathering age. The hunting-andgathering age is categorized as the time in history where people lived
within the same food-chain as other living organisms without altering
the interdependent systems of Earth. However, the start of the agricul­
ture and stock-farming revolution caused slow deforestation and degrada­tion of various other biota within the biosphere. In other words, theagricultural revolution not only degraded the most important primary
production subsystem on Earth, but also transformed forests into asingle farming-based subsystem. As a result, the evolved flow of energy
and matter on Earth changed dramatically. Furthermore, humancivilization added a larger transformation to the Earth’s systems after the
Industrial Revolution in the form of fossil fuels and atomic power which
are not found in nature.
The combination of these new and unnatural processes caused a masstransfer rate of organic and inorganic matter by human beings thatexceed the natural cycles by 100,000 times. In this way, humancivilization built a new “human-sphere” within the Earth’s formal sys­tems. However, the “human-sphere” cannot sprawl infinitely because
Earth has limited materials and energy. At the current rate of consump­tion, human civilization is destined to collapse. Matsui (2010) con­cluded that although the human-sphere is fundamentally a part of andshould stay within the biosphere, the human-sphere has exacerbated andoverwhelmed the biosphere through heavy transfer rates of matter andenergy that will eventually devastate the planet.
Ishi (2010)2 who is an environmental journalist asserts “the earth
deteriorates from the desires of human’s.” He assesses the 20th century
as a time when the self-fulfillment of human desires (previously aprivilege of the affluent few) has reached the common level of average
citizen’s for the first time in human history. He predicts that a certain
cataclysm will appear on Earth when the population reaches 8 billion
around 2025. Ishi suggests five critical changes: shortage of food,shortage of water resources, destruction of ecosystems, exhaustion offood resources, and evolution of new types of viruses and diseases.
Ishi also considers the collapse-scenario of the present civilization as
follows: increases in population causing increased deforestation andfarmland, the remaining primeval forests on Earth decreasing to one
third of the original area, and 40 percent of surface of the planet
becoming artificial surfaces including farmland, cities, roads andreclaimed ground. Further, the United Nations predicts that 70 percent

54

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhismof the terrestrial surface of the planet will become artificial by 2050. As
a result, the natural environment maintained by human civilization will
be lost. Further, due to economic expansion, increases in resource con­sumption, and progression of environmental pollution or destruction ofnature will follow, leading to a collapse of the present day civilizationfrom food shortage or natural disasters.
Ishi suggests the following causes for the collapse of present day
civilization. At some point or another, the system of “production for
consumption” reversed to a system of “consumption for production” dueto the switch from individual needs to “mass production,” “mass con­sumption” and “mass waste.” In other words, the infinite expansion ofhuman desires has caused inconceivable expansion of civilizations massconsumption.

3. Learning “Symbiosis” and “Sustainability” from Nature
Living organisms appeared, evolved and diversified during the ~4,600
million year history of Earth. The complex and relatively stableecosystem was formulated by the gradual diversification of life. In otherwords, the ecosystem slowly acquired “symbiosis” and “sustainability”
through diversification. Thus, it is probably wise to review the history of
the evolution of the ecosystem to find model answers towards“symbiosis” and “sustainability” since humans are also a part of thegreater biosphere who benefit from the ecosystem.
The term “symbiosis” is originally a concept from ecology. According
to Fujita (1997)3, “symbiosis” is defined as “living organisms, including
human beings, living harmoniously together on Earth with other organ­
isms without extinction and with various relations.” Symbiosis is amutualistic relationship fundamentally required for securing humancivilizations “sustainability.” Parasitism is also an important concept in
the context of symbiosis.
According to biologists in recent years, it is becoming clear thatevolution of living organisms began from symbiosis of living organisms.
According to the “endosymbiotic theory” by Margulis (1967)4, anaero­
bic bacteria were dominant during the time of limited free oxygen on
Earth. When free oxygen began to accumulate into the atmosphere fromthe evolution of cyanobacteria, survival of anaerobic bacteria became
difficult. At this point, aerobic bacteria were then utilized by anaerobic
bacteria, and “symbiosis” evolved. The aerobic bacteria utilized in thecells of eukaryotic cells are the mitochondria’s. It is interesting to notethat the causality of this symbiotic relationship was deterioration in thesymbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

55

environment in the form of accumulated free oxygen in the atmosphere.
In other words, as the environment transformed and became hostile for
one type of living organism, the survival strategy of intracellular sym­bio­
sis evolved.
Another evolutionary strategy was the establishment of extracellular“symbiosis” between living organisms. Symbioses between living organ­
isms are also explained by the exchanging of substances between livingorganisms, surviving through more efficient transfers of matter, i.e.
predator and prey. Other extracellular “symbiotic” relations between
living organisms are well-known such as the relationship between sea
anemone and anemone fish, or honey bees and flowers. However, such
examples are few in nature. Rather, all living organisms are active in a
“symbiotic system” in various overlapping forms when viewed fromprocesses related to recycling of matter in the ecosystem. In summary,the ecosystem is unsustainable without symbiotic relationships andsymbiosis.
How did the “symbiotic” process start in the ecosystem between
living organisms? According to Yamamura (1995)5, symbiosis between
living organisms began from “parasitism” where one side utilizes
another side. For example, a typical parasite-host relationship is easy tounderstand where the parasite burdens a host. The host will soon
weaken or die from the burden of the parasite. However, this process
also means the eventual death of the parasite simultaneously. Thus, theparasite must be careful in exploiting the host too much. Ultimately, theparasite must evolve to coexist and co-prosper with the host. The
conclusion to this example is that “symbiosis” must evolve from fatal“parasitism” in order for survival.
Another useful method to study “sustainability” between life is byexamining the history of living things. It is well known that dinosaurs,
which evolved into the largest living organisms in history, suddenly
became extinct on Earth ~65 million years ago. The leading opinion
now as to the cause of the mass extinction is the collision of a colossal
meteorite into Earth (Alvarez et al., 1980)6. The impact of the meteorite
generated global-scale dust clouds decreasing sunlight sharply, and not
only caused global cooling but also reduced photosynthesis of plants onlands and in the oceans. The food-web completely collapsed and as aresult, the dinosaurs vanished. When the massive meteorite collided into
Earth, it is easy to visualize how vast quantities of dust and soot weregenerated, followed by massive fires launched into the stratosphere, andeventually reducing sunlight for prolonged periods of time. As an end
result, the earth cooled rapidly, photosynthetic activities were prevented,

56

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

where plants withered first. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the factorsthat led to the extinction of dinosaurs was caused by cooling and foodshortage.
One question that remains is how some organisms were able to avoid
extinction? What factors determined the final fate? One of the factors
separating the fate of living organisms is considered to be difference inbody size. It is presumed that mammals were able to survive after dino­saurs became extinct because they were small. Even though almost allplants had withered, mammals were capable of survival with limited
food. Therefore, the reason that dinosaurs became extinct is due to thephysical factor of evolving into large organisms (requiring moreresources), which paradoxically also allowed them to be very successful
on the planet. However, it was also this large physical form that led tothe eventual extinction due to sudden changes in the environment thatthey conquered.
We can also learn from insects which are the single most prosperousorganisms on Earth today. Insects are the first animals to have marchedout to land ~400 million years ago. It is noteworthy that insects are themost prosperous organisms on the planet since they account for morethan half of all the living organisms on Earth. Moreover, it is known that
insects have overcome at least four large mass-extinctions of livingorganisms during the history of Earth. Major features of insects not only
include high adaptability for niches in various environments, but also
the evolutional direction to be small. The natural selection to evolve
small must have enabled the insect to acquire various niches within theecosystem, and also lead to high biodiversity. In other words, “being
small” allows for high adaptability to environmental changes. This isvery important to consider when trying to understand “sustainability”
from an ecosystem-based approach.

4.	Symbiosis and Sustainability through the Lens of
Buddhism
As explained above, the potential causes of civilizations collapse can be
attributed to the eventual limitations in resources of Earth, where the“human-sphere” grows, the influence of the human beings on the sur­face of the earth are large, and shortage of food and water resources
with increasing of population. We can now consider ways to avoid thedownfall of human civilization by reducing the consumption rate of sub­stances and energy, and controlling the “desires” of people as factors
which determine the consumption rate of resources. As a matter ofsymbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

57

course, if the expansion of human desires can be controlled, we will beable to reduce the consumption rate. Thus, we must focus and control
human desires.
In addition, the following concepts are considered as lessons that canbe learned from the natural history of living organisms. By selecting“symbiosis” from “parasitism,” living organisms were able to overcome
the causal downfalls from environmental change, and were capable offorming a “sustainable” network of interconnected organisms.
Moreover, “small-size” was shown to be an important factor for
acquisition of “sustainability,” since it enhances the adaptability tochanging environments. So to speak, the direction towards “symbiosis”
from “parasitism” means “specialization” between living organisms inthe biosphere. In other words, living organisms must live harmoniously
together rather than dominantly acquire resources for themselves.
Therefore, symbiosis which exchanges resources or shares capabilities
is considered to be an inevitable solution to our current problems.
Next, I would like to examine these concepts and include Buddhist
philosophical viewpoints.
4.1. Control of Human Desires
The problems of human desires have been discussed up to the present.
According to the environmental archaeologist Yasuda (2001, 2010)7, thedifficulty of controlling human desires is found in the fact that humandesires also contributed to the growth and advancement of society. The
paradox is found in the fact that desires allowed human civilization to
overcome various conventional problems, expand and grow prosperous­
ly, but at the same time, human desires have also lead to environmental
problems and degradation of the planet. This suggests that factors whichdevelop civilizations are also ones that can potentially collapse
civilizations. This phenomenon is similar to the example of the large
growing dinosaurs, discussed before. This concept can be viewed
another way; the “paradox of civilization” (Matsui, 1989)8 and the “thefactor of prosperity” act as a factors for crisis (Hanya, 1989)9. On theother hand, at present, desires are not denied, rather, desires areencouraged which compounds and makes the problem difficult toapproach. In present day society, human desires for materialistic things
and appetites for consumption are symbols of high value and affluent
living. Incidentally, at certain times in history past, openly sharing andflaunting personal desires were not considered noble signs of theaffluent, whereas today’s society considers people who do so as greatand successful people. When a majority of human beings openly

58

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

expresses and materialize their desires, unless there are infinite
resources, environments, and space, it becomes more and more difficult
to fulfill the desires. Gandhi famously said, “Although Earth has enough(resources) to satisfy the necessity for all people, it is insufficient forfilling all the people’s greed10.”
However, unless the grossly enlarged desires of human civilization
are controlled, environmental problems cannot be solved. How candesires be controlled? Yasuda (2001)11 points to two things. From his
viewpoint of studying ancient religions, and relations between civiliza­
tions and the environment, in order to control desires, an altruistic mind
to sympathize with others is important, and that this altruistic mind
includes not only man, but also nature. He gives an example of pastphilosophies of cultures who believed in deities and gods of forests. In
these cultures, forest gods supervised human activities in the forest—
there was always a sense of supervision by a higher entity. In otherwords, within the subconscious of people who utilized the forest, thehigher entity was always watching the actions and desires of humans. In
today’s modern world, we have completely lost this sense of respect andfear for such deities. He further suggests that the sense of reverence toan invisible existence plays a large role for controlling desires. Matsui(2010)12 also asserts that a new “environmental religion (or philosophy)”is necessary in today’s cultures where a new higher entity of respect andfear allows eternal, sustainable progress of human civilization.
What role can Buddhist philosophy play in order to control humandesires? Buddhism is the religion of “self-consciousness” and could also
be called the philosophy of “self-responsibility.” Moreover, a uniquefeature of Buddhism in the definition as a religion is that deities andgods do not exist, per say. Buddhism is the philosophy of self-reliance,-responsibility and -respect vis-a-vis the god within each individual.
Therefore, there is no “eye of the surveillance” from an outside entity,
Yasuda says. However, there is the concept of Karma in Buddhism13.
In the ‘Consciousness-Only’ doctrine of Buddhism, all physical andmental activities encompassing life experiences that take place in an
individual are accumulated as Karma seeds (shuji) in the Alaya con­sciousness within the depths of the subconscious. The information (orenergy) as seeds accumulated there appears in the real world as the fruitand results of the Karma. The acts of good induce good results, while
the acts of evil induce evil results. With regards to the meaning of“surveillance,” there is an eye and responsibility from within each
person in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism all things become
self-responsibility and self-discipline.

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

59

What is the ideal way of life in Buddhism? In Buddhist philosophy,
today’s rampant human desires can be defined as the human lifecondition of “hunger” or Gaki in Japanese. In other words, the humancondition of greed and addiction to greed in people is a form of“hunger” in a figurative sense. The life-condition of “hunger" is not
ideal in Buddhism. Further, in Buddhist philosophy, there is an ideal
way of living where people control their desires and greed by “livingwith limited desires and being satisfied with small portions.” In otherwords, it is not necessary to completely deny desires towards human
growth, rather, it is important to limit and control those desires to small
portions. Further, the concept explains that “satisfaction” from desires
can only be understood through satisfaction from small portions.
Without understand­ing the concept of “satisfaction,” people cannot
control their desires. Human civilization today has lost the sense ofsatisfaction from gorging on desires. This concept is very important. It is
critically important to control unlimited desires.
Buddhism teaches people to strive for the ideal life-condition of a
Buddha, or Buddhahood, which is a life-condition of “compassion.”
Buddhist compassion pertains to all living organisms, i.e. fellow
humans, animals, plants, microbes, etc. The life-condition of “compas­sion” allows people to feel responsibility for others. Although it isdifficult to control our own personal desires and greed, it is easier tocontrol these desires when we have compassion for others. We can also
expand this concept to environmental and societal problems. In otherwords, through the acts of compassion and philanthropy, we are able toenrich our own lives while at the same time protect the planet. This
societal “consciousness” allow all people to enrich their own personal
lives as well as contribute towards a symbiotic relationship with theplanet. In short, the principle mission in life for Buddhists is the
responsibility for oneself and others.
Schumacher14, who proposes “Buddhist Economics,” suggests thatsociety should base economics on non-violence and simplicity, while atthe same time attain maximum well-being with minimum consumption.
Although modern economics focusses the index of happiness on the
consumption of materialism, Buddhist Economics suggests minimizing
consumption towards benefiting the self and others. His suggestion also
proposes “controlling desires” as the fundamental principle of Bud­dhism.
4.2 From “Parasitism” to “Symbiosis”
The present civilization centered on science and technology is one

60

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

which unwillingly wastes natural resources, such as fossil fuels, foodresources, and forest resources. Resources from nature are generally
obtained from developing countries which have abundant natural
resources at low prices. In a way, the over-consumption of global natural
resources can be viewed as an act of violence towards nature. In otherwords, this act of violence can also be viewed as “parasitism” towards
nature and the developing countries. As described before, “parasitism”
in ecology is not necessarily one-sided where one organism profits while
the other is damaged. If this were the case, the parasite would also
eventually see demise. Rather, the parasite must carefully balance theact of profit so that both organisms can maintain stability.
Currently, advanced nations obtain various profits from nature anddeveloping countries, with little return of gratitude. Many advanced
economies purchase natural resources at low cost, and sell goods at highprices. This simple act is a form of “parasitism.” However, “parasitism”
is a structure of mutual maintenance to avoid mutual downfall. As in theecosystem, human civilization must re-order priorities based on“sustainability” and learn the mutual benefits of “parasitism” in thecontext of “symbiosis.”
Buddhism has a concept called “Dependent Origination,” or engi inJapanese, which explains “symbiosis” where all living organisms arefundamentally connected based on the life-principle of Buddhahood(life-condition of Compassion) within all organisms (Yamamoto,2001)15. “Dependent Origination” is a view that suggests all matters andphenomena coexist in relation to each other. In the concept of“Dependent Origination,” all organisms are connected by a large, stablemesh or net (Yamamoto, 2005)16. The mesh is comprised of small subsections and connected by many knots, where each knot represents eachliving organism, and each connecting thread represents relationships
between organisms. Moreover, there is no superiority or inferiority inthe knots. As in ecology, dense relationships between living organisms
without superiority or inferiority enable overall “symbiosis” of an
ecosystem, and ensure “sustainability.” Further, since the life-condition
of Buddhahood exists in all living organisms equally, including humans,
Buddhism suggests that all the living entities are connected by the same
principle under the disguise of different phenotypes. Therefore, Bud­dhism views the biosphere as egalitarianism which regards all livingorganisms, including humans, microbes, plants and animals as funda­
mentally equal. In other words, Buddhism always exists and views life
from “symbiosis,” and the concept of “Dependent Origination” whichemphasizes relationships from an egalitarianistic vantage which treats

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

61

all living things equally.
4.3. Towards Suitable Sizes from Large Sizes
As described before, the subsystem called the “human-sphere” amongst
all systems has grown tremendously including the products of scienceand technology, the social system, and the life style of each individual.
In modern society today, each human being is surviving through theconsumption of resources equivalent to the physical size of elephants ordinosaurs when calculated from food or energy per capita. (Motokawa,
1992)17. In other words, the individual human “footprint” of resource
consumption can be considered to be as large as elephants and dinosaurs
although our physical size is relatively small in comparison to otheranimals. Thus, just as the dinosaurs were physically too large to adapt todramatic changes in the environment during their evolutionary period,
humans are also susceptible to changes in the environment derived fromeither natural or artificial causes. In other words, human civilization hasreached a grandiose point where global changes in the environment
might reveal our fundamental weakness to survive. This suggests that it
is critical to find our direction towards being “smaller” as a way of life,
just like the mammals and insects at the time of the extinction ofdinosaurs.
Schumacher18 described that strangely, technology advances by its
own laws and principles different to laws and principles of nature.
Nature’s laws and principles based on ecology and biology naturallyachieve evolutionary stability. Human technology is generally not con­ducive to natural laws and principles, i.e. plastics, polymers, factories,
machinery, etc., and are sometimes too artificial for the delicacy ofnature to absorb. That is, although man is natural, the technology whichhumans develop is generally heterogeneous with nature, and notsuitable. The natural needs of human civilization and each person are
relatively small, not large and harmonious to nature. Therefore, humancivilization must return to “small,” as Schumacher suggests, “Man issmall, and, therefore, small is beautiful19.”
Schumacher’s logic is based on the idea of “middle way” in Bud­dhism. The middle-way is not too large, and not too small, thus,
technology should also be a suitable size which is controllable forhuman beings. The idea of the “middle-way” offers suitable technology
for human civilization, and is an important consideration for the entire
system of the “human-sphere.” The tragic nuclear accident in Japan lastyear (2011) is an unfortunate example. Although there were no direct
fatalities, the instantaneous accident relating to atomic power became a

62

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

serious disaster beyond recall. It was a situation where humans could
not control the accident although it was technology originating fromhuman industry. Gandhi once described that if people say, we require
machines, of course, we will use machines; although machines helping
every human being is good, we do not need machines which makehumans mere keepers of the mechanical technology with concentrated
power in the hands of a few people20. In other words, machines thatenhance and heighten human skills and capabilities can be considered
good, while machines that bind humans as mere mechanical slaves areunnecessary. This is an important insight into how modern civilization
should utilize technology and science.

5. Conclusion
If environmental problems are inevitable for contemporary civilization,then we must change the conduct and lifestyle of civilization. At thecurrent rate, it is almost certain that human civilization will greet asevere and disastrous collapse. New principles for civilization areneeded. In order to avoid the collapse, human beings must learn tocontrol their desires and incorporate concepts of “symbiosis” and“sustainability.” However, this critical task will not be easy and will
require a dramatic effort on the part of each individual human being.
The following are three conclusions that can be summarized from thisstudy.
1) World religions have an important role in empowering people tocontrol desires as a major causal factor for environmental problems andpotential collapse of human civilization. In Buddhism, there is a lifeconcept suggesting, “living with small (limited) desires, and satisfaction
from small gain.” Buddhism is also the philosophy of self-responsibility
for the environment and responsibility for others through the life-condi­tion of compassion and the practice of this principle empowers people tocontrol their desires.
2) The relationship between advanced nations and developing
countries, as well as human beings and nature can be viewed from theecological perspective of “parasitism.” Finding a way to attain “symbio­sis” from “parasitism” is very important for securing “sustainability” ofour global ecosystem and human civilization. Buddhist philosophy
always strives for finding a path from “parasitism” to “symbiosis,” andaccept all living organisms from an egalitarian perspective based on theconcept of “Dependent Origination” which emphasizes relationships.
3) The fundamental cause of extinction and collapse for any organ­

symbiosis and sustainability through the lens of buddhism

63

ism and system is becoming too large, as with the dinosaurs. Buddhist
philosophy always aims for suitable portions for human beings on theprinciple of the “middle-way” where all things are neither large nor
small.
Notes
Matsui T. (2010) Human-sphere in the earth system approaching a limit, in“Civilization Crisis, editing down about Environment (in Japanese),” edited by Inamori
K., Tokyo-Keizai-Sinbunsha, Tokyo
2
Ishi H. (2010) Misery of Africa warning the future of earth civilization, in“Civilization Crisis, editing down about Environment (in Japanese),” above.
3
Fujita K. (1997) “Meanings of Symbiosis (in Japanese),” Koudansha, Tokyo
4
Lynn Sagan (Lynn Margulis) (1967). On the origin of mitosing cells. J. Theoretical
Biology 14(3), 255–274.
5
Yamamura N. (1995) “Symbiosis from Parasitism (in Japanese),” Heibonsha, Tokyo
6
L.W. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro, H.V. Michel (1980) Extraterrestrial Cause for
the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction, Science, Vol. 208, 1095–1108.
7
Ishi H., Yasuda Y. and Yuasa T. (2001) “The World History of Environment andCivilization (in Japanese)” Yousensha, Tokyo; Yasuda Y. (2010) A new civilization
principle was born in the time of crisis, in “Civilization Crisis, editing down about
Environment (in Japanese)” above.
8
Matsui T. (1989) “Loneliness in the history of 4,600 million of the earth: Beyond the
hypothesis of Gaia (in Japanese),” Tokumashoten, Tokyo
9
Hanya T. and Akiyama N. (1989) “Human, Society, Earth (in Japanese),”Kagakudouji, Tokyo
10
Radhakrishnan, N. 2002. “Gandhi, King, Ikeda—Hibouryoku to Taiwa no Keifu(Gandhi, King, Ikeda—The History of Nonviolence and Dialogue),” translated by
Kurihara, T., Daisan-Bunmei-sha: Tokyo
11
Ishi H., Yasuda Y. and Yuasa T. (2001) above.
12
Matsui T. (2010) above.
13
Yamamoto S. (1998) Contribution of Buddhism to environmental thoughts, The
Journal of Oriental Studies, 8, 144–173.
14
E.F. Schumacher (1973) “Small is beautiful, A study of economics as if people
mattered,” Muller, Blond & White Ltd.
15
Yamamoto S. (2002) Environmental ethics in Mahayana Buddhism: The Signifi­
cance of Keeping Precepts and Wisdom. The Journal of Oriental Studies, 12, 137–155.
16
Yamamoto S. and Kuwahara V.S. (2006) Symbiosis with the Global Environment:
Buddhist Perspective of Environmental Education, The Journal of Oriental Studies, 16,
133–142.
17
Motokawa T. (1992) “Time of elephant, time of mouse (in Japanese),” Chuokouronsha, Tokyo
18
E.F. Schumacher (1973) above.
19
E.F. Schumacher (1973) above.
20
E.F. Schumacher (1973) above.
1