BEL News 8

In this issue, Sue Bacchus finds some fascinating facts about our personal relationships with our climate, Elaine Brook invites you to join in the debate arising from a recent conversation overheard in a Dharma Centre, on personal responsibility.

Why bother going green?
Contributed by Sue Bacchus,
from New Scientist November 2007, written by Fred Pearce

Plenty of people say it, and the rest of us probably think it as we browse the energy efficient light bulbs, unplug our TV or leave the car and walk to the shops instead.  What's the point in cutting personal carbon footprint when more than a billion Chinese and most of the rest of the planet are increasing their emissions as if there were no tomorrow?

It's a fair question.  After all, the atmosphere doesn't distinguish between a tonne of Chinese carbon dioxide and a tonne emitted by the West.  As the rest of the world carries on regardless, are the paltry savings from recycling your beer cans or insulating your roof anything more than a drop in the ocean?  If you just stopped trying, would the planet notice?  In this special investigation, we crunched the numbers to find out whether going green is worth all the bother.

First though, the big picture.  Every year human activities add about 30 bn tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, largely through burning fossil fuels but also through destroying natural carbon sinks, such as forests.  Half of this is absorbed by the remaining forests, soils and oceans, but the rest accumulates in the atmosphere.

Since pre-industrial times, the concentration of CO2 in the has risen by a little over one third from 270 ppm to 380 ppm -- or from 2.2 trillion tonnes to almost 3 trillion.  Most scientists think it would be unsafe to let CO2 concentrations rise beyond 450 ppm -- an additional 500 bn tonnes.  But as developing countries industrialise, global emissions are unlikely to stay the same.

Against this remorseless rise of CO2 from the developing world, can individual actions of a few concerned Westerners really make any difference?  To answer this we first need to work out what our personal emissions are.  That means including items omitted from the UN statistics -- particularly international air travel -- and the carbon footprint of goods made in foreign countries but imported for our use.  When these are taken into account, the CO2 footprint of the average Western European amounts to some 12 tonnes.  For Americans and Australians, the figure is almost twice that, mainly because they drive more, in cars with bigger engines. 

In general, just under half of the emissions for which each of us is responsible come from things over which we have personal control, such as how much we drive and fly and how we heat and power our homes. Of the rest, about 25% of the total arises indirectly through powering our workplaces, about 10% comes from maintaining public infrastructure and government, and about 20% is emitted during the production of the things we buy, including food.  We can still influence some of these indirect emissions through what we buy -- or we could if we had access to the right kind of information -- but by and large it makes sense to concentrate on the emissions we can control directly.

Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life, reckons it is possible to cut individual emissions by around 75% without seriously altering our lifestyles.  For a Western European, and that means slashing personal emissions from about 12 tonnes of CO2 to just 3 tonnes.

So how do we do it?  Like charity, reducing your emissions begins at home.  Of course, individual emissions will vary a fair bit, depending on the size of your house, how many people live in it, and how carbon-conscious you are.  But a typical Western home, with a total power throughput of about 20,000 kWh per year, might generate emissions of around 5 tonnes.  For each individual in the typical household this would average 2.3 tonnes, of which 1.2 tonnes is from heating the house, 0.4 tonnes from heating water and cooking, and .7 tonnes from general use of electricity for lighting and appliances.

Many people are surprised at the importance of heating to most homes' carbon footprint, and clearly there are big hits to be made here.  You can cut heating related emissions by 40% or more by replacing an inefficient old-style boiler with a condensing model, by improving house insulation, and by turning down the thermostat by 2° in winter.  But the biggest gain here can be from installing a wood burning stove in your living room.  This could cut household emissions by 2 tonnes of CO2 per year or 0.9 tonnes per inhabitant, on average.

You can halve the emissions of heating water and cooking by cutting out baths, are taking short showers (no power showers please -- they are as bad as baths) and by using a microwave or pressure cooker.  You can also halve electricity bills.  The big four energy guzzlers in most households are refrigerators, tumble dryers, computers and lighting.  Of these, at the tumble dryer is the worst offender.  A computer left switched on through waking hours and turned off at night will be responsible for up to 0 .4 tonnes of CO2 in the year.  Switching to a laptop, which is more energy-efficient, could save you 0 .2 tonnes.

Switching to energy-efficient light bulbs is another smart move, saving 0.25 tonnes for a household with 25 bulbs.  A digital TV set top box on standby uses enough energy to emit 0.06 tonnes of CO2 in the year (roughly the total emissions of an average citizen of Burundi) so you could save most of that by unplugging every time you switch off the TV, and maybe half if you switch off only at night.  And think about all the other kit you leave on standby.  Get rigorous about unplugging every time and the typical household can save another 0.1 tonnes.  It is small compared to some other savings, but significant nonetheless.

A final option is to buy into green electricity tariffs.  Read the small print though, because some companies are simply asking you to subsidise what they are already obliged to do by law.  In the best schemes, however you will be helping to ensure that more wind turbines and other green sources of electricity are built.  The annual carbon saving from these green energy sources could be as much as 0.8 tonnes of CO2 per person.

In the UK road transport accounts for nearly 1 in six of the typical citizen's emissions, or about 1.8 tonnes per head.  If you fly more than once a year, cutting back on those journeys will be the best single thing you could do to cut your emissions.  Cut out that long return flight from Europe to Miami, or the US to Rome, and you have saved 2.5 tonnes of CO2 -- which is probably more than you generate at home all year.  The simple truth is that frequent flyers have carbon footprints tens of times bigger than the rest of us.

Thanks to abundant cheap flights, Britons are the world's worst offenders on this score, with average emissions equivalent to 1.6 tonnes of CO2 per person -- more than double the rate for the average American.

Of the things we buy, food makes up another 2 tonnes of CO2 per head.  Concerned consumers often make an effort to cut their carbon footprints on food by buying locally, which reduces their food miles.  This makes some sense.  A quarter of the trucks on our roads are carrying food and raw materials for the food industry.  Yet many of the biggest energy inputs, and hence carbon outputs, of our food comes from growing and processing food rather than transporting it.  Manufacturing fertiliser, heating greenhouses and food-processing are major energy guzzlers.

As a rule of thumb, meat and dairy products have high carbon footprints because of the energy needed to grow the feed for the animals.  Going vegetarian could halve your carbon footprint from food to 1 tonne per year, but only if you cut back on dairy products too.  If you can't go without meat and milk, you could instead half your food footprint by going organic, largely because of the saving in fertiliser.  A diet made up exclusively of locally grown, non processed and non-packaged food can strip another 0.7 tonnes from your food-based carbon footprint, bringing an impressive total saving of 1.7 tonnes per person.

Drinks packaging matters too.  Smelting aluminium is one of the most energy intensive industries in the world, and making one beer or soda can emits 170 g of CO2.  That's the same as running your TV for three hours.  The average person gets through 120 cans in a year, which adds up to 0.2 tonnes of CO2.  So always recycle your cans and, for preference, buy draught beer or bottles instead.  Glass's carbon footprint is rather less than aluminiums.

Making these small changes, the average Western European can cut nearly 8 tonnes from their personal carbon footprint, taking their personal emissions down to around 2 tonnes.  Multiply that by enough people and the impact will be significant.  Yet again, given the scale of the increases in China, India and South America, is all this effort really worth it?  The answer is an unequivocal yes.  Emissions reductions are a bit like taxes: you may not like them and your individual contribution may seem too measly to matter, but multiply that by several million and you can start to move mountains.

There is no escaping the fact that individuals can make a difference by acting just a little bit greener.  The big picture seems daunting but it can be done.  And we have to start somewhere.  So don't give up.

Conversation on Responsibilty - contributed by Elaine Brook

This is a rough transcript of a conversation I listened into recently, and it got me thinking about the role of our individual consciences in our daily practice and our path to full awakening. Hope everyone finds it interesting and thought-provoking - and if anyone feels like joining in the debate, please send your comments to; 
 BEL  (at) gaiacooperative.org
 
Conversation between persons A, B, and C;

A. So, as a Buddhist, have you given up flying because of the effect it is having on climate change and the harm to living beings?

B. Oh, of course not - we can't possibly go back to living in a primitive way! I could not imagine life without flying. I hope somebody will find a way to ameliorate the bad effects, but I don't feel it's my responsibilty.

C. (addressing A) Why would you expect Buddhists to be any better on carbon-reduction than any other religion? There are people from all religions carrying on with daily activities that contribute to climate change, that they could reduce but don't. Why should Buddhists be any different?

A. Many Buddhists I met in the East were very careful about not harming other beings - so I suppose it left a kind of expectation. The main thing about most religions is believing in their particular God, so you'd expect them to be a bit hit and miss about a particular focus on anything beyond that, even though there is a common theme about love and compassion etc.
BUT - The heart of Buddhism is about developing awareness of interconnectedness and compassion, and understanding and 'subduing' (to use the jargon) one's own mind. Put  those things together and you can't avoid seeing the need to avoid harming other beings as much as possible. So yes, of course human nature wants to have all its consumer goodies AND feel lovely and spiritual as well - but if the teaching and practice is doing its job, then that bit of human nature will be transformed. And if it isn't transformed, then surely the teaching and practice isn't doing its job - and if that's the case then surely anyone who cares about the Dharma will want to find out why and sort out whatever gap has been left in the process.
I feel it is doing sincere students over here a disservice to be encouraged to think that just because they are meditating and thinking beautiful thoughts they don't have to actually change what they do day to day.

B & C didn't agree with this view, and so on......

COMMENT: from Mark Gerrard;

COMMENT: from Mark Hanneman; (Thupten Jampa)

Person A is correct in their view, as are the two others. It’s always useful to remember that our perspective is based on our experience, and cannot be exactly the same as anyone else’s.

In the case of this discussion, Person A makes a valid point, although perhaps too aggressively. If there is no understanding of the other person’s level of knowledge and motive there can be no valid judgement of their actions. Person A could perhaps explain the benefits and disadvantages of flying and leave it up to each individual to make their own decision. Practicing empathy and equanimity will always produce positive results, whereas evangelism, even on such a small scale, serves only to isolate us from others.

When considering how to modify our actions, we should always consider the net result. i.e. flying may produce some negative effects, but the results of not flying may produce even more. Each situation should be judged individually. We should always strive to minimise our negative impacts on those we share the planet with, and to maximise our love and compassion towards them.

Thubten Jampa

BEL news 7
In this issue, the Dalai Lama looks at the ethical issues relating to our care for the environment, Elaine Brook explores the relationship of practical action with mind and meditation, and Mark Lynas outlines some of the basic facts and fictions about climate change.

Universal Responsibility
by HH Dalai Lama

It seems to me that whilst most people are willing to accept the need for unity within their own group, and, within this, the need to consider others' welfare, the tendency is to neglect the rest of humanity. In doing so, we ignore not only the interdependent nature of reality, but the reality of our situation.

If it were possible for one group, or one race, or one nation to gain complete satisfaction or fulfilment by remaining totally independent and self-sufficient within the confines of their own society, then perhaps it could be argued that discrimination against outsiders is justifiable. But this is not the case. In fact the modern world is such that the interests of a particular community can no longer be considered to lie within the confines ofits own boundaries. The cultivation of contentment is crucial to maintaining peaceful coexistence. Discontent breeds acquisitiveness and can never be satisfied.

...In particular lack of contentment is the source of damage to our natural surroundings, and, thereby, of harm to others. Which others? In particular the poor and the weak. Althought the rich may be able to move house to avoid, for example, high levels of pollution, within their own community the poor have no choice. Similarly, the people of the poorer nations which do not have the resources to cope with the effects of the richer nations' excesses also suffer.

The coming generations will suffer too. And eventually we ourselves will suffer. How? We have to live in the world we are helping to create. If we choose not to modify our behaviour out of respect for others' equal rights to happiness and not to suffer, it will not be long before we begin to notice the negative consequences. Imagine the pollution fro an extra two billion cars, for example. It would affect us all.

Contentment is not merely an ethical matter. If we do not wish to add to our own experience of suffering, it is a matter of neccessity.

(excerpted from Ancient Wisdom, Modern World, by HH Dalai Lama)

Mind in Meditation and in Action
by Elaine Brook

Dharma practice focuses on our minds. Even if we cannot transform all at once our negative states of mind into positive, the first step is to get to know what is really going on in there. The more aware we are of our reactions and attitudes, and all the little games we play with ourselves about what we want and don't want, the better chance we have of gradually losing interest in the less apealing side of our nature and developing a happy and helpful disposition.

So when we hear that everyone in the affluent industrialised countries is in denial about the effects of our lifestyles on climate change, the environment, and the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves, we realise this must mean us as well. Have we looked at this aspect of mind? Have we explored it in meditation? Is it easy to explore denial which by its very nature is the essence of something we are avoiding at a very deep level? Are we so attached to 'having a happy mind' that we cling to our denial because we know intuitively that it helps us avoid looking at some 'inconvenient truths' as Al Gore puts it, about the real effects of the way we live, on other sentient beings.

What we have to ask ourselves, can we maintain a genuine, deep rooted happiness based on denial? Would we actually feel happier if we took a real look at what we are doing instead of hiding away from it? Can we really engage in genuine meditations on compassion if we don't engage in everyday actions which are congruent with with our focus in meditation? Maybe we would find that changing the way we live would not be such a hardship after all, and that there would be incredible joy in starting to engage in a non-harming lifestyle. Every day we could rejoice at the huge numbers of sentient beings which we have saved from harm just by simple everyday actions such as switching off lights, turning down the heating, travelling less, and so on.

(First published in FPMT newsletter, Sept 2007)

Scientists move against Channel 4 'Swindle' 25 April 07
by Mark Lynas

(Comments on a TV progrmme which attempted to persuade people that climate change was not due to human activity, particualarly burning fossil fuels and emitting high levels of CO2)

A couple of basic facts about global heating & cooling;

1. The ice age cycles are modulated by orbital variations of the earth around the sun. That's what starts the heating and cooling, and various feedback processes (of which CO2 is one) exaggerate it.

2. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but it has a very short atmospheric lifetime, unlike CO2 which hangs around for a century at least. Water vapour is also a feedback, because if you warm the atmosphere more evaporates, so that exaggerates the heating effect. There are uncertainties about the specifics, but this is central to climate science and modelling, so it is not ignored by scientists. The 95% water to 3% CO2 claim is just trying to mislead people.

Usually in environmental controversies, the voices of the campaigners are the most strident. Not so with the Channel 4 film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – this time it is the climate scientists who are mobilising to defend their work against a campaign of disinformation and misrepresentation by the anti-environmental film-maker Martin Durkin, whose whole TV career has been built on misrepresenting environmental science to support his extremist ideological position.

Durkin’s Swindle is so riddled with errors, misrepresentations and factual innacuracies that it is difficult to know where to start in structuring a complaint. The claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humanity, for example, is just one point on which he is flat wrong – volcanic CO2 is 2% or less of human emissions. So hats off to Bob Ward, a former press officer with the Royal Society and now director of Global Science Networks in London, who has taken on the task with gusto. His ‘Misrepresentation of the Science’ document has been sent to the British broadcasting regulator Ofcom, accompanying a complaint pointing out that Durkin has breached Section 5.7 of the Broadcasting Code, which states “Views and facts must not be misrepresented”.

The latest scientific salvo comes in an open letter to Martin Durkin asking that he refrain from releasing the Swindle on DVD until the errors and distortions are corrected.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/25/scientists-move-against-channel-4-swindle

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, by Mark Lynas, now from Amazon.co.uk or alternatively from the Friends of the Earth online shop.

Buddhist Ecology Link -6

BEL 6 features an article by Thich Nhat Hanh; readers may like to comment on any connections they see between his article and his interpretation of the second precept.

best wishes
Elaine Brook
Editor

Dear Elaine Brook,
A friend has just passed to me your interesting e-mail about a Buddhist Approach to Green Issues (by Yann Lovelock in BEL 5). No sane person would disagree with the many ecological points made in the article, but the attempts to interpret the Buddhist sources to fit them are not terribly convincing, I'm afraid. Not that that really matters; Buddhists are human beings, and all human beings should be deeply concerned about such issues anyway. One minor point intrigues me however. Anguttara Nikaya iv/186 in the E.M. Hare translation published by the PTS contains no passage remotely like the one quoted in the fourth paragraph of the article, so I wonder if that really is the correct source. If so, would you be kind enough to let me know the translation from which it was taken. As you know, the text itself concerns doubts that were being expressed about the Buddha's seeming willingness to eat meat that had been specially prepared for him, so the sentiment of the quote is relevant, but the only point at issue in the teaching is the eating of such meat.
Best wishes, Ken Robinson

Touching Peace by Thich Nhat Hanh

The Earth, our mother, has brought us to life many times, and each time she receives us back into her arms. She knows everything about us, and that is why the Buddha invoked her as a witness. She appeared as a goddess, offering flowers, leaves, fruits, and perfumes to the Buddha. Then she just looked at Mara and smiled, and Mara disappeared. Mara is not much in the presence of the Earth. Every time you are approached by Mara, if you come to the Earth and ask for help by touching her deeply, the way the Buddha did, you will be offered flowers, fruits, butterflies, and many other gifts of nature, and the Earth will look at Mara in such a way that he will disappear.

We have so many reasons to be happy. The Earth is filled with love for us and patience. Whenever she sees us suffering, she will protect us. With the Earth as a refuge, we need not be afraid of anything, even dying. Walking mindfully on the Earth, we are nourished by the trees, the bushes, the flowers, and the sunshine. Touching the Earth is a very deep practice that can restore our peace and our joy. We are children of the Earth. We rely on the Earth, and the Earth relies on us. Whether the Earth is beautiful, fresh, and green, or arid and parched, depends on our way of walking. Please touch the Earth in mindfulness, with joy and concentration. The Earth will hear you, and you will heal the Earth.

One of the best ways to touch the Earth is by practising walking meditation. We walk slowly, massaging the Earth and planting seeds of joy and happiness with each step, and following our breathing at the same time. We don't try to go anywhere. We arrive with every step. When we breathe in, we count the number of steps we take. If we take three steps, we say, silently, 'in, in, in'. When we breathe out, we do the same, 'out, out, out'. If we take three steps as we breathe in and four steps as we breathe out we say out, out, out, out. We listen to the needs of our lungs and we breathe and walk accordingly.

The Second Mindfulness Training by Thich Nhat Hanh

Aware of suffering caused by exploitation, social injustice, stealing and oppression, I am committed to cultivating loving kindness and learning ways to work for the well-being of people, animals, plants and minerals. I will practise generosity by sharing my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in real need. I am determined not to steal and not to possess anything that should belong to others. I will respect the property of others, but I will prevent others from profiting from human suffering all the suffering of other species on Earth.

back to top

Buddhist Ecology Link -5

It's worth remembering that most ecological information is excluded from most of the media due to censorship by vested interests. Worth staying awake to all information that becomes available.

Congratulations on the Buddhist Ecology Link - we should display copies. With metta, Jan McHarry 

Thank you for taking the initiative in producing BEL. It is a very useful and exciting resource. Keep up the good work. Phil Henry

Members of the PLBF have thoroughly enjoyed the extracts that I have printed in Pure Land Notes, and praised the high standard of this work. I am sure most members of the NBO feel the same way. I ………… will put the address in the latest PLN Best wishes, Jim Pym

ECOLOGY BEGINS AT HOME by Archie Duncanson £4.95

USING THE POWER OF CHOICE

Review by John Newson

How can we help reduce our planet's pollution? Begin at home! With his positive attitude and 'what-can-I-do' approach, Archie Duncanson takes us on a journey of discovery to find a more sustainable way to live, from reducing rubbish and the use of chemicals, to cooking with almost no energy.

Ecology Begins at Home offers environmentally friendly options-often surprisingly simple-that don't necessarily require major changes to your lifestyle. Archie gives hundreds of tips and ideas (some so obvious we wonder why we haven't thought of them before!) for ways that we can change our habits to live more in harmony with the earth.

There's no need to wait for the world's governments to take the initiative. Using the power of choice, we can reduce our share of global pollution, and inspire others to do the same-now!

Archie Duncanson trained as a systems engineer, and after twenty years in industry moved into teaching, translating and writing. He self-published the first edition of Ecology Begins at Home in 1989, giving many talks on the subject over a number of years. Now living in Stockholm , he is an avid gardener who loves to be outdoors.

ECOLOGY BEGINS AT HOME by Archie Duncanson

ISBN: 190399845X

Format: paperback Publisher: Green Books

Treading Lightly on the Earth - a Buddhist approach to Green issues by Yann Lovelock

Although the interdependence of all things lies at the heart of Buddhist teaching, Ecology as such is a modern formulation. One might certainly plead that it is a much needed restatement of the Buddhist vision in modern times; one might side with the poets (among them, the Buddha himself) and agree that truth gets lost in the words and therefore needs restating anew from age to age. The young idealists with whom I used to mix, and who went on to found the Network of Engaged Buddhists, had no doubt at all that this was so. But in order to convince the more old-fashioned Buddhist, we found that it was first necessary to prove that claim from traditional sources.

There were three areas that needed looking at in order to carry people with us. First we had to prove from the Buddha's own words that an ecological vision is included in his teaching. Secondly, we had to point to areas of the training recommended by the Buddha where our ecological concern could be put into practice. Many still argue that, on the contrary, the Buddha's is a system of spiritual growth that trains us away from identification with the phenomenal world. In addition, then, we looked for similar interpretations of the teaching by earlier Buddhists. If we found that we were in fact following in the footsteps of others, then our case would be proved.

To begin, then, with the Buddha's own words, we find this in the Gradual Discourses :

He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom. [Angutara Nikaya4/186]

In that the Buddha starts from the position of regarding all animate life as precious to itself, the phrase ‘the whole world' must therefore be understood in its widest sense. He is pointing, as usual, to the ideal towards which the training leads. Something of this can be read into the Buddha's consciously dedicating several days of gratitude to the tree under which his enlightenment experience took place. In Zen tradition much is made of the fact that most of the Buddha's cardinal experiences took place under trees – his birth under a sal tree, his first experience of meditation under a roseapple, his enlightenment under a baobab, his passing away in a sal grove. It signals to them that one's care should therefore extend beyond the animate. For this reason, the Zen version of the vow to seek Buddhahood states that one will continue striving for the welfare of all beings until even the blades of grass are enlightened. This may not be understood literally, but it does indicate that a follower of the Way sees his training as encompassing care for the whole world.

Reverence for life is expressed in the first rule of training undertaken by all Buddhists: to abstain from doing harm to any living being. It is widened still further in the monastic rule that prohibits destroying trees or seeds or causing them to be destroyed. This arose from the Jain understanding of the chain of life, extending from the mineral through the vegetable to the animate. In the case of this prohibition, it is generally understood that the Buddha did not wish his followers to cause offence to those with differing beliefs. Its result, however, has been a more thoughtful approach to the environment generally. In Thailand , it is true, the dye for monastic robes (in the forest tradition at least) used to be obtained by boiling the roots of the jack tree. Now that the existence of tropical forests there is threatened, however, the practice has been forbidden by the monastic authorities. Even long-standing tradition can be overturned when a threat to the environment is perceived.

One of the keys to ecological action is found in the second factor of the Eightfold Path – the Buddhist way of training. It has been translated as Right Motivation, Intention or Thought and comprises harmlessness ( ahimsa ), compassion ( karuna ) and renun-ciation ( nekhamma ). The renunciation demanded need not be that of taking up the monastic vocation. Even if we remain laymen, the training asks us to make do with the minimum. Craving for more is the cause of suffering and if that craving results in a major threat to the planet, then we should remember that it is our duty to cause no harm and to be compassionate. All these things hang together.

We see from the above that care for the animate sphere, simply because all things are interdependent, entails care in our handling of the inanimate. This is reinforced by the third of the five rules of training by which we engage not to misuse the senses. Traditionally this has been limited to the sexual sphere; the precept's rewording in retreat situations is the keeping of absolute chastity (brahmacariya ). Normally one vows ‘not to misuse the senses' ( kamesu miccacara ), bearing in mind the Buddha's saying that nothing stimulates each of a man's senses so much as the sight, sound, touch, etc, of a woman, nor a woman's than that of a man. Undoubtedly this is so but it is capable of a wider interpretation. Each of the rules is there to train us towards an ideal of conduct. Mere chastity is only the beginning; total control of our appetites, of our craving, is the end in view. The third precept is therefore our ecological charter. It asks us to take only so much as we really need. To waste the planet's finite resources and thereby imperil all of life for the sake of selfish greed is as spiritually thoughtless as it is criminal.

Finally we should bear in mind that the Emperor Ashoka, the Buddhist cultural hero and role model, certainly interpreted the teaching as having care for the environment. His first Rock Edict not only prohibits animal sacrifices but also the killing of animals for festive meals; in addition, the king takes the lead in limiting his own use of meat with the aim of giving it up altogether:

No living beings are to be slaughtered here or offered in sacrifice. Nor should festivals be held, for Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, sees much to object to in such festivals, although there are some that the king does approve of. Formerly, in the kitchen of King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.

In the second Edict he explains that he has encouraged the cultivation of medicinal plants for the use of humans and animals. In addition he has had wells dug and trees planted along the roads for the welfare of both.

The fifth Pillar Edict is also noteworthy. Twenty-six years after the king's coronation, it records, various animals were declared to be protected – species of birds, fish and animals, including ‘all four-footed creatures that are neither useful nor edible. Those nanny goats, ewes and sows which are with young or giving milk to their young are protected, and so are young ones less than six months old. Cocks are not to be caponized, husks hiding living beings are not to be burnt and forests are not to be burnt either without reason or to kill creatures. One animal is not to be fed to another.' On specified holy days fish are protected and not to be sold. During these days animals are not to be killed in the elephant reserves or the fish reserves either. On various others castration and branding is forbidden.

The Rock Edicts seem to stop short of an ecological vision, but then the emperor's concern was the application of the Buddha's teaching to governance; his focus would naturally be different from that of a religious teacher. The Pillar Edict certainly goes further, however. Doubtless it is motivated chiefly by the Buddhist principal of extending loving-kindness to all living beings. Nevertheless, forbidding the needless destruction of forests has a resonance today, now that tropical rain-forests are under threat from this cause, as perhaps the wilderness areas were in the India of Ashoka's' day. Protection of species has also a curiously modern ring. What is more, we should not have had the recent mad-cow disease epidemic if the prohibition on feeding one animal to another had been in force. Nor should we have had HIV if people had been more careful about what they eat, since it now seems likely that its origin came from eating monkeys carrying the disease.

The lesson to be drawn is that the practice of universal loving-kindness, based as it is on the Buddha's vision of the interdependence of all life, has its ecological application. It is opposed to the life-sapping poisons of selfishness, greed and ill-will which lie at the root of the ecological threat to the planet. Whether he realised it or not, Ashoka issued regulations of an ecological character on the strength of his understanding of Buddhism. Recognising today by the aid of science what was evident to the enlightened eye of the Buddha, we cannot do other than exert ourselves against the wanton devastation of life and other resources, even if it is only to the extent of limiting our consumption to the minimum.

Coming last in order of presentation in the seminar at which this talk was given, it heartened me that all my colleagues of other faiths – Jews, Quakers, Muslims and Sikhs - had been following a similar methodology. All had taken the approach of finding sanction from their scriptures and from traditional practice. Naturally new developments call forth new responses, but in this case the testimony of all seems to be that they are returning to teachings which have ceased to be emphasised under the onslaught of modern materialism. In earlier days, when the limitation of resources was assumed as a matter of course, more care was taken to conserve them. For our own sake, and for the sake of all life, we need to bring that state of mind to the forefront once again in the practice of all our faiths.

The circumstances of the seminar give another pointer to the future as well. The so-called globalisation of business seems to be regarded by most of the faiths as simply the application of business efficiency to greed, launching it as a competitive ideology. The faiths have spent so much of their history squabbling among themselves that they have not realised until now how threatened they are by the professional organisation that materialism has acquired. It is not just the material planet that we need to defend from the predators in the present circumstances but the very concept of spirituality itself.

Birmingham , the city in which this seminar took place, is regarded as one of the most cosmopolitan in Europe – and possibly in the world. It has, among other things, rich religious resources, both human and material. If we are to get on together, coming from such different cultures and holding such diverse viewpoints, we obviously have to talk to and learn from each other. But beyond that, in finding common ground, we need to act together for the common welfare. Indeed, through the auspices of the Birmingham Faith Leaders' Meeting, and such organisations as BTCV Environments For All, one of the sponsors of the seminar, we have indeed begun to work on joint projects as people of faith. The seminar should therefore be viewed as only a starting point. Beyond that we need to co-operate in resisting what is being made of the planet that is our home, and in restoring the damage done to it as a work of shared concern and compassion.

Elaine Brook

back to top

Buddhist Ecology Link -4

BEL 4 presents an article from each side of the debate. The Dalai Lama outlines some of the reasons why caring for the environment is part of Dharma practice, while John McLellan presents the opposite point of view. Sometimes this opposite viewpoint comes from a sense of separation, as in ‘ the environment is not something I have had anything to do with'..

Some responses so far to articles in BEL;

Great stuff!  I have forwarded it to our Saraswati list.  I am a fan of Spell of the Sensuous.  I discovered it when I was writing my dissertation for my MEd and used a few quotations for it to justify my use of the so-called 'participatory paradigm' of educational research. Andy Wistreich

It has been very important to me to link my practice to social and ecological issues - to me they cannot be separated. Les Phillips

I have already read and enjoyed and shared newsletter 2. Sulak is/was a friend of my brother's in Thailand and we have his book Seeds of Peace. My brother lives in Thailand and was here last weekend. I will send him a copy. I will distribute Elaine's article widely -  good practical thinking. I will think about writing but am more of a doer. Rachel Rosedale

I am a practicing Buddhist living in Ecuador, where I have devoted the last 14 years of my life working to protect some of this countries' megadiversity of plant and animal life (I am the Executive Director of the Fundacion Pro-Bosque, which administers the 6.078 ha Bosque Protector Cerro Blanco, which protects a significant remnant of Ecuadorian Dry Tropical Forest). Although I have taken refuge about a year ago, I have been familiar with some of the Buddhist views on nature and ecology having picked up a copy of the WWF booklet of Buddha's teachings on respect for nature and all sentient beings and by His Holiness, The Dalai Lama's teachings and statements on this matter. This was really the "hook"that brought me into Buddhism and I would be very interested in obtaining more information about the Shen Phen Thubten Choeling Centre for Socially and Ecologically-Engaged Buddhism and its work. Could you also please provide me the address of the Buddhist Ecology Link? Thank you in advance, Eric Horstman

I appreciate that you suggested some practical ways for saving animal life and avoiding in the same time giving an incentive to the business of capturing or raising animals for sale.

May I give a contribution to this collection of suggestions?  There are in Germany associations, such as http://www.regenwald.org/ , devoted to saving rainforests and the local inhabitants.  Certainly there are similar associations also in other countries. Sometimes, when it is appropriate, they propose to raise money to buy pieces of rainforest which are directly threatened of destruction (for instance by a mining company). The ownership is then handed over to the local people who live in the forest and are opposed to its destruction.  Giving money for buying such a piece of land saves countless animal lives from certain destruction!    ...and is free from this undesirable incentive to the business of capturing or raising animals for sale. With kindest regards, Paolo Sala  

***

Non-Dual Ecology by John McLellan

Recognising the inherent Buddha-nature of rocks and clouds is not that hard -- many acknowledge this in principle. Liberal thinkers admit most animals and plants and even microbes to the select company of sentient beings… but recognising this prized quality of aliveness in technology, in human/machine interaction, and in abstract symbolic systems is something else again. Buddha nature in nuclear bombs? In computer systems, in our urban networks, in the workings of mathematics? No one in the environmental world seems willing to go that far…

Deep Ecologists show the same fear and loathing toward today's out-of-control technology, as humans have had -- until recently -- toward uncontrolled Nature, with her savage wastelands. Just as we waged war in the 19th century on wilderness, environmentalists today long to conquer technology, to subdue and control it. Such a dualistic view of the world, neatly partitioned into good, pure Nature and bad, aggressive technology, does not lead to a complete relationship with everything that is. It perpetuates the same kind of good guy/bad guy scenarios we have always indulged in, and leaves a bad taste, especially since the bad guys seem to be winning. Why not take deep ecology to the heart of what is really wild on this planet: why not embrace as sacred Everything That Moves, just as we do in wilderness system? Since everything that exists moves, we'd be done with all this picking and choosing, worry and strife. We'd have a ready-made, flawless, sacred outlook.

The leading deep ecology thinkers all seem to have a bio-centric attitude … many of them have good Dharma teachers too, but in my opinion they don't listen to them carefully enough. They talk about surrender to what is natural, and about following the Tao, but are not willing to stretch their arms wide open and let in Everything That Moves. They would like to exclude certain things: exploitative technology, warfare, social injustice, famine, urban landscape, television, the extinction of non-competitive species, the collapse of planetary life-support systems for higher species…

Many of these entities or techno-biotic processes are dangerous, but so are the natural forces in large biological wilderness areas. We have last come to appreciate this element of danger in nature; perhaps we must learn to accept it as well in the world we live in today -- in the world of cities, wars, famine zones, collapsing ecosystems, toxic pollution, and so on, including the extinction of species and even perhaps the disappearance of ‘higher' life forms on this planet, like ourselves. This kind of danger may be good for us, even healthy…

So who are we now? Are we still pure biological creatures? Is it even possible to conceive of technology, machines and Information Systems, as a separate class of existence from humans? I think not. We have become technobionts, symbiotic members of this new life form that has taken over the planet. Our human nature has merged with the new morphologies to become technobiotic nature…

Like it or not, biological evolution is no longer the main focus of life on this planet. Biological evolution has become a subplot, relegated in its wild forms to out of the way corners, empty lots, roadsides, to cracks in the sidewalks of civilisation. It's been built over, on top of, subsumed, in the best evolutionary style, by the techno-biota. We cannot stop this process; we cannot even guide or shape it very well. We are locked into an unfolding dynamic that has its own evolutionary momentum. We and it are out-of-control together in a stupendous Becoming that stands proudly beside any evolutionary step ever seen before in this part of our galaxy…

Reality does not need or want to be changed. It has gone to great trouble to establish itself as it is, and it is perfect… it is not now and has never been in any danger. No matter what happens on this planet, there will always be plenty of good life filled world for us to join in with.

Buddhism & Environment by HH Dalai Lama

The natural environment sustains the life of all beings in the world. However, nearly everywhere these days, it is undergoing extensive degeneration. Therefore, it is more important than ever that each of us makes whatever effort we can to ensure the protection, restoration and replenishment of our environment and its inhabitants.

A pure and unspoiled environment is beneficial for everyone. When the natural elements are in harmony, the quality and duration of life increase. For instance, trees purify the air, providing oxygen for living beings to breathe. Their shade provides a refreshing place to rest. They contribute to timely rainfall, which nourishes crops and livestock and balances the climate. They create an attractive landscape, pleasing to the eye and calming for the mind.

When the environment becomes damaged and polluted there are many negative consequences. Oceans and lakes lose their cool and soothing qualities, so the creatures depending on them are disturbed. The decline of vegetation and forest cover causes the Earth's bounty to decline. Rain no longer falls when required, the soil dries and erodes, forest fires rage and unprecedented storms arise. We all suffer the consequences.

In the context of Buddhism, trees are often mentioned in accounts of the principal events of our teacher Buddha Shakyamuni's life. He was born as his mother leaned against a tree for support. He attained enlightenment seated beneath a tree, and finally passed away as trees stood witness overhead. According to the Vinaya, their code of discipline, fully ordained monks are enjoined to not only avoid cutting trees, but also to plant and nurture them. Therefore we can conclude that to plant and care for trees is to do virtue. Moreover, trees are described in the Scriptures as the abodes of deities, nagas and local spirits. These are further reasons to protect them.

It is important that we all take whatever steps we can to preserve and maintain our environment before it is too late.

back to top

Buddhist Ecology Link 3

Dear Dharma Friends,

It was encouraging to hear from Sally Masheder that she had received some favourable responses to the first 2 issues of BEL. I was also encouraged by the people who contacted me directly and asked if they could copy articles for their own in-house publications. It does seem that ecological awareness is growing among Western Buddhists, and the implications for compassionate practice are becoming clearer.

I would be really interested to hear from NBO contacts who have disseminated these articles to their own groups. What kind of response have you had from your own group of Buddhist practitioners? How easy is it to link traditional beliefs and practices to the everyday reality of consumer society?

BEL 3 includes a short piece by David Abrams, who is not writing from a specifically Buddhist perspective, but has some interesting insights into how our species' deep communication and relationship with the natural world changed with the advent of writing. He shows how communication and relationship became increasingly focused on the written word and human centred ideas. Bearing in mind the importance given to the oral tradition in Buddhism, and the several hundred years before the teachings were written down, it may be worth a deeper look at the very process we are currently using to disseminate the teachings, and question whether that process is in fact subtly changing the focus of our practice.

The Buddhist teacher, Lama Yeshe, often referred to ‘chocolate' as a metaphor for our attachments, and in this issue John Robbins investigates the real story of chocolate and its implications for sweet-nibblers of all ages.

Julia Butterfly Hill spent many months living in the top of a giant redwood tree in order to save it from being felled for timber. Her insights from this extraordinary solitary retreat are both direct and revealing.

It would be very interesting to receive contributions to BEL, especially from anyone who feels they can use the written word to express the possible drawbacks and limitations of communicating through the written word, and the implications for Buddhist practice. (Interesting that Abram's text was incomprehensible to my computer dictation software – perhaps an illustration of how far apart these ‘philosophies are!)

Happy reading!

Metta, Elaine Brook

Is there slavery in your chocolate? by John Robbins

Chocolate. The very word conjures feelings of pleasure, sensuality, and the richness of life... Chocolate has a remarkable history. When Cortes and his conquistadors first encountered the Aztecs and met the last Aztec emperor Montezuma, they were amazed to find a thriving metropolis with more than one million residents, making it several times larger than the biggest city in Europe at the time. Cortes and his band were confronting a culture and an ecosystem that were wildly strange to them. Yet what they found most astonishing, according to their reports, was the fact that Montezuma's royal coffers were overflowing not with gold but with cocoa beans.

Most of us, though, aren't all that concerned with the history of chocolate. When it comes down to it, frankly, we are content so long as the market shelves remain well-stocked with tins of cocoa and bars of chocolate. Or at least that is how it was in the United States until the summer of 2001. For then the Knight Ridder Inc. newspapers across the country ran a series of investigative articles that revealed a very dark side to our chocolate consumption. In riveting detail, the series profiled young boys tricked into slavery and sold as slaves to Ivory Coast cocoa farmers.

Ivory Coast, located on the southern coast of West Africa, is by far the world's largest supplier of cocoa beans, providing 43% of the world's supply. There are 600,000 cocoa farms in Ivory Coast which together account for one third of the nation's entire economy. An investigative report by the BBC in 2000 indicated the size of the problem; hundreds of thousands of children are being purchased from their parents for a pittance, or in some cases outright stolen, and then shipped to Ivory Coast, where they are sold as slaves to cocoa farms. These children typically come from countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Togo. Destitute parents in these poverty stricken lands sell their children to traffickers believing that they will find honest work once they arrive in Ivory Coast and then send some of their earnings home.

But that's not what happens. These children, usually 12 to 14 years old but sometimes younger, are forced to do hard manual labour 80 to 100 hours a week. They are paid nothing, are barely fed, are beaten regularly, and are often viciously beaten if they try to escape. Most will never see their families again…

The ownership of one human being by another is illegal in Ivory Coast, as it is in every other country in the world today. But that doesn't mean slavery has ceased to exist. In times past, we had slave owners. Now we have slave holders. In many cases, non-ownership turns out to be in the financial interest of slaveholders, now reaping all the benefits of ownership without the obligations and legal responsibilities.

On June 28, 2001, the US House of Representatives voted 291 to 115 to look into setting up a labelling system so consumers could be assured no slave labour was used in the production of their chocolate. Unhappy with this turn of events, the US chocolate industry and its allies mounted an intense lobbying effort to fight off legislation that would require ‘slave free' labels for their products…

For a long time, many major manufacturers insisted that they bear no responsibility for the problem, since they don't own the cocoa farms With the CEOs of some of the largest coffee and chocolate companies being paid around $40 million per year, it is not easy for most consumers to stomach the contrast between exorbitant salaries, and the gruesome reality of slave labour. Nor is it easy to swallow the reality of such excess when millions of coffee and cocoa farmers around the world who depend on their harvests to provide for their families are facing debt and starvation. There seems to be something particularly hideous about making this kind of money on the backs of the world's poorest people. . ‘This industry isn't responsible for what happens in a foreign country,' said Gary Goldstein of the National Coffee Association, which represents the companies that make Folgers, Maxwell House, Nescafe and other brands.

Fair trade is a growing trend… Across the country, there are now over 80 companies that have licensing agreements to offer fair trade certified coffee and cocoa… When consumers purchase fair trade coffee or chocolate, they know that their money is going to local farmers where it is then invested in healthcare, education, environmental stewardship, community development, and economic independence. At present, no organic cocoa beans are coming from Ivory Coast, so organic chocolate is unlikely to be tainted by slavery.

Things We Can All Do;

buy organic and fair trade chocolate & coffee .............ask local stores to stock organic and fair trade chocolate & coffee..........write a letter to local papers to raise awareness....................become educated! Check;
www.globalexchange.org
www.stopchildlabor.org
www.antislavery.org
www.fairtrade.org
excerpted from John Robbins' article in ‘Mindfulness in the Marketplace' edited by Allan Hunt Badiner.

Philosophy on the Way to Ecology by David Abram

Humans are tuned for relationship. The eyes, the skin, the tongue, ears, and nostrils -- all are gates where our body receives the nourishment of otherness. This landscape of shadowed voices, these feathered bodies and antlers and tumbling streams -- these breathing shapes are our family, the beings with whom we are engaged, with whom we struggle and suffer and celebrate. For the largest part of our species' existence, humans have negotiated relationships with every aspect of the sensuous surroundings, exchanging possibilities with every flapping form, with each textured surface and shivering entity that we happen to focus on. All could speak, articulating in gesture and whistle and sigh the shifting web of meanings that we felt on our skin or inhaled through our nostrils or focused with our listening years, and to which we replied -- whether with sounds, movements, or minute shifts of mood. The colour of sky, the rush of waves -- every aspect of the earthly sensuous could draw us into a relationship fed with curiosity and spiced with danger. Every sound was a voice, every scrape or blunder was a meeting -- with Thunder, with Oak, with Dragonfly. And from all of these relationships our collective sensibilities were nourished.

Today we participate almost exclusively with other humans and with our own human made technologies. It is a precarious situation, given our age-old reciprocity with the many-voiced landscape. We still need that which is other than ourselves and our own creations... Direct sensuous reality, in all its more than human mystery, remains the sole solid touchstone for an experiential world now inundated with electronically generated vistas and engineered pleasures; only in regular contact with the tangible ground and sky can we learn how to orient and navigate in the multiple dimensions that now claim us…

If human discourse is experienced by indigenous, oral peoples to be participant with the speech of birds, of wolves, and even of the wind, how could it ever have become severed from that vaster life? How could we ever have become so deaf to these other voices that nonhuman nature now seems to stand mute and dumb, devoid of any meaning besides that which we choose to give it?

The fecundity and flourishing diversity of the North American continent led the earliest European explorers to speak of this terrain as a primeval and unsettled Wilderness -- yet this continent had been continuously inhabited by human cultures for at least 10,000 years. That indigenous peoples can have gathered, hunted, fished, and settled these lands for such a tremendous span of time without severely degrading the continent's wild integrity readily confounds the notion that humans are innately bound to ravage their earthly surroundings. In a few centuries of European settlement, however, much of the native abundance of this continent has been lost -- its broad animal populations decimated, its many-voiced forests over-cut and its prairies overgrazed, its rich soil depleted, its tumbling clear waters now undrinkable.

European civilisation's neglect of the natural world and its needs has clearly been encouraged by a style of awareness that dismissed sensorial reality, denigrating the visible and tangible order of things on behalf of some absolute assumed to exist entirely beyond, or outside of, the bodily world. Some historians and philosophers have concluded that the Jewish and Christian traditions, with their otherworldly God, are primarily responsible for civilisation's negligent attitude towards the environing Earth. They cite, as evidence, the Hebraic Gods' injunctions to humankind in Genesis; ' be fertile and increase, fill the Earth and master it; and all the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all living things that creep on Earth'.

Other thinkers, however, have turned towards the Greek origins of our philosophical tradition, in the Athens of Socrates and Plato, in their quest for the roots of our nature disdain. A long line of recent philosophers, stretching from Friedrich Nietzsche down to the present, have attempted to demonstrate that Plato's philosophical derogation of the sensible and changing forms of the world -- his claim that these are mere simulacra of eternal and pure ideas existing in a nonsensorial realm beyond the apparent world -- contributed profoundly to civilisation's distrust of bodily and sensorial experience and to a consequent estrangement from the earthly world around us.

So the ancient Hebrews, on the one hand, and the ancient Greeks on the other, are variously taken to task for providing the mental context that would foster civilisation's mistreatment of nonhuman nature. Each of these two ancient cultures seems to have sown the seeds of our contemporary estrangement -- one seeming to establish the spiritual or religious ascendancy of humankind over nature, the other effecting a more philosophical or rational dissociation of the human intellect from the organic world. Long before the historical amalgamation of the Hebraic religion and Hellenistic philosophy in the Christian New Testament, these two bodies of belief already shared -- or seem to have shared - a similar intellectual distance from the nonhuman environment.

In every other respect these two traditions, each one originating out of its own specific antecedents, and in its own terrain and time, were vastly different. In every other respect, that is, but one: they were both, from the start, profoundly informed by writing. Indeed, they both made use of the strange and potent technology which we have come to call the alphabet.

Writing, like human language, is engendered not only within the human community but between the human community and the animate landscape, born of the interplay and contact between the human and the more than human world. The earthly terrain in which we find ourselves, and upon which we depend from our nourishment, is shot through with suggestive scrawls and traces, from the sinuous calligraphy of rivers winding across the land, inscribing arroyos and canyons into the parched earth of the desert, to the black slash burned by lightning into the trunk of an old elm. The swooping flight of birds is a kind of cursive script written on the wind; it is this script that was studied by the ancient augurs who could read therein the course of the future. Leaf miner insects make strange hieroglyphic tabloids of beliefs they consume. Wolves urinate on specific stumps and stones to mark off their territory. And today you read these printed words as tribal hunters once read the tracks of deer, moose, and bear printed in the soil of the forest floor. Archaeological evidence suggests that for more than one million years the subsistence of humankind has depended upon the acuity of such hunters, upon their ability to read the traces of these animal Others. These letters I print across the page, the scratches and scrawls you now focus upon, trailing off across the white surface, are hardly different from the footprints of prey left in the snow. We read these traces with organs honed over millennia by our tribal ancestors moving instinctively from one track to the next, picking up the trail afresh whenever it leaves off, hunting the meaning, which would be the meeting with the Other...

All of the early writing systems of our species remain tied to the mysteries of a more than human world… the efficacy of these pictorially derived systems necessarily entails a shift of sensory participation away from the voices and gestures of the surrounding landscape towards our own human made images. However, the glyphs which constitute the bulk of these ancient scripts continually remind the reading body of its inherence in a more than human field of meanings. As signatures not only of the human form but of other animals, trees, sun, moon, and landforms, they continually refer our senses beyond the strictly human sphere…

With the advent of the phonetic aleph-beth , the alphabet, the written character no longer refers us to any sensible phenomenon out in the world, or even to the name of such a phenomenon, but suddenly to a gesture to be made by the human mouth. There is a concerted shift of attention away from any outward or worldly reference of the pictorial image, away from the sensible phenomenon that had previously called for spoken utterance, to the shape of the utterance itself, now invoked directly by the written character… human utterances are now elicited, directly, by human made signs; the larger, more than human life-world is no longer part of the semiotics, no longer a necessary part of the system… The other animals, plants, and the natural elements -- sun, moon, stars -- are beginning to lose their own voices…

from The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams

Mindfulness in the Marketplace By Julia Butterfly Hill

In the past, human beings understood, acknowledged, and lived according to their sacred, interdependent place in the circle of life. Today, much of humanity is treating our earthly home -- a priceless treasure beyond compare -- like a trash can, or a toxic dumping site, or as something we can dispose of (as if there is such a thing as throwing something away.)

In the industrialised economies, the most basic principle of investment seems to have been overlooked in our dealings with the Earth; we have neglected to plan for the long-term. As consumers in the global marketplace, the collective power of our seemingly small actions is staggeringly large. Most of us, directly or indirectly, consume our own body weight in the natural resources of the Earth every day. We are literally stealing from the future to pay for our lifestyles today. What kind of planetary portfolio of leaving behind for those who come after us?

When we walk into a store filled with products wrapped in plastic, paper, and metal, let us choose to look deeply. As we stand in the brightly lit aisles bulging with stuff, may we behold the trees that were cut to produce wasteful packaging; behold the indigenous cultures pushed to the edge of extinction so that raw materials could be extracted from their land; behold the overwhelming amounts of energy, soil, and water wasted in the process; and behold the less privileged citizens of the world, who, as a result, are unable to enjoy quality food or clean water. Reopening to this awareness of our oneness we will see through the myth of consumption that claims we can fill the void in our hearts and spirits with things .

Instead, let us celebrate filling our lives with the company of loved ones, involving ourselves with our communities, nourishing our bodies with living food made locally, walking the land, embracing all forms of life and practising the mindful art of breathing deeply.

Compassionate consumption is not about sacrificing or giving up things we need. It is about reawakening to the sacred within and around us and celebrating this awareness in every action -- and in every transaction. Our conscious choices change the world. You, dear reader, are a powerful being, a bodhisattva for the Earth, and your actions are the difference.

back to top

Dear Dharma Friends,
Welcome to the second edition of Buddhist Ecology Link newsletter. It was encouraging to hear from some of you that you found the content interesting and informative. There was also interest in some practical applications as well as the theory. This edition attempts to address both issues.
More contributions from all and any Buddhists very welcome; please email to the e-address above.
Metta,
Elaine Brook

"Peace and survival of life on earth as we know it are threatened by human activities that lack a commitment to humanitarian values. Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed, and a lack of respect for the earth's living beings … We must act before it is too late."
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama, World Environment Day, 1986.

The Religion of Consumerism by Sulak Sivaraksa

….Gradually, (the King of Siam) introduced Western education, medicine, technology, and administration into Siam. In the past, education and culture had been the domain of the Buddhist Sangha, the community of monks, but with the introduction of so many Western notions, the traditional Buddhist methods of education lost government support. Buddhism became formalised as the state religion, like the Church of England, and lost much of its vitality.

Today, spiritual advisers to the nation's leadership are no longer members of the Sangha. Buddhist monks still performs state ceremonies, but they have to be careful to confine their sermons to subjects that provide solace to political leaders and have little or no relevance to society. The new 'spiritual' advisers are from Harvard Business School, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and London School of Economics. Although many of them are well-meaning natives of Buddhist lands, most no longer understand the message of Buddha. One Burmese expert even claimed that his country's economic stagnation was caused by Buddhism, and one Thai psychiatrist said that mental illness in Bangkok was due to the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. Had these so-called experts not been educated abroad, no one would have taken them seriously.

Today Bangkok is a third rate Western city. The department stores have become our shrines, and they are constantly filled with people. For the young people, these stores have replaced the Buddhist temples as centres of social life. And the shadow of Bangkok is spreading over the countryside. In former times, we never had absentee landlords are but today the city people are 'investing' in rural land, while developers are acquiring and destroying more and more forests. 'Development' has become a euphemism for greed.

When they were colonial powers, the British and French maintained some semblance of environmental balance in south and southeast Asia, replanting trees, for example, so that future timber supplies would be assured. But following World War II, the USA began to exploit the natural wealth of our country as quickly and efficiently as possible. Bangkok began to develop as a hyperactive pace, consumer culture flourished, and the decadent aspects of Western development - sexual exploitation, violence, and drug abuse - became the norm.

Our educational system teaches the young to admire urban life, the civil service, and the business world, and, as a result, we are 'brain draining' our rural areas. If you go to the villages today, you will find only old people. The young people with ambition and intelligence are in Bangkok and those who cannot compete there go overseas to serve as cheap labour in the Middle East or as prostitutes in Japan, Germany or Hong Kong. This new religion of consumerism exploits the minds and bodies of the young and is entirely dysfunctional. Modern Siam is an eroding society……

According to Buddhism, there are three poisons; greed, hatred, and delusion. All three are manifestations of unhappiness, and the presence of any one poison breeds more of the same. Capitalism and consumerism are driven by these three poisons. Our greed is cultivated from a young age. We are told that our desires will be satisfied by buying things, but, of course, consuming one thing just arouses us want more. We all have these seeds of greed within ourselves, and consumerism encourages them to sprout and grow. Consumerism also supports those who have economic and political power by rewarding their hatred, oppression, and anger. And consumerism works hand-in-hand with the modern educational system to encourage cleverness without wisdom. We create delusion in ourselves and call it knowledge…

The goals of Buddhist development are equality, love, freedom, and liberation. The means for achieving these lie within the grasp of any community - from a village to a nation - once its members begin the process of reducing selfishness. To do so, two realisations are necessary: and realisations concerning greed, hatred, and delusion, and announced the realisation concerning the impact these tendencies have on society and the planet.

The Buddha taught that the first awareness is that suffering indeed exists throughout the world. It is a task as intelligent practitioners to be aware of suffering and to apply the insights of the Buddha to our own social setting. We have to translate his essential teaching to address the problems of today. Until we see that way to be free from suffering is through mindfulness and nonviolence, there is little possibility of overcoming suffering, either personally or societally.
Excerpted from Dharma Rain, edited by Stephanie Kaza and Kenneth Kraft.

Compassion and non-harming in the 21st Century by Elaine Brook

Traditionally, many Buddhists have brought their meditations on compassion into everyday action by buying live animals from butchers shops and setting them free, thus saving their lives. Animals were kept live in the shops to ensure unspoiled meat in a hot climate and so were available to be 'saved'. Now, refrigeration, centralized marketing, and lack of space for the long-term retirement of cows, pigs, and sheep all preclude simply copying that method as an option. We have to find a near-equivalent.

As an ecologist, I studied the way animals and ecosystems are affected by human actions, and looked at ways to integrate these insights into Buddhist practice. In the East some very cruel practices have developed to take advantage of Buddhist compassion - songbirds are trapped and sold in the market, and the main customers are Buddhists practicing 'liberation'! The birds suffer terribly as they are often caught with glue applied to twigs and sometimes their legs are pulled off during capture. Even without this, the capture, and being placed in a cage, is traumatic for a small wild bird. If the whole trade was boycotted, it could end permanently.

Check-out compassion
Every time the bar code bleeps through the checkout at the supermarket, it is not only adding up the customer's bill, it is also ordering a replacement of the item from Head Office. So every purchase of a product that has been produced in a harmful way creates a demand by triggering the order of another one - and investing in that harmful industry. Similarly, every purchase of a product that has been produced in a non-harmful way is investment and support in that industry, encouraging it to grow.

So, for example, organically grown fruit and vegetables have not been sprayed with chemical poisons. (These are made from the same substances as the nerve gas used in previous wars - films of insects dying from these sprays show them twitching in the same way as the larger animals on which these poisons were tested.)
Every purchase of unsprayed vegetables and fruit is one more order for more of the same, and one less demand for produce that has had mass-murder committed on it by spraying chemicals. It is a very powerful practice to listen to the bleep of the checkout as each package goes through and focus on saving so many millions of small sentient beings! The sentient beings saved also include the many wild birds that would otherwise die from eating poisoned insects or die from starvation because all their food insects have been killed by sprays, and fish - as there is no chemical run-off into the rivers.

A few months ago, I visited the east side of England and noticed there was no bird song. Coming back to the west side, and hearing the birds singing was a poignant experience in realising how many creatures have already disappeared because of human habits, but also the incredible opportunity to engage in positive actions.

In a similar way, there is the opportunity to practice active compassion by buying household and other products that are guaranteed not to be tested on animals. These laboratory animals are kept in cages, while the substances to be tested are dropped into their eyes to see how much they blister from the contact. After a short life of suffering, they are killed, and fresh animals used. The small amount of extra time and money that is needed to check the labels and avoid buying 'harmful' products could be part of an active practice of generosity as well as of compassion.

Protecting the workers
Saving the lives and health of human beings can sometimes be forgotten in the focus on saving the lives of animals. Products under the Fairtrade banner focus on protecting the workers who grow and sell. Fairtrade guarantees a fair price for produce, so workers can feed their children adequately and also have proper safety standards so they are not injured or killed or made ill by their work. The most common Fairtrade items are from tropical climates - tea, coffee, and bananas. Just asking for these products in shops and supermarkets raises awareness and creates demand, which supports this benevolent industry.

Another way to save billions of animals is to buy local produce when possible. This reduces the pollution caused by long-distance transport, which is leading to climate change. Climate change is already causing the deaths of billions of animals, such as coral animals, that cannot adapt quickly enough. So every time something local is bought, it is one small gift of life to a far-away community of corals. Turning the central heating down a few degrees and putting on an extra sweater, instead of wearing T-shirts in the middle of winter or opening the window if the room gets too hot, can be a similar gift. (The motivation still needs to be saving the animals, not just saving the energy bill!)

Buddhist compassion, practiced by meat-eaters and vegetarians alike, can affect the lives of farm animals. Dairy and leather products are an inextricable part of the meat industry, as there is not enough room for all male calves or chickens to be kept as pets. Animals and poultry become so stressed in cages that their teeth have to be pulled out or their beaks cut off to stop them injuring themselves or each other. They are routinely fed with antibiotics because the crowding would otherwise cause epidemics of disease - this practice can cause some dangerous animal-borne bacteria to become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics, creating untreatable "super bugs" that can infect humans. Organic dairy products indicate a more compassionate treatment of animals as the regular feeding of antibiotics is prohibited. Labels such as "freedom food" and "free range" show that animals have not been tied up in cages to produce cheap meat, milk, or eggs.

Equanimity
The Buddhist practice of equanimity toward all beings helps practitioners to extend the love and compassion for their own pets, to the farm animals with which we are so directly connected through food and markets. They may not be quite as fluffy and cuddly as pets, but they are suffering sentient beings just the same. These practices can help to develop a profound feeling of living in harmony with nature, even when in a big city. The interconnected effects of every action and non-action begin to come alive, part of the living web of life, connected to every other sentient being on both a material and a subtle level.

Adapted from an article first published in Mandala magazine

A Historical Perspective by David Evans

The imaginative development of the Buddha figure down the centuries has obscured the fact that the real Gotama Buddha had to wrestle with the social and material constraints of his time just like everyone else. The community of wandering mendicants that he created, and which grew to thousands in his lifetime, was in competition with other groups for lay generosity, and its very success produced considerable strains on the social fabric as many families experienced the trauma of separation from those joining the Sangha, as well as the loss of a potential breadwinner if the aspiring almsman happened to be in the prime of life.

Public relations skills of a high order were thus called for in sustaining harmonious relationships between the new community and the larger society, particularly as this was a subsistence economy with frequent experience of periods of famine. The principles of the 'Middle Way' and 'Right Livelihood' need to be interpreted against such a background since the former was scarcely available to those in a state of extreme want, and wrong livelihoods listed in the sutras could hardly be avoided unless more acceptable occupations could be found.

Among the most important patrons of the Sangha were kings and ministers, who needed to be kept on side. Hence the texts also developed a Buddhist version of the philosopher-king, a world ruler (cakkavati) who would partner the world teacher (Buddha) by seeking to establish a peaceful, just, and reasonably prosperous society in which the Dharma could flourish. The 'Edicts of Asoka' represents an attempt by one great king of India to proclaim principles of government guided by Buddhist values through inscribing them on hundreds of pillars, stones, and in caves.

In today's world Buddhists can usefully think of the Middle Way as a global norm, representing a standard of living that can be sustained by a finite planet that now has to feed 6 billion of us (and probably 3 billion more within century). On one side of this divide are the one billion without access to clean drinking water, those made destitute by the destruction of traditional habitats and many others. On the other are for instance, five car families (I know one such), people who think a desert environment can support private swimming pools, and all those NIMBYs with the purchasing power to demand ever more amenities and political clout to ensure that others bear the environmental cost. If global consumption is ever to be stabilised (or brought down) without impairing our ability to ameliorate extreme impoverishment, there will have to be fundamental reforms of the capitalist system, which is uncritically predicated on the kind of open ended growth that regards a recession as the worst of evils, whilst opening grotesque disparities between rich and poor both worldwide and even in the wealthiest countries.

In the light of all this the following principles are ones that many Buddhists and plenty of others might be expected to agree with: that the planet must learn to live within its means or confront disaster as resources dwindle whilst demands continue to rise; that the reuse and recycling of waste products is required on a gigantic scale if the imbalance is to be corrected; that parochial and nationalistic attitudes to environmental problems are not just unethical but ultimately futile - natural disasters are indifferent to political boundaries and a callously selfish approach to such matters can only fuel local and global conflicts; and the rest of the biosphere must be viewed as being valuable in its own right rather than as something simply expendable in pursuit of human needs. The World Commission on Environment and Development quite sensibly entitled its 1987 report 'Our Common Future' and that should be a fair warning that environmental failure will spare no one, as well as reminding those who find solace in nature that our relationship to other lifeforms is essentially symbiotic.

back to top

Buddhist Ecology Link 1

Dear Dharma Friends,
Welcome to the first edition of Buddhist Ecology Link newsletter. I hope it will provide a forum for Dharma practitioners of all schools to exchange ideas and explore the interconnections between Buddhist philosophy and practise, and ecological insights and everyday living in the world. Buddhism evolved for generations in a culture where most communities were quite small, and lived close to the land. Most people had a deep understanding of their relationship with the land, as they grew up in communities which grew their own food, and made most of their household items themselves from natural sources. This understanding did not need to be written into the Buddhist texts in any great detail because this was where people were starting from.

Now these texts have been translated into many Western languages, and study and practise is beginning to grow in Western industrialised countries. Although the texts have been translated accurately, the context in which they are being received is quite different from their original one. The industrial-growth society in which we live is demonstrating an unprecedented level of ignorance of how to live in ecological harmony, and the mainstream media is designed to keep everyone in as much ignorance as possible. Dharma practise is about overcoming ignorance, so as Western students we now have the opportunity to work together to overcome this particular gap in our understanding.

If we are going to practise compassion and non-harming to all sentient beings as we go about our daily lives, we need to know about the interconnected relationships of which we are part, in order to make the best possible decisions about our actions or non actions. On a more subtle level, as we explore deeper aspects of interdependence, we will sooner or later encounter some degree of the denial into which we unconsciously retreat in order to stay sane in a society based on acquisitive and destructive principles. Sangha support is a real help in overcoming this particular obstacle.

Awakening to our place in the ecological web can be frightening as we see more fully the harm to which we are contributing, but we can allow our practice to take us through the fear and into the joy of experiencing a oneness with all life; a new and deeper context for practising compassion in every moment.

I was very inspired to meet some practitioners from Christian Ecology Link who are involved with similar explorations into their own practice. They offered best wishes and encouragement, and said they would like to keep in touch.

As this is only a newsletter, it does not aspire to running long complicated articles, but would really welcome short pieces or personal letters as a forum for exchange. Do e-mail me with ideas, short articles, letters or short extracts from articles which have been published elsewhere.
Metta
Elaine Brook

Buddhism and Ecology by Martine Batchelor and Kerry Brown

The law of karma (cause and effect) ultimately places mind as the first cause. It is the maker and the shaper of our personal destiny and the destiny of the world. This principle is graphically illustrated by the Buddhist legend of a world that physically degenerates as the morality of its inhabitants degenerates.
We are now at the very heart of Buddhist thought and here we discover another concept that we already half know as we survey our dying world: our birth and existence is dependent on causes outside ourselves inextricably linking us with the world and denying us any autonomous existence. Indeed, when we think deeply enough, the borders between ourselves and the world wash away like water in water. We and all nature are inseparable, entwined, all one. Compassion for others should be as natural and instinctive as compassion for ourselves and our own bodies.
This is perhaps the most striking and difficult idea of Buddhism and one most misunderstood - that there is no independent, individual self. Yet the individual self is one of the Western world's most cherished beliefs and greatest source of suffering. It is what separates us from the world and causes us to cling to it with the stranglehold of the drowning. In Buddhist thinking, to be enlightened is to awaken from this delusion.

From the introduction to Buddhism and Ecology edited by Martine Batchelor and Kerry Brown.

Science and Spirituality by Satish Kumar

Science without spirituality seeks to work mainly in human interest and gives birth to technologies of comfort and convenience, as well as control and consumerism. Science denuded of deep values and the human spirit follows the lead given by money, military and materialism. Such science works for those who can pay for it, and doesn't accept any constraints or limits in its search to find the secrets of nature to meet insatiable human greed - particularly the greed of a powerful and privileged elite - very often at a great cost to other forms of life. A dispirited science is more likely to be misused and exploited by vested interests. So, science without spirituality is not only incomplete, it is also vulnerable and even dangerous.
On the other hand, spirituality without science is also incomplete. Such spirituality seeks otherworldliness and gives birth to institutionalised religions infected with dogmas, blind faith and fundamentalism. Spirit stripped of the daily concerns of human affairs follows the lead given by the gurus, priests and missionaries who promise their followers a place in heaven and inject fear of hell - thus exploiting the natural human urge for a spiritual fulfilment.
Science without spirituality has ill- served the Earth, and spirituality without science has degenerated into dogmatic exclusivity.
Many people are working to reconcile the split between intuition and reason, between cognition and consciousness, and between inner and outer. Taken together they make a strong case for connectivity and wholeness. They say that while science can offer practical tools and knowledge for living, spirituality can offer meaning. We need both. When a rich mixture of science and spirituality is available to us, why should we think in terms of 'either/or'? Why not 'both/and'? Why not celebrate the unity of physics and metaphysics? Information and transformation? Human ingenuity and imagination? Galileo and Gandhi? Einstein and Aquinas? Yes: the best of both worlds.

Extract of article first published in Resurgence No. 220 September/October 2003

Buddhism and Environment by Murray Corke

The Buddha emphasised the importance of sangha on the spiritual path. Sangha must involve all of the elements that condition one's karma. For me, to limit my sangha to the human world seems specious. The Buddha became enlightened when he realised the need to look after himself properly and learned to live in harmony with his environment. The earth was not only a witness to his enlightenment, but also a partner in it. Buddhist practice must include all aspects of one's life. Trying to separate one's spiritual life from one's material needs is likely to result in serious self- alienation, and misses the whole purpose of the Buddhist path.

Many of us experience concern over the lack of sustainability of our consumer-dominated society. If we fail to make changes necessary for sustainability in our own lives, a sense of guilt may result. To avoid seeing the need for change is a natural defence, personal change is painful unless one is a long way along the path. Thich Nhat Hanh says that Right View is No View, this is not to say that we should not have a sense of direction, but that we can move forward in the practice of life, only if we are free from attachment to fixed views.

A Buddha teaches the Dharma in everything he does, teaching is not limited to didactics. Every Buddha will have her own Buddha field, which will develop quite naturally from her own karmic experience. It is essential for a teacher of ecology or the Dharma to be practising what they advocate; 'hollow' words are instantly detectable by mindful practitioners. Thich Nhat Hanh says of this 'that one cannot take care of others until one has first learned to take care of oneself'. Sensitivity is needed in those seeking to guide other peoples' attention into new areas. Activists frequently alienate those they are seeking to convince. Adopting a high moral tone is likely to antagonise others and suggests an egoistical problem in the activist. The difficulty with any kind of teaching is to engage the attention of those who need it, rather than merely to re- circulate ideas amongst those who are already convinced of their relevance.

The important thing as a Buddhist practitioner, seems to be to find a balance between one's own needs and those of others. At the same time we have to be open to new and wider worldviews, be these on social, peace or ecology issues. In environmental work the needs of society must be balanced with the needs of the environment. To follow the Buddha is not to practise just for ourselves, we have to engage fully in the real world and its issues, what Suzuki Roshi referred to as cultivating Big Mind.

Touching the Earth - a Buddhist guide to saving the planet By Akuppa (Windhorse publications, 2003, ?6.99)

Review by John Newson
This is a short book, at 100 pages, by a member of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order - but its message is clear and simple. We are ruining the planet because we are lonely and unhappy people. Caring about the environment and sorting out our own delusions and suffering are essentially the same process.
The confirmation of the Buddha's awakening in the sutra was that he could touch the earth and she appeared to him in her full richness and beauty. Akuppa points out that it is the poisons of greed, hatred and delusion that prevent us from really enjoying and caring for our world.
Perhaps environmentalism and Buddhism are both in danger of becoming abstract systems of ideas, clouded in specialised jargon. Akuppa uses the plainest of language and suggests a practice of experiencing nature deeply and our oneness with it. He also asks us to take the environmental crisis personally. It needs us to change, not just some 'system'. To become humble, positive and generous, anger and despair about the state of the world will be unattractive and will not motivate people in the long run. A balance is needed between being too passive and being too angry. Meditation, says Akuppa, is the practice for recovering our balance.
This little book is not comprehensive, the reading list is rather thin - but as a pocket book for busy activists it could hardly be bettered. It is hopeful and practical.
"When the Buddha, at the moment of his awakening, lightly touched the Earth, it was recognition...but also contained a promise, the promise of transformation. When an awakened heart and mind touches the world, the result is change".

TheSands of the Ganges by Stephen Batchelor

To remove suffering we must uproot its cause: delusion. And what is at the core of such delusion? In a word, separation. We each believe we are a solid and lasting self rather than a short-term bundle of thoughts, feelings and impulses. We feel ourselves to be separate selves in a separate world full of separate things. We feel separate from each other, separate from the environment that sustains us, and separate from the things we use and enjoy. We fail to recognise them for what they are: part of us as we are of them, and the context in which we must painstakingly work out our salvation.
Delusion leads to all manner of problems. Our sense of separation reinforces the idea that we, or at least an important bit of ourselves, are somehow independent and unchanging. It lures us into believing that by accumulating enough agreeable pieces of reality -- cars, household appliances, clothes, hi-fi systems, fine arts or whatever -- we will accumulate a sense of well-being. It lures us into believing that the ability to control the world around us will one day cause a state of peace and happiness to arise within us.
This is not to say that many people would readily admit to holding such views. These views are far more insidious than that. Rationally, we all know that we are temporary creatures utterly dependent upon the ecosystem of our planet and finally destined to die. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that the views of our intellect necessarily bear any relation to our behaviour. The delusion of which Buddhism speaks holds sway over us in a much deeper way than mere ideas. We are in its grip almost physically, as though with our nerves, cells and chromosomes, it compels us to grasp hold of the world in a way that intellectually we would almost certainly reject.
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 2500 years ago. Greed, hatred 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 rainforests, 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 the ecological crisis is at root a spiritual crisis of self-centred greed, aided and abetted by ingenious technologies run amok.
From Buddhism and Ecology edited by Martine Batchelor and Kerry Brown

1. Other articles of interest;
2. Sentient Beings - Animal Liberation in the 21st Century
3. A Mythology for Our Time
4. Dharma Garden for the Benefit of Others