Buddhism and Ecological Philosophy
Author: Shi Zhaohui
Source: Journal of Philosophy
1. Preface
The end of the 20th century has reached the countdown, and it is about to move towards the 21st century in a blink of an eye.When high technology conquered nature, people suddenly discovered that nature showed the powerful power of counterattack;Human beings are paying a heavy price for their domineering and foolish behavior that destroys the ecological environment and consumes earth's resources: human factors lead to serious ecology imbalances, thus endangering human survival.The primary problem faced by mankind in the future will be the earth environment on which mankind depends, and it cannot provide the conditions for humans to survive forever.Faced with the survival plan of all human beings, Western ecologists began to reflect on humanity’s faults and went to Eastern religions. (Especially Buddhism )The thought absorbs nutrients and puts forward many criticisms such as "abandoning human nature and attaching importance to the equality of all things."
Buddhism has a "environmental ethics" that treats the ecological environment well and attaches importance to the right to live in animals.This comes from the ecological philosophy of "theory of dependent origination" of the basic principle of Buddhism.Toward "anthrocentrism" (anthrocentrism)A society that has been accustomed to a long time.Provides a completely different perspective on the universe – the "Equality of All beings".This can give contemporary "ecological centering" (ecocentrism)Lay out a meticulous and powerful philosophical foundation and completely change people's thoughts and lifestyles of "environmental aggression" from the root.
With the pressure of reality and philosophical reflection, the international consensus gradually emerged to "maintain species diversity". Although this is still a long way from the concept of "equality of sentient beings" in Buddhism, it also means that the principle of "dependence and dependence in the world" suggested by Buddhism has transcended the scope of "Buddhist ethics", breaking through the mental defenses of "human chauvinists", and gradually becoming the fundamental principle for establishing ecological ethical norms in the present world.
The killer of the ecological environment.In addition to the concept of "man controls nature", there are also the concepts of production and consumption that have emerged with capitalism in the past century, which do everything possible to waste.Like Keynes's economic theory ─“Use consumption to stimulate production”, according to this theory, under the natural operation of the market mechanism, if consumption increases, the production volume will inevitably increase relatively;Therefore, providing more employment opportunities means providing more employment people who are able to purchase consumer goods, thereby increasing consumption.This theory seems to be reasonable, but it cannot explain why the global economic recession has appeared again and again.In fact, Keynes' economic theory ignores one thing: the raw materials on which raw products rely, this is the limited resource of the earth.It is definitely not inexhaustible or inexhaustible.
When humans believe that energy, air, and water resources that can be used for granted for granted forever have all caused a crisis of deterioration or scarcity due to excessive human plunder, the Buddhist concept of "loving blessings" that was once regarded as pedantic, was once again regarded as a criterion by environmentalists.The contemporary environmental ethics coincide with Buddhism – under the appearance of economic prosperity, what hides the sin of being taken away by resources in other places when he was or in other places. Over-consumption is no longer a means to stimulate economic growth, but a foolish act of squandering blessings.
“Environmental protection", "ecological conservation", "animal protection" ("Animal Care" abbreviated )，This is a new ethical concept in contemporary society, but if the philosophical thinking behind it is very different, then at a certain stage, the practices will "go separate ways".The most profound lesson of blood and tears that impressed me was that during the tenure of the chairman of the "Caring for Life Association" two years ago, a certain master of the Secretary-General led colleagues from the Secretariat to violate the resolution of the Standing Council based on the concept of "animal protection" that he recognized, and made an outrageous decision that he thought was full of "morality".
It turns out that they were influenced by Western thought.Based on the view of "rational use of environmental spaces", it is determined that the environmental space of Banqiao public stray dog shelter can only raise a certain number of dogs. (A few large cages and small cages are all fixed )，Therefore, all the old, young, sick, disabled, or healthy but more ferocious dogs were executed to maintain a reasonable and comfortable environment for the still-surviving dogs.Because the Akita dog raised by a cleaning team member was strong and cute, they ignored the Buddhist precepts that the parties involved were absent and had no right to deal with, and dragged them out to the veterinarian to give them a shot;After the cleaning team came back, they were in great pain.The mother of a volunteer who worked hard to raise dogs in shelter voluntarily saw that the living dogs were caught and executed, and collectively rebounded, and blamed the Care Life Association for being an "animal executioner" and came to me in groups, hoping that the author would stop such cruel atrocities.
At that time, the author asked the Secretariat to think solemnly from several points of view:
1. Since the person in charge is a Buddhist, it should be noted that the theory of "animal protection" should not be "total Westernization". Western theological thoughts determine that "human" imitates the image of "God" and has the right to manage animals. Therefore, there are still ethical controversies in euthanasia of "human", and there is no ethical controversy in euthanasia.However, Buddhism advocates "equality of all beings". If "humans" should not be euthanized, there is no better moral reason for "animals" to be euthanized;If the "animal" can be euthanized, the "human" should be handled in accordance with the same situation.Since the person in charge of the association is a Buddhist disciple, the euthanasia of "people" should be legalized unless it is equally advocated.Otherwise, the "human chauvinism" idea that "human slaughtered and controlled the fate of animals" is still at work, and that is definitely not Buddhism.
2. If old, weak, sick, disabled, and ferocious animals can be executed in order to construct a reasonable so-called "environmental space", then should elderly, disabled, seriously ill and criminals be executed at once in order to construct a reasonable environmental space for humans?Then, the Holocaust of the six million Jews led by Hitler would not seem to be completely unreasonable.If a dog is OK, a human is not OK. What is it not "human chauvinism"?
3. The "environmental space" theory is an ecological thinking of the West that focuses on the view of human survival, and uses scientific data to judge the space and resources of a piece of land to accommodate how many people (Or livestock )It is advisable that although this theory is not without value, it is not advisable to go astray to ignore the "principle of superior survival right to the right to stand out"!A reasonable space for a shelter If it can accommodate a hundred dogs, why not accommodate a hundred twenty in a slightly crowded manner?Houses like Hong Kong where every inch of land are valuable, and there are also poor families with bunk beds and beds to live in two families!Should one of the families be executed?What about getting another family’s “reasonable environmental space”?Is the "right to survival" important or the "right to space" important?
4. Even though this massacre focuses on the welfare of other living animals, it is also confusing: Is the person in charge claiming to be "God" and dominates the power of life and death in life?Otherwise, why should we decide which dogs should be executed for the space rights of other dogs?
5. Regardless of whether the death penalty should be abolished or not, even if the death penalty is a necessary evil for the country, we have the right to choose not to be a "criminal policeman"!In an era when the entire country's policy of stray dogs advocates "using killing to measure", there are many "criminal police officers" executed by dogs. Why must the association play the role of "animal executioner"?Even if you want to take the post, should you convene the board of directors in accordance with the normal channels and the board of directors should discuss it carefully?How should the secretariat of the executive unit be determined to act alone?
6. The Secretariat intends to build Banqiao Shelter into a national model stray dog shelter. Although the intention is good, the means are "generous of others". Let me ask: If the one who died is not a dog, but yourself or your own child, would you like?Is the meaning of "model" greater than the meaning of "survival" of dogs?Is there no "people" who are creating "performance" vain?
Such a series of doubts did not cool down their "moral sense" at all, so although the decision of the Standing Council was to order the Secretariat to immediately stop the progress of this plan, their "moral sense" made them ignore the ethics of the community and do whatever they wanted. So the news from the entire animal protection community was that as the chairman of the association, the author advocated "euthanasia of stray dogs."The authors who oppose euthanasia have wrongly assumed the stigma of "animal executioner" for their atrocities.
Innocent people bear bad reputations, but dogs cannot be resurrected.After learning from the pain, the author clearly saw the crux of the problem: the whole tragedy was a problem with the "philosophical thinking behind it".Therefore, the author will emphasize: If the philosophical thinking behind "environmental protection", "ecological conservation", and "animal protection" is very different, then at a certain stage, the practices will "go different ways".
This article intends to briefly introduce the theoretical basis of Buddhist ecological philosophy and compare it with contemporary ecological philosophy to distinguish the similarities and differences.
2. Ecological Philosophy of Buddhism
Buddhism does not have "ontology" and does not talk about "metaphysics" (Metaphysics)，But there are still basic principles developed based on the rules of thumb ──“origin" (Brahma pratitya-samutpaada， -bar paticca-samuppaadanna)，This is also the principle that the Buddha realized by thinking and making decisions based on real experience [1]。
“The definition of "dependence" is: the universe, whether it is a person, thing, or scenery (In Buddhism, it is collectively called "Dharma" ─Brahma dharma； -bar dhamma)，Everything is not separated from the law of "harmony between causes and conditions"."cause" (hetu-pratyaya)The two words may not be very different, they all refer to "cause". In different words, "cause" is the main reason for the formation of a law, and "cause" is the other secondary reason.Generally speaking, the achievements and damage of human affairs and things are caused by fate. Therefore, the word "dependence" not only points out the truth of the arising of all things, but also understands the principle that all things are destroyed.
Here, we want to emphasize: "Dependent origination" is the general principle of all dharmas.Biological non-biological and animal plants are no exception.However, because there is no living thing and no life phenomenon.Although plants are alive, they are not as emotional and love as animals (Therefore, it is called "sentient beings", Brahma sattva)。The sensitivity to feeling suffering and happiness is high, so the focus of Buddhism is on solving the problem of "sentient beings" life mainly in animals, and the central issue of the law of dependent origination.It is still to explore the causes and conditions of their occurrence and the ways to relieve them in response to the various hardships of life.From this, Buddhism demonstrates the ecological philosophy with "protecting life" as the main axis of practice.But on the other hand, since life still needs to rely on organic or inorganic materials to survive, in order to avoid squandering limited public resources or personal blessings, resulting in poverty and scarcity, even when dealing with inanimate environments and materials, Buddhism still emphasizes the concept of "benefits".
“Dependence and origination are the summary of the principles of the generation, change and destruction of the ecological environment by Buddhism, and "protecting life" and "loving blessings" are the outline of Buddhism's practical ethics in environmental ethics.
“The concept of cherishing blessings is easier to understand, because it is also related to individual interests, but the concept of "protecting life" is often questioned because it runs contrary to human selfishness.However, in the view of Buddhism, "protecting life" is the obligation of everyone.There are three reasons:
(one )Self-editing method
“The simplest reason for protecting life is the "self-education method" [2]，《Dharma scriptures. Knife and stick" (Dandavaggo)explain:
Everything is afraid of swords and sticks, everything is afraid of death, and save yourself [His love ]，Don't kill him and teach him to kill.
Everything is afraid of swords and sticks, everything is loved by life, and save yourself [His love ]，Don't kill him and teach him to kill.
If you seek happiness, you will be filled with emotions, and your sword and stick will be annoying. If you seek happiness for yourself, you will be rare in future generations.
If you seek happiness, you will not harm others without a knife or a stick. If you want to seek happiness for yourself, you will be able to get happiness in the future. [3]
“Protect life”, from the most vulgar view of self-interest, it involves the issue of cause and effect: if you are in such a cause and effect, you should avoid hurting and killing sentient beings in negative ways, so as not to attract the same retribution as the victim.I am in great pain;In addition, we must actively care for all living beings to feel the same joy as those who receive the donor.This is "there are sentient beings who seek joy without harming them."If you want to have fun, you can get happiness in your future generations.” principle.
But this is still a typical "self-interest" behavior of protecting children, and there is no high opinion of being humble.If you further think about altruism, this is the noble spirit of the "self-education method": use your own mood to guess the mood of other sentient beings, and cherish their nature of seeking life and fearing death, and seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering.From the standpoint of caring for sentient beings, we should not arbitrarily harm other lives and be considerate of the pain when they are injured. This empathy of "save others' emotions through one's own" is the first step to protecting life.Buddhism goes from the most basic moral norm "Five Precepts" to the highest bodhisattva's mind and practice ─“The compassion of "relieving others' feelings by yourself", puts your heart in order to restrain your own desires and sympathize with others' sufferings and happiness.
Of course, we also seem to find reasons for personalism: the nerves grow on everyone's body, and even though his toothache objectively exceeds my abdominal pain, in my senses, his toothache is no more than my abdominal pain.Physiological feelings are like this, and psychological feelings are also like this.However, "to save others' emotions by using it" obviously has its limits. Isn't it the law of survival for the living beings in the universe to benefit oneself than to protect one's life?Therefore, it seems that further for one's own benefit to infringe upon the interests of others is also the law of survival for sentient beings.
but.It does not mean that "the strong prey on the weak and the strong will compete for the natural choice" is the "real" phenomenon of the existence of sentient beings in the universe. However, we cannot find any moral reason here, and it is not appropriate to use this realistic phenomenon as an excuse for "real" to write about moral "real". No matter how this will hinder other sentient beings, from the most basic self-interest point of view, this will also bring more killing and plunder when everyone expands their selfish desires and interests without restrictions. Finally, they live in a society full of unsafe conditions, and even "self-interest" has become a luxury!
(two )Relevance of dependent origination
This correlation can be viewed from both the perspectives of time and space:
1. All laws in the same space ─Matter, consciousness, and life seem to be independent, but in fact they are all dependent and mutually formed dependent laws.Since we must rely on causes and conditions to produce reality, this will form a dense network between people and the world, people and people, animals and plants, and even people and no living things.This "relationship" makes people seem to be independent activities that are individuals, but are actually subject to the decisions and conditions of relationships.Since people and the world and sentient beings are so closely related, more or less sympathy will naturally arise.Compassion is based on the common consciousness of "feeling that there is a relationship between each other", which leads to a sense of dear or concern, and even expands into compassionate actions that are joyful or relieved.This is why although nerves grow in each person's body and itching is not physiologically related, the "self-authorization method" of opposing oneself to others is still effective.
2. From the Three Worlds of Time (Past life, present life, future life )To put it, sentient beings love the life where the body and mind are gathered because they are reluctant to leave me;Death has been resurrected and endlessly reborn.In the endless journey of life, everyone has had a very close relationship with all sentient beings since time immemorial and lived a common and close life. Although they may not meet each other in the past and future, they are likely to have been "my parents."My brothers and sisters, my husband and children”.From this we can see that all sentient beings have kindness to me.Therefore, from the perspective of the Bodhisattva's state of mind, all sentient beings are like fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and sisters, and should be happy.Buddha "sees sentient beings as Rahula" (Son of Buddha )，That's the reason.
From these two aspects, we can further understand that everything is just a conciliation of causes and conditions, and the eternal and unchanging, formed alone, and true self does not exist.But we have always had a simple and solid sense of self (“View of one's nature" or "view of one's own nature" )，Therefore, in the instinctive activities of survival, it is easy to be self-centered and ignore the causes and conditions of aspects and achievements, and even arrogance of conquering the natural environment, slaughtering and controlling other animals and plants.
Only those who have the wisdom of dependent origination can break away from the perspective of "all dharmas have no self-nature" and see the laws of mutual dependence and mutual formation in the ecological environment, thereby respecting the survival value of all different forms of life.Form a "selfless" outlook on life.A mutually helpful outlook on life.A gratitude and humility outlook on life, a compassion-based outlook on life.This can also be said to be the so-called "great compassion without cause" in Mahayana Buddhism, because this common consciousness cannot be generated by locking in some special conditions. (Hence the name "no fate" )，It is not due to narrow self-identity, ethnic identity, unit identity;It does not presuppose the category of family, nation, humanity or ethnic group.Therefore, "protecting life" is the root of morality and the highest criterion of morality. This is the concern and sympathy for other sentient beings other than one's own nature reflected in the law of dependent origination.
(three )Equality of dependent origination
All sentient beings, especially humans, not only trigger common consciousness due to the dependence of dependent origination, but also often unconsciously have a common sense of suffering and happiness of sentient beings or humans.Whether you are self or others, you have the tendency to be equal and harmonious. This is just a natural expression of the nature of dependent origination of human hearts.
It turns out that there are numerous relationships and infinite differences between the laws of dependent origination. These different phenomena are not unchanging, independent, and entity.Therefore, from the dependent origination Dharma to the end, one can understand the selfless nature of all dharmas and embody the equality and true nature of dharmas.This equality and justice ─Without self-nature, it is the nature of the law of dependent origination.From this Dharma nature, when we reach the Dharma of dependent origination, we no longer only generate common consciousness from the relationship between dependence and mutuality.Instead, we further realize the equality between oneself and others.Mahayana Dharma says that "sentient beings are equal";Not only that, even sentient beings are equal to Buddha, because all sentient beings have the possibility of becoming Buddhas – "Buddha nature".
These are all derived from the present view of equality of Dharma nature.The "great compassion" of oneself and all things in the universe arises according to this: as long as there are sentient beings who are still suffering and urged, or have not yet achieved the Buddha's path, it is as if the suffering and urged that occurs in oneself, as if one's own merit cannot be fulfilled.The Mahayana Bodhisattva’s compassion for the benefit of sentient beings will never stop until the end of the future, which is derived from this “great compassion for the same body”.The ecological philosophy of "Great Compassion in One's Body" is much more praised than what is often praised nowadays (In the region and people-oriented )“The community of life”, what you see is more profound!
3. Buddhism and contemporary ecological philosophy
As mentioned above, the "theory of dependent origination" affirms that the thousands of causes and conditions in the universe are linked and interdependent, which is consistent with the basic arguments of contemporary ecological philosophy;The biggest difference between various contemporary ecological philosophy lies in the acceptance of the Buddhist theory of "equality of all beings".The following statements are made of two major ecological propositions and a comparative study with the ecological philosophy of Buddhism.
(one )Environmentalism and Ecology
The ecological imbalance created by humans in nature is no longer the survival of animals and plants, but also the perpetuality of human beings. (sustainable)the crisis.The reason for this is nothing more than the idea of human beings claiming to be the "spirit of all things" and taking "control of nature" as glory, which is due to the greed of excessive pursuit of material enjoyment.This shows that human environmental ethics need to be rebuilt urgently.From this perspective, two types of doctrines that concern environmental issues emerge: one is ecologicalism (Ecologism)。One type is environmentalism (Enviromentalism)。
Both of these have sparked movements because of the growing corruption of the environment they have observed.But their rescue strategy is different.Environmentalists believe that human beings can still rank as superior in “management” for environmental issues.They are convinced that there is no need to change existing values, nor do they need to make fundamental changes in economic activities such as human production and consumption, and technology will solve all the problems it creates itself.In addition, they may not necessarily affirm the internal value of animals and the environment outside of humans.Ecologicalists believe that using technology alone cannot solve the ecological crisis of the earth;Caring for the environment should be made fundamentally based on the relationship between us and the environment, and at the same time, we should also change our interpersonal social and political life. [4]。
Green politics of ecologicalism.First, break the myth of "economic and environmental protection" and advocate that there are natural restrictions on economic growth and population growth;Economic growth is not hindered by social reasons, but because of the capacity of the earth itself (For the population )，Production capacity (As far as resources are concerned )，and the limit of absorption (For pollution )，All are restricted.That is, the finiteness of the earth is the basic reason that makes the growth of an infinite population and economy impossible;Therefore, our social and political behavior needs to be changed in depth and fundamentally.
The ecological philosophy of Buddhism is closer to the ecologicalists ─Thinking based on the dimensions of "the dependence of the dependent origination and Dharma properties" and "the equality of the dependent origination and Dharma properties", humans should rather face nature more humbly than have the superiority of governing nature.Improvement of environmental problems is not only technical work, but also involves people's values.For example: the encouragement of consumption caused by the economic theory of "using consumption to stimulate production" and the saving behavior caused by the concept of "goods cannot be squandered" will create a completely different cultural landscape in the face of the same natural ecology.As the ecologicalists see: this must involve "interpersonal social and political life", and even the attitude of everyone towards their own life (For example: a life outlook of indifference or enjoying yourself in real time will show different attitudes toward the ecological environment )。
On the other hand, if environmentalists do not change the way of thinking "human-centered" think, even if they care about ecological conservation, they will often be "virtuous."Here we take "wild animal conservation" as an example:
When the ecological environment was destroyed by human over-exploitation, many animals and plants were extinct, and ecological imbalances occurred, which seriously affected humans' "sustainable utilization" of earth's resources. At this time, academic circles, officials, and the public began to realize that they should do a good job in conservation.Therefore, it has become an international consensus to legislate to protect “endangered” wild animals to maintain species diversity;The Chinese society has also begun to reflect on the improper culture of "medicine and food supplement".We even welcome: Under the Washington Convention Organization (CITES)The binding force of the severity of wild animals has great life guarantees;Countries that destroy their right to survive are often subject to international retaliation from "trade sanctions".
On the one hand, we are glad that humans have finally begun to seriously think about the principle of "dependent on each other" between humans and other sentient beings, and adjust the relationship between humans and the ecological environment. On the other hand, we can still discover several blind spots in their ethical thinking.On the surface, its ethical practice is already kind. For example, seeing an African rhino falls in a pool of blood will cause great spiritual pain.But compared with the values of Buddhist ethics, it is still "a slight difference, a thousand miles away", because if it were also a pool of blood, if it were a mass-produced beef cattle, the environmentalists would not feel guilty or painful.Therefore, those who strive to protect rhino can also eat steak every day without any shame.
However, if ecological reflection is just aside, it is still not enough to fully illustrate the value and dignity of life, but it is still only standing on the standpoint of "humanity-centeredness" and treating wild animals as one of the "resources" used by humans.If, according to the view of "sustainable utilization" of resources, as long as the wild animal is no longer "endangered species", its protection can be revoked;Once a certain species reproduces too much, humans even use artificial means to slaughter a certain number of "overdoes" to maintain a self-righteous "ecological balance".Is this kind of manual operation really mastered the mystery of the universe ecology?Will it bring about another ecological imbalance that cannot be predicted?In fact, it still needs to be tested by history.
“If wildlife conservation cannot transition to comprehensive "animal protection", it will be centered on "human".The desire to have this "everything that is original to the earth".It did not break away from the "human" pattern, and looked at the problem purely from the perspective of the survival rights of the animals themselves.Therefore, the reason why the medicine is not rhino horns, but dairy cow horns;It is not bear's gall, but pig's gall;It is not a tiger's bone, but a sheep's bone;If it weren't for the black-faced spoonbills left in the world, but for the sparrow or crow... we would feel relieved. ─The logic and emotional orientation of human thinking are actually trained in this way. This is by no means the conclusion that the correct view of "protecting life" in Buddhism can agree with.
In particular: if a few animals are given a "caring look" on the grounds of "endangering species", there will inevitably be a crisis of "quantifying" the value of life.In other words, not only "scarcity is precious", but also the flesh and blood of life, but also determines its existence value based on the supply and demand relationship of human beings.However, can the value of life really be quantified like this?Are those lives that are as painful and joyful as humans, who can cry and sorrow, really just "resources" that humans seek to "sustainably use"?When the value of life is quantified, the catastrophe will not only be poultry and livestock, but will eventually be all human beings!Therefore, when developing nuclear weapons, a political or military, absurdly believes that with hundreds of millions of people, a war is nothing to die!
However, in addition to the consideration of "resource sustainability", if we put ourselves in the shoes of the "self-education method" and further think about the principle of "equality of all beings", we will find that even wild animals are favored or sympathized with humans based on the reason of "endangered species", it is still incomplete!Because family, wild, pets, non-pets, food, non-food, raised animals, stray animals..., these are all based on the standpoint of "human" and labeled based on the feelings of "human" and the interests of "human".If they stand on the standpoint of the animals themselves, their will to survive is the same, and they are also the same fear and pain of cruelty and death.However, protecting and cherishing life should not be based on the premise of human interests, but should start from the feeling of respecting "they" rather than the feeling of "we".Therefore, life (No matter what form of life )The value does not come from labels like "wild"!
From this we can see that environmentalism that places human beings in a "management" position is not as good as ecologicalism. The latter can make fundamental changes based on the relationship between us and the environment, and is closer to the principle of "dependent on each other" in the law of dependent origination.Among the ecologicalists, some people further follow the "self-education method" to engage in animals (Not just wild animals )The rescue is here.
Ecologicalists are not only actively engaged in the prevention and control of various pollutions, the utilization of renewable resources, and the protection of animals and plants, but are also not satisfied with scientific ecology, so they establish an ecological theoretical foundation from metaphysics, cosmology, epistemology, and ethics.This comes from "Environmental Ethics" (Environmental ethics)、“Ecological philosophy” (Ecophilosophy)Develop to "deep ecology" (deep ecology)。
(two )Deep ecology and Buddhism
First, after facing the ecological crisis and reflecting on the fundamental problem, ecologists attribute the crux of the problem to the human-centered worldview in Western religious civilization. (anthropocentric worldview)，That is, "human chauvinism" (Anthropocentrism, Human-chauvinism)，It is believed that the fundamental solution is to establish a different worldview, natural view, values and sense of responsibility.Among them is the American historian White (Lynn White)The most famous.White was famous in 1967 Science》 A post published in a journal (The historical roots of ecological crisis )(The Historical Root of Our Ecologic Crisis)。In this article, he criticized the idea that "man controls nature" in Western religious thought, believing that this is the initiator of the Western ecological crisis.He said:
“How we treat the natural environment is entirely based on how we view the relationship between man and nature.More technological places cannot resolve the current ecological crisis unless we find a new religion or re-examine our original religion.” [5]
Here he also pointed out the "Zen Buddhism" in the East.This criticism is unconditionally accepted by ecologicalists, and a wave of anti-Western science and technology society and then turning to Eastern or primitive tribal societies to seek answers to ecological crisis.This attitude is in the so-called "deep ecology" (Deep Ecology)The most obvious of the advocates.The spiritual resources they pursue mainly include the spirit of Buddhism, Chinese Taoism, and the original Indian religions of North America, because they believe that in these religions, there is the concept of respect for nature and interdependent interdependence with all things, which is in line with the spirit of ecological principles.
The term deep ecology is by Norwegian ecological philosopher Dr. Naiqi (A. Naess)First creation [6]，Devi (B. Deva ll)、Leisen (G. Sessions)With Sneed (G. Snyder)Many scholars have successively promoted it.Devi and Resen once explained the deep ecology as follows:
“Deep ecology does not only look at environmental problems from a narrow perspective, but also tries to establish a vast and complete worldview that contains religion and philosophy....The basic meaning is two ultimate traits: self-realization (self-realzation)Equality with biological center.” [7]
Deep ecology can be said to be a philosophical movement developed in the modern environmental crisis. What it first changes is the "dominate worldview" that destroys the culprit of ecological ecology. (dominent worldview)。Under the idea that man is dominated by all things, nature is over-exploited;So ecological consciousness (ecological consciousness)The establishment of the first is to eliminate the chauvinistic consciousness of the "human center" and then establish a holistic, harmonious and balanced ecological philosophy.The two traits mentioned here:
1. "Self-realization": It is a process of self-awakening, in which people gradually understand that they must be interdependent with other things on the earth;Therefore, "self-realization" here is different from what the Western psychological tradition refers to, and discovers one's own unique qualities, but transcends one's own individual and includes the entire world.This is actually the embodiment of "no self" in Buddhism.
2. "Biocentric equality": This is to look at the earth from biological rather than physicality, that is, the life-saving systems on the earth are related to each other. Therefore, human beings must not exploit the earth, but must survive in the appropriate position of the natural order with a humble attitude to maintain the sustainable survival of the life world.This biological view criticizes the illusion of science and technology, and also provides the theoretical basis for the social ideal of human beings to respect each other without exploitation;Because the exploitation of the earth will inevitably ruthlessly exploit the vulnerable human beings.The view of the biological center affirms that all things on the earth are members of this interconnected whole, and will further acknowledge that all sentient beings have equal intrinsic values, equal right to survival and development opportunities.This is the Buddhist idea of "equality of all beings" and the Mahayana Buddhism's concept of "great compassion without cause, great compassion for one's body".
It is not to be denied that the modern Western environmental protection movement and ecological philosophy have been deeply influenced by Buddhism in the process of development. (Especially Mahayana Buddhism )The influence of doctrine.In fact, to establish environmental ethics and ecological philosophy, in addition to reflecting on the traditional Western worldview, we must also absorb the concept of harmonious coexistence between man and nature, and man and animal in Eastern religions. In particular, Buddhism is based on sentient beings, the viewpoint of "the correlation of dependent origination and Dharma appearance" and "equality of dependent origination and Dharma nature", which has provided biologically-centered ecologicalists with a meticulous philosophical structure and a broad cosmic vision.
Snyder, an ecologist who is deeply influenced by Buddhism (Gary Snyder)The view of equality is: “A ultimate democracy has been realized, which treats all plants and animals as humans, … so there should be a place and a spokesperson in the discussion of human political rights.” [8]
There are still several difficulties in this, and we can discuss them in depth.For example: Although Dr. Nees already has the insight of "biological equality", when summarizing the basic principles of deep ecology, he still has the consideration of "human needs to be given priority":
“Human beings have no right to erase the richness and diversity of nature unless it threatens the basic needs of human beings themselves. (vital needs)。”[9]
However, there are far more animals in nature that do not pose a "threat" to humans than animals that pose a "threat". The reason why they are harmed is not because they "threat the basic needs of human beings themselves", but "can meet the basic needs of human beings", such as being forced to sacrifice their lives to provide meat. In the eyes of deep ecologists, is this also the "power" of human beings?After all, vegetarians are still rare among them.
Of course, the definition of "basic needs" can be more precise, such as: "eating to maintain life" is the basic needs;But if there are other alternatives, it can also survive. For example, vegetables and grains can replace meat and become human food. Humans should also sacrifice animal life. (Even raising, slaughtering and selling in situations where the ecological environment is damaged or the quality of animal life is ignored )Is it?
Also, animal organs are used based on medical needs and animal experiments are conducted for medical, military or commercial reasons. These humans are cruelly dealing with animals with excellent positions, which are not also the "basic needs" for humans to maintain their lives.And without any conscience blame?
Furthermore, some animals have indeed hindered human safety, such as venomous snakes, centipedes, scorpions, malaria mosquitoes, large numbers of transiting locusts, dengue fever, plague or HIV-borne Aedes mosquitoes, mice or macaques, etc., but can humans end their lives based on the basic needs of survival?
Because of the misinterpretation of the "non-killing precept", there is even an argument that "vegetarian vegetables spray pesticides to kill animals" as an excuse to eat meat calmly.In fact, if you don’t even eat all the grains and vegetables and starve yourself to death, it’s not the same “killing”.And what about "suicide"?Therefore, based on the concept of "protecting life", facing the ecological environment, between "reality" and "should be", Buddhism has its own thorough and complete concepts, which is absolutely incompatible with rigid dogmatism.Just look at the emphasis on "not killing" and when you go out to drink water, you must first filter it with a water filter bag to avoid accidentally hurting and killing the monks and nuns who were living in ancient India. In the religious society where begging for life, it was impossible to prohibit meat eating. Instead, you can only follow the principle of "three clean meat" of "not seeing killing, not hearing about killing, and not doubting killing for me". You can understand that the Buddha's grasp between "reality" and "should be" is flexible.
“The promotion of the precept of not killing has a shallow and deep level of response and a general measurement.When an indigenous man who lives in the mountains and forests and must survive by hunting, shoots a boar for family consumption, this is not the same as the owner of a chain mountain restaurant who invests in the plain to hire hunters to hunt a large number of boars and uses mountain delicacies and wild game to make huge profits. The two are absolutely not equal to the crimes of "killing".Because the former is about limited hunting, the instinctive hunting behavior of similar animals ──This is just a "basic need" for survival, and the moral issues involved are relatively minor;The latter's greed and plundering far exceeds the needs of life, and the suffering of a large number of lives has intensified.Similarly, the crimes of killing passively self-defense and proactively invading;Killing animals and killing people has different crimes.This is all judged from the degree of cruelty of the killer's mind.
If we are willing to stay at the level of mediocre "instinct" and "self-defense", there is nothing to say.But Buddhism still sincerely advises us.It is better to hope for saints and wise men, break away from the mediocre level of life and show the glory of life with the spirit of "protecting life".
Let’s take the second best. Even if you kill based on the reasons of “instinct” and “self-defense”, you don’t have to find any moral reasons for this behavior. Instead, you should be deeply aware of human nature’s behavior of destroying life and plundering nature, and have a sense of shame;This will at least help humans constantly find ways to "reduce or even terminate killings".And the value of "the right to life is supreme".It also helps humans to choose the latter seriously and generously between "there must be killed but can achieve some effect at a cheap price" and "the killing can be reduced or even terminated, but must pay a more expensive price to achieve the same effect."This is no longer a purely market concept of "consumer rights".If you don’t establish such a life attitude from shame and reflection.Not to mention the requirement of vegetarian food, even the "Animal Protection Law" that requires humane breeding, transportation and slaughtering economic animals will be boycotted by operators and consumers because of its implementation.
In contrast, even most humans still cannot change their habits of eating meat, and therefore cannot completely meet the high standard of "not killing";However, if the improvement of animal feeding and transportation processes and the humanitarian methods of slaughtering will cause the cost of meat to be high, the concept of "the value of life is greater than that of property rights" will still make people rather eat expensive meat to reduce condemnation of conscience, which may relatively improve the situation of animals in human society.Similarly, the death row prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment, although the prisoner was more dead than death for life.It will waste more human and financial resources in society, but based on the concept that "the value of life is greater than that of property rights", people may prefer to choose the latter.
In short, even if it is related to the basic needs of human beings to maintain life, one must bear conscience;Because this sense of shame will reduce unnecessary killing as much as possible (Such as repeated but unimportant animal experiments )。Shame can also make meat eaters dare not call themselves a "gentleman" who "far away from the kitchen", but rather humbly admit that they are "mediocre men" driven by their desires and "villains" who "do not want themselves or their sons to be butchers, but can make others or their sons become butchers to satisfy their desires and "this moral consciousness is always beneficial to the relative improvement of the world environment - at least it is much more beneficial than finding high-sounding moral excuses for their "far away from the kitchen".These ethical thinking based on the Buddhist spirit of protecting students and multi-angle and multi-level ethical thinking may allow deep ecologists to develop a complete and comprehensive "green proposition" more!
Notes:
1. For details, please refer to the "Middle Agama Sutra" Volume 24 of the "Mahayana Sutra" (Taisho I. Page 578 ～582 ) 。In addition, the "Great Respects" in Palizang )Mahanidana Suttanta，《 Long section》 )Digha-Nikaya)two. Five Five ～Five Seven, Southern Transmission Seven. Page 1 ～Five, and the Great Book of Sutra Mahapadana Suttanta)，《 Long section》 )(Digha-Nikaya)two. Trinity ～Three or five, Southern scriptures Six. Page 397 ～─403. In these sutras, the Buddha proposed the Dharma of dependent origination.
2. As for the "Miscellaneous Agama Sutra" Volume 37 (Taisho 2, page 273 )。
3. See the combined version of the "Dharma Sentences" (Tainan: Miaoxin Temple, May 1920 )，Page 30.
4. The distinction between ecologicalism and environmentalism, see Andrew Dedson, Green political Thought, An Introduction, 1990。 Translated by Hong Yucheng: "Green Political Thoughts" (one )，《Taiwan Environment》 Issue 57, March 1993, Page 46: Gao Chengyan: (Introduction to "Green Political Thoughts" and "Taiwan Environment" No. 57. March 1993. Page 44 ～Four or five.
5. Lynn White, The Historical Root of Our Ecologic Crisis, p.106.
6. Naess, "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement", Inquiry, 16 (Spring, 1973).
7. Bill Deva l and George Session, Deep Ecology, (Gibbs Smith, Int. 1985), pp.65～66.
8. R. Wash, The Right of Nature, (The University of Wisconsin press, 1989), p.3.
9. Deva ll and Sessions, Deep Ecology, p.70.
