Feature: Buddhist Environmentalism
From the Joint Symposium at the University of Southern
California
From the Buddhist perspective, how we should perceive and cope withthe vexed problem of environmental deterioration?
On September 6, 2013, the Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP)
and the then Center for Japanese Religions and Culture of the
University of Southern California (USC) co-organized a symposium
on“Buddhist Environmentalism,” which was held at USC in Los Angeles.
Following an address by Dr. Duncan Williams, Co-Director of the
USC Center for Japanese Religions and Culture, representative
speakers from both Japan and the United States delivered speeches.
Included in this section are the seven lectures among the speeches
presented at the symposium.

The symposium was held at East Asian Seminar Room, Doheny Memorial
Library, USC. Experts in Buddhist approaches to the environment from the US
and Japan attended, as well as audience of around 30 students and otherconcerned individuals.

31

Buddhist Wisdom and Ecological Awareness:
Exploring Horizons of Praxis
Ruben L.F. Habito

I

N considering what Buddhism may have to offer to our contemporary
global society facing a severe ecological crisis, a question thatnaturally comes up is this: “Which Buddhism?” In other words, as we
look over its 2,500 year history and take a panoramic view of thisspiritual/religious tradition, or perhaps better, family of traditions, we
see different forms of Buddhism, in their various doctrinal positions,ritual observances, prescriptions for religious practice, ethical guidelines, and so on.
The above question brings up this underlying point: as Buddhists
consider what they can contribute specifically “as Buddhists” withregard to issues facing the global family, there needs to be a particularity
as to which Buddhist tradition is being referred to, so as to avoid blandstatements about Buddhism “in general,” and thereby render the conversations ineffectual. In this regard, theologian Hans Küng has put forth a
helpful framework for mapping out the different constellations of belief
and practice within a single religious tradition, employing the notion of‘paradigm shift.’ Scholars of Buddhism could perhaps fine-tune thedetails or offer alternative configurations, but Küng differentiates six
paradigmatic shifts in Buddhism. These are 1) the early Buddhist paradigm of Gautama and his followers, 2) the Theravåda paradigm of theestablished monastic communities, 3) the Mahåyåna paradigm thatbranched off into the meditative (Chan/Zen), devotional (Pure Land),and action-oriented (Lotus) forms of Buddhist practice, 4) the Tantricparadigm of the Vajrayåna, 5) the ethically-oriented and sociallyengaged paradigm of the twentieth century, and 6) post-modern Buddhist paradigms emerging out of the tension with values and worldviews of Euro-American modernity. (Küng 2003)

Factors Against Ecological AwarenessTaking early Buddhist texts, we can ask the question: are the doctrinalcontents and prescriptions for religious practice found in the Pali
32

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness33

scriptural accounts supportive of an ecologically viable world view and
way of life? From a cursory look at the textual and historical sources, afacile answer would be, “It seems not.”The focus of Buddhism as it arose and developed in India, andsubsequently transmitted to Sri Lanka and other Asian countries, is in
the liberation of the human being from the inherent dissatisfactorinessof this earthly existence. Various expositions of views of reality andprescriptions for religious practice found in Pali texts emphasize thismessage centered on pursuing a path of spiritual discipline, following
the teachings of the Buddha, toward the attainment of nirvana. It was
thus not a message conducive to, much less espousing ecological awareness or action as such.
Sentient beings caught in the cycle of birth and death, understood as
the six realms of living beings in the Hindu world-view, namely helldwellers, hungry ghosts, fighting spirits, animals, humans, and heavenly
beings, were considered as the subject of liberation. In this context, thenatural world, namely, trees, mountains, rocks and rivers, was considered as the “container,” the “environment” that held sentient beings within
the cycle of birth and death. Such a distinction left “the environment”
outside the sphere of concern that sought liberation for those sentient
beings located within that container.
The views of time and history that found their way into Buddhist
texts, inherited from Hindu tradition, presented a cyclic view of arising,preservation, and destruction of the physical world, occurring overimmeasurably long spans of time. With such a worldview, the destruction of life on earth is seen as a part of the inherent nature of theuniversal process that one simply needs to acknowledge and be resigned
to, and as such would not thereby be a matter of concern.
In Mahåyåna Buddhism, Prajñåpåramitå or Wisdom literature
centered on the notion of ßËnyatå, often translated as “Emptiness,” has a
twofold fork. Properly understood as a doctrine that expounds on theinterconnectedness of everything in the universe, it also lends to areading that would regard this earthly realm and everything associatedwith it as “a dream, a phantom, a bubble” (Diamond Sutra). Such a viewof the illusory nature of phenomenal existence would not support anactive concern with what goes on in this earthly realm.
Another Mahåyåna development, Pure Land Buddhism, which foundwidespread reception in East Asia (Korea, China and Japan), conveys adoctrine centered on rebirth in the Land of Bliss (Pure Land) of the
Buddha Amitabha, and prescribes a form of religious practice (chanting
the sacred name of the Buddha Amida, or Nembutsu) aimed at

34

buddhist wisdom and ecological awarenessotherworldly rebirth and attainment of liberation from the woes of thisearthly realm. Such a message would not find room for a concern withwhat happens to this earth other than to escape from it as soon as
possible. In fairness, there are however interpretations of Pure Land,notably those based on the teachings of Shinran (1172–1262) that would
deemphasize its otherworldly aspect, and direct the devotee’s concern toAmida’s compassion in this world, in an interpretive move that would
putatively ground ecological awareness and engagement. (See Dake
2010, Barnhill 2010)
Across the different Buddhist traditions, or paradigms, to use Küng’s
language above, with their different prescriptions for spiritual practice, apreoccupation with the individual’s realization of what is regarded as theultimate goal, whether it be “liberation from suffering,” or “enlightenment,” or “nirvana,” or “rebirth in the Pure Land,” tends to overshadow
any concern with “the environment.” There are many other features that
could be pointed out along the same vein, leading to an impression thatthe track record shown by the Buddhist family of traditions vis-à-vis
ecological awareness leaves much to be desired.

Features Favorable to Ecological Awareness and Engagement
In surveying the course of Buddhist developments through the centuries
and across different geographical regions, there is good news: we may
also find elements conducive to ecological awareness, which can be thebasis for Buddhist contributions to our contemporary ecologicalsituation. Let us cite some of these elements, already pointed out byother scholars and practitioners.
Lambert Schmithausen, for example, has noted that plants wereregarded with some degree of sentience in earlier stages of Buddhism,
though texts from later stages show express denials of this sentience.
(Schmithausen 1991) This view of a quasi-sentience of plants has
influenced positive and ecologically-sound attitudes and behavior vis-àvis the natural world. The strategy taken by socially-engaged Theravåda
monks in Thailand, of conducting ordination ceremonies for endangered
trees in order to protect them from destruction, is a noted example.
The central Mahåyåna notion of ßËnyatå, often translated as“Emptiness,” rather than being a message of nihilism and of a worlddenying stance, is in fact another way of affirming the Buddhist insight
into intricate interrelatedness and interconnectedness of everything in
the universe. This is a recurrent theme in many works expounding on
this notion. Among others, Vietnamese Buddhist Master Thich Nhat

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness

35

Hanh stands out as one who has highlighted this insight for ourcontemporaries, and has coined the word Interbeing to convey thismessage.
A Mahåyåna scriptural text, the Avatamsaka Sutra, presents a visionof reality centered on this interconnectedness of all beings. Transmitted
and further elaborated upon in China through the Hua Yen School, thisvision grounds a sense of harmony and oneness with nature. This viewof reality as an interconnected web can inspire and ground a Buddhist
vision of an ecologically sound way of being for the Earth communitythat is in consonance with contemporary philosophical and scientificperspectives. (Macy 1991)
An affirmative stance is found in the Lotus Sutra’s teaching that thisEarthly realm (sahå-world), in the midst of all its woes and travails, isthe very locus and field of the Buddha Shakyamuni’s continuing compassionate action. This is a religious perspective that grounds concern andactive engagement with worldly realities. This theme, coupled with thesutra’s emphasis on the notion of the bodhisattva as the ideal Buddhist
follower, encourages action toward the alleviation of suffering of fellow
beings on this earth. This stance undergirds a sensitivity to the pain andsuffering of our fellow sentient beings caught in the mire of ecologicaldestruction, and can inspire an ecologically engaged way of life as well
as strategic action.
There are many other features that can be culled from the various
Buddhist paradigms throughout the ages to support ecologicalawareness and inspire an ecological way of life and strategies for action.
A good number of the essays in Buddhism and Ecology (Tucker andWilliams 1997) offer reflections along these lines, and also present
excellent examples of Buddhist constructive reflection. Also in thisregard, colleagues Stephanie Kaza and Kenneth Kraft have given us avaluable resource with their collection entitled Dharma Rain (Kaza andKraft 2000), as well as Richard Payne in his How Much Is Enough?
Buddhism, Consumerism, and the Human Environment. (Payne 2010)
As adherents and practitioners of the different paradigmatic models of
Buddhism come to an acute awareness of the global ecological crisis,
they are challenged to look into their respective traditions, and search
for resources to answer the question: what does their form of Buddhist
praxis have to do with an ecological awareness? Communities of
Buddhist adherents and practitioners face this task of articulating forthemselves and embodying a Buddhist vision and praxis that would
make sense to and serve as an inspiration and guide for coming to termswith the global ecological situation.		

36

buddhist wisdom and ecological awarenessStarting from Global Dukkha
An awareness of the problematic of the global ecological situation canbe heightened and brought to a level of urgency as one is exposed to thesuffering and pain of those whose lives are adversely affected byecological destruction. It could be through a visit to an indigenous
community, or a rural dweller’s family in any part of the globe, as one
witnesses how their abode, their livelihood, their culture, their very
existence come under threat from forces that fall under what is called“globalization.” It could be as one, or someone in one’s immediate circleof family or friends, contracts an illness—cancer, a respiratory malfunction, a genetic malformation, and one is able to trace the direct orindirect causes to exposure to toxic material in the environment. Or it
could be through a realization that the song of the frogs that one used toenjoy in one’s childhood will be heard no more as the living conditions
for these and many other species deteriorate or are destroyed. Or it
could be through an open minded and open hearted reading of various
materials available to anyone, such as a recent work of Harvard biologist
E.O. Wilson, entitled The Future of Life (Wilson 2002), or the annual
reports of the World Watch Institute, and so on, which in a lucid moment
could dawn on an individual not as a problem “out there” but as an issue
impinging upon one’s very own life. dukkha
As the pain of sentient beings under such conditions comes home tous as our very own, the question wells up: “why is this happening?”
Asking this question in earnest and pursuing it with a sense of urgency
challenges one’s accustomed way of life. This plunges one into a questthat is analogous to the one embarked upon by Siddhartha Gautama as
he became aware of the dukkha (dissatisfactoriness) of our phenomenal
existence.
This existential experience of dukkha on the ecological level is thus
the dynamic ground for a Buddhist ecological theology. Here I would
like merely to suggest a framework whereby such a task can be pursued.
This task is a communal endeavor for those of us who have come share
this experience and this awareness.
The framework I consider is the one offered by the Buddha himself,
as he expounded on the nature of his awakening experience, as tradition
goes, to his first followers, in a discourse entitled “Turning of the Wheelof Dharma.” In this discourse he offers the therapeutic program of theFour Ennobling Truths.
To come to an acute awareness of the dukkha manifested in our
ecological malaise is to realize the First of the Ennobling Truths. To

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness37

inquire into the cause or causes of such dukkha paves the way for therealization of the Second. In this regard, the Buddhist insight into thethree poisons—greed, illwill, and delusion—as roots causes of themisery of human beings, can be brought to bear in sociological,
economic, political, in short, multidisciplinary analyses of the causes ofour global ecologic malaise. This task would call for no less than acooperative venture involving people with different areas of expertise.
We need to be aware that these kinds of analyses are already being
conducted by different groups and individuals in different parts of theworld. What might a Buddhist contribution be in this communal
endeavor? Briefly, perspectives that would draw upon the insights of the
Buddha on our human condition, and how these would bear light on ourcommunal, or corporate, mode of being, would be possible ways ofarticulating Buddhist contributions in this endeavor. (Loy 2003)
Articulating a vision of what corresponds to the Third Ennobling
Truth, namely, the state of well-being sought for all of us in this Earthcommunity, is one such way. How can we “imagine,” to echo a song byJohn Lennon, a world wherein all sentient beings can indeed live
together on this earth in harmony and as an interconnected family? Whatwould be the concrete features of such a “state of the world?” One may
tend to dismiss such musings as an exercise in Utopia, or as belonging
to the sphere of the poetic imagination, and nowhere else. Certainly notin the real world reeking with greed, illwill, and delusion on theindividual, communal, national, global dimensions of our being. But a
central Buddhist insight has continued to inspire seekers of an authentic
way of life for two and one-half millennia, namely, the affirmation that“there is an extinction of this dukkha.” This is an affirmation of hopethat can also inspire those us who live with this acute awareness of thisdukkha, that is, to envision the possibility of its extinction as a concretemode of being together on this Earth.
In this regard, it is not only Buddhists, but all people of good will, arecalled to articulate features of our communal dream of a sustainable andecologically viable Earth community. Dialogue and cooperation withpeople of different faith traditions, and even those who have eschewed
religion as a significant factor in human life, but yet seek ways ofauthentic living, are our allies and partners in this endeavor.
The Fourth Ennobling Truth, the eightfold path of awakening, may
serve then as a possible grid for action programs involving not justindividual, but also communitarian efforts, toward dismantling thestructures of greed, illwill, and delusion, found in our society on the
global, local, and individual levels. In this regard, the work of Asian38

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness

Buddhists such as Sulak Sivaraksa, A.T. Ariyaratne, and others, aresignificant landmarks us all. Mapping out concrete steps for atransformation in our values and ways of life, based on an understandingof the causes of our malaise, and grounded on a vision of an
ecologically sustainable global society, especially addressed to thoseliving in the consumeristic societies of the industrialized world of North
America, Europe, and Japan, remains an ongoing task. (See Kaza 2004,
Payne 2010) This is a task and a challenge in which Buddhists ofdifferent traditions in the Western hemisphere are called to participate,in a way that draws from the resources of their respective traditions.
It is the shared experience of the dukkha of our global ecologicalmalaise that serves as the impetus, and the therapeutic program
presented by the Buddha that serves as a framework, for taking on thistask and this challenge.
In this light, the question comes back to us: what can those who findtheir belonging among the Buddhist family of traditions offer as a way
forward?
The call for specificity in describing particular Buddhist standpoints
is well taken. At the same time, a question posed by the late Professor
Nagatomi Masatoshi of Harvard University during a panel discussion on
Buddhist-Christian Dialogue in the early 1990’s, is also of reference forus here. Given the wide variety of “ways of being Buddhist” asmanifested in history and in the contemporary global scene, Prof.
Nagatomi asked: What makes Buddhism, “Buddhism”? In other words,
is there still something we can identify as a “family resemblance” ofsorts among the different varieties, that enable us to say, “yes, that is
Buddhist indeed”?
I have sought to offer a tentative response to this in a previous work,wherein I outlined the basic features of the Three Jewels (Buddha,Dharma, and Sangha) in their development from early Buddhist,Mahåyåna, and Vajrayåna scriptural accounts. In the same work I
describe the five major forms of what we know as “Buddhism” today(Theravåda, Tibetan/Vajrayåna, Pure Land, Chan/Zen, and Nichiren/
Lotus) which continue to thrive and win adherents in our contemporarysociety, which in their own ways manifest that “family resemblance.”(Habito 2005) In rough summary, it can be argued that what makes
Buddhism “Buddhism,” in the variety of forms it has taken throughout
history, is a praxis that opens us to a Wisdom that sees “things as they
really are,” that is, the reality of the intricate interconnectedness of allthings in this universe, which thus unfolds into a life of Compassion
toward all beings.

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness39

In the remainder of this paper, I will consider forms of Buddhist
praxis toward the cultivation of this Wisdom, and which grounds an
ecological awareness leading to concrete engagement in this area.

Horizons of Buddhist Praxis: Outlines
In this concluding segment outlining some horizons of Buddhist praxis
that may be up to the task in addressing our ecological malaise, I wouldemphasize that these are bare outlines, inviting further reflection anddevelopment within the various communities of practice.
The most widely known forms of Buddhism are those that involve
meditative practice, whether it be Insight (Vipassana), Chan/Zen, orsome form of Tibetan Buddhist meditation. A common impression of
Buddhist meditative practice among those unfamiliar with it is that it isan ego-centered kind of “navel-gazing,” which would tend to isolate apractitioner from the real world. There are countless volumes one canturn to for accounts of Buddhist meditative practice that would
immediately dispel this kind of impression, and confirm that meditationneed not be a solipsistic form practice that turns an individual’s concern
away from the world. Rather, with proper guidance it can enable anindividual to go deep into one’s awareness and precisely discover one’s
intimate interconnectedness with everything in the universe.
There are various ways of articulating this intimate interconnectedness with all beings, and here I will offer only one among many. Zen
Master DØgen of thirteenth century Japan, who is looked to for guidancein Zen practice by many in our own time, offers a glimpse of this worldof interconnectedness, in a passage from his Eye Treasury of True
Dharma (ShØbØgenzØ): “I came to realize clearly that Mind is no otherthan mountains and rivers, the great wide earth, the sun, the moon, thestars.” I have offered some perspectives on this passage of DØgen in aprevious work (Habito 1997), and here simply would like to note thatthe fruition of meditative practice can lead to an experiential realizationof an intimate oneness with “the mountains and rivers, the great wide
earth…” Such a realization can ground a vision and be a source ofempowerment for an active engagement in healing the wounds of Earth,in realizing the pain of the mountains being denuded of their forests, therivers being polluted, the Great Wide Earth writhing in pain at theecological devastation it is undergoing on many fronts. (See also Habito
2006)
The practice of reciting the name of the Buddha Amida (Nembutsu),
seen on one hand as a path of rebirth in the Pure Land after death in this40

buddhist wisdom and ecological awarenessearthly life, may also be seen in a new perspective, in taking “PureLand” not as an otherworldly realm, but rather as a “symbolic
representation of what the world could be” as poet Gary Snyder
suggests, (Barnhill 2010) or as a symbol of “interconnectivity indiversity” (Dake 2010). In this light, reciting the name of Amida, rather
than being seen as a mode of escape from this earthly realm, can be asource of empowerment for engagement in action that would bringabout that vision of “what the world could be” and for actualizing this“interconnectivity in diversity.”
The practice of Buddhists who follow the teachings of the Lotus
Sutra, as inspired by the life and thought of Nichiren (1222–1282), iscentered on the recitation of the August Title of the Lotus Sutra. In
reciting this august title (Nam-MyØhØrengekyØ), as Nichiren expounds
in his writings, a practitioner is opened to an experiential vision of the“Three Thousand Worlds in a Single Thought Moment,” (Ichinensanzen) that is, a realization of the intimate interconnectedness ofeverything in the universe right at this very moment, in this very body.
Such an experiential realization, if connected with the understanding
and appreciation of the realities of global dukkha, can thereby possibly
ground an ecological awareness and a life of commitment to ecologicalhealing.
I have given a brief and very cursory outline of how some of the main
forms of Buddhist praxis can be seen as ways of the cultivating thewisdom of interconnectedness with all beings, leading to a vision that
fosters a vibrant ecological awareness. Buddhist communities
committed to one or other of the forms of praxis outlined above arecalled to give fuller articulation of the ecological dimensions of theirpraxis, laying out the implications in concrete detail, and boldly bringthese forth in ways that can make a difference in our contemporary
global society, toward healing our wounded Earth.
REFERENCES
Barnhill, David Landiss. 2010. “Gary Snyder’s Ecosocial Buddhism,” in Richard Payne,ed., How Much is Enough? Buddhism, Consumerism and the Environment. Boston:Wisdom Publication, pp. 83–120.
Dake Mitsuya. 2010. “Pure Land Buddhism and Its Perspective on the Environment,” inRichard Payne, ed., How Much is Enough? Buddhism, Consumerism and theEnvironment. Boston: Wisdom Publication, pp. 63–82.
Habito, Ruben L.F. 2005. Experiencing Buddhism: Ways of Wisdom and Compassion.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Habito, Ruben L.F., 2006. Healing Breath: Zen for Christians and Buddhists in a
Wounded World. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

buddhist wisdom and ecological awareness41

Habito, Ruben L.F., 1997. “Mountains, Rivers, The Great Wide Earth: Zen Buddhism
and Ecology,” in Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan RyËken Williams, eds.,
Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, pp. 165–176.
Harris, Ian. 2001. “Attitudes to Nature,” in Peter Harvey, ed., Buddhism. London:
Continuum, pp. 235–256.
Jackson, Roger R. and John Makransky. 2000. Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections
by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. Surrey, GB: Curzon Press.
Kaza, Stephanie, 2004. Hooked:Buddhist Writings on Greed, Desire, and the Urge toConsume. Boston: Shambala, 2005.
Kaza, Stephanie, and Kenneth Kraft. 2000. Dharma Rain: Sources for Buddhist
Environmentalism. Boston: Shambala.
Küng, Hans. 2003. “To Turn Further the Wheel of Dharma: Paradigm Changes in
Buddhism and Christianity,” in David Chappell, ed., Socially Engaged Spirituality.
Essays in Honor of Sulak Sivaraksa on his 70th Birthday. Bangkok: SanthirakosesNagapradipa Foundation.
Loy, David. 2003. The Great Awakening: Toward a Buddhist Social Theory. Boston:Wisdom Publications.
Macy, Joanna. 1991. World as Lover, World as Self. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Payne, Richard. 2010. How Much is Enough? Buddhism, Consumerism, and the Human
Environment. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Schmithausen, Lambert, 1991. The Problem of Sentience in Plants in Earliest Buddhism.
Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and Duncan Williams, eds. 1997. Buddhism and Ecology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E.O. 2002. The Future of Life. New York: Alfred Knopf &. Co.