Ecosophy and Buddhist Wisdom

Mikio Matsuoka

1. Ecosophy: A more Comprehensive Ecology

IF we turn our eyes to “the self,” not “human beings” in a metaphysical sense, but as a more pragmatic existence, we can see that our
natural environment plus our social and cultural environments impact us
in complex ways, and the influences of not only the current generation,
but also our past and future generations psychologically shape ouridentity. When we discuss ecological issues, the scale of relationshipsthat this idea encompasses becomes infinite, and just focusing on theproblematic relations between human beings and nature among all theother countless relationships in our reality removes us from thefundamental solution. In other words, a more comprehensive approachto ecology is required.
Thus far, perhaps the ideas of the French psychoanalyst and poststructuralist Felix Guattari (1930–1992) are closest in conceiving aframework for a more comprehensive ecology. He suggests that it isself-deceiving to view our actions as having three separate componentsof mind, society and the environment. The only way to solve the current
ecological imbalance brought about by scientific technology is to adopt“ecosophy,” which is a way of viewing the world as a combination of
the three areas of environment, social relations and human subjectivity
articulated ethico-politically. Ecosophy is an integration and sublimationof three ecologies: environmental ecology, social ecology and mentalecology.
Guattari’s emphasis in ecosophy seems to be practical creativity,
rather than theoretical comprehensiveness. Ecology is a practicaldiscipline. To take a practical approach by ascertaining the countless
relationships that cross paths, and to reconstruct the whole requires
nothing other than human creativity. I consider that Guattari’s point is torevive uniform human subjectivity in current global capitalism towardspecialization (singularité). Ecosophy by its original definition is an
ecological philosophy, but the true nature behind this concept may be42

ecosophy and buddhist wisdom43

his wish for humanity to develop creative ecological wisdom.
Let us also recall, Arne Naess (1912–2009), the Norwegian philosopher who proposed the concept of ecosophy earlier than Guattari. Naess,known as the progenitor of Deep Ecology, arrived at ecosophy as aresult of deeply analyzing human existence through relational thinking.
Naess postulates: if the term “ecophilosophy” is used to describe thestudy of issues that are relevant to both ecology and philosophy, then“ecosophy” is the philosophy that needs to be used to tackle theproblems that we individually face. This ecosophy can be explained as
the study of the intellectual output of a subject that creates ecologicalrelationships, and this understanding of ecosophy as the study ofpractical wisdom of an individual sets up the framework for a larger
concept of wisdom that captures the aspects of natural science from anecosystem viewpoint, to the aspects of political action from asociological viewpoint, and even includes the aspects of the internal
revolution of consciousness that occurs from a psychological viewpoint.
Naess’s ecosophy aims to be a comprehensive ecology which also
involves components of mind, society and the environment by focusing
on the creative ecological wisdom of human beings.

2. The Limitations of Ecosophy
As explained above, the comprehensive ecology proposed by ecosophy
places great importance on the development of humanity’s creative
ecological wisdom.
However, ecosophy is not without its limitations. First of all, most
ecosophists tend to neglect the ecological advances made by scientifictechnology. Without the dualistic worldview that separates people andnature or the mechanical approach of viewing nature, we would not evenrecognize the ecological crisis at hand. Secondly, if each individual has
their own creative ecosophy, is there not a need to have some type ofuniversal environmental ethic? Acquiring a creative long-term ecological intuition deeply rooted in one’s personality is not an easy task.
Thirdly, Guattari’s unilateral condemnation of the psychological homogenization brought about by capitalism and the mass media may beregarded as a type of bias. It is because of mass media that humankind
can widely share knowledge, and maintain a sense of togetherness as asociety.
To summarize, the most fundamental flaw of ecosophy’s environmental philosophy lies in its exclusivity. Ecosophy currently appears to
be a philosophy that excludes modern rationality and humanism.

44

ecosophy and buddhist wisdom

3. Buddhism—a Non-positional Ecosophy
I believe the next step in the discussion of ecosophy is the conceptualization of a philosophy of creative ecological wisdom that is far removed
from any kind of positionality. Therefore, as one possible model, I
would like to introduce a philosophy that is representative of the nonWestern camp: Buddhism.
Besides the concepts of dependent origination and non-self (Skt.
anåtman), there are yet many Buddhist traditions that deserve attention
in their possible contribution to the discussion on ecology. One is theemphasis that Buddhism places on the practice of “wisdom” (Skt.
prajñå). Wisdom in Buddhism is defined as the spiritual power todiscern the truth of all phenomena. The goal of Buddhism is none otherthan to complete this power of wisdom to awaken to the state ofBuddhahood. The features of the completed wisdom of a Buddha are
fully congruent with the qualities of creative ecological wisdom.
Shakyamuni awakened to the truth that all things in the world areinterconnected, and this wisdom allowed him to transcend his personal
suffering, to find happiness together with others, and come to know thejoy of achieving harmony with nature. With this realization came themental ecology of revitalizing oneself through recognizing secularillusions and freeing oneself from the attachments of a false-self, thesocial ecology of recreating healthy ties with others by overcoming theanimosity and sadness that floods society through the power ofcompassion, and the environmental ecology of sharply perceiving theindivisibility of oneself and nature. Shakyamuni taught that we shouldseek an ecological balance in all areas where we have subjective
encounters. Perhaps the wisdom of Shakyamuni’s realization was acreative ecological wisdom toward a more comprehensive ecology.
The characteristic of non-positionality will become clearer if we
examine Buddhist ecology from the perspective of wisdom. Early Buddhist texts define a person of wisdom as one who distances themselvesfrom secular views of “only this is true,” distances themselves fromargument, and frees themselves from all attachment1. Of course, Buddhism inherently possesses a religious position. However, nonpositionality is the position of Buddhism.2 Early Buddhism avoided
arguing with others of any doctrine from any particular stance, aspositionality leads to prejudice, and away from a correct understanding.
In the context of ecosophy, this means Shakyamuni’s Buddhism is a
non-positional “philosophication” of creative ecological wisdom.

ecosophy and buddhist wisdom

45

4. Buddhism’s Rejection of Secularism
Rereading through early Buddhist texts in search of a non-positional
ecosophy will surely advance us on the path to an expansive ecologythat encompasses all fields. However, Buddhism’s view that our salvation is achieved through disengagement from secular society is a serious
obstacle on this path.
Early Buddhist teachings generally direct disciples to carry out theirpractice toward liberation in remote mountainous areas, as Shakyamuni
disliked secular life and all the enticing distractions that abound in it.
Liberation is a condition where one is free from all attachments of themind and body, and in the completion phase, one enters a state ofnirvana of no remainder to rid themselves of their body in order todetach themselves from the source of delusion. The teaching that life
infinitely cycles through birth and death is an ancient Indian tradition
that was incorporated into Buddhism, and the ultimate objective of thepractice was to detach oneself from the entity that continues to cycle. At
present, there are probably a number of researchers who deny thepremise of a Buddhist environmental ethic because of Buddhism’srejection of secularism. In addition, there may be those that criticize
Buddhist practice as self-directed salvation that will actually hinder theattempt to connect on an ecological level.3
Is rejection of secularism a fundamental basis in Buddhist thought?
Does Shakyamuni, a virulent proponent of non-positionality, whopointed out the absurdity of clinging to any particular notion, believethat only the state of liberation from the secular is the ultimate truth?
This does not seem consistent. Considering the non-positionality of theMiddle Way, the real intent of the Buddha probably lies between
secularism and anti-secularism. When we reexamine early Buddhist
texts with this in mind, we see Shakyamuni on the one hand recommending his followers to distance themselves from the sources of confusion
to reach the shores of enlightenment, but on the other hand, states, “Hefor whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he
who is free of cares and is unfettered—him do I call a holy man.”4 Bysaying this, he points us to a non-positional state. This is Shakyamuni’strue intent—to achieve complete non-positionality, to free ourselvesfrom all attachments, which is Buddhism’s practice of an ideal.

5. Ecosophy from the Perspective of Japanese Buddhism
Only when Buddhism becomes free of anti-secularism, can its

46

ecosophy and buddhist wisdom

creative ecological wisdom be used to the full extent. In order toinvestigate the possibilities of the ecological wisdom of this-worldly
Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism becomes most significant, and even
within the many schools of Japanese Buddhism, I think the philosophyof Nichiren Buddhism deserves a more thorough consideration.
Nichiren was a priest of thirteenth century Japan. The mainstay in hisapproach to sociological thought lies in the principle of “establishing
the correct teaching for the peace of the land” (Jpn. rissho ankoku). In
the history of Buddhism, there are no other schools that compare to
Nichiren Buddhism in the way that directly ties personal practice tosocial change.
Nichiren’s ecology can be distinguished by the following three characteristics.
Firstly, Nichiren’s philosophy contains a cosmic humanism of theMiddle Way. All life, including humans, face the issue of birth anddeath, and even in physical nature, all things face creation anddestruction. Humans, living things and nature all have at their core, aprimordial truth. Nichiren named this truth Myoho-Renge-Kyo. He
sought human dignity on the basis that humans are capable of realizing
and then taking subjective action for this fundamental cosmic truth of
the Mystic Law (Jpn. myoho). Nichiren’s ecological position is neither
anthropocentrism nor ecocentrism. Nichiren places neither humans nornature, but the truth of the Middle Way, i.e., the Mystic Law, at thecenter. However, since the truth of the Middle Way can only findexpression through the actions of human beings, I would like to call this“humanism of the Middle Way.”
Secondly, Nichiren considered nature and humans to be partners
within a single entity. Nichren’s key concept that defines his approach tonature, is in the principle of the “non-duality of life and its environment”(Jpn. esho funi). This concept is one of the ten relationships, i.e. the ten
non-dualities, developed by Miao-lo Chan-jan who is a patriarch of theChinese T’ien-t’ai school of Buddhism, and essentially states that theobjective realm, or world of the environment, and the subjective self, orlife, are separate aspects of the same entity. According to Buddhist
ontology, humans are nature and nature is humanity, and both mutually
support each other’s existence. Humans and nature are one entity, and at
the same time they are equal partners.
Thirdly, Nichiren Buddhism contains a perspective for creating theenvironment. Nichiren’s slogan for social practice, the principle ofestablishing the correct teaching for the peace of the land, incorporates aprocess of shaping the social and natural environments into an idealecosophy and buddhist wisdom

47

state through the salvation of humanity’s spirit. Nichiren’s thinking
contains a desire to reconstruct both nature and society. However, in hiswritings he states, “people are certainly self-empowered and yet they are
not self-empowered,” and “people are certainly other-empowered andyet they are not other-empowered,”5 indicating a Middle Way-stance
where reconstruction is carried out by self-empowered humans as wellas other-empowered nature itself.

6. Conclusion
In my humble opinion, the biggest problem that Buddhist ecology faces
is that it disparages the physical and material aspects of existencecompared to other systems of thought and religions. For Buddhists, ourphysical bodies and the matter around us were not endowed by aCreator, and we do not believe in the substance of a soul. All living
things and nature are essentially non-substantiality. Therefore, living
things are merely physical entities without a master, and nature issimply matter. Buddhists, generally view animals as soulless automatic
machines, and on this point, are eerily similar to Descartes, who was
one of the most active proponents of the mechanized worldview ofnature. What is worse, in contrast to Cartesians, Buddhists understandthe essence of the world as being relative, so they basically do not
objectify nature, and ignore it. A brilliant Buddhist philosopher may see
the entire universe inside a single flower, but may fail to truly observe
the flower itself. Buddhists may resonate with the mystical poetry ofWilliam Blake, but fail to hold interest in botany or zoology that helped
foster ecology.
This disparagement of the physical and the material in Buddhist
thinking brings apathy toward the environment. How will Buddhism
respond to this criticism? It is true that Buddhism stands on theproposition that everything is connected to everything else. Buddhism
teaches that not only the physical and the material but even mental
constructs do not have any real substance. To stay true to the belief thatthe reality of this world is completely relative, Buddhists endeavor in
ecological action in order to fulfill their role in the relational whole ofthings, but not because of the inherent sanctity in the things aroundthem. However, if Buddhism is able to expand on the stringent nonpositionality that Shakyamuni advocated, and apply it to even the denialof the positionality of non-substantiality, then a new aspect will emerge.
T’ien-t’ai Buddhism, although following in the footsteps of theMadhyamaka tradition, avoids attachment to even the principle of the48

ecosophy and buddhist wisdom

Middle Way and shows this understanding of its non-positional nature
through the unification of the three truths of non-substantiality,
temporary existence and the Middle Way. T’ien-t’ai advocates, “since[this cyclic world of] saµsåra is [indivisible with] nirvåna, there is no
extinguishing [of craving] to be realized” and “there is not a single coloror scent that is not the Middle Way,”6 thereby creating a basis for
sanctifying the secular and discovering the ultimate dignity of thephenomenal world. If this can be achieved, all living things housed inphysical bodies and even all non-living things will come to have inherent ultimate value individually and will not be lost in the conglomerate relational soup of reality. The reason why I chose Nichiren
Buddhism as an ideal ecosophy is partly because of its uniquecharacteristic of the practical development of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism.
Expanding on this, if we, as Buddhists, can somehow overcome the highphilosophic hurdle of disparaging the physical and the material, then
Buddhism will become a more comprehensive ecosophy with wide
applications for all humanity.
NOTES
Sutta-nipåta, verse 895–7.
The Japanese Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura described the non-positionality of
the Buddha in the following way: “according to early Buddhism, the Buddha neverdirectly states, ‘This teaching is the truth,’ or attacks his opponents saying, ‘what you
preach is false.’ He does not clash with other beliefs. This is because the Buddha does
not have a particular position to argue from. Gautama found the absolute significance ofpeace and tranquility of not arguing with others over metaphysical differences. In
summary, his position was of non-positionality.”—translated from Japanese. Nakamura,
H. Gouri Shugi—Higashi to Nishi no Rojikku—[Rationalism—Eastern and WesternLogic—] (Seidosha, 2005) p. 93.
3
Habito, R. “Bukkyo wa Kankyou Shisou Tariuruka [Does Buddhism Have an
Environmental Philosophy?],” Mitsuya, D. (ed.) Kyousei Suru Sekai—Bukkyo To
Kankyou [A Symbiotic World—Buddhism and the Environment] (Hozokan, 2007),
p. 164.
4
Dhammapada,verse 385.
5“The Meaning of the Sacred Teachings of the Buddha’s Lifetime,” The Writings ofNichiren Daishonin volume II (Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2006) p. 62.
6
The Great Cessation-and-Contemplation 摩訶止観 (Mo-ho chih-kuan). Swanson, P.
L., trans. (Kosei Publishing Company, 2004) pp. 8–9.
12