introduction: two views of buddhism page...

Introduction: Two Views of Buddhism

Copyright © Stewart McFarlane 2013 Page 2

The author (Stewart McFarlane) and the publisher (Mowbray Publishing, Ltd.) have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this ebook, and the accompanying material, is accurate and up to date. They accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions, and cannot guarantee that the information will remain accurate and up to date in the future; this includes the content of any web page/site recommended in this publication. It is your responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services, or other information provided.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the authors and the publishers assume no liability or legal responsibility for any loss, injury or damage to persons or property arising out of, or related to, any use or misuse of any material, information or advice in this publication.

This publication is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always consult medical personnel in relation to your own particular circumstances. Never disregard, or delay in seeking, expert medical advice or attention, due to the information contained in this e-book.

The naming of any organization, product, or treatment in this manual does not imply the publisher’s endorsement; the omission of any such names does not indicate the publishers’ disapproval.

This publication is protected by national and international copyright laws. All rights are reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission, except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or in accordance with the terms of a license issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited in respect of photocopying and/or reprographic reproduction, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. Any unauthorized use of the material contained in this e-book will result in a civil claim for damages.

The publishers have endeavored to trace the ownership of all copyrighted material and any omission is inadvertent and will be corrected in future printing.

Text Copyright © 2013 Stewart McFarlane

© Mowbray Publishing, Ltd. 2013.

All Rights Reserved.

www.taichi-exercises.com

Purchase of this e-book allows the buyer to keep one copy on their computer and to print out one copy only. Printing out more than one copy, or distributing it electronically, is prohibited by International and US copyright laws and treaties and would subject the purchaser to penalties of up to $100,000 PER COPY distributed.

AUTHORS’ AND PUBLISHERS’ NOTE

http://www.taichi-exercises.com/

CHAPTER 1

PREVIEW


Buddhism, Nature

& Environmental

Values

Dr Stewart McFarlane

C


Contents Page 4

CONTENTS

Background to the debate ........................................................................................................ 5

Introduction: Two Views of Buddhism ................................................................................ 6

Chapter 1: Socio-environmental ethics in the Pali Suttas and the Eco Buddhist

critique of the modern world .................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 2: The problem of Buddhist environmentalism in early Buddhist texts

............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Hua Yen dharma theory and Buddha nature as a basis for an

environmental ethic. The response of Hakamaya’s “Critical Buddhism” ............ 18

Chapter 4: The response to “Critical Buddhism” on Buddha nature and natural

phenomena ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 5: Spiritual and biological hierarchies and the issue of discrimination

............................................................................................................................................................... 26

Chapter 6: Ian Harris on Hua Yen, Zen and Eco Buddhism ...................................... 27

Chapter 7: Buddhism, nature, causality and interdependence ............................... 31

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 37

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 40


Background to the debate Page 5

Background to the debate

In the past two or three decades, environmental concerns have emerged as a major issue in scholarly, ethical and even political debate. The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 can be seen as major international event that clearly expressed the importance of environmental concerns and the needs for effective strategies and policies. As awareness grew of the damage being caused to our environment, and the risks we run as a result; scholars of religion and religious believers, have examined their religious traditions to establish what role they have had in influencing human understanding of the environment. They have raised questions about the relationship between basic beliefs and attitudes to nature and actual behaviour, and whether the issue of human and environmental survival might be effected by or relate to the “ultimate concerns” of religion.

A pioneer in this type of discussion was Lynn White Jnr, who maintained that the early medieval Christian theology of human dominance over nature, and the radical separation of humanity form creation, were in themselves principally responsible for the modern environmental crisis. Even more provocatively, he suggested that a turning to more ecologically harmonious worldviews such as that which underpins Zen Buddhism could help in solving the crisis (White 1967). Such a thesis, produced by a non-specialist (White is a geographer), was popular amongst many sympathisers with or practitioners of Buddhism, but provoked many Christian theologians and scholars, including Ian Harris (1991 p102). It is easy to criticise the over simplifications and generalisations in White’s analysis, and interestingly, the best evidenced and balanced critique was offered by another geographer (Tuan 1968). The debate has moved on well beyond White’s pioneering paper, but many Engaged Buddhists and some Buddhist scholars continue to endorse one aspect of White’s argument specifically, that Buddhism fosters a positive attitude to the environment. Others such as Ian Harris take a strongly critical view. Harris is particularly critical of the declaration made by Ven Lungrig Namgyal Rinpoche, Abbot of Gyuto University, at the Interfaith Ceremony at Assisi in 1986 celebrating the 25th anniversary of the World Wildlife Fund (Assisi Declarations 1986). Harris wrote his 1991 article largely to refute the Lama’s claims that ‘Buddhism attaches great importance to wildlife and the protection of the environment and should strive to protect habitats and ensure that endangered species do not become extinct” (quoted in Harris 1991 p101) Harris seeks to refute the claim that in the Buddhist past a harmony existed between man and nature. Harris devotes his 1991 paper and many subsequent papers to contesting these claims (Harris 1991, 1994, 1995, 2000). As the most systematic critic of “Eco-Buddhism” and persistent exponent of a non-ecological view of Buddhism, his views will be discussed and critically assessed in some detail in this dissertation.


Introduction: Two Views of Buddhism Page 6

Introduction

Two Views of Buddhism

In reading the literature for and against the argument that Buddhism supports or endorses Environmental values, it quickly becomes apparent that the contributors to this debate are adopting two very different approaches to Buddhism. One is the engaged perspective of committed practitioners such as Lily De Silva, Kenneth Kraft, Peter Timmerman, and Buddhist environmental activists including, Joanna Macy, Lily de Silva and Christopher Titmuss, including members of the Buddhist Sangha such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Achan Pongsak and their followers, many of whom campaign as monks on environmental issues in Thailand. Harris acknowledges this eco campaigning dimension of monastic life in Thailand, but he clearly sees it as being at variance with Pali Budhist texts (2000 p118). The Eco Buddhist position is well represented in most of the contributions to two different edited collections with the same title: ‘Buddhism and Ecology’ edited by Batchelor and Brown (1992) and ‘Buddhism and Ecology’ edited by Tucker and Williams (1997). These expositions are partly based texts from across the Buddhist tradition, ranging from the Pali Buddhist Suttas (Nikayas), the core Indian Mahayana texts, the Hua Yen (Kegon) and T’ien T’ai (Tendai) of China, and the Ch’an (Zen) writings of China and Japan, with a strong reliance on the the writings of Dogen Zenji (1200-1253 CE).

In addition to citing texts, the Eco Buddhists frequently rely on the oral teachings of senior monks and masters, as well as the lived practice of Buddhism in history and in Buddhist communities. As a result, their approach tends to be a more complete presentation of Buddhism as a lived tradition; rather than just a teaching based on the interpretation of selected “core” texts. For the purpose of this dissertation, the Eco Buddhist arguments of Titmuss (1995), Timmermann (1992), M. Batchelor (1992) will be considered in some detail. I shall also look in detail at the Pali suttas specifically used by both sides in the debate:

Kutadanta-sutta, Cakkavati Sihanada-sutta and Agganna-sutta.

I shall also consider the debate centred around Dogen Zenji’s Shobogenzo, and the issue of the Zen attitude to nature, including my critique of Hakamaya’s argument that Dogen’s Zen rejects the Buddha nature of natural phenomena (McFarlane 1998). I also examine the importance Mahayana text the Lankavatara sutra, for its uncompromising arguments against meat eating and the connection of these arguments to environmental issues.

The second perspective is the anti Eco Buddhist perspective of some Buddhist scholars, for example Ian Harris, and Hakamaya Noriaki, who argue that Buddhist teachings do not fundamentally support environmentalist values. They base this conclusion mainly on their interpretation of selected “core” Buddhist texts, which they appear to regard as normative for the whole tradition. The generally accepted scholarly term for Hakamaya’s controversial



approach is “Critical Buddhism” (Hubbard & Swanson eds. 1997). Hakamaya Noriaki has three papers in this edited collection: Hubbard & Swanson eds 1997 pp56-80, 113-144, 339-355). Hakamaya is particularly restrictive about which texts he regards as legitimately Buddhist. By that I mean conforming to his normative understanding of “Critical Buddhism”. He regards any text labelled by him as essentialist or substantivist or positing the notion of “original enlightenment” (hongaku), as not Buddhist. The Chinese Mahayana T’ien T’ai and Hua Yen texts are dismissed by him as substantivist and “dhatuvada” (essentialist). Hakamaya argues, “…when Buddhism changed form being a religion of self awareness to a religion centred on nature, at that moment it ceased to be Buddhist” (Hakamaya 1997 p121) For Hakamaya, only the Pali Nikayas (Suttas), the Madhyamika karikas of Nagarjuna, and core Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) texts, and certain Zen writings, including Dogen Zenji’s Shobogenzo, are accepted as legitimately representing “Critical Buddhism”.

It might appear to those who have read Ian Harris and Hakamaya’s articles, and the chapters in the two books Buddhism and Ecology that the authors are writing about two completely different traditions. This is despite the fact that they are largely arguing their positions based on many of the same core texts; their views on what constitutes Buddhism rest on rather different sets of assumptions. Harris’ arguments treat Buddhism as a textual entity (the texts being predominantly those of the Pali Canon of the Theravada tradition) from which authoritative Buddhist teachings are derived. The teachings derived from those texts are predominantly concerned with a monastic and scholarly elite, for whom escape from samsara (the world of birth, suffering, unease, death, rebirth and more suffering) and the pursuit of the path to Nirvana, are the primary concerns. Buddhism is not, and has never consisted only of a set of texts. Buddhist teaching or Dharma has always involved the complex interaction between teacher and hearer. Oral transmissions, spiritual guidance and counsel provided by the teacher or master have always fundamental to the teaching of Dharma. It should also be remembered that the earliest Buddhist sutras were not written down until two hundred and fifty years after Sakyamuni Buddha’s death (McFarlane 1998 p 630). Interpreting Buddhist teachings or explaining Dharma, have never been simply a process of reading off teachings from the sutras. Such an approach ignores the fact that Buddhism is primarily about practice, at both spiritual elite and popular levels.

Lance Cousins has identified the tendency to take what is true at the viewpoint of ultimate truth, and apply it to the whole of Buddhism, rejecting what does not conform to it as, “ultimatism” (Cousins 1997 pp409-410). In this view of Buddhism, the downgrading of lay engagement, popular practices, and the ignoring of Buddhist historical developments leads to a misleading representation of the lived religion. According to Cousins, the tendency is for ultimatist ideas, “…to reject ritual and superstition as later accretions to the pure original teaching” (Cousins 1997 p410). It should not be thought that monks are by definition ultimatist. In fact, “ultimatism” as identified by Cousins, is seen as more of an interpretive category or tendency amongst scholars, when making normative claims about what constitutes the core of Buddhism (eg Hakamaya in Hubbard 1997pp72-84). In fact, ultimatist scholarly normative judgements do not impinge much on issues of Buddhist practice. There is a tendency for the ultimatist approach to Buddhism to be left with nothing more than a highly abstract, textual construct that bears little relation to any lived Buddhist tradition, or to the realities of Buddhist practice. There is nothing inherently wrong with such an approach, provided one does not make broad normative claims about the nature of the tradition on the basis of it. The questions generated in discussions of such a version of Buddhism tend to be highly theoretical ones about the higher theory or Dharma analysis of scholars. In Cousins view, Buddhism as a tradition is being misrepresented if lay engagement,



popular practices, and the way Buddhism has developed in Asian culture and history, are downgraded or ignored.

In earlier papers, I have demonstrated the close connection and continuity between lay engagement and the practice of the higher path. Specifically this connection occurs in the formula repeated over twenty times in the Pali suttas, directly connecting the “step by step discourse” which includes popular practices such as giving and domestic morality and the basic operation of karma; with the “particular teachings” which are the Four Noble Truths (McFarlane 1997 pp453-455). I endorse Cousins point about the ultimatist bias in Buddhist scholarship, and argue that the Buddhist view of the world is both developmental and hierarchical (McFarlane 1997 p 543, McFarlane 2001 pp182-184). Different beings, both as species and as individuals, are at different levels of development spiritually and karmically. Human beings are collectively higher than animals, but the spiritual needs of different humans are vastly different. They should be taught at levels appropriate to their development and understanding. For most beings this requires introduction to basic levels of moral understanding, ie the fact that their actions have long term as well as short term consequences for themselves and others. They need to be encouraged to live co-operatively and harmoniously to avoid conflict and aggression, and to begin to remove greed, hate and ignorance. The Buddhist teachers sought to do these through specific teachings and methods, appropriate to specific individuals. Teaching was exclusively oral in ancient Buddhism. The earliest texts were not written down until about three centuries after the death of the Buddha.

Even in modern times, despite the vast textual collections available, most teaching is given orally and targeted to specific groups or individuals. The recorded texts of Buddhism are the formalised collections of instances of specific teachings to specific groups. McFarlane and Cousins provide accounts of how Buddhist teachings are structured to the needs of different beings at different levels and are written in such a way as to allow progression from one level of understanding and practice to another (Cousins 1997 pp 393-403, McFarlane 2001 pp 184-191). Cousins rightly point out that conventional Buddhist morality, ritual conduct and the concern with merit have their place in the structure of Buddhist practice. Treatments such as that of Harris and Hakamaya tend to downgrade popular lay practice or dismiss it as not specifically Buddhist or even “secular”. Without an understanding of the structured and hierarchical nature of Buddhist teachings and methods, it becomes impossible to understand issues arising from Buddhist ethics.

The fact that Buddhist teachings are structured and developmental explains why they are so varied and sometimes apparently contradictory. For example, Harris cites passages of teachings to monks who are supposed to be meditators that they must tame and cultivate their minds as a farmer tames and cultivates the wilderness or the forest. To conclude that this is a piece of evidence for unbridled destruction of the forest or “slash and burn” methods in primary rain forest is clearly a piece of naive literalism. Even to suggest that this metaphor means that Buddhism has an ambivalent attitude to wilderness or nature is equally unjustified (Harris 1991 pp 108-9). We can of course look to the texts where nature is celebrated and seen as an aid to meditating monks. Harris does admit a strand of nature mysticism in early Buddhism, but sees it being squeezed out as the tradition institutionalised (Harris 1991 p107). When we turn to the pages of Buddhism and Ecology we find an abundance of textual passages which celebrate nature both in its state of wilderness and in more domesticated forms (Batchelor & Brown 1992 pp12-15). Far from being squeezed out, the celebration of and respect for nature seems to be alive and well. I shall argue that it is the restrictive and “ultimatist” approach to Buddhist tradition, and even to Buddhist texts, which



has led anti Eco Buddhist scholars such as Harris and Hakamaya to incorrectly represent the tradition; and leads them to reject the argument that Buddhism has a significant environmental message.

Chapter 1: Socio-environmental ethics in the Pali Suttas… Page 10

Chapter 1

Socio-environmental ethics in the Pali Suttas and the Eco Buddhist

critique of the modern world

In the Green Buddha, Titmuss extensively cites the Kutadanta-sutta, Cakkavati Sihanada-sutta and Agganna-sutta to support the view that “the social conscience of the Buddha was an integral part of his teaching” (Titmus 1995 p 213). He regards the injunctions on kings to relieve the suffering of the poor, as an expression of loving kindness in action. He interprets such injunctions as placing rulers under a serious obligation to reduce poverty and restore peace and justice as a legitimate expression of Buddhist teaching (1995 p 211). Underlying these injunctions there is a strong emphasis on the need to maintain stability and social harmony as well as respect the natural process that support life, both humans and natural. In the Kutadanta sutta the Buddha in a former life as religious advisor to a great king, states that he can restore peace and order in his kingdom by abandoning the traditional animal sacrifices, and abandoning severe punishments to wrongdoers, and by ensuring that all those working in his kingdom are properly rewarded for their labours. The king is advised to supply traders and businessmen with capital, to help them prosper, and that wealthy brahmans, ksatriyas and householders should be encouraged to establish charitable foundations in all directions.

He should support the poor, and wandering mendicants and wise teachers. The Buddha declares that after the king has done all this he can perform a non-violent sacrifice of butter, oil, ghee, milk and honey; which involves no killing or cruelty to animals and does the minimal damage to trees and the environment (Digha Nikaya vol. 1, Ling 1981 pp 91-100).

As Gombrich points out, the story is told to a Brahmin not a king, and it seems to be more concerned with the nature of sacrifice, than be a practical outline of policy (Gombrich 1988 p 83). Such policies would probably been impractical to the real kings at the time of the Buddha. But their very articulation does represent something of a criticism of despotic and punitive rulers, and does offer radical alternative that might cause a more sympathetic ruler to re-consider his priorities. If the rulers of the kingdoms of north India were as despotic and pragmatic as Gombrich suggests, then it would have been unthinkable for the Buddha to offer such radical advice on the use of charity and the re-distribution of wealth, directly to a king. Then it becomes more credible that such ideas would be taught in the form of highly mythic and fantastic accounts. In other words, the Buddha or early Buddhists are using indirect means on tactical and expedient grounds to present some radical and challenging ideas.

The influential Cakkavatti Sihanada sutta (Digha Nikaya 111, Ling ed. 1981 pp 115-128) is another text frequently quoted for its ethical and social content. Gombrich suggests that its lack of a context, unlike most suttas in the Digha Nikaya, and its exaggerated mythological content, make it unlikely to be the word of the Buddha. The text is however regarded as such by tradition, and its content must therefore be taken seriously. It describes a succession of


Chapter 1: Socio-environmental ethics in the Pali Suttas…

Page 11

strong and righteous rulers in ancient times whose merit and success was marked by a Celestial Wheel in the sky, and by the great longevity of them and their subjects. The average lifespan being forty thousand years. Periodically the wheel would slip, but provided the ruler at the time took counsel from the wisest hermit in the kingdom and acted accordingly, it was restored. Then one ruler began governing according to his own ideas, and ignoring the example of the previous rulers, and not taking counsel from the hermit. When a man was brought before him for stealing, the king gave him money to support his family. Other subject heard of this and they also stole. The king realised that by rewarding theft, he was encouraging it, so he had the next offender executed. People by now had habituated to stealing, so that rather than stop, they armed themselves to prevent capture. When some were captured they lied about their crimes, and so society degenerated. Lying and stealing were rife and people become progressively coarser and shorter lived. Eventually society and values collapsed, people were killing their own families to eat, and the human lifespan dwindled to ten years. Then a small group resolved to abstain from violence and live cooperatively, and in doing so gradually improved the human condition and the lifespan, so once again, people began to live in harmony, and villages and towns prospered. Eventually a wise and righteous Universal Monarch (Cakkavatti) emerged and during his reign, Metteya (Maitreya) the next Buddha will appear, to teach Dharma throughout the world.

Buddhist textual scholarship tends to examine historical and textual accounts for an understanding of the relationship between Buddhism, monarchy and socio-political issues during the early development of Buddhism. Gombrich doubts whether many canonical passages dealing with kingship and politics were meant to be normative or offer practical policies intended for rulers. He argues that many of the passages are intentionally mythological, and are dealing with “fantasy” kings, not practical guidlines for real kings. He suspects the “authenticity” of the famous Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (Gombrich 1988 pp81-82,Digha Nikaya 111, Ling ed. 1981 pp 115-128). He suggests that its lack of a context, unlike most suttas in the Digha Nikaya, and its exaggerated mythological content, make it unlikely to be the word of the Buddha. From the traditional point of view of course all the suttas in the Pali Canon are the word of the Buddha, and carry the same authority. Even if we accept Gombrich’s point about the inappropriate time frame of the story and its undoubted mythic style, these texts are regarded as authoritative by Theravada Buddhists.

As such a text, the Cakkavatti Sihanada sutta does establish an important connection between the human conduct and Dharmic or ethical orientation, and human health, wealth and happiness, on material, ethical and spiritual levels. It appears to make a point about the importance of exemplary rulers, and the need to listen to wise counsel. Though not a technical treatise, the story establishes that moral cause and effect or the working of karma are not merely individual processes, but have important social and cosmic dimensions. The story clearly emphasises the role of the righteous ruler in improving the social and moral environment in which virtue is rewarded and wrongdoing punished. In other words, it seeks to describe the conditions in which Dhamma can operate.

The Eco Buddhists such as Timuss, and the anti-Ecological and “Critical Buddhists” such as Harris and Hakamaya, tend to use Buddhist texts in quite different ways. As we have seen, Christoper Titmuss, a Buddhist Environmental campaigner, cites the Kutadanta-sutta, Cakkavati Sihanada-sutta andAgganna-sutta to support the view that, “the social conscience of the Buddha was an integral part of his teaching” (Titmuss 1995 p 213).

He regards the injunctions on kings to relieve the suffering of the poor, as an expression of loving kindness in action. Despite the mythic context, he regards the Buddha’s analysis of the



Page 12

causes of suffering, violence and social collapse, as related to socio-economic as well as karmic factors, as an intentional expression of Dharma. As we have seen, he interprets such injunctions as placing rulers under a serious obligation to reduce poverty and restore peace and justice, as a legitimate expression of Buddhist teaching (Titmuss 1995 p 211). Eco Buddhists could therefore legitimately argue that protecting the environment directly relates to Buddhadharma, and that a natural support system for human sustenance must be maintained. Other Eco Buddhist writers have taken these textual teachings and the notion of Buddhadharma that underpin them, and applied them specifically to the social and environmental situation in the modern world,

…to be a Buddhist today is a geo-political act for the obvious reason that every one

of our acts now adds to or subtracts from the load of human affairs which burdens

the earth. It is also a geopolitical act because, given the continuing devotion to

consumerism, one of the most radical acts we can perform in our society is to

consume less, to sit quietly meditating in a room, or try and think clearly about who

we are trying to be. And finally, being a Buddhist is a geopolitical act because it

provides us with a working space within which to stand back from our aggressive

culture and consider alternatives.”

(Peter Timmerman in: Batchelor and Brown [eds] 1992 p. 75)

The above sounds like a radically challenging expression of an engaged Buddhist environmental perspective. Eco Buddhists argue that it also reflects a very traditional approach to teachingBuddhadharma. It takes the issue that immediately concerns the listener, and subtly turns that concern into a direct reflection on their own meditative experience. Stephen Batchelor takes a similar approach:

So the ecological crisis we witness today is, from a Buddhist perspective, a rather

predictable outcome of the kinds of deluded behaviour the Buddha described 2,500

years ago. Greed, hate and stupidity, the three poisons the Buddha spoke of, have

now spilled beyond the confines of the human mind and village politics to poison

quite literally the seas, the air and the earth itself. And the fire the Buddha spoke of

as metaphorically engulfing the world and its inhabitants in flames, is now horribly

visible in nuclear explosions and smouldering rain forests, and psychologically

apparent in the rampant consumerism of our times.

Perhaps we need these disasters to prompt us to consider more deeply what the

Buddha was saying all along. For ecological crisis is at root a spiritual crisis of self-

centred greed, aided and abetted by ingenious technologies run amok”.

(Batchelor in Batchelor and Brown [eds] 1992 p33)

The evoking of the core explanatory categories of greed, hate and stupidity (ignorance) as in the traditional Buddhist analysis of the causes of suffering, and the linking them explicitly to the environmental and social damage caused by their excess, makes for a powerful re-statement of Buddhadharma in explicitly Eco logical terms. The Eco Buddhists are using the Buddhist method of diagnosing physical and material disruption, disorder and suffering and they see these as fundamentally spiritual problems. When we add Timmermann’s invitation to meditate and reflect on the human condition and consider the damage that aggressive consumption and exploitation can do, which is a again a traditional Buddhist way of teaching



Page 13

Dharma; then it is hardly surprising that some modernist scholars find this spiritual, psychological and behavioural challenge, rather too uncomfortable, and resort to their texts and studies to refute it. They are attempting to argue that these concerns have no fundamental connection with the core of Buddhism, or with Buddhist ultimate concerns or higher teachings. I shall discuss their arguments in detail.

END OF

BOOK PREVIEW


Bibliography Page 42

introduction: two views of buddhism page...

Documents