Buddhism and Christianity as Partners for Overcoming Ecocrisis
Hyun Min Choi
Introduction
In every dimension the environmental crisis is one of the burning topics of modern society. Interest in environmental problems is spreading very quickly, from philosophy to natural science, because it is relevant to most fields of study. However it is not easy to find a solution to so complex a problem. Conflicts among persons who have different values are a major block to deriving amicable solutions. For example, people who seek economic development and people who want to preserve the environment are motivated by conflicting values; the former by human‐centered values and the latter by eco‐centered values. People who aim for economic development hold that environmentalists have impeded economic development. Environmentalists assert that the value of nature, as the only resource for economic development, has been degraded and that the value of economic development has suppressed the other values in modern society. As a result, they say that the balance of the ecosystem has been broken, creating many environmental problems.
In the struggle between environmental conservation and economic development, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ has emerged. The expression ‘sustainable development’ was first used in the United Nations Conference on Human Environment. This Conference was, held in Stockholm, Sweden, during June 5‐16, 1972, and was the first international gathering to look at the environment as affected by human activity.
In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and improve environment for the benefit of their population.
Sustainable development is said to require the integration of environmental conservation and economic development. Sustainable development is far more difficult to put into practice than it is to express theoretically. Most countries are expected to build our common future based on the idea, but sustainable development is difficult to achieve. It is a concept that is easy to describe on a global scale but far more difficult to implement at a local level. Sustainability is a complex concept. In practice, if it is to have a reality, it must seek that elusive ground between output and process, between the social and the environmental, and between the political and the principled.
In order to practice sustainable development, we need to reflect on the fundamental dimension. In other words, what is needed is transformation of perspective or attitude about nature; change in value is impossible without transformation of perception. Hermann Dembowski (1928‐ ) defines an ecological crisis as a crisis of perception about nature. And J. Baird Callicott shows that we cannot make sense of or begin to resolve the ecological crisis without transforming our thinking about what it means to be human. In order to resolve problems of eco‐crisis, we need to change our perception about nature and humans and reflect deeply on our understanding of the fundamental dimension of nature and humans. The destruction of the environment indicates not only a distorted perception of nature but also a distorted perception of all our relationships. Regarding the inter‐connectedness of all beings, we have distorted not only the relationship between humans and nature, but also the relationship among human beings themselves, and between human beings and God. In this respect, the ecological crises call for a comprehensive reflection about all relationships. We will analyze the relationship between humans and nature initially through a consideration of our traditional view of nature.
1. Understanding of nature in terms of Anthropocentrism
1) Judeo‐Christian tradition as the root cause of ecological crisis
Usually we think that nature is an object, a thing as in the view of dualism. This viewpoint connotes the idea that human beings, as the subject, can exploit nature for their own benefit. This perception is based on the thought that nature is only an object for the purpose of furthering human welfare. In this human‐centered view, nature is an instrument that humans control, and preservation of nature is only a value if such preservation furthers human welfare.
Lynn White (1907‐1987) in his paper titled “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", asserts that the historical origin of eco‐crisis is deeply related to the natural view that is based on anthropocentrism in Judeo‐Christian tradition. L. White holds that the monotheism of Judeo‐Christian religions desacralized nature. According to him, “by destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feeling of natural objects… The spirit in natural objects, which formerly was protected from man, evaporated. Man’s effective monopoly on spirit in the world was confirmed, and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled”.
The authors who support the thesis of L. White, especially R. F. Nash, concur with him in tracing the roots of our environmental crisis from the dominion passage of Genesis 1: 26‐28. Nash argues that the Hebrew verbs ‘radah’ and ‘kabash’ connote exerting absolute dominion and as such give the image of a conqueror subjecting his enemy nature to enslavement. This understanding of the Hebrew term influenced the Christians to interpret the dominion passage as a command to conquer and exploit nature because it was given to them solely to serve their needs. That is, the Judeo‐Christian tradition has emphasized the extreme principle that nature has no purpose except to benefit humans. People used the Scripture to justify the exploitation of nature.
According to many historians and biblical scholars, White’s claim that the exploitative attitude towards nature is rooted in Genesis 1:26‐28 has been rendered a misinterpretation of Genesis. J.A. Nash holds that White has misinterpreted both the image of God and dominion concepts of Genesis. Nash interprets the concepts (image and dominion) within the context of other Hebrew [note: Since Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate document in 1965, the Church prefers the term Hebrew Testament to Old Testament.] Testament passages and concludes that the interpretation is not despotic. According to Robert H. Ayers, when Genesis 1 is interpreted within the context of Genesis 2, the Hebrew Testament renders dominion a call to stewardship. C. J. Glacken's views are the same. He holds that human beings are stewards of God's creation and not its plunderers. David A. S. Fergusson interprets dominion in terms of stewardship as well. He argues that the term dominion emphasizes the relational rather than the substantive sense of the Imago Dei.
The discussion of all the statements of L. White leads us to conclude that his Judeo –Christian position is based on imbalanced historical data. John Passmore, who criticized L.White’s assertion, hypothesizes the Greco‐ Christian tradition is the root of the ecological crisis.
2) Greco‐Christian tradition as the root of ecological crisis
Passmore agrees with White that in as far as the interpretation of the Hebrew Testament is concerned, nature is not sacred. But he asserts that Greek philosophy and Christianity are responsible for the environmental crisis. J. Barid Callicott also says that it is Greek philosophy not Jewish biblical religion that encouraged despotism.
Newton and other seventeenth century scientists may have been inspired by belief in a transcendent creative deity and the imago Dei to try to ‘think God’s thoughts after him,’ but the details of the creator’s thoughts were inspired by Pythagoras and Democritus, not Moses and Paul. In my opinion, the culpable conceptual roots of our ecological crisis are traceable to the intellectual legacy of Greek Natural Philosophy―which may have insidiously influenced the environmentally controversial parts of Genesis…
E. C. Hargrove also supports Passmore’s Greco‐Christian explanation. He asserts that Western religion borrowed many ideas from Western philosophy and was itself victimized by it. The Greek philosophers (especially Plato, Aristotle and Neo‐Platonist Plotinus) had no interest in objects of nature. They viewed nature as evil, irrational, impermanent, and perishable and in a constant state of change. Their interest was in objects of knowledge or reason, which are held to be permanent, eternal and unchanging. The only value non‐human creation has is its instrumental value. It is no wonder therefore that Greek philosophy with such a utilitarian perspective towards nature influenced the Western world to have an exploitative attitude toward nature.
Greek philosophy with the dichotomy between nature and the human being, reached an extreme position in the thought of Descartes. Descartes claimed that nature is purely material without mental traits, in the dichotomy between 'res cogitu' and 'res extensa’. Descartes holds that nature exists as a resource for humankind and that there are no moral obligations restraining humankind’s manipulation of nature. For Descartes, everything that exists without consciousness is a mere machine which humans can manipulate without scruples; to him, nature is like a machine, just doing repeated movements. The philosophical origin of modern science is based on the understanding of nature in the anthropocentric view and mechanical view. After all, human beings have damaged nature by using nature arbitrarily for their interests, resulting in the eco‐crisis that has threatened the life of humans themselves.
Christian religion borrowed many ideas from Greek philosophy to express its faith, but in the process was victimized by it. Evidence of Greek philosophy’s influence on Christian concepts is seen in the theology of redemption that encouraged humankind to look at nature as evil, temporal, and something from which to escape. The duty of the Christian was not to pay attention to the welfare of nature, but to mind the salvation of his/her soul. Such a theology could not encourage protective attitudes towards nature.
Actually, dualism existed when Gnosticism was flourishing in Christian tradition. The Gnostics proposed a dualism between soul and body that the soul is good but the flesh is evil. They considered the soul to be important, while material was insignificant. Christianity rejected Gnosticism as a heresy through emphasizing Jesus' divinity and humanity. However, the dualism of this movement reappeared in Christian history. The Albigen (Catarian) thought that flourished near the Rhone River in the southwest of France in the 13th century, for example, was based on Monism. They asserted that the Creator of the world is not a good god, but an evil god, because this world and its substances themselves are evil. The Human person is a dualistic being, having soul and body in an evil world. Consequently, if humans want to go from this evil world to the good God, they must go through the ascetic way that denies body and purifies soul. They had a strong desire to escape this material world in order to go to heaven. Catarians looked down on physical life and were obsessed with the soul. Thus, they revived the Gnostic idea of dualism between soul and body.
We can also see dualism in the ideas of Augustine. According to him, soul and body are partners, but not equal ones: the body is not innately evil, but it is both secondary and ephemeral compared to the soul. We can see that his idea also included a hint of dualism between soul and body. In line with this dualistic and human‐centered view, the Western Christian had no interest in other creatures. Even if scientific developments were not the direct result of Christian thought, Christian ideology did not prevent scientific development from creating the ecological crisis. The attitude of Christians has been, at best, passive on the destruction of nature and the creation of the eco‐crisis. The understanding of human and nature in the anthropocentric view resulted in being degraded to an instrumental object.
3) Other factors as causes of the ecological crisis
We have considered L.White’s Judeo‐Christian tradition and Passmore’s Greco‐Christian tradition as the root cause of our ecological crisis. There are additional views that discuss the causes of the crisis. M. Northcott rejects a single primary root cause. He claims the cause is complex and composed of multifactorial forces. For him, the root of the crisis lies in a range of changes which he identifies as agricultural revolution, market‐economy and science and technological progress. Also P.R. Ehrlich proposes over‐population as the fundamental cause of the environmental crisis. He argues that the doubling of the human population in a short time has been one of the major factors behind the destruction of the environment. The impact of population growth on the environment is well understood when it is related to human consumption and the use of technology. Denis and Donella Meadows show that if world population and industrial production, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue to grow exponentially the global limits will be exceeded within a few decades. For J. De Tavernier, the economic cause is closely linked with the technological cause. He sees the development of technology as the most important factor that empowers economic growth to exert its destructive impact on the environment. Population explosion, technological–economic impact, patriarchal domination and capitalistic egoistic tendencies have contributed to the ecological crisis. In other words, it is impossible to establish a single force or root cause of our present ecological crisis. The environmental crisis has been indirectly linked to multiple causes.
To summarize, the core of the environmental crisis is based on the anthropocentric idea. That is, the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis is the subject‐object dualism in perceiving humanity and nature. Therefore we need to change the fundamental view of the relationship between humanity and nature. The holistic view emerges from this reflection.
2. Understanding nature in terms of eco‐centrism
1) The background of the eco‐centrist understanding of nature
Eco‐centrism constitutes a radical challenge from anthropocentric attitudes rooted deeply in Western culture. In the human‐centered view, nature has been considered to be an instrument for human benefit. That is, the only purpose behind the preservation of nature is to enhance human benefit. Eco‐centrists reject this instrumental view of nature and regard nature itself to have value, apart from its benefit to humanity. Aldo Leopold is an eco‐centrist who has recognized the apparently intrinsic value of nature. In his famous book “Land Ethic” Leopold urges us to transform our perception of nature using a new paradigm. He asserts: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”. He also describes it in this way: "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land... [A] Land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land‐community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow‐members, and also respect for the community as such”. His theory of ‘land ethic’ did not receive social acceptance initially, because it was too radical. But after one generation, he is considered the founding father of the eco‐centric approach. Aldo Leopold’s statement which we mentioned provides an appropriate basis for an ethical system based on deep ecological principles. Leopold’s idea is considered ‘deep ecology’ in that it approaches Arne Naess’ eco‐philosophy. Clare Palmer describes Deep Ecology as follows:
Deep ecology was a term first used in print by the Norwegian philosopher Naess in 1973. Naess argued that the environmental movement had two key strands, which he called the “shallow” and the “deep”. The shallow movement, he maintained, was primarily concerned with human welfare and with issues such as the exhaustion of natural resources. In contrast, the deep environmental movement (with which Naess identified himself) was concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the ways in which humans relate to their environment.
Naess takes a holistic approach to ethical consideration of ecological wholes, rather than individuals. The holistic view considers everything as interconnected; if something is isolated, it self‐destructs. A key idea in the metaphysical insight of deep ecology is that there is interconnectedness between nature and humanity. According to J. Baird Callicott, an individualistic approach cannot concern itself only with the moral significance of environmental concerns and so could not form the basis for a proper Ethic. An environmental ethic, he maintains, would have to take a more holistic approach.
In the axiological insight, deep ecology’s key idea is that anything in nature has intrinsic value. This reflects the first of eight principles formulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984. The principle is as follows: The well‐being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. Callicott provides a view of the intrinsic value of non‐human beings.
…how to discover the intrinsic value in nature is the defining problem for environmental ethics. For if no intrinsic value can be attributed to nature, and then environmental ethics is nothing distinct. If nature, that is, lacks intrinsic value then environmental ethics is but a particular application of human‐to‐human ethics.
Two ultimate disciplines develop from Naess’ viewpoint. First is Self‐Realization. According to Naess, the goal at an individual level is to fully realize one’s identification with nature. This involves neither a sense of an independent self nor the loss of the self in the oneness of nature. Self‐realization is the full awareness of the self‐in‐Self. Individually, each person is not an autonomous individual but rather a self‐in‐Self, a distinct node in the web of nature. Through this capitalized Self, Naess emphasizes, in distinction to realization of the human beings’ narrow selves, we must accept the realization of our selves as part of an eco‐spherical whole. Realization of an Ecological Self is an awareness of one's Self in relationship to all other members of the land community, human and non‐human, including creatures both great and small, ecosystems, and natural processes. This "broad" or "deep" Self is achieved by direct and intuitive experience of natural places. The self‐realization is linked to eco‐centric egalitarianism as the second discipline. Eco‐centric egalitarianism is a viewpoint in which all creatures, ecosystems, and natural processes are accorded equal intrinsic value. Humans are fully a part of nature, and there is no ontological separation between our species and other species.
As we mentioned, deep ecology, utilizing a holistic viewpoint and recognizing nature’s intrinsic value, suggests a way to overcome anthropocentrism. But we also have some questions about deep ecology. What is the ethical implication of the two insights – the interrelation between nature and the human, and the intrinsic value of nature? Deep ecology has seen a decline in popularity due to the teleological question "what for?" This question arises out of the anthropocentric attitude that values beings only in so far as they are good for something ‐‐ in effect, well for our own purposes. But deep ecology emphasizes "letting things be" in order for them to flourish, not for our sake and not even for their own sake, but for no sake at all where questions of utility and justification no longer apply. "Letting things be" challenges that basic principle of our technological and consumerist society, but it also subverts our notion of ego‐self. This brings us back again to the first "ultimate norm" that Naess derives from the non‐duality between the human and nonhuman realms: Self‐realization, which includes learning to identify with the whole of the biosphere. But we have another question. Who is responsible for the current environmental destruction? According to Klaus Michael Meyer‐Abich, the concept of responsibility is used only by human beings. We cannot expect inter‐responsibility with every species of nature. He holds that the meaning of reciprocity is not a sense of responsibility; it is that something exists for the other thing. That is, in reciprocity we exist for them and they exist for us. With this perception, deep ecology overcomes anthropocentrism, but it also has limitations as an ecological ethic because it has not emphasized a sense of responsibility.
2) Limitations of eco‐centrism
Naess points out that to see ourselves as intimately connected with nature is "a difficult ridge to walk: To the left we have the ocean of organic and mystic views, to the right the abyss of atomic individualism.” At any level of realization of potentials, individual egos "do not dissolve like individual drops in the ocean" although "the individual is not, and will not be isolatable”. This confession of Naess shows important problems with deep ecology.
Deep ecology emphasizes a holistic viewpoint. This means that deep ecology transforms centralism to a decentralized idea. All of the centralisms‐‐anthropocentrism, Singer’s animal centrism, Taylor’s bio‐centrism‐‐have a center, even though the focus is different‐‐ human, living being, and ecosystem. Therefore, even though we expand the range of the subject having moral status up to all living beings, we cannot escape the conflict of values. All of them have a dualistic vision, that is, human beings and nature, animals that have sensual organs able to feel pain and non‐sentient beings, all living beings and non‐living beings. Deep ecology which aims for holism has the advantage for being able to overcome dualistic ideas. Nevertheless, when deep ecology accepts the ecosystem as the center, the problem of dualism emerges.
Eco‐centrists say that nature is a valued reality in its own right. Therefore if human beings do not interrupt nature, nature itself maintains sustainable balance. Here, nature refers to the ecological system that has not been affected by human beings. In this perspective, eco‐centrists consider naturalness a concept distinct from human beings. In other words, to preserve nature means to protect it from the control of human beings.
The question spontaneously rises: Is there anything of wilderness which has not been affected by human beings? Actually, naturalness has been heavily manipulated by human beings for hundreds and thousands of years. One prime example: there exists no unmediated representation of nature which has not been affected by climatic change caused by human activities. In this respect, humanity has affected every place of the earth's surface. In the relationship between all creatures including human beings and the world, nature has been transformed. This has been confirmed by modern scientific study and philosophical research. Nature is not permanent; rather it has been changed and continues to be transformed along with other creatures. If we claim that wilderness leaves no place for human beings, our claim embodies a dualistic vision in which all humanity is entirely outside nature. We thus reproduce a dualism that sets humanity and nature at opposite poles.
Eco‐centrists consider human beings as only a part of nature. According to eco‐centrism, a human being is only an individual entity which constructs within nature. This interpretation of the human being raises the problem: who is responsible for the preservation of nature? As such, this understanding of the human in eco‐centrism is related to the egalitarianism of deep ecology.
According to social ecologists, deep ecology fails to realize the nature‐social connection. Deep ecology fails to realize that our concept of and attitude toward nature reflect our social structures and attitudes. The problem is not human beings or human‐centeredness but particular socio‐economic systems. We cannot solve the problem of our relation to nature without solving fundamental social problems. Deep ecology also ignores the plight of particular social groups that need particular attention because of the injustice and oppression they suffer. Social ecologists hold that deep ecology misses the important difference in their criticism of anthropocentrism. Deep ecology needs to recognize that many people are suppressed by the worldview of domination. In particular, social ecologists have accused deep ecologists of neglecting the issues of class and race. In addition, they have argued that deep ecology overlooks the significance of authoritarianism, hierarchy, and the nation‐state as causes of environmental and social problems.
According to eco‐feminists, "Deep ecology fails to realize that our conceptions of and attitudes toward nature reflect our conceptions of and attitudes toward women. Women and nature have been treated similarly. "The environmental problem is not anthropocentrism but androcentrism: male‐centeredness, which has allowed males to exploit both women and nature. We cannot solve the problem of our relation to nature without solving the problem of sexism.”
Another limitation of deep ecology is that it has a tendency to the metaphysical aspect more than the ethical practice aspect. This reflects the expression that Neass mentioned. He admits to being ‘not much interested in ethics or morals… (Since) Ethics follows from how we experience the world.’ But today’s eco‐crisis requires the ecological ethic that has a strong power of execution. Deep ecology that has a strong preference for philosophical vision has the weak point that practical ability is not enough. Max Oelschleeger criticizes environmental philosophy for being too technical and narrowly addressed to academic specialists: [
“The ethical theory of the professional environmental ethics community is powerless to overcome the pervasive influence of utilitarian individualism, an ideology institutionalized in political and economic institutions. Further, eco‐philosophical discourse offers its ethical insights and ecological panaceas in a language inaccessible to lay publics”. So, how and where can we find an alternative that has more practical vision?
As White criticized, Christianity has caused the eco‐crisis because of its anthropocentric and dualistic view. Since the root of the eco‐crisis is based on religion, we have to find the cure for the restoration of the environment in religion. "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny ‐‐ that is, by religion”. Max Oelschleeger holds that we can restore the sense of holiness of all living beings through religion. His assertion is similar to that of Thomas Berry who said that religion is the only way to motivate change in the world along with education, enterprises and government. Anna Peterson said that we must learn from religion how to live ethically. Compared with secular ethics, religious ethics is more an ethics of living. Peterson asserts that religions have some potential in defining ethics for living.
As Hans Küng mentioned, there is one thing that those who have no religion cannot do, even if in fact they want to accept unconditional moral norms for themselves: they cannot give a reason for the absoluteness and universality of ethical obligation. An unconditional claims, a ‘categorical’ ought, cannot be derived from the finite conditions of human existence, from human urgencies and needs. And even an independent abstract ‘human nature’ or idea of humanity’ (as a legitimating authority) can hardly put an unconditional obligation on anyone for anything. Even a ‘duty for humankind to survive’ can hardly be demonstrated conclusively in a rational way. This is why we should try to find a curative way to overcome the eco‐crisis through religions.
3. The resolution of ecocrisis through Buddhist thought
1) Understanding of self based on Dependence Origination
As we considered understanding nature, the core of the ecocrisis is dualism and anthropocentrism. If we do not overcome these ideas, it will be difficult to resolve environmental problems. Environmentalists are interested in Buddhism; because they think that Buddhist thought provides the way to resolve dualism and anthropocentrism. One Buddhist scholar, Gary Snyder, asserts that ecocrisis is caused by what may be called anthropocentrism, the view that nature is inferior to human beings. He claims that we need to become free from anthropocentrism through the wisdom of Dependence Origination. Buddha expressed his experience of enlightenment as the truth of Dependence Origination. The meaning of Dependence Origination is that “When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that”. This means that all things are interrelated.
This ontological view, Dependence Origination, is deeply connected with Buddha's teaching that 'all things within Samsara are impermanent' and 'all things are "absence of separate self" or no‐self.’ No‐self refers to anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit). One scholar describes it as "meaning non‐selfhood, the absence of limiting self‐identity in people and things”. Its opposite is atta (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), the idea of a subjective soul or self which survives rebirth and which the Buddha explicitly rejects. That is, Buddhists say that everything is flowing and changing constantly. There is no essence that persists unchanged throughout life and there is no such thing as an abiding self.
As such, no‐self is based on Dependence Origination which is the fundamental understanding of existence in Buddhism. Ontologically, mountains are deeply related to other things. Under this idea, we can say that mountains, the presence of sun, water, land, etc, constitute one inter‐dependent reality, rather than the passive view that the reality of mountains does not exist. The doctrine of Dependence Origination in early Buddhism is reinterpreted as Dharma Dependence Origination in the Flower Garland Sutra, one of Mahayana Buddhist Scriptures. According to this Scripture, all things, from the smallest parts to the total Universe are linked by endless overlapping mutual dependence. The story of Indra's Net in the Flower Garland Sutra illustrates the remarkable interconnection of reality. In that story, each jewel in the jeweled net of Indra reflects all the others in the universe. The scripture says that ‘there is all things in the one and there is one in the all things, one is all things and all things are one.'
The Dharma Dependence Origination is the view that all things are related to each other. According to it, Buddhists say that self is not independent and individual existence is inter‐dependent being that is internally related to all things. Therefore, in the view of Buddhism, it is only a fiction that self is independent and real. The Buddhist thought that human beings are interdependent with all things, and all things are interconnected with each other, helps to free us from the self‐centeredness and the dualism in Western thought. So, we can transcend the dichotomy between 'res cogitu' and 'res extensa’ in the thought of Descartes.
We considered Naess’ Self‐realization in chapter two. Are there some striking similarities between the deep ecologists’ conception of Self‐Realization and the conception of Zen awakening? Naess’ holistic view was much inspired by Zen Buddhism; he has especially acknowledged Dōgen as a major inspiration, Bill Devall and George Sessions refer approvingly to Zen in articulating their conception of deep ecology. Warwick Fox concludes his influential Toward a Transpersonal Ecology with a quotation from Dōgen arguing that Zen is based on what he calls an ‘ontologically based identification,’ a profound awareness of ‘the fact that things are,’ which has important implications for environmental philosophy.
But deep ecology is affected by Zen Buddhism; there is a difference between the Self‐realization of deep ecology and the awakening of no‐self in Buddhism. As we have considered, Buddhists deny the existence of an ātman. On the other hand, Naess’ Self‐realization presupposes a substantial self (ātman). Naess refers sympathetically to Advaita vedānata in articulating his position, and so encourages the idea that realizing one’s self is to realize one’s identity with some metaphysical Absolute‐‐Brahmans, perhaps. Therefore, we can conclude that the idea of self‐realization is at odds with Zen.
We considered the understanding of self in Buddhism as no‐self. The real meaning of this expression is that human beings exist only through the interrelationship of all things, rather than the passive view that self does not exist. When we perceive our interrelationship with nature, we can realize that the death of nature is deeply linked with our lives. Buddhist thought helps us to overcome the attitude that human beings and nature are independent. In Buddhism, the understanding of human beings which is based on the doctrine of Dependence Origination is deeply related to the understanding of nature.
2) Understanding of nature through the thought of the Buddha‐nature
In the Mahaparinirvana sutra, 'All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha‐nature.' The notion that beings possess Buddha‐nature is like saying all beings are like a seed destined to ripen into Buddha‐hood. Dōgen, on the other hand, asserted that the sentence should be reread as 'All is sentient being, all beings are (all being is) the Buddha nature.' Dōgen also rejected the idea expressed in the tathagata‐garbha tradition ‐ that Buddha‐nature is permanent. He proclaimed, on the contrary, that the very impermanence of grass and tree and forest, is the Buddha‐nature' Hee Jin Kim says that Dōgen identified Buddha‐nature to Tathata or Dharmata, although the meaning of Buddha nature is transformed from psychological conception to universal conception. Dōgen shifted the meaning of Buddha‐nature from Immanence of Buddha Nature to actualization of Buddha‐Nature. The previous view of Buddha nature is that all beings have Buddha‐nature, but Dōgen suggests that everything including nature is Buddha‐nature.
In this view, Dōgen recognizes the Buddha‐nature of non‐sentient beings. Dōgen says that all things, including plants and trees and territories and the hosts of heaven, are living beings with mind, because they are Buddha‐nature. By acknowledging the Buddha‐nature of non‐sentient beings, Dōgen dismissed the general idea that Buddha‐nature may be restricted to the set of sentient beings. Recognizing the Buddha‐nature of non‐sentient beings, Dōgen believes that mountains and rivers and earth are also beings that speak a message. There is a chapter in "Shobo Genzo" titled Sansui Kyo, which means ‘scripture of mountains and waters.’ Dōgen said that mountains and waters themselves are a kind of scripture, because they have implied Speeches of Truth. In essence, mountains and waters are not dead beings, but living existences of Dharma‐ Body.
In the chapter Kisei‐Sanshiki (The Voices of the River Valley and the Form of the Mountains) in “Shobo Genzo,” Dōgen said that the sound of the stream is the truth of Dharma and the light of the mountain is the speech of Dharma‐body, as So Sick(蘇軾 1037－？ 俗稱 蘇東坡) heard the sound of streams and he recognized the sound as the truth of Dharma. Thus, Dōgen says that when we have practiced correctly, we can recognize the sounds of streams and mountains. We can recognize the shapes of valleys and mountains. And all of them are the hymns of 84,000 Sutras.
In light of this understanding, Dōgen says that if we are enlightened by the truth, we can fully understand the fact that nature is living and always speaks the truth. Dōgen thinks that the phrase 'green mountains are always walking and mountains have been active' is not a vague kōan (公案), but the factual truth. That is, mountains have been active since the Empty Eon. The hidden meaning of mountains is that they are the beings of time.
This idea will become clear only when we keep his view that time is being in mind; therefore he thinks that nature has been active and is living. That is to say that not only human beings, but also nature is a being of time. It is difficult to recognize this, because there is a difference between the time of human beings and the time of nature. Dōgen speaks of the long and slow movement of mountains through many eons of time. In this point, he said that 'mountains and waters right now are the actualization of the ancient Buddha way.'4) Because of the time nature needs for processing, nature helps us to be released from the view that nature is a mechanical and closed system. In a human‐centered viewpoint, we think that mountains and rivers are dead, but, if we awaken the truth, we can recognize nature as a living being. The view of Buddha‐nature in Dōgen helps us to recognize the fact that nature is a living and active being. We need to change our perception of nature to see it as a living and active being. We need to have a new relationship between nature and human beings; in the homogenized view, both of them are living and active.
We discussed that all beings are interrelated in the viewpoint of non‐self and impermanence. This is based on the Dependence Origination and non‐sentience of Buddha‐nature in the thought of Dōgen. In this respect, we have to consider Dependence Origination not only in the view of wisdom, but also in the view of compassion. This is the meaning of the enlightenment, that 'One Body of Great Compassion’ is completed through the practice of 'One Body of Great Compassion.'
3) Interrelation between wisdom and compassion through the thought of 'One Body of Great Compassion.'
The viewpoint of the dependence origination, in which every entity exists because of its relationship, helps us to recognize that my existence and the existence of the other are linked as one entity. When we recognized the fact that my life is linked with the lives of all other beings, we can awaken to the fact that the tranquility of all other beings is my tranquility. The idea of the great compassion reached its climax in the thought of 'Bodhisattva path' in Mahayana Buddhism. There is a famous phrase related to the great compassion toward all living things that is the consolation of the invalid in Vimalakirti Sutra. Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, my sickness comes from ignorance and the thirst for existence and it will last as long as do the sicknesses of all living beings.” The meaning of Vimalakirti's speech is that "it will last as long as do the sicknesses of all living beings," that is, declared that his body and the beings of all bodies are one body. The expression, "Were all living beings to be free from sickness, I also would not be sick," captures the meaning of the 'One Body of Great Compassion'.
This kind of compassion applies not only in relation to human beings, but also in relation to non ‐sentient beings. From the standpoint of Buddhism, the human being is the resultant person, and nature is the dependent condition or environment, e. g. country, family, possessions, etc. There is a non‐duality between humanity and nature. This idea of non‐duality between humanity and nature is another aspect of Dependent Origination. A few years ago, there was a report about a Korean Buddhist nun, Jiyul, who had fasted for 100days. She had been protesting against the construction of a controversial rail tunnel through MT. Chun‐Sung in South Gyeongsang Province over the previous two years. She said that she had heard the mountain cry when it was broken by some machines. At that time, she promised to rescue the mountain. After that, she put her life on the line fighting to save the mountain. Her hunger strike was the practice of great compassion, based on the idea of non‐duality between human beings and nature. Jiyul’s story illustrates the great compassion, "Were all living beings to be free from sickness, the Boddhisattva also would be free of sickness"
The great compassion, which is based on Dependent Origination, offers the wisdom for a possible solution of eco‐crisis. We discussed that Buddhism proposes a perspective for overcoming the dualism in the thought of Western Christianity. But on the other hand, there are a few limitations that keep Buddhism from becoming the framework for effective environmental ethics.
4) The limitations of Buddhism as an environmental ethic
First of all, one of the limitations that prevent Buddhism from becoming the framework for an effective environmental ethic is the problem of social practice. Theoretically, the target of Buddhist enlightenment is a harmonic relationship between wisdom and compassion. Buddhists say that if we become enlightened, we recognize the interrelationship of all beings and we will have compassion on all beings. But actually, we can see cases in which individual enlightenment has not been sublimated into social practice. Gary Snyder said that Buddhism has an amazing insight on the nature of self, but this insight could not be sublimated into harmony between wisdom and the social practice of compassion. Traditional Buddhism, or instrumental Buddhism, has overemphasized enlightenment for one's own salvation; it resulted in a passive attitude on the social practice and the affairs of the world. He asserts that we have to extend our community from Buddhist Sangha to the life‐community of all beings. His assertion is good advice for the transformation of Buddhism to incorporate a life style of integration which was lost in the Buddhist tradition.
Secondly, the enlightenment that Zen Buddhists have mentioned is characterized by amorality. Mumon's (JP; Ch. Wu‐men 1183‐1260) claims that 'Thinking good and evil is attachment to heaven and hell.' The rationale here is presumably that the distinction between good and evil is the result of a dualistic perception and that awakening, by contrast, involves the cessation of discriminative thought. Zen Buddhists say that if you achieve enlightenment, you can live morally by yourself, even though you don't make an effort to behave morally. But the ordinary person as non‐enlightened people may misunderstand the meaning of amorality, and they may be in danger of neglecting the moral dimension. In this respect, the overemphasis on amorality in Buddhism is one hindrance to its becoming the framework for an effective environmental ethic.
Also the view of no‐self of Buddhism which is based on Dependent Origination has a problem of ethical subjectivity with a responsible consciousness. Dependent Origination means that all beings without exception are relative and relational; so, there is nothing absolute, eternal, or unchangeable. When we consider the problem of the subject under the ontological understanding of interrelationship, ultimately, all terminological values and subjective consciousness disappear. In this respect, Buddhism which has a totalistic viewpoint has the danger that the individual could be lost in the totality. Regarding environmental ethics, we wonder who the subject is that is charged with ethical responsibilities.
Buddhists hold that even though we have no self‐identical body, we can become the subject with self‐responsibility. They also assert that even though we have no unchangeable permanent substance as a self‐identical body, moral responsibility and salvation is possible. Rather, we are no‐self; we are able to have limitless responsibilities and practice ‘one body of Great Compassion.’ Therefore, the assumption of moral realization we need is not the self‐identical body, but the no‐self, not subject as a substance but subject as a non‐substantiality.
In other words, the other Buddhists assert that we need the self‐ identical body linked with the past, the present and the future existence. If we do not require a subject with a self‐ identical body, there is little point in discussing morality and salvation. As such, according to various interpretations concerning no‐self, many theories which are related to no‐self came out in the history of Buddhism. But we will not discuss this problem here. We just want to point out that the problem of the subject’s relating to the ethics of responsibility is one of the controversial parts of Buddhism, because if we understand human beings as no‐self, there is a possibility that we weaken the importance of the subject of ethics.
Buddhists have tried to practice endeavor, as we consider the case of the Buddhist nun, Jiyul, and the practice of the 'One Body of Great Compassion' which is based on a non‐duality between humanity and nature. But Buddhists have tried to practice in an effort to overcome overcoming of ecocrisis. Today’s ecocrisis requires a subject with moral responsibility and a stronger power of execution.
Hans Küng holds that the ethical goal for the third millennium is a planetary responsibility. At the end of the 1970s, the German‐American philosopher Hans Jonas thought about ‘the principle of responsibility’ in a completely changed world situation in a new and comprehensive way for our technological civilization. This involves action in global responsibility for the whole of the biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of our planet. So a new kind of ethics is called for out of concern for the future and reverence for nature. In this viewpoint, we try to solve the subject of ethics of responsibility through a stewardship ethic in Christianity. As we discussed before, this is not from the perspective of human superiority in which humans dominate nature, but from a perspective of responsibility which was handed over from God. J. Baird Callicott says that the concept of stewardship, of the several possible Christian attitudes to nature, has the most potential to motivate environmentally responsible behavior.
We can call this stewardship ethics as 'chastened weak anthropocentrism' because it recognizes not only the limitations of human beings but also their responsibility. Weak anthropocentrism is different from the anthropocentrism we mentioned. Bryan Norton divides anthropocentrism into strong anthropocentrism and weak anthropocentrism. He suggests that strong anthropocentrism means that all values are determined by the degree of satisfaction of human beings’ felt preferences. On the other hand, weak anthropocentrism means that all values are determined by the degree of satisfaction of human beings’ considered preferences. Norton holds that weak anthropocentrism can make a case for harmony with nature and the value of experiences of natural objects and undisturbed places (spiritual experiences, nature as teacher). We will discuss the stewardship ethics as weak or moderate anthropocentric ethics.
4. Stewardship ethics as a 'chastened weak anthropocentrism'
1) Responsibility as human identity
Some Christian theologians have argued that stewardship ethics should be considered an alternative environmental ethic. There has also been criticism that stewardship ethics places too much emphasis on human‐centeredness. In spite of this criticism, consideration of the environmental crisis inevitably leads to discussion of who should take responsibility for this global problem, or what guidance should be provided for moral action. We have mentioned the problem of ethical subjectivity with responsible consciousness as one of the limitations of Buddhism. In awareness of the problem, we try to consider the concept of steward as "collaborative identity.” Stewardship ethics is related to human identity within the text and context of the Hebrew Testament. Genesis describes human identity with two different metaphors. In Genesis 1: 26‐27, human beings are described to be created in the image of God (Imago Dei).
Then God said: "Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground”. God created humanity in his image; in the divine image he created them; male and female he created them.
In Genesis 2: 7, the first human being is molded with 'the dust' of the ground.
"The LORD God formed a man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so a man became a living being”.
As shown above, two metaphors in Genesis 1 and 2 seem ambivalent in that the image of God is innate in human existence while a human being is none other than 'the dust' which has nothing to do with the divine entity. It is clearly demonstrated in Genesis 1 and 2 that there are two possible interpretations of human existence. Most Christian theologians, nevertheless, have traditionally paid more attention to the metaphor of the imago Dei in Genesis 1 which belongs to the Priestly Account rather than the metaphor of dust in Genesis 2, the Yahwist Account. Eventually, the imago Dei has become the central metaphor for Christian interpretation and understanding of human existence or identity.
According to Linn White, the very fact that Christian understanding of human beings has been exclusively rooted in the image of God has provided the cause of the eco‐crisis. Human beings oversimplified and even made a mistake by using the image of God analogically. It cannot be denied, however, that they made a crucial point: in the Christian tradition, the image of God has been utilized to give privilege to human beings to the exclusion of all other creatures. As a result, the Christian tradition has not only caused human beings to consider themselves separate from nature but has also justified any human activity that dominates nature as well.
The biblical idea that God bestows his image on human beings has its origin in the royal ideology in both Mesopotamia and Egypt: the king was literally regarded as resembling God's image. Applying this ideology to Christian context, the biblical scholars have argued that the resemblance between God and human being does not lie in their figures or characters, but in their roles or functions. The image of God described in Genesis should be represented as the divine mandate to rule creatures rather than as the unique ontological likeness only given to human beings. In other words, human beings should be identified as the very beings that should perform this divine function as their vocation.
Besides Genesis 1, Genesis 2: 7 also depicts the first human being, named "Adam,' as molded from "the dust (adamah)." The Hebrew word, adamah, refers to topsoil, that is, the arable land. It means that human beings from their origin have had an inseparable relationship with the ground. Because of this intimate relationship, human beings received from God a command to "cultivate" and "care" for the ground (Genesis 2:15). This is the vocation given to human beings as farmers, that is to say, land‐caretakers.
Philip Hufner's definition for human identity will help to integrate the meanings of two seemingly ambivalent metaphors shown in Genesis 1 and 2. He describes the human being as "the created co‐creator”. This description can be analyzed in two statements which seem also ambivalent: "the created" and "co‐creator”. The first statement is that the human being is the created. Obviously, it implies ontological dependency of human existence on God: humans are absolutely not self‐made: human lives are given as gifts by the transcendental being. It should be kept in mind that, in the process of creating the world, human beings were the last to come into existence; the world was created first before human beings. The world doesn't belong to human beings, but to the Creator, God. Since human beings were molded from the dust in Genesis 2, human existence is intertwined with the fabric of Nature from the very moment of being created. A similarity is found in the story of Indra Net in the Flowers Garland Sutra: all the small parts originated from the total universe are endlessly overlapped in mutual dependency.
The second statement that the human being is the co‐creator is also linked with Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Since human beings are made in the image of God, humans are his co‐creator: This doesn't means that human beings have dominant power to rule over the environment. Rather, just like God, they, as his assistants, should take care of their environment. Therefore, the ambivalent meanings in "the created co‐creator" can be combined in understanding human beings as stewards.
Stewardship is etymologically related to the Greek 'oikos' which means 'house' or 'household.' In the New Testament (Lk 16:2‐3, Tit1:7, 1 Pet 4:10) there are several occasions where 'oikonomos' is mentioned. It means "house manager or supervisor" since the prefix, 'oikos', means a house, and the suffix, 'nemo' means 'distribute' or 'manage'. Therefore, a steward is understood as a manager who has responsibility for taking care of the house. Several scholars also use a similar definition for stewardship. J. D. Hall mentions that a human being as steward is to be responsible for all the creatures. Calvin also states that everybody is God's collaborator. E. Saucer asserts that the human being is a being for the remedy of global creation.
Leonard Boff argues further that whether or not human beings take responsibility for their environment does not depend on a person's free will. This responsibility has been imposed on and described human existence at the time of being created. At that very moment 'stewardship' was also "created." Human beings are God's stewards, which means that human beings were created according to the image of God.
2) Image of God as a community subject
We have begun to address the problem of a subject who should be morally responsible for the destruction of the environment. The eco‐crisis is a social issue. This means that the settlement of the problem is beyond individual responsibility. When we look for the responsible‐person in social‐ethical matters, the person is different from ‘the individual.’ The individual as an ethically responsible person must be able to recognize the relationship as a member of a community, analyze the ethical matters, and settle them. We need to recognize a public personality who should be responsible for the environmental problem. In this connection, we will consider human identity as a public personality created in the image of God, as the central Christian interpretation of the human being.
Genesis 2:7 relates that "The LORD God blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being”. The breath that God put into humans is just the life of God. In this sense, to say that humans have imago Dei is that humans have God’s existence. God’s existence reveals the dynamic love of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. When we understand God through the dynamic love of the Triune God, we can recognize that human existence is rooted in the love among the three persons of God. When we consider God’s nature in the dynamic relationship of the triune God, we see God as relation, loving, self‐giving and creative. God is not a God in isolation but a God with creation, who makes room for a genuine other. The human being who received God’s nature also is not a being in isolation but a being with God and all the rest of creation.
In this respect, the self‐perfection of humanity is not accomplished in the individual, but in the relationship of the entire world, including nature. Human beings who exist as co‐creators, also, have the responsibility for saving the world. In other words, humanity has responsibility for the environmental problem. In respect of this, stewardship is related not only to human identity, but also to the self‐perfection of humanity.
The concept of the person of John Ruusbroec (1293‐1383) helps us to understand the nature of human beings. Ruusbroec’s axiom is that the essence‐‐the wesen‐‐of a human person is not his or her individuality, but is a transcendent relationship. When we understand the core of the person as a transcendent relationship, we view the human being not as a static existence, but as a continuously creating being. Creator God has not only created once in the past, but is continuously creating (Creatio continua). Imago Dei does not mean ‘possession,’ but ‘being that is continuously creating.’ In other words, the human being is a dynamic being who is continuously creating, not a static being who possesses individuality.
The Bible suggests Jesus Christ as the model of beings who are continuously creating. Incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth is not an exception to God’s ordinary way of acting in the world but rather, because of his perfect responsiveness to divine initial aims, we see in him what God is intending and doing everywhere and always. God’s intentions and actions for each and all become transparent in Jesus Christ. He is their ‘chief exemplification.’ The life of stewardship is an extension of the life of Jesus. Jesus’ life concentrates on God’s kingdom. Jesus’ life indicates that the completion of God’s kingdom is not governance and rule of the world, but care and service for all creatures. In this respect, we have inherited the vocation of service and care for the world, following Jesus who is a real steward. God gives human beings a crown of honor and glory (Psalms 8); this crown does not symbolize privilege as with a ruler, but responsibility as a steward that cares for all beings. Self‐perfection does not finish in Jesus who is a real Imago Dei , but continues in all humans. St. Paul says that self‐perfection is not just an ideal for humans, but a true potentiality given to every human being.
“Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator”. (Colossians 3: 9‐10)
When we consider stewardship on the basis of human existence as imago Dei, we shall know that the relationship between the human being and nature is deeply linked to self‐perfection of the human being. We have considered that we need to reflect on human identity with regard to the problem of environmental destruction. In this respect, stewardship rests on the public individual who must resolve the problem of the eco‐crisis.
The metaphor of stewardship as based on the Bible is linked with the God‐world relation.
The fact suggests a need for Christians to dialogue with Buddhists. We state that the steward metaphor does not correspond only to the way of Christians, but also to the way of being human.
5. Conclusion
Hans Küng says that it is probable that consciousness of our global responsibility for the future of humankind has never been so great as it is now. Abstinence in matters of ethics is no longer possible. It has become abundantly clear why we need global ethics. For there can be no survival without a world ethic. As Hans Küng insisted, we acutely need a world ethic for resolution of the ecocrisis. According to this viewpoint, interreligious dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity which have the capabilities of world ethics is what modern society demands of us. As we have discussed, Buddhism has some alternative ideas which help to overcome anthropocentrism. This is the enlightenment of interrelationship between humanity and nature and the recognition of the intrinsic value of nature through the view of Dependence Origination and Buddha Nature. And also Buddhism can complement deep ecology which has a strong preference for philosophical vision, because there is the power of execution of 'One Body of Great Compassion.' Nevertheless, Buddhism has limitations in the problem of social practice, the problem of morality and the problem of the subject in the ethic of responsibility. We have also discussed stewardship ethics which are related to the problem of the subject, one of the limitations of Buddhism.
Today’s ecological problems are linked with all dimensions of modern society, directly and indirectly. This paper is an attempt to find the conclusion that is intertwined with everything. We have recognized in that end an opportunity to reflect on human identity. The human being is a ‘community subject’ which goes beyond an individual subject. We need the community subject to take responsibility for solving the eco‐crisis, which goes beyond individual subjectivity. The just community subject can become the subject of the ethics of responsibility that modern society needs so acutely. We have considered the possibility of a complementary relationship between Buddhism and Christianity in world ethics. Buddhism and Christianity as partnerships for the resolution of ecocrisis suggest to us the wisdom of world ethics through interreligious dialogue.
|
