Perspectives of Mahayana Buddhism on the Destruction of
Nature: Evaluating the Value of Nature
Shuichi Yamamoto
Victor S. Kuwahara
Abstract
Today, human activity has grown to such a large scale that scientists
have differentiated the time-period as the “Anthropocene” in Earth’s
history. With the continued expansion of human activity, environmental problems have become more and more severe. The degradation ofnature is the largest problem for human beings. More than half a century of environmental problems also have continued, and during thetime, large research funds have been consumed. As a result, a plethoraof research papers have been produced. However, in spite of this productivity, why have the problems not been resolved? Further, why
have the problems increased in scale and diversity? Many scientists
have come to accept that nature is very peculiar and difficult to comprehend due to its almost infinite matrix of complexity andinteractions. However, even if we make progress in understanding
nature, stopping the destruction will be difficult. Humanity requires afundamental change to resolve the growing issue.
In this study, I argue that a scientific evaluation of the environment
is not sufficient. In other words, we cannot evaluate the value of naturesimply from the perspective of resources and scientific inquiry. Rather,
we require an understanding and inquiry into the underlying value ofnature from a philosophical perspective. This study aims to describe
the importance of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi’s perspective and Buddhist
thoughts for evaluating nature. The Makiguchi perspective of the environment holds that nature has a spiritual value which cultivates themind through the relationship between human beings and nature as
outlined in the Jinsei-Chirigaku [Geography of Human Life] (1903).
In Mahayana Buddhism, especially from the Buddhist doctrines of“the three realms of existence (san-seken)” and “the non-duality of life
and its environment (e-sho-funi),” the values of nature are positively
evaluated by the natural view that nature not only has comparable values with human beings, but also shares in the destiny of humans as192

perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

193

part of the community. Through a combination of these perspectives,
human beings can create an awareness and mission towards responsibility and sustainable attitudes towards the environment.

1. IntroductionHuman activity now affects vast places on the planet Earth, and as
a result, environmental problems are becoming an extremely complex problem affecting the survival of mankind. Environmental
problems have expanded from localized problems, like the former pollution problems in Japan, to global problems like global warming. In thecase of global environmental problems, resolving the issues is extremely
difficult except for a few problems such as depletion of the ozone layer
by Freon. Further, global problems are not only expanding to various
regions on a global scale, but are also diversifying. Among them, thesystematic degradation of nature is the biggest problem, e.g., direct degradation by human beings such as deforestation and overfishing anddestruction of wildlife, and indirect degradation such as ocean acidification and ecosystem deterioration caused by CO2 increasing and global
warming. In addition, there are also problems associated with artificial
chemical substances such as agricultural chemicals and plastics that bioaccumulate and affect chemical pathways into marine organisms. The
degradation of nature by human beings is so rampant and globally
expansive that some are suggesting the world is now entering the sixth
mass-extinction of life in Earth’s history.
More than half a century of cumulative environmental problems has
continued, and during that time, large research funds have been consumed. As a result, a plethora of research papers have been produced.
However, in spite of this productivity, why have the problems not been
resolved? Further, why have the problems increased in scale and diversity? There may be problems in our approach to understanding naturalscience and the direction for the development of science. Also, humanity
is likely underestimating the value of nature, or not comprehending itstrue value, which leads to the degradation of nature unconsciously.
Therefore, in this paper I would like to examine the value of nature
towards resolution of the environmental problems we are faced withtoday.

2. Expanding Human Activity
In recent years, two concepts have emerged that implicate the194perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the naturelarge-scale affects of human activities on Earth. One is the proposal of
the concept “Anthropocene”1 by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), and the other is the concept “Humanosphere”2 which
implicates the effects of human activity on Earth on a cosmic scale.
Human activity has gradually increased in its scale, and is now affecting the Earth on a planetary scale. In spite of being only one species
amongst some millions, human beings are evolving into an organismthat is capable of affecting the entire planet. The most symbolic proposal that represents this is the concept of the “Anthropocene” as a newgeological age. Geological ages are classified by events that characterizeeras in the geo-strata, usually associated with changes in the biota.
Among them, the newest era is the Quaternary era (2.58 million years
ago–present) that symbolizes the emergence of humanity. The
Quaternary era is divided into Pleistocene (2.58 million–11,700 yearsago) and Holocene (11,700 years ago–present). The Pleistocene is characterized by the glacial era, and is a harsh era where primitive man, suchas the Peking Man and current human beings (Homo sapiens) appeared.
The Holocene is defined as the era when the ice sheets disappeared on
the Eurasian continent. The proposal of the “Anthropocene” suggests the
addition of a new division to the classification. The new addition symbolizes that we have entered an era in which human beings have an evengreater influence on the global environment and climate.
What are the characteristics of the Anthropocene? Material that is
artificial and hard to break, for example those made of concrete, asphalt,
and plastic, will remain in geological formations. Alternatively, metalsof aluminum or iron have been brought to the surface of the earth by
digging out large quantities from underground. Further, there are othertoxic compounds that human beings have synthesized for the first timeon Earth, such as agricultural chemicals, e.g., PCBs, dioxins, etc. These
compounds will also remain to some extent in geological formations.
On the other hand, gases such as carbon dioxide and artificial Freon
released into the atmosphere will also be preserved as gas bubbles in
Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets.
In addition to the above, other changes in the biota may occur in the
future. Changes in the biota are caused by the extinction of living organisms due to climate change, crustal deformation, large meteorite
episodes, etc., followed by the emergence of other living organisms.
Recent studies suggest the sixth extinction has begun due to the influence of chemical substances, such as agricultural chemicals, overfishing,
deforestation, and land development by human beings. Further, as
warmer climate zones move to high-latitude areas due to globalperspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

195

warming induced by human activity, the biota will also be forced tomigrate. Or, living organisms incapable of acclimating to climatechange may perish. As a result, it is inevitable that the biota in eachregion must change.
Human activities engraved in the strata, on the other hand, can also be
confirmed from outer space. The ability to observe these changes fromspace suggests another concept referred to as the “Humanosphere”
which can be observed on a cosmic scale by light and radio waves emitted from the earth. Artificial light that illuminates the world at night
includes not only the stray light of big cities, but also the illumination ofslash-and-burn agriculture and fire on boats used to lure fish at night.
These are visible wavelengths of light, but there are also invisible wavelengths such as radio, television and mobile phones that cannot be seen
by humans. In particular, radio waves are constantly emitted from Earth
toward the universe, and since radio technology has been developed formore than 100 years, these radio waves may have already travelled toover 100 light years from the planet. As a result, the existence ofhumans as intelligent life organisms in the universe might be confirmed
somewhere in outer space. It is surprising that the activity of one livingorganism is so prolific as to be engraved on the stratum, and it is evenmore astonishing that it can be confirmed from outer space.

3. What is the Problem?
As mentioned above, it is extremely important that the activity of only
one species of living organisms has become large enough to change thestate of the earth. Unfortunately, the direction of human activity is leaning towards the degradation of Earth. On the other hand, if humanbeings have the power to degrade Earth, it is also possible for humanity
to lead Earth in a positive direction. However, rather than moving
towards a solution thus far, the problems are actually expanding. What,then, is determining the direction of human activity? One of the origins
of our dilemma is the expansion of human desires. However, since theissue was described elsewhere,3 here I would like to address the issues
relating to how human beings view and value nature.
When considering what constitutes the “Humanosphere,” the characteristics of our view of nature can be grasped. The major characteristics
can be assumed to have been created by human beings. From an ecological standpoint, human activities that alter the environment can be
defined as an “environmental reaction” by human beings. In otherwords, a great feature of the human species is that we have the ability to196perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

conform to the environment or ecosystem (environmental reaction) on alarge scale compared to other living organisms. Further, the modifications that human beings have been making in the “Humanosphere”
consists of components that we can understand through science, and canbe manipulated and controlled by technology. Moreover, in the world
based on science and technology, nature is regarded as a means andresource only. In that sense, constructing the “Humanosphere” is to create a world which is convenient for humans, and which can becomprehended through science and technology. Aspects that cannot becreated or controlled by science and technology, so to speak, can beconsidered inconvenient for human beings or science, and might gradually be excluded.
Plant ecologist Miyawaki (1970)4 pointed out that, unfortunately, it isdifficult for us to measure quantitatively the necessity of plants innature, and the direct and indirect damage to the spirit and physicalbody of human beings when human life is isolated from plants; but, thisassumption is not considered safe for the simple reason that it cannot be
expressed quantitatively. Rather, because it has a qualitative effect onhuman beings, it is essentially related to life. Although this is ecologically well-known, plants are the only primary producers that can
produce their own food on Earth, and human beings are consumers inecology who can only live by eating what the plants produce. However,
it is extremely difficult to scientifically and quantitatively evaluate theneeds of plants as primary producers. Furthermore, despite being essential to the survival of human beings, it is further difficult to evaluate thephysical and cognitive impacts on human beings when plants are lost.
He, therefore, also pointed out “We must understand the invisible, qualitative and indirect relationships between humans and plants correctly,”5
in order for human beings to survive and live healthily.
The stronger the scientific view, the more the assessment of nature
becomes biased toward evaluations from a scientific point of view. Thisis very important because there is the potential of losing sight of thereally important aspects of nature. Therefore, living organisms in nature
may be lost without properly grasping the value of nature. In this example, we will not be able to recognize the true value of living organisms,
and it will be almost impossible to know the direct and indirect effects
caused by their loss. The problem lies in trying to infer the value ofnature from only one perspective of human beings such as that of science. In other words, the vantage of science is biased towards thephysical aspect only, and fails to quantify the non-physical, cognitive
attributes of nature.

perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

197

Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, the founder of Soka Kyoiku Gakkai (theforerunner of Soka Gakkai), pointed out more than 100 years ago theimportance of nature that cannot be quantified. Makiguchi (1903) inJinsei-Chirigaku [The Geography of Human Life]6 specifically addresses
the “invisible” relationships between humans and plants, as suggested
by Miyawaki, using the concept of “Chi-Jin-Soukan (in Japanese)” or
the relations between geographic features and human activities. First,
Makiguchi divides human relationships with nature into physical andcognitive ones. Physical relationships include both the modification ofnature by humans, and the reciprocal physical influence of nature tohumans. The relationship corresponds to both an “environmental reaction” and an “environmental action” from an ecological viewpoint. On
the other hand, the cognitive, or non-physical aspects include eight relationships. The cognitive relationships are comprised of perceptual,usable, scientific, aesthetic, moral, sympathetic, public, and religious.
Makiguchi refers to the five relationships of perceptual, usable, scientific, aesthetic, and moral as the “intellectual relationships” because these
five reflect knowledge gained through experience and confrontation withthe environment.7 “Intellectual relationships” are capable of broadly
comprehending nature relative to scientific inquiry because they involve
the aesthetic and moral relationships with nature. On the other hand,
sympathetic, public, and religious relationships, which Makiguchi calls“sympathetic relationships,” integrates the self with the environment,
and sees the self as a part of the environment which cultivates emotional
relations with the environment.8 Further, he gives concrete examples of“sympathetic relationships”; for example, regarding mountains, plants
and animals, Makiguchi states, “Mountains are like heavenly masters
because they calm human feelings and enlighten people’s minds …
mountains that are different from the self become part of the world justas the self. And, the relationship becomes part of a sentient being. … Asa result, I become one with the mountains, and I will share its pain. In
addition, my mind experiences the destiny the mountain receives.”9Further, “Plants not only stimulate my aesthetic sensation but also calm
my own ferociousness. And, plants ferment my poetic sentiment, and as
a result, cultivate my heart.”10 Lastly, “Animals are submissive companions for myself and become comforting. My heart will be cultivated byvarious kinds of animals related to my life.”11 Such cognitive relationships with mountains, plants and animals in nature are the spiritualvalues of nature to human beings, and such values are never revealed
from scientific inquiry. Thus, the comprehensive value of nature cannot
be evaluated by science alone.

198

perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

4. Buddhist Perspective
How can the value of nature be examined from the viewpoint of Buddhism? “Three thousand realms in a single moment of life” proposed by
the Chinese Buddhist priest, T’ien-t’ai (538–597) in his Maka-shikan[Great Concentration and Insight], includes the “three realms of existence.”12 The concept of the three realms of existence is comprised ofthree different standpoints: the first is a “realm of the five components,”
which are form, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness; thesecond is a “realm of living beings,” which is the individual living entity
formed by the temporary union of the five components; the third is a“realm of the environment,” which is the place where the living entity
dwells. If the realm of living being is a human being, the realm of theenvironment is the human environment. Regarding the concept of therealm of the five components, form corresponds to the physical aspect oflife, and the other four components correspond to the spiritual aspects.
Since the realm of living beings like human life is temporally unified
with the realm of the five components, all of the components of humans
are apparent. However, in the case of the non-living aspects like theenvironment, form is apparent but the other aspects are latent. If nonhuman living entities are included in the realm of the environment, thenthe realm of five components could include not only physical form, butalso spiritual aspects. In the three thousand realms in a single moment oflife, the most important matter is that a single moment of life (a life)
becomes not only a living being, like a human being, but also simultaneously its environment, like nature.
On the other hand, “ten one-nesses” are explained in Hokke-gengishakusen [The Annotations on “The Profound Meaning of the Lotus
Sutra”] by the Chinese Buddhist priest, Miao-lo (711–782), and thesixth is the “non-duality of life and its environment (esho-funi).”13 The
Japanese term “esho-funi” means that both “e-ho” and “sho-ho” are“non-duality (funi),” where “sho-ho” means living beings are the subject, and “e-ho” is its environment. And, “funi” means “not two,”
indicating the oneness or non-duality, that is, two (in phenomena) but
not two (in essence). Then, why are both non-duality? Since the doctrineof “life and its environment (e-sho) exist in one-mind (one life)” isexpressed in The Annotations on “The Profound Meaning of the Lotus
Sutra”, both belong to the one mind. In other words, one-mind appears
in both a life (e-ho) and its environment (sho-ho), because “ho” in “shoho” and “e-ho” in Japanese means a reward, or an effect of karma.
Therefore, the effects of karma appear in both the subjective oneself andperspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

199

in one’s objective environment, because life and its environment are
two integral aspects of an individual’s life. In that sense, this equates
exactly to the same meaning as “the three realms of existence.” On theother hand, from the viewpoint of the karma principle in Buddhism, it isalso possible to regard the same as a manifestation of karma seeds
imprinted in the “Alaya consciousness.” It is described in the text ofAbidatsuma-junshori-ron [Treatise on Accordance with the Correct
Doctrine] by Hsuantsang (Genjo) that “mountains, rivers, ground and soon are born from ‘common karma (gugo)’, and sentient beings are bornfrom ‘individual karma (fu-gugo)’.”14 Therefore, this means that eachsentient being is formed by “individual karma,” and its common environment is formed by “common karma.” The Japanese Buddhist priest
Nichiren describes the relation between life (sho-ho) and its environment (e-ho) by using an easy-to-understand analogy, “The ten directions
are the ‘environment [e-ho]’ and living beings are ‘life [sho-ho].’ To
illustrate, environment [e-ho] is like the shadow, and life [sho-ho], thebody. Without the body, no shadow can exist, and without life [sho-ho],no environment [e-ho]. In the same way, life [sho-ho] is shaped by its
environment [e-ho].”15
What are the characteristics and viewpoint of nature in Buddhism? As
described “without life [sho-ho], no environment [e-ho]. In the sameway, life [sho-ho] is shaped by its environment [e-ho],” this expresses
that the environment is manifested only when a subject is manifested.
Further, the subject is made by its environment (e.g., foods), which also
expresses a position of consumers in ecology. The recognition is scientifically correct, and it explains that humans can exist only throughdependence on nature. In that sense, it can be said that Mahayana
Buddhism stands in the position of nature-centrism.
As described, “environment [e-ho] is like the shadow, and life [shoho], the body,” the relationship between the subject and the environmentis regarded as the relationship between “body” and “shadow.” Thismeans that it is impossible to correctly recognize living beings by separating them from their environment. This principle in practice is exactly
what Makiguchi suggests as the “sympathetic relationships,” or “to integrate the self with the environment and to see the self as a part of theenvironment.” From another point of view, if the subject is a living entity, the environment for each one can be set up separately from eachother. Therefore, this viewpoint also represents a very contemporary
environmental view that the natural world contains multilayered andcomplex environments for each living entity.
Furthermore, there is a unique perspective of Buddhism common to200

perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

the “three realms of existence”, “the non-duality of life and its environment” and “common karma and individual karma.” It is that one mind
(one life or karma seeds) originally appears in both the subject and its
environment. As a result, the environment will have a comparable value
with human beings. In Buddhism, if a life as a subject has the Buddhanature and attains Buddhahood, the environment is also naturally theobject that has Buddha-nature and attains Buddhahood. The concept isexpressed as, “even plants, mountains and rivers have Buddha-nature” inChinese and Japanese Buddhism. In other words, the concept suggeststhat not only do humans and animals have Buddha-nature, but also thenon-living things such as plants, mountains and rivers, and all existences
can attain Buddhahood. This concept gives nature and human beings theutmost equal value, and is the highest evaluation of nature in Buddhism.
Based on the above, the evaluation of value to nature in Buddhism
includes not only evaluations derived from scientific recognition, andevaluations derived from sympathetic relationships as a function of cultivating the heart by Makiguchi, but also a unique evaluation that theenvironment has a comparable value with human beings.

5. Conclusion
Human beings have expanded human activities to the point of being
engraved into the strata as suggested in the proposal of the “Anthropocene,” and, on the other hand, have also created the “Humanosphere”
that can be seen from outer space. This suggests that human activity has
become large enough to influence the physical state of the earth. If so,
the evaluation of the value of nature affecting the trend of human activities becomes extremely important. However, the “Humanosphere”
created like kingdoms for human beings are composed only of physicalmaterials evaluated by scientific points of view. Thus, the value ofnature has gradually become biased only as a valuable resource. As aresult, in spite of being the foundation for human survival, nature andliving organisms that are incorrectly evaluated are destined to be lost.
Moreover, there is little chance of recovery of nature once it isdestroyed. This is partly attributable to the value of nature that is notcorrectly evaluated, that is, underestimation of the true value of nature.
Makiguchi (1903) notes that the relationship of human beings withnature consists of both the physical and spiritual relationships.
Furthermore, the spiritual relationships include not only intellectual
relationships, such as the scientific relationships, but also more aggressive relationships such as sympathetic relationships that integrate theperspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature201

self with the environment, and view the self as a part of the environment. He also points out that it is possible to have spiritual value tocultivate minds through a sympathetic relationship with nature. This
viewpoint by Makiguchi could connect directly to a Buddhist view ofnature. In Mahayana Buddhism, especially from the Buddhist doctrinesof “the three realms of existence (san-seken)” and “the non-duality oflife and its environment (e-sho-funi),” the values of nature are positively
evaluated by this viewpoint because nature has comparable values withhuman beings themselves.
As a result, the following conclusions are drawn; human beings andnature share the same destiny, and the destruction of nature is nothing
less than the destruction of humans themselves; and since Mahayana
Buddhism is nature-centric, the sustainability of human society will bepreserved only through the preservation of nature. Furthermore, humanbeings must be responsible for what type of Earth is to be created andpreserved. Although these conclusions are basically similar to the principles for solving environmental problems that SGI (Soka Gakkai
International) President Ikeda derived from the environmental view in
Buddhism,16 human beings should lead lives towards truly solving environmental problems based on these principles.
Notes
Crutzen, P. J. and Stoermer, E. F. (2000), “The ‘Anthropocene’,” The International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Newsletter, 41, pp. 17–18.
2
T. Matsui (2007), Chikyu-Shisutemu-no-Hokai (in Japanese) [Collapse of the Earth
System], Shinchosha, Tokyo.
3
S. Yamamoto (2009), “How does Buddhism Contribute to the Environmental Problems?” The Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 19, pp. 71–80. S. Yamamoto (1998),“Contribution of Buddhism to Environmental Thoughts,” The Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 8, pp. 144–173.
4
A. Miyawaki (1970/73), Shokubutsu-to-Ningen (in Japanese) [Plants and Human
Beings], Japan Broadcasting Publishing (Nippon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai), Tokyo, p. 18.
5Ibid., p. 228.
6
T. Makiguchi (1903), Jinsei-Chirigaku (in Japanese) [The Geography of Human
Life], Cited references (Seikyo Bunko, vol. 1, 3) were published in 1971, 1972 by Seikyo Shimbun-sha.
7
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 54.
8
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 54.
9Ibid., vol. 1, p. 215.
10
Ibid., vol. 3, p. 184.
11
Ibid., vol. 3, p. 262.
12
“Three realms of existence” is explained in Daichido-ron (in Japanese) [Treatise on
the Great Perfection of Wisdom], vol. 70, by Nagarjuna (c. 150–250), Taisho-shinshudaizo-kyo (1962), eds. Takakusu J. and Watanabe K., vol. 25, p. 546, first edition (1926),1

202

perspectives of mahayana buddhism on the nature

reprinted (1962), Daizo-Shuppan, Tokyo. “Three thousand realms in a single moment oflife” is explained in Maka-shikan (in Japanese) [Great Concentration and Insight], vol.
5, by T’ien-t’ai.
13“Non-duality of life and its environment” is explained in Hokke-gengi-shakusen (inJapanese) [The Annotations on “The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra”], Taishoshinshu-daizo-kyo (1962), vol. 33, p. 919.
14
Abidatsuma-junshori-ron (in Japanese) [Treatise on Accordance with the Correct
Doctrine], vol. 33, trans. by Hsuantsang (Genjo), Taisho-shinshu-daizo-kyo (1962), vol.
29, p. 529.
15
Nichiren, “On Omens” in The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (1999), vol. 1, Soka
Gakkai, Tokyo, p. 644.
16
The contribution text “Chikyu-kankyo-hozen-ni-mukete (Towards conservation of
the global environment)” by Daisaku Ikeda (April 17, 1992, Seikyo Shimbun) was published at the pre-UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment) Consultative Conference in Taplow Court, England. In the article, Ikeda
derived the following five principles for solving the environmental problems from theviewpoint of Buddhism: (1) Human beings and the environment share the same destiny;(2) Human beings cannot survive unless supported by a harmonious and coexistent system with the natural ecosystem; (3) The human environment of culture and society
should be created based on the natural ecosystem and should be developed in harmony
with the law of great nature; (4) Human beings should become guardians for the dignityof nature, and be coordinators for bringing harmony to the global ecosystem; (5) Humanbeings have the mission of creating value on a global scale.
Authors Biography
Shuichi Yamamoto is a senior research fellow of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy.
He is a specialist on Environmental Ethics and Environmental Education, and Organic
Geochemistry. Having earned his PhD in Science from Tokyo Metropolitan University,
he currently also serves as a professor at Soka University. He has written many books
and articles including “Modern Cosmology and Buddhism” (2015) and “Sustainability
and Buddhism: How do we measure quality of life and degree of happiness?” (2010).
Victor S. Kuwahara is a commissioned research fellow of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy, specializing in Environmental Phonics, Marine Biology, Aquatic Bioscience,and Environmental Education. Having earned his PhD in Engineering at Soka University
in 2000, he now teaches there as a professor. His recent article is “Bacterial growth rate
and the relative abundance of bacteria to heterotrophic nanoflagellates in the euphotic
and disphotic layers in temperate coastal waters of Sagami Bay, Japan” (2016).