130

CHAPTER IV

Buddhist Moral Philosophy towards Ecological Entities: Humans,

Fauna, Flora, and Nature
This chapter seeks to present Buddhist moral philosophy with respect to ecology.
There is no ecological crisis during the time of the Buddha; in fact eco-crisis is a
problem of the modern age. Therefore, it is difficult to find materials in the canonical
texts, which is directly related to ecology. But in Buddhist philosophy, it is possible to
find an ethic which embraces not only humans but also animals and plants in order to
live in harmony with the nature. As Buddhist philosophy embraces both moral
standards and ethical practices, it is able to be applied in various ways. In Buddhist
philosophy, eco-crisis is considered as an indication of the ethical crisis. The roots of
moral degradation are said to be the vices like greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and
ignorance (avijjā), which is a lack of understanding properly. These three roots lead to
human suffering and eco-crisis because such roots are lack of gentle attitude to nature.

One of the central theories of philosophy subject is ethics. The area of ethics
extends to not only a certain region but also globally; not only present beings but also
future generation, and not only human beings but also non-human beings such as
animals, plants and ecosystems. It is said that an eco-crisis brought about due to
industrial civilization. Whenever there is a crisis in the world, it seems to make inquiry
into it. Such enquiry introduces moral obligations as a new ethics that is able to be
applied to the current crisis. It is also expected that new ethics is capable of overcoming
such a crisis. This ethics is called ecological ethics that arose as a major subject in the
field of philosophy. Ecological ethics consists of moral principles that contribute to the
well-being of humans and other life forms, and rules of conduct for environmental care
and preservation. It is explained in ecological ethics what human beings ought to value,
ought to be, ought to do in relationships with not only human beings but also nonhuman
environment, and elements in the biosphere. Therefore, most ecological ethicists often
claim that ecological ethics focuses on man-nature relationship and puts human actions
and responsibility in attempts to live in an ecological manner.

In Environmental philosophy, ecological ethics is defined as moral principles

that encompass the human attitude towards the environment, respect and
 131

responsibilities towards ecological entities, and rules of conduct for environmental care
and preservation. Some seem to believe that traditional systems are able to be applied
to the eco-crisis, but majority need a new ethics as ecological ethics. Thus, there arise
different ethical theories which play different roles in environmental philosophy. These
theories are able to be ranked into two categories: Anthropocentrism and Non-
anthropocentrism. Though anthropocentrism is odd to Buddhism, Non-
anthropocentrism is appropriate in the context of Buddhism. Non-anthropocentrism is
totally different from Anthropocentrism, which holds that only human beings have
moral value. While anthropocentrism focuses on duty to humans, non-anthropocentrism
emphasizes not only our duty to flora and fauna but also our duty to nature as a whole.
It is stated that anthropocentrism is the bottom-line ethic of environmental protection,
and non-anthropocentrism forms a superior level of ethics. It is to provide motivation
for people to observe ecological ethics, which focuses on sustainable relationship
between humans and non-human natures. Herein, it should be noted that ecological
ethics consists of the following moral duties: our duty to humans, to all life forms and
to nature as a whole. As ecological ethics focuses on the moral foundation of ecological
responsibility, it is handy for being able to develop our own moral vision for
sustainable relationship between man and nature. There are three distinct theories of
moral responsibility towards ecological entities.

4.1. Moral Responsibility towards Humans

The first theory pertains to moral responsibility to humans. It is called
“Anthropocentrism” that refers to “human-centered philosophy”. It tries to understand
the world through human-based values. This theory proposes that only human beings
are central to the universe because they have intrinsic value. Though it is difficult to
ignore this approach from a human perspective, it is in fact an egoism which seems to
represent the entire human species. This theory adheres to the view that human beings
can reflect upon ethical matters; everything starts from human interests and serve
human interests, and its values base on human measure.1 Human values, issues, and
concepts are considered central because only human beings possess inherent value.
This implies that all direct moral obligations and direct ethical duties go toward only to
human beings but do not go to the environment. As indirect duties to other human
beings, anthropocentric ethic gives duties to the environment. To fail in the protection

1
Leena Vilkka, The Intrinsic Value of Nature, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997), 100-101.
 132

of the environment means to fail in our duties to protect human health and welfare. The
defenders of anthropocentrism proposes that to maintain a healthy and sustainable
environment is necessary for human well-being as opposed for its own sake.

In this respect, Bryan G. Norton put human interests into two definitions: a felt
preference and a considered preference.2 They represent two forms of
anthropocentrism. A felt preference refers to strong anthropocentrism and a considered
preference refers to weak anthropocentrism. Strong anthropocentrism is often rejected
due to focusing on human centered view. This is because in this theory, a value is
evaluated by reference to satisfactions of felt preferences of human individuals. As it is
based on felt preferences, strong anthropocentrism may endanger the natural world
because felt preference causes environmental and ecological crisis. If anthropocentrism
supports the felt preferences of individuals in its value system, the behavior of
individuals will be out of control and free from ethics. Such humans might regard
nature merely as a storehouse of raw material. They use the nature for products serving
human preferences. It can be said that they use the nature in an exploitative manner.3

According to anthropocentrism, values do not depend on the environmental

context because values on the nature are a creation of humans. Unless any one ascribes
some instrumental value to it, nature is valueless. Nature exists for human purposes and
it does not have intrinsic value. Humans put species into being instruments for their
purpose and it values things that are instrumental but they themselves are in the
intrinsic value. The anthropocentric view which claims that only human possess
intrinsic value but ignore the environmental context of human life. In fact human good
cannot be understood without deep analysis of human relations to the environment. As
mentioned above, strong anthropocentrism emphasizes on human values but it is not
engrossed in real human well-being except economy and industrial development. This
implies that it ignores the significance of animals and nature, the well-being of people
in their cultural, religious, aesthetic, and environmental aspects. To ignore the
environmental context is to neglect an essential part of human good because a good
human life in fact is not possible independent of other human beings and environment.4
In the light of the above, strong anthropocentrism is not acceptable.

2
Bryan G.Norton, “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism”, Environmental Ethics: An
Anthology, (USA: Blackwell, 2009), 164.
3
Ibid. 165.
4
Leena Vilkka, Op.cit, 101.
 133

Weak anthropocentrism, on the other hand, attributes intrinsic value to animals

and nature. This theory attributes values based on a considered preference. Norton
states that one which can be satisfied by some specific experience is a felt preference;
one which an individual can have after careful deliberation is a considered preference. 5
Felt preferences are determined to be rational or irrational based on their consistency
with our rational worldview which emphasizes the close relationship between the
human and other living species. Weak anthropocentrism provides to criticize
preferences that are exploitative of nature and then it goes to considered preferences.
As different facts are distinguished between two forms of anthropocentrism, it is
obvious that weak anthropocentrism does not stay on felt preference and make a careful
consideration of it and then it finds value based on considered preference. Herein,
careful consideration makes weak anthropocentrism different from strong
anthropocentrism.6 Compared with strong anthropocentrism, weak anthropocentrism is
acceptable but it should be noted that both are in the line of anthropocentric ethics
because both of interests focus on human intrinsic values. It is found that weak
anthropocentrism avoids controversy over the existence of intrinsic value in non-human
organisms, objects, and ecological systems. Though anthropocentric environmental
ethics has obligations to respect the environment for the sake of human well-being and
prosperity, it needs moral extension to go to the non-human natural world. It is because
anthropocentrism focuses on traditional notions, which aim to control and exploit the
environment for the benefit of humans, and to use natural resources as food, fuel, and
shelter.

Anthropocentrism considers that humans have the highest level of intelligence,

but other beings are at a lower level of development. It is stated that most forms of
Buddhism do regard human life as more desirable than any other form of life. This is
because only human beings are capable of practicing meditation and have spiritual
qualifications to become enlightened. This means that humans have potentiality of
spiritual development more so than others. But it is not accepted in Buddhism that the
purpose of non-human nature is to serve human needs. It is rather accepted that human
beings are one of the life forms in an ecosystem. Furthermore, it is believed in
Buddhism that rebirth and all sentient existence in 31 planes are interconnected and

5
Bryan G.Norton. Op.cit, 165.
6
Ibid. 166.
 134

related by virtue of their volitional action from past lives, and it is possible to take a
rebirth in non-human realms. These perspectives support environmentally and
ecologically sound practices. In the case of anthropocentrism, Buddhism needs to be
clarified whether the Buddhist view of human birth is anthropocentrism or not. This is
because the similarity of the statements makes Buddhism confused with
anthropocentrism. The similar concept implies the negative consequence for Buddhism
and ecology.

4.1.1. Buddhist Position towards Anthropocentrism

With regard to the Buddhist view of human-centered theory, there are two
arguments which claim Buddhism is anthropocentric in nature. The first one is that
teachings of the Buddha are for the human to escape from the mundane world of
suffering; the second one is that human being is of central importance. Due to these
arguments, Buddhism seems to focus on human. In order to clarify the position of
Buddhism in this matter, deeper understanding of Buddhism is necessary. In Buddhist
philosophy, human birth is considered important, but there is no comment that human
life is more important than other living beings. Human world is considered as junction,
which is available to all directions. It is because there are many opportunities to do
good deeds in human world. Without moral practices, it is not possible for liberation.
This indicates that through enough moral training, human beings are able to reach the
highest goal from human world. When deeply understanding each and every Buddhist
philosophy, it would be possible to understand that Buddhism is not anthropocentrism.

The Buddha arises in this world for the welfare of all beings. His teachings are
also for the happiness of all beings.7 It is not only for mere human beings but also for
all beings. It is stated in the Aṅguttara nikāya thus “monks, there is one person whose
birth into this world is for the benefit of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of
compassion for the world, for the good, benefit and happiness of gods and men. Who is
that one person? It is Tathāgata who is Arahant, a Rightly Enlightened One.” It is
found in Nikāya literatures that after listening to his Dhamma talk, not only humans but
also gods (deva) realize the truth and reach a certain level of path and fruition. Even if
they do not have enough practice for the realization of truth, they are potential to be
reborn either in “sense sphere plane” or “fine material plane” or “immaterial plane”. As
such good practices bring them to higher stages. Devas or Brahma planes are regarded

7
A.I. 21-22.
 135

as higher realms because there is less suffering compared with woeful planes. But in
Buddhism, it is not a final destination to reach those certain realms. In fact, whoever
takes rebirth in any realm; it is the beginning of the death in certain realms. Death is a
suffering, and rebirth is also the suffering because it is dealing with death; either the life
of human or the life of god or the life of animal is suffering now that all are concerned
with birth and death. After a period of life span in the certain realms, it has to be born
again in other realms through the system of birth and death motivated by their
accumulated kamma. Due to ignorance and craving, beings cannot escape from the
circle of existence.8 It is possible to be free from the circle of rebirth only when all
attachments are cut off.9 Hence, Buddhism focuses on liberation from the mundane
world which is full of suffering. The teachings of the Buddha are welcome to all to
practice for liberation.

Why human birth is considered important is because in human existence it has

capability to perform some moral training depicted in Buddhism for liberation, such as
giving (dāna) morality (sīla), meditation (bhāvanā) than other realms. “Fine material
sphere plane”, and “immaterial sphere plane”, instead of being higher realms, have less
opportunities for meritorious deeds. It is stated in the Sakkudāna Sutta that Sakka
offered rice to Ven. Sāriputta who has arisen from meditation.10 He performed his
meritorious deeds as a layman. Only after he has received food, which is made of good
nutrition by the deities, he noticed the food due to the flavor of it. When Thera knew
that Sakka offered the food to him, he said that he wanted to receive the donation of the
poor. Sakka revealed that he was also poor. Because three sons of devas had more
bright colour on their bodies than Sakka. This is because those three sons of devas have
performed good deeds in the Buddha dispensation and Sakka has done meritorious
deeds outside the Buddha dispensation. Therefore, he came to human world and offered
food to Ven. Sāriputta.11 This indicates that human realm has more chances to do moral
actions even than higher realms. It is obvious that compared with non-humans, humans
have more opportunities to attempt moral trainings for liberation while it is very
difficult to perform moral actions in lower spheres, except animals. This is one of the
reasons why it is stated in Buddhist philosophy that human being is considered central.

8
Vbh. 141; S.I. 243; Vin.III. 1; Ud. 77-78.
9
S.I. 243; Vin.III. 1; Ud. 77.
10
Ud. 110.
11
Ibid. 179.
 136

In accordance with the accumulated kamma, beings are reborn either in human
world or Deva world or animal world. Even in human world, one‟s personality,
features, and knowledge differ from each other. Some are tall but some are short. Some
are rich but some are poor. All the differences are created by individual accumulated
kamma. It is stated in the Sulakammavibinga Sutta thus, “Beings are owners of kamma,
heirs of kamma, they have kamma as their progenitor, kamma as their kin, kamma as
their homing-place. It is kamma that differentiate beings according to inferiority and
superiority.”12 This indicates that kamma is very important to all sentient beings.

Without performing meritorious deeds, there is no way for beings to escape

from suffering. Therefore, moral way of living is suggested in Buddhism. To be reborn
in human world is a great chance because there are many opportunities, but it is
difficult to say that it is good enough to be a good man by mere being reborn as a
human. This is because there are some who do not follow the moral ways. As such, a
bad man does not keep five precepts; performs unwholesome deeds. A good man keeps
five precepts and avoids unwholesome deeds.13 The Buddhist way of liberation
emphasizes moral practice, which give rise to a beneficial effect on the practitioner and
others. Therefore, Buddhist view of human being should not be confused with strong
anthropocentrism, which focuses on only human welfare.

4.1.2. Buddhist Outlook on Life

Buddhist philosophy accepts the existence of one (puggala), being (satta),
human, and animal etc. in conventional truth; but it says that there is no one (puggala),
being (satta), human, and animal etc. in the ultimate truth. This is because Buddhist
philosophy has established that beings (satta) are composed of aggregates (khandhā), or
sense bases (āyatana), elements (dhātu). Buddhist outlook on life analyze existence of
beings in Buddhist philosophy based on mind and matter. In the sense of conventional
truth, human, animal, celestial beings and so on are called “being”. In fact, being is a
mere consequence of certain causes and conditions. Life refers to an interval between
birth and death of a being that is born as a result of previous kamma. Sentient beings
refer to beings not only in the “sensual worlds”, and in “fine material worlds”, but also
in the “immaterial worlds”. Based on moral practice and realization of the truth, beings
can be classified into many kinds. It is stated in the Puggala Sutta that there are nine

12
M.III. 243-244.
13
See Sikkhāpada sutta; sattakamma sutta; and dassakamma sutta in Anguttara Nikāya Vol. I.
 137

types of persons who exist in the world; the ones who have already attained the Four
Fruits of the Path; the ones who are on the way thereto, and worldling beings. 14 If
worldling beings are classified into four categories, there are twelve types of beings in
total. Those who have attained the four fruitions and the four paths are called the noble
ones. All of them are guaranteed to be freed from suffering. The last one is worldling
beings who are going round in the cycle of birth and death, just as wood which is
floating up and down in the river.

4.1.2.1. Aggregates (Khandhā)

In Buddhist philosophy, being is classified into three categories: 1. Being born in
the five-constituent existence: material form, feeling, perception, formation and
consciousness. It refers to beings in the 26 of the 31 cosmic planes. 2. Being born in the
four-constituent existence: “feeling, perception, formation and consciousness”. It refers
to beings in the four immaterial planes. 3. Being born in the one-constituent existence:
material form. It refers to non-percipient beings in asaññasatta-bhūmi.15 According
Buddhism, in the ever-revolving circle of existence, every sentient being including
human is composed of five aggregates:16 They are:

1. “Aggregate of form (rūpakkhandhā)”,

2. “Aggregate of feeling (vedanakkhandhā)”,
3. “Aggregate of perception (saññakkhandhā)”,
4. “Aggregate of formation (saṅkhārakkhandhā)”,
5. “Aggregate of consciousness (viññāṇakkhandhā)”.17

Of them, the first aggregate is physical; the last four aggregates are mental.
These five aggregates represent “mind and matter (nāma-rūpa)”. It is stated in the
Anattalakkhana Sutta that the Buddha addressed a group of five monks and thus “Body
is not the self…, Feeling is not the self…likewise perception, the mental formations,
and consciousness is not the self…Moreover, by this teaching thus uttered the hearts of
those five monks were freed from the āsava without grasping”.18 This confirms that
human existence is a combination of five aggregates or a combination of physical and
mental elements. A group of five monks completely destroyed their defilements and

14
A.III. 115-116.
15
Vbh.A. 90.
16
Vbh.1. 415.
17
D.III. 195; Abhi.S. 126.
18
S.II. 55-56.
 138

attained the Arahanthood. This sutta made them realize the truth of five aggregates
which constitute the so-called being.

The aggregate of form is understood as the physical body of a being, which is

composed of the four great elements: earth, water, fire and air. The salient
characteristics of the elements are solidity, liquidity, heat and motion respectively. It is
stated in the Khandha Sutta thus, “Form, whether past, present, or future, whether
internal or external, whether gross or subtle, whether inferior or superior, whether far or
near―that is called the aggregate of form”.19 The same method is applied to the
remaining four aggregates. Moreover, it should be noted that the aggregate of form
includes 28 matters20 that have already mentioned in the previous chapter.

The aggregate of feeling can be divided into three types: “pleasant, painful, and
neither-painful-nor-pleasant”.21 By way of the governing faculty, feeling is classified as
fivefold: “pleasure, pain, joy, displeasure, and equanimity”.22 It is because pleasant
feeling encompasses “both bodily pleasure and mental pleasure, and painful feeling
consists of both bodily pain and mental pain”. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant refers to
equanimity. As such feeling arises from “eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact,
tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact”.23 Owing to the arising of contact,
there is arising of feeling; owing to the ceasing of contact, there is ceasing of feeling.
The noble eightfold path is the way leading to the cessation of feeling.24

The aggregate of perception is recognition of objects. It means that perception

determines the characteristics of an object such as size, shape, colour, etc. It is
perception (saññā) that enables one to recognize an object that has once been in the
mind through the senses. It depends on the perception of the object whether one can
recognize object in terms of mental cognition. As perception is one of the universal
mental factors,25 it should not be confused with mindfulness (sati) which is one of the
beautiful factors.26 Though perception (saññā) arises together with all types of
consciousness, because of being the universal mental factor,27 mindfulness (sati) does

19
S.II. 39.
20
Abhi.S. 98.
21
S.III. 53; D.III. 181.
22
Abhi.S. 39.
23
S.I. 359.
24
S.III. 39.
25
Abhi.S. 19.
26
Ibid. 20.
27
Ibid. 22.
 139

not arise with all consciousness and arises with fifty nine consciousnesses.28 Based on
the six sense objects, perception is divided into six categories: “perception of
form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of taste, perception of touch,
and perception of mind”.29

The aggregate of mental formations includes all volitional activities. It is stated in

the Abhidhamma that fifty mental factors form the aggregate of mental formations.30
This indicates that all activities of a person are of this aggregate. It focuses on the moral
aspects of an individual, determining whether an action is moral or immoral. This is
because the aggregate of mental formations plays an important role in forming one‟s
personality, physical and mental, in the past, present, and future. By way of numerical
method, the aggregate of mental formations is classified from one to ten numbers. Of
them, threefold classification of mental formations refers to meritorious, demeritorious,
and imperturbable. Six types of classification mean volition born of “eye-contact, ear-
contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and mind-contact”.31

On the basis of six sense bases, consciousness is six-fold: “eye-consciousness,

ear- consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness,
and mind-consciousness”. The Mahataṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta affirms that consciousness is
called according to condition from which it arises: if it arises due to eye and the visible
form; it is called eye-consciousness. Likewise ear-consciousness, etc.32 the aggregate of
consciousness comprises all those types of consciousness.

In the analysis of a being into five aggregates, the Buddhist view of human is
clearly seen. In fact a being is just a combination of five aggregates. Human life is a
temporary existence of these five aggregates with its accumulated kamma. Therefore,
they are subject to impermanence, suffering, and characterized by non-self. It is
described in the Phenapiṇḍupama Sutta that there is non-substantiality in the five
aggregates: the body resembles a ball of foam; feeling resembles a bubble blown;
perception resembles a mirage; mental formation resembles a plantain-trunk;
consciousness resembles a phantom or deceitful appearances produced by a magician.
These five aggregates are devoid of soul-entity and essence.33 It is therefore suggested
to see the five aggregates as they really are with proper wisdom: “this is not mine, this
28
Ibid. 26.
29
Vbh. 5.
30
Abhi.S. 128.
31
Vbh. 37-38.
32
M.I. 326.
33
S.II. 116.
 140

is not „I‟, this is not my „self‟”. Seeing thus, one becomes disenchanted with them and
makes mind dispassionate toward them.34 This indicates that Buddhism encourages a
process of self-realization that is tied up with other ethical and altruistic processes. It
never neglects one‟s own welfare for the sake of another‟s. From the standpoint of
ultimate truth, it is clear that there is neither a person nor a being except the five
aggregates. But for the identification, the terms or names for such persons, beings, man,
and woman etc. have been used on the level of conventional truth.

4.1.2.2. Sense Bases (Ᾱyatana)

Being is analyzed not only into five aggregates but also on the basis of sense
bases (āyatana). Applying the method of five aggregates, some are able to realize the
ultimate reality, but some are capable of understanding the ultimate reality through the
method of sense-base. Sense-base (āyatana) includes the five physical sense-organs and
consciousness called the internal sense bases (ajjhattikāyatana), and their corresponding
six sense-objects called the external sense bases (bāhirāyatana). Thus, there are twelve
types of sense bases.35 They are:

1. “The eye base (cakkhāyatana)”,

2. “The ear base (sotāyatana)”,
3. “The nose base (ghānāyatana)”,
4. “The tongue base (jihvāyatana)”,
5. “The body base (kāyāyatana)”,
6. “The mind base (manāyatana)”,
7. “The visible form base (rūpāyatana)”,
8. “The sound base (saddāyatana)”,
9. “The smell base (gandhāyatana)”,
10. “The taste base (rasāyatana)”,
11. “The tangible base (phoṭṭhabbāyatana)”,
12. “The mental object base (dhammāyatana)”.36

Each āyatana is the sphere of a particular sense; it encompasses everything that

can be experienced through the particular “sense-door”. Of the six internal sense bases,
the first five internal sense bases denote the sensitivity of the corresponding organs; the

34
M.I. 192.
35
Vbh. 415.
36
Vbh. 69; Abhi.S. 127.
 141

sixth one, “the mind base”, comprises all 89 types of consciousness. The five external
sense bases denote the five types of objective material phenomena; the last one “the
mental object base” excludes all entities that are included in other bases, and consists of
the 52 mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and Nibbāna. If being is
analysed though the sense bases, there is no “being” except the combination of twelve
sense bases.

4.1.2.3. Elements (Dhātu)

It is also found that there is an analysis of “being” into element (dhātu). This
method is for the ones who are not capable of understanding the analysis of aggregates
and the sense-bases. Though the element (dhātu) bears its own intrinsic nature, each
element has its corresponding nature. The elements are classified into the eighteen
types.37 They are:

1. “The eye-element (cakkhudhātu)”,

2. “The ear-element (sotadhātu)”,
3. “The nose-element (ghānadhātu)”,
4. “The tongue-element (jihvādhātu)”,
5. “The body-element (kāyadhātu)”,
6. “The visible form-element (rūpadhātu)”,
7. “The sound-element (saddadhātu)”,
8. “The smell-element (gandhadhātu)”,
9. “The taste-element (rasadhātu)”,
10. “The tangible element (phoṭṭhabbadhātu)”,
11. “The eye-consciousness-element (cakkhuviññāṇadhātu)”,
12. “The ear-consciousness-element (sotaviññāṇadhātu)”,
13. “The nose-consciousness-element (ghānaviññāṇadhātu)”,
14. “The tongue-consciousness-element (jihvāviññāṇadhātu)”,
15. “The body-consciousness-element (kāyaviññāṇadhātu)”,
16. “The mind-element (manodhātu)”,
17. “The mental object-element (manoviññāṇadhātu)”,
18. “The mind-consciousness-element (dhammadhātu)”.38

37
Vbh. 415.
38
Vbh. 89; Abhi.S. 127.
 142

Of the eighteen elements, twelve elements are identical with twelve sense-bases
(āyatana); the remaining elements are six resultant consciousness elements that arise
only when the six sense-objects impinge on the six sense-organs. In this analysis, there
is no being except the eighteen elements. The eighteen elements and the twelve sense-
bases can be placed under the category of the five aggregates. This implies that these
elements and sense-bases are in the category of the five aggregates, which fall into two
groups: mind and matter. It is found that when a being is analyzed into aggregate-
sphere-element triad (khandhā-āyatana-dhātu), there is no substance or being but a
combination of mind and matter or aggregates or sense-bases or elements. The
realization of the ultimate reality is possible only when the aggregate-sphere-element
triad (khandhā-āyatana-dhātu) is realized together with four states: the arising, the
cause of arising, ceasing, and the cause of ceasing. These states are explained as the
philosophy of truth (saccā).

4.2. Moral Responsibility towards Fauna and Flora

The second one is moral responsibility to Fauna and Flora. It consists of two
theories: Zoocentrism and Biocentrism. This is because these two theories focus on all
life forms such as sentient and non-sentient things. As the first moral responsibility
towards fauna, zoo-centrism is to be explained; biocentrism is to be explained as the
second moral responsibility towards flora.

4.2.1. Zoocentrism
Zoocentrism is animal-centered philosophy that extends moral responsibility to
fauna. This theory extends value to all sentient animals. As an extension of moral
standing, it expands a moral philosophy to include all sentient animals. The most
famous proponents of zoocentrism are Peter Singer and Tom Regan. When they
develop animal ethics, Peter Singer approaches it from the stand point of animal
liberation, and Tom Regan approaches the same from the stand point of animal rights.

4.2.1.1. Animal Liberation

Peter Singer‟s approach is based on the moral philosophy of utilitarianism.

According to him, a moral standing is considered based on the concept of “sentience”:
the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. As animals have feelings of pain and pleasure
like humans, cruelty to animals is immoral. Animals are sentient beings. Though they
cannot use language that they are in pain, they experience pain on the same level as
humans. Such sentience is a sufficient condition for a creature to receive moral
 143

consideration. This indicates that the pleasure and pain of a creature are morally
relevant. In this way, Peter Singer takes an equal consideration into a utilitarian ethical
framework. 39

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that makes moral judgment on the basic of

pleasure and pain. It is considered that whatever gives the greatest pleasure over pain is
morally best. It means that an action is morally right if it produces the best results to
beings. According to this theory, all sentient animals deserve equal moral
consideration; it is to minimize pain and to maximize pleasure for all sentient animals.
Based on equality of consideration, Peter Singer introduced animal liberation. It does
not mean that animals should be equally treated, but it is that they should be morally
considered. Those animals are based upon the capacity to suffer; they feel pain, and
pleasure. Therefore, he argued that all beings that are capable of suffering should be
taken into moral consideration equally with humans. It is to remind us that there is a
moral limit to them through an equal consideration of interests.40 Peter Singer prefers
moral judgments based on equal interests. Such moral judgments are free from the
influence of race or species. It is not to focus on who felt; it is to count its suffering into
equal consideration. 41 Though it is accepted that all beings have various interests, there
are still different views to equally consider the interests of nonhumans. Therefore, an
achievement of animal liberation depends on the awareness of human beings that an
exploitation of nonhumans is wrong for the sake of humans‟ needs.

4.2.1.2.Animal Rights
Tom Regan argued that “animal right theory” based is on a concept of “subjects-
of-a-life”. “Animal rights theory” asserts that animals are morally considerable. This
theory denies utilitarian ethics. His approach is based on a kind of value possessed by
both animals and humans. According to him, a moral standing should be considered
based on the concept of “the subject-of-a-life”. It is because all creatures who are
subjects-of -a-life possess “inherent value”. It should be noted that “inherent value” is
the values of independent of their “goodness” to others, and “equal right” for animals is

39
Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal”, Philosophical Exchange, Vol. 1, No. 5, (Summer, 1974), 243-
257.
40
Australian Government Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, “Animal Experimentation”,
(Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1989), 25.
41
Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, (Cambridge University Press, 1993), 57.
 144

to protect “inherent value”, that they have. They have beliefs, desires, perception,
memory, emotions, a sense of future and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their
desire and goals. This means that those beings that have such a value of their own have
“rights” to precede other‟s interests. As the life of an animal is a value to itself, animals
must be morally considered, and have rights to protect their values.42 Therefore, while
dealing with animals, it should be considered how humans‟ actions effect the interests
and rights of individual animals.

4.2.1.3. Buddhist Attitude towards Animals

Philosophical approach from ecological perspective leads to develop sustainable
relationship between human beings and animals. Well-documented scientific studies
state that each living creature has its place in biosphere, playing its own role and being
part of a collective balance. Animal rights claim that human beings should give an
equal consideration and moral standing to animals. It is to establish a moral equivalence
between humans and animals. For human beings, there is no special place above and
beyond that of the rest of life. Human beings are a part of the cosmos as well as animals
are a part of it. Both human beings and animals live on the earth by ways of sharing
base. This means that the earth is not merely for the benefit and pleasure of human
beings. Buddhist philosophy states that in accordance with kamma, a human being can
be reborn as an animal, and an animal can be reborn as a human being. If they commit
unwholesome deeds, they can be reborn as animals; if they perform meritorious deeds,
they can be reborn as humans. It is implied that beings continue from existence to
existence being reborn in accordance with the nature of their deeds.

The nature of Buddhist attitude toward animals is very soft, deep, and virtuous.
Though it is said that animals possess knowledge and spiritual qualification weaker
than humans, Buddhism puts equal values on the lives of animals and humans with
equal respect. In Buddhist philosophy, it is always suggested to develop loving-
kindness to all beings, including animals. It is said in Metta Sutta that “just as a mother
watches over her only son, likewise one should cultivate boundless love to all living
beings”.43 Buddhist principle “pāṇātipātā veramaṇi sikkhāpadaṃ samadiyāmi”, which
means “I refrain from killing living beings”, is the first precept of all moral rules in

42
Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2 nd ed. 2004), 243.
43
Khp. 11.
 145

Buddhism.44 This is a basic precept that is greatly important for the welfare of all living
beings including animals, because this precept is based on the principle of mutual
attraction and righteousness common to all nature. Such as Buddhist moral conduct
based on universal love and compassion is capable of treating all living beings kindly.

In Buddhist philosophy, the life of animal is treated with equal respect; but there
is a distinction between human and non-human. Whoever or whatever one kills or
harms intentionally, it is an immoral action against the first precept. Herein, it should
be noted that there is a difference of degree between destruction to humans and
destruction to animal or plants etc. An offence of killing human is more serious than
harming animal or cutting a plant. This is because human has moral conduct, and
animal has lack of moral virtue. Even if one harms two persons, an offence of harming
a virtuous one is greater than an offence of harming an immoral one. It is implied that
morality play an important role among beings. In the rules of the Vinaya Piṭaka, the
taking of human life is listed as a third of the four major offences (pārājika), which lead
to expulsion from the Saṃgha for its violation.45 The destruction of non-human sentient
life is mentioned as one of the rules entailing confession (pācittiya), which do not entail
expulsion.46 For the monk, it is an offence to drink water containing living creatures.47
If he pours water with living creatures on grass or on clay, and if he throws soil or grass
into water containing living beings, it is to be confessed. As living creatures will be
harmed by this, such as rules are laid down to prevent the destruction of life even to the
smallest of creatures.48 Therefore, the lay people are exhorted to observe the five
precepts of which the first one is the precept of non-killing any living beings.

In Dhammapada, it is recorded thus: “All living beings fear being punished. All
living beings fear being put to death. Comparing other with oneself, one should not beat
or kill others, nor cause others to beat or kill.”49 If one takes a sentient life with
intention, it is morally wrong. Even to injure an animal is unacceptable behaviour. Any
wrong behaviour such as cruel acts to animals should be avoided. This is because all
beings love their own lives, and they are afraid of injury and death. It is described that

44
Khp. 1.
45
Vin.I. 92.
46
Vin.II. 164.
47
Ibid. 165.
48
Ibid. 70.
49
Dhp. 32.
 146

if a monk digs a pit for a human in order to die of falling into it, it is an offence of
wrong doing (dukkaṭassa); if there occurs pain in the one, it is a grave offence
(thullaccayaṃ); in case that person die as a result, it is a defeated offence (pārājika).50

During the Buddha‟s times, there were many types of sacrifices performed by
Brahmins. According to their religious rites, they made the sacrifice of animal for the
sake of their interest. But all these sacrifices are rejected in Buddhism, because it is not
believed that there is value in these sacrifices. In fact, sacrifice of animal is involved
with cruelty and it does not give what Brahmins wanted. Such cruel action brings about
many bad results in future lives. Matakabhatta jātaka states that Bodhisatta was
thinking of killers: “if beings only knew the result of evil-doing, perhaps they would
abstain from killing.” Thus he uttered the following stanza: “if beings would have
known that the outcome of killing would be rebirth into sorrow, they would stop killing
or injury. A killer is indeed to be of sorrow.”51 In this story, it is said that a goat had
had its head cut off five hundred times all but one; it was the last birth to complete five
hundredth. Five hundred births ago, the goat was a Brahmin who learned at the mystic
texts of the Vedas. Due to making sacrifice of a goat for a Feast for the Dead, he was
condemned to 500 lives a goat. This event gave a moral awareness to a Brahmin who
wanted to make sacrifice of animal. Hence, the Brahmin did not make the sacrifice of
the goat, but the goat died of having its head cut by a piece of stone caused by lightning
strike.52

In Bhuridatta jātaka, the future Buddha pointed out that sacrifice is in vain; it
brings about unwholesome results; it is a deed to be reborn in woeful planes; and it is
unable to send beings to celestial heavens. It is found in this story that the future
Buddha uttered the following stanzas: “If he who kills is counted innocent, and if the
victim safe to heaven is sent, let Brahmins Brahmins kill―so all were well―and those
who listen to the words they tell. We see no cattle asking to be slain, that they a new
and better life may gain, rather they go unwilling to their death, and in vain struggles
yield their latest breath.”53 It is implied that the sacrifices which Brahmins practice is
useless for the doer and the victim. It is believed that sacrifice of animal or killing

50
Vin.I. 96.
51
J.I. 5.
52
J.A.I. 182-185.
53
J.II. 236-237.
 147

living beings is sin; it never produces good results in present and future; it is against
Buddhist ethical conduct.

In the Yañña Sutta, it is seen that a „great sacrifice‟ that the king of Kosala was
about to perform in his country was involved with many animals. In order to make the
great sacrifice, the king had 500 each of bulls, bullocks, cows, goats, and sheep tied at
the post. All his labours, fearing of death, and crying with tears on their faces, had to
work for the great sacrifice. When all incidents were reported to the Buddha by the
monks, he did not praise it because this great sacrifice, instead of doing many works for
it, is not able to give good results. For the sacrifice, goats, sheep, and cows etc. were
killed. Therefore, the noble ones avoid making such as great sacrifices. But they do
good deeds without killing, which are performed by the relatives from generation to
generation.54 Though Buddhism denies the sacrifices involved with cruelty and taking
of the sentient life, it accepts a worthy sacrifice, which is not involved with
unwholesome actions.

In the Kuṭadanta Sutta, it is described that the Buddha told Kuṭadanta a worthy
sacrifice which was held in ancient times under his guidance while he was a Brahmin
counsellor. The future Buddha gave the right procedures of sacrifices. In this sacrifice,
no cows, no goats, no sheep, no hens, and no pigs were killed; no tree was cut for
sacrificial posts; no grass was cut to lay out for sitting. All attendants and the labour are
not intimidated to work in it. If they wish to do, they have to do; no wish to do, and no
need to do. They have to do only a desired work; they do not have to do if they are not
desired. It is because in this sacrifice, all are voluntary. The only items such as butter
and honey were used as offerings in the sacrifices.55 This is a better form of sacrifice
guided by the future Buddha, which is in contrast to the current mode of sacrificing.
Therefore, such as worthy sacrifices are accepted in Buddhism.

4.2.1.4. Buddhism and Vegetarianism

In order to live, one must eat various kinds of food such as vegetables, fish, meat,
various kinds of animal and aquatic life etc. This is an unavoidable human‟s need for
survival on the earth. The foods eaten by human beings are classified into two groups:
Vegetables and Non- vegetables. Most people in the world are not vegetarians. Some
take to vegetarianism to avoid killing of living creatures for the sake of food. However,

54
S.I. 75-76.
55
D.I. 135.
 148

some claim that plants also possess life. Though vegetarianism is not widespread
among the Buddhists, it is practised among the majority of Mahāyāna Buddhists, and it
is less practised among Theravāda Buddhists. This indicates that both schools of
Buddhism have different views on vegetarianism. Though meat-eating is mostly seen in
Theravāda Buddhists, they emphasize on the avoidance of killing, which is one of the
basic moral precepts.

In Buddhism, the one who wanted to make vegetarianism compulsory for the
monks is Devadatta, who was a cousin and brother-in-law of the Buddha. One day, he
requested the Buddha to lay down the following five rules:
1. “Monks should dwell all their lives in the forest (āraññaka)”.
2. “Monks should accept no invitations for meals, but should live entirely on alms
obtained by begging (piṇḍapātika)”.
3. “They should accept no robes from the laity and should wear robes made of
discarded clothes (paṃsukūlika)”.
4. “They should not dwell under a roof, but live at the foot of a tree
(rukkhamūlika)”.
5. “They should abstain completely from fish and flesh (macchamaṃsaṃ na
khādeyyuṃ)”.

All these rules proposed by his cousin were refused by the Buddha. But the
Buddha said that the first four rules are not mandatory; if the monks want to follow
these rules, they can follow. The last one is involved with fish and meat-eating.56 In
fact, a monk is allowed to receipt “what has been put in his alms bowl”. It is stated that
the Buddha neither put a ban on meat-eating, nor suggests attempting for meat-eating.
Instead, the Buddha allowed monks to eat meat with the following exceptions:57

1. Fish and meat to be eaten by the monks must be pure in three respects
(Tikoṭiparisuddha).58 If a monk has (a) seen, (b) heard, or (c) suspected that the
meat has been especially acquired for him by killing an animal, he is not
allowed to eat that meat.59 It is considered that the use of the carcase of an
already dead animal is not against the rules of Tikoṭiparisuddha.

56
Vin.I. 263-264.
57
K.T.S. Sarao, Origin and Nature of Ancient Indian Buddhism, (New Delhi: R&R Publisher, 1999), 85.
58
Vin.I. 264.
59
Vin.I. 264; Vin.III. 335; Vin.IV. 359-360.
 149

2. For the monk, raw meat was not allowed; even the Buddha did not accept raw
meat.60 But in case of sickness caused by either ghost or ogress, the Buddha
allowed even raw flesh and blood to be used.61 Indeed, fish and meat are
included in the list of the five superior and delicate foods (pāṇitabhojanīya)
which is allowed to be eaten by the monk who is ill.62 It is also stated that
having caused to cook the remains of the killed lions, tigers, hyenas and wolves,
the monks are allowed to eat these.63 The Buddha also allowed “the use of the
fat of bears, fish, alligators, swine, and asses, if received at the right time to be
partaken of with oil.”64

3. Though the meat is allowed to be eaten by the monks in the above situations, it
is prohibited to eat the meat of ten kinds of beings: 1. man, 2. elephant, 3. horse,
4. dog, 5. snake, 6. lion, 7. tiger, 8. leopard, 9. bear, and 10. hyena.65 These
types of meat are not allowable for the monks due to various reasons involved
in their eating.

These above suggested rules show the Buddhist attitude toward animals. Buddhist
monks are allowed to eat only blameless meat, which is allowable from the above rules.
It is clear that the rules of Tikoṭiparisuddha are built based on compassion for other
living beings. It is described in Dīgha Nikāya that “monk perfects with such-and-such
virtues: he gives up taking of life, abstains from the destruction of sentient life. The rod
and weapon have been laid down. He has a moral shame and full of mercy. He dwell
compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.”66 If one harms or kills any sentient
beings deliberately, its action with intention brings about evil results. Therefore, it is
suggested that human beings should treat animals with kindness and sympathy. This
means that animals are treated with equal respect in Buddhism. The more ignorance
and greed increase, the more loving-kindness and compassion decrease. Then cruelty
might challenge all living beings on the earth. No matter what cruelty to animals are not
allowed in Buddhism.

60
D.I. 5.
61
Vin.III. 294; Vin.A.II. 295.
62
Vin.II. 111.
63
Vin.I. 73.
64
Vin.III. 291-292; Vin.A.II. 292.
65
Vin.A.II. 292.
66
D.I. 59.
 150

4.2.1.5. Animals in Jātaka

Jātaka is a part of the Khuddaka Nikāya of the Sutta Piṭaka. It consists of 550
stories in which each story gave a moral lesson considered as the basis of righteous
conduct. It should be noted that jātaka is not a full collection of the previous lives of the
Buddha; it is some parts of his long journey. This is because the Buddha as bodhisattva
wondered through many aeons before the enlightenment. Some scholars would, by the
reason of not being philosophically and intellectually significant, like to reject the
Jātaka, but they cannot deny the Buddhist ethical aspects presented in it, which is
significant for a moral way of living. Lambert Schmithausen and Alan Sponberg, who
are eminent Buddhist scholars, affirm that the Jātaka are essential for any future
research. It is shown in Jātaka how Bodhisattva, as form of animal or other, had
compassionate heart and helped others. The tales in the Jātaka express not only
Buddhist environmentalism but also moral virtues transmitted to the laity. As many of
jātaka stories describe not only great sacrifice but also great compassion and wisdom,
the virtues described in the jātaka are able to be applied to the natural and no-human
beings. It is implied that the jātaka give the moral essence of Buddhism.67

In Jātaka No. 455, it is stated that a magnificent white elephant waited upon his
blind mother living near the pond with lotus at the bottom of hill. Every day, he
searched for fruits and brought to his mother. One day, he helped a hunter, who lost the
way by directing him out of the forest. As that hunter reported to the king, the white
elephant was caught by the king‟s troop, and brought to a king. He refused to eat any
food given by the king. When the king asks the question why he did not eat food, he
replied that because he was away from his mother that was blind and helpless in the
forest. Due to the strong love to his mother, he was set free. Since then, he and his
mother were served food every day by the order of the king.68

In jātaka No. 501, it is that a deer gave great care to his blind parents who were
getting older. He lived together with his brother and sister accompanied by eighty
thousand deer. He was a king of deer. Unfortunately, he was caught in a snare set by a
hunter by the request of the king. While being caught in a snare, all his accompanies
run away, but his brother and sister stood near him regardless of their lives. When the

67
Pragati Sahni, Environmental Ethics in Buddhism: A Virtues Approach, (London and New York,
Routledge, 2007), 158.
68
J.A.IV. 91-96.
 151

hunter saw three deer, he was compassionate to them. Thus, the hunter questioned why
they did not leave him; they replied that they are siblings, and had great affection for
each other; therefore they did not run away from him. As the hunter preferred their
attitudes, he set the deer free.69

In jātaka No.12, it is stated that the great compassion of the Bodhisatta, a

nigyoda deer is regardless of his life. He was a leader of 500 deer; a deer called Sākha
was also a leader of 500 deer. Everyday a king usually went to forest to hunt deer with
people in his town. As the people did not want to be busy with him, they drove two
herds of deer into the king‟ park; they told the king to eat the flesh of deer as he wished.
Except two leaders, the single deer was taken for meal each day. All deer are frightened
in the chase when the cook came and shot one of them. Hence, there was agreement
between king and two leaders of herds. A single deer to be killed in turn from
whichever herd she was, must be ready on a cutting board. One day, the turn came to a
pregnant doe from the herd of sākha. She requested her leader to postpone her turn until
she had given birth, but her request was refused by her leader. Therefore she appealed
to Nigyoda deer, a leader of the other herd. Nigyoda deer volunteered himself instead
of her. When the king heard of this sacrifice, he spared the lives of this deer and the
doe. By the request of Nigyodmiga, the king set free the others, and also gave up
hunting.70

In jātaka No.407, the Bodhisatta, a monkey king, lived with 80,000 monkeys in
the forest. He and his following monkeys ate mangoes in a mongo tree that was
growing at the bank of Gaṅgā River. One day, the king of the land and his followers
came to that mongo tree because he preferred the taste of the mango from it. At
midnight when the monkey king and other monkeys were eating mangoes, the king was
awake and woke his followers up to catch monkeys. All monkeys were frightened of
being caught by the king and his men. The monkey king said “don‟t worry, I will save
your lives”. He jumped down the other side of the river and brought a cane string.
Having tied a tree with an edge of cane string and his waist with the other end of the
string, he jumped back to the mango tree, but reached to only a branch of it because the
cane string was not enough long. By holding the mango branch, he made his body into

69
J.A.IV. 413-424.
70
J.A.I. 162-169.
 152

a bridge so that other monkeys could cross over into safety. In this way, he saved all
monkeys.71

In jātaka No. 516, the Bodhisatta was a monkey that saved a Brahman who lost
the way in the forest. It had been ten days since the Brahman fell down into a gorge
from a tree that he climbed up for the sake of food, because he did not get food for
seven days. The Bodhisatta monkey saved him and put him on the stone slab. He took a
nap because he was so tired. The Brahman beat a head of the monkey that fell asleep.
The Bodhisatta monkey instead of feeling anger showed him the way until he was
outside the forest.72

In Jātaka No. 486, is to state the significance of a friendship between animals. A

Lion and Osprey lived near a large natural lake near a village. A Tortoise dwelt on an
island in the lake, and a couple of Hawks lived in a kadamba tree that had grown on the
island. By the advice of she-hawk, the hawk made friendship with the lion, the osprey,
and the tortoise. Thus, they became friends. Afterward, a couple of hawks got two sons.
One day, they met danger to be caught by villagers who found nothing instead of
hunting the whole day. When they inform their friends, they saved a hawk-family from
the danger of people. This indicates that friendship is helpful. Therefore, the
Bodhisatta, the lion reminded all of them to keep a sustainable friendship between
them.73

In Jātaka No. 221, the Bodhisatta elephant was a king of eighty thousand
elephants. A poor man, clothing himself in a yellow robe, stood on the way of the
elephants. With his weapon, he shot the last one of a herd of elephants, and sold ivories.
Day by day, the number of the elephants became fewer and fewer. As the Bodhisatta
noticed this event in his troop, he followed after his follower elephants to investigate
the problem. As usual, the poor man was in the path of the elephants in order to shoot
the very last elephant. While seeing the Bodhisatta elephant, he ran after him with his
weapon. The Bodhisatta stretched out to beat the poor man, but he did not beat him on
account of paying respect to the yellow robe which the poor man clothed. The
Bodhisatta rebuked, and told him not to come again.74

71
J.A.III. 349-354.
72
J.A.V. 69-78.
73
J.A.IV. 288-296.
74
J.A.II. 180-182.
 153

In Jātaka No. 272, it is described that there was a lion and a tiger in the wood,
which the Bodhisatta tree-deity and a foolish tree-deity were dwelling. As the lion and
the tiger used to eat creatures, and they left the remaining food, the wood was full of
rotting flesh and a foul stench. The foolish tree-deity told the bodhisatta tree deity that
these animals should be driven from the wood because they made the wood full of foul
stench. The Boddhisatta tree-deity replied not to do so because these animals protected
the wood from the danger of men cutting. But the foolish tree-deity drove away these
animals. When men did not see the lion or the tiger, they cut down all the wood and
made fields.75

In Jātaka No. 429, the Bodhisatta parrot dwelt with his follower parrots in a
grove of fig-trees near the bank of Ganga River. He lived eating the fruit of fig-tree;
when its fruits finished, he ate leaf, bark or rind, and drank water from the Ganga River.
He refused to fly away. In order to test the virtue of parrot, sakka made the tree
withered by his supernatural power until it became a mere stump with holes. When the
wind blew, the dust came out the holes of it. The Bodhisatta parrot, instead of flying
away, perched on the top of the fig-stump, living off this dust. Hence, sakka, taking the
form of a royal goose, came and asked him why he did not give up a dry tree. The
answer that the Boddhissatta parrot replied was that he did not forsake this tree for a
feeling of gratitude.76

In Jātaka No. 178, the Bodhisatta was a potter, who was dwelling in Kāsi
village near Benares. He looked after his family with the potter‟s trade. There was a
natural lake, which was not too far from the village, which was joined to the water in
the river when it increased in it, and which was separate from the river when the water
was low. The fish and tortoises which lived in that lake swam out of it into the river
when the water in the lake was joined to that of the river. But a Tortoise would not go
into the river. Instead, he thought thus, “here I was born, and here I have grown up, and
I cannot leave it”. Therefore, he made a hole and buried himself when the water dried
up in the lake. When the Bodhisattva potter dug down with a spade for clay, he
happened to crack the tortoise‟s shell. He took that tortoise with his spade and put it on
the ground. The tortoise died of agony, crying thus, “because I cannot abandon the
attachment of the place, I am dying here”. Having taken example of the tortoise, the

75
J.A.II. 321-324.
76
J.A.III. 467-470.
 154

Bodhisatta potter admonished the crowd in his village not to do so, and not to attach the
five sensual pleasures with craving and desire.77

In Jātaka No. 35, the Bodhisatta was a quail that was able to put out a jungle-
fire by an act of truth. As he was just at the age that had just come out of the shell of the
egg, he lived in the nest eating what his parents fed. At that time, a jungle-fire broke
out; all kinds of birds feared death and flew away darting from their nests. The
Bodhisatta quail was so young that he could not fly or walk. As his parents were as
frightened as the others, they left the Bodhisatta quail and flew away. When he saw the
flames were spreading towards him, he perceived that he was without protector.
Therefore, the quail, remembering the attributes of the Buddha in the past, and the
nature of truth that he possessed, wished to make the flames recede. Due to this act of
truth, the jungle-fire was extinguished on a space of sixteen lengths, and the fire which
is on other place was also put out.78 This indicates that the power of virtues can control
environmental problem.

4.2.2. Biocentrism
Biocentrism is a life-centered philosophy that extends moral responsibility to
flora. This theory extends value to all living things. It is contrary to anthropocentric
point of view, which focuses on human-centeredness. It is stated that when the term
“biocentrism” is described in three different fields such as Philosophy, Environmental
Sciences, and Astrobiology, it has three different meanings. It means that its
interpretations vary in these fields. Biocentrism in the field of philosophy refers to an
ethical theory that gives moral respect to all living things. Biocentrism in the field of
Environmental Sciences refers to the functions of focusing on organisms and protecting
biodiversity. Biocentrism in the field of Astrobiology refers every biological evolution
on the Earth.79 Biocentrism extends inherent value to all living things, including plants
as well as animals. It is believed that all species have inherent value, but it denies that
nature exists simply to be used by humans. As human beings are one part of an
ecosystem; if we perform negative action, that negative action not only affects the
living systems, but also affects us adversely. Biocentrism points out that we are just
members of a community of ecological beings.

77
J.A.II. 72-74.
78
J.A.I. 228-231.
79
Joseph Seckbach, Julian Chela-Flores, Tobias Owen, and FRANCOIS Raulin, ed, Life in the
Universe: From the Miller Experiment to the Search for Life on other Worlds (Netherland: Kuwer
Academic Publisher: 2014), 345-346.
 155

Kenneth Goodpaster states that being a living thing is sufficient to be morally

considered. It is not believed that sentience is necessary for interests. He states two
types of interests: preference interests” and “welfare interests”. It is stated that an
organism which lacks the psychological ability does not have “preference interests”,
because it is not able to take interest in anything. But it has welfare interests. It is clear
from the example of pot-plants, which do not have the psychological ability. As the
pot-plants are not capable of taking an interest in being watered, they do not have
“preference interests”, but they have “welfare interests” because they are in the
interests to be watered. In this way, Kenneth Goodpaster argued that plants and non-
sentient organisms have welfare interests. It does not matter whether they are
flourishing or not. Whatever state it is in is in their interests.80

Paul W. Taylor is of the view that all living things are a “teleological-center-of-
life”. Individual of organisms has well-being of its own. As “teleological-center-of-
life”, animals, plants, and organism have intrinsic value or inherent worth. It is also
suggested not to anthropomorphize them, but to understand them as “teleological-
center-of-life”. It means that it is not important whether living things have
consciousness or not. Some may have awareness of the world around them, but some
may be absent of awareness of it. He argues that whether living things are conscious or
not, “all are equally teleological centers of life”.81

Paul W. Taylor states that biocentric outlook on nature comprises four

components: 1. Humans are members of the Earth‟s community of life along with all
the nonhuman members on the same terms. 2. The natural ecosystems of the Earth are a
complex web of interconnected elements through a system of interdependence between
all members. 3. Each individual organism is a “teleological centre of life”, having its
own good in its own way. 4. Humans are not superior to other species, whether or not
they possess the standards of merit or inherent worth.82 Indeed, the biocentric outlook
on nature supports to promote preservation of biodiversity, animal rights, and
environmental protection. Moreover, it suggests that one should live in the way of
respecting the welfare and inherent worth of all living things.

80
Kenneth Goodpaster, On Being Morally Considerable, Journal of Philosophy, 75, (1978), 308-325.
81
Paul W. Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, (USA:
Blackwell, 2009), 79.
82
Ibid. 76.
 156

4.2.2.1. Buddhist Attitude towards Plants

It is observed in some pages of Tipiṭaka sacred books that forests are used as the
ideal places for meditation. A proper environment is helpful for meditation. It is
obvious that even a noble disciple who possesses mindfulness and full awareness is
suggested to resort in the forest. The Buddha disciplines his noble disciples, “Come,
Bhikkhus, resort to a secluded resting place: the forest, the root of a tree, a mountain, a
ravine, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle thicket, an open space, a heap of
straw.”83 On preaching the dhamma, plants, trees, and flowers are occasionally used as
descriptions. It is stated that the Buddha was gazing at the Bodhi-tree with unblinking
eyes for the whole of the second week after Enlightenment. It is implied that he showed
his gratitude to the tree that provided him shelter when he was striving for
enlightenment.

If a monk cuts down a tree or plant, he has broken one of vinaya rules. At the
time of the Buddha, a monk cut a tree. Though a deity that was living on that tree
requested him not to destroy her abode, he did not stop cutting the tree. Thus, he
happened to cut one arm of her child. Then, the deity reported this unpleasant event to
the Buddha. It was the time that as lay people believed that a tree has one-faculty
(ekindriya jīva), they complained why monks destroy the tree that possesses the sense
of touch. Accordingly, monks are not allowed to cut down trees or plants. It is laid
down that destroying living plants is a pācittiya offence. Herein, the living plants
comprise five types of plants which propagate from roots, stems, joints, buds and seeds.
Therefore all monks must avoid the destruction of all these living plants.84 It is evident
that Buddhist monks are against harming trees and plants.

Buddhism recommends that the planting of trees and plants is fruitful. It is clear
that the Buddha encourages his follower to engage in conservation and protection of
nature. In Vanaropa Sutta, it is stated that those who grow fruit trees, flower trees, and
groves; build causeways or bridges; set up drinking water-sheds, sink wells, and put up
various forms of shelter increase in merit day and night. As they are established in the
Dhamma and endowed with morality, they are bound for the celestial worlds.85 In an
ecological context, this sutta is to improve ecosystem services that sustain a survival
and well being of humans as well as other organisms. It is obvious that the merit-

83
M.III. 54-55.
84
Vin.II. 51-52.
85
S.I. 30-31.
 157

activities depicted in it are ecologically sustainable manners, which involve replanting

forests, preserving wetlands and protecting natural areas essential for environmental
sustainability. Though growing trees is praised as merit gained in every day, it does not
accept belief in tree-worship as a merit in Buddhism.

It should be noted that the Buddha himself praises the forest life. The forest life
of monks differs from that of lay people. So the Buddha gave some remarks on the
forest life. In Dhammapada, verse No. 99 goes on like this, “Forests are delightful, but
the worldlings find no delight in them; only those who are free from passion will find
delight in them, for they do not seek sensual pleasures”. Why forest is seen as
delightful is because there is no sensual pleasure in them. In fact, forests provide peace,
quiet, calm, and serenity to those who live there. Forests form a major component of
the whole ecosystem; they are important for the ecological balance. In Verse No. 188 of
Dhammapada, it is stated that when men are threatened with danger, they go to many
refuges to mountains and forests, and to sacred trees and shrines. It should be noted that
taking refuges in mountains, forests and so on is neither because of awareness of value
of trees nor for the sake of protecting environment nor preserving ecological balance,
but because of fearing of danger related to the tree. Not only Verse No. 259 of
Petavatthu but also Verse No. 151 of Jātaka describe nature as a friend and say not to
destroy nature. In fact, one verse was mentioned in two places; it is therefore seen in
Petavatthu and Jātaka. The meaning of verse is thus, “One may sit or lie down under
the shade of a tree; if he breaks the branch of that tree, he is an evil betrayer of
friendship”.86 This indicates that beings should have compassion to nature as their
friend.

4.3. Moral Responsibility towards Nature

The last one is moral responsibility to nature. This theory is Ecocentrism that
refers to a nature-centered philosophy. It extends value to entire ecosystems. It is
sometimes called deep ecological ethics. There are traditional moral norms and ethical
theories for social relationships among human beings, but it is believed that those
theories are just for human beings but not for animals and plants. Hence, it is said that
Ecocentrism attempts to extend moral norms and ethics which include animals and
plants. This theory is capable of driving an ecological ethics. Based on the knowledge
from the science of ecology, Ecologists study how organisms are related to their

86
J.I. 221; Pv. 154.
 158

environments. From an ecological perspective, it is impossible to fully understand what

an organism is without examining the species of the organism, how the organism
interacts within species populations, how the organism is related to ecosystem
processes, what the organism eats, what eats the organism. Furthermore, it is not
possible to fully understand the value of an individual organism without discovering
value in these kinds of relationships and at these different levels of organization.

As Ecocentrism finds value within ecological entities, processes, and

relationships, it is asserted that we have moral responsibilities not only to individuals
but also to the ecosystem as a whole. This implies that egocentrism puts emphasis on
protecting holistic natural entities such as species, ecosystems, and landscapes. As
ecocentrism comprises biotic aspects and abiotic aspects, it focuses on the biotic
community as a whole and maintains ecological entities and processes.87 Indeed,
ecocentrism focuses on both living and non-living systems of the Earth. It is therefore
said that Ecocentrism goes beyond zoocentrism that find value in animals, and
biocentrism that finds values to all living things as central importance.88 But, some
confuse ecocentrism with biocentrism that finds value to living things such as flora and
fauna. This is because the biocentrist argue that species and ecosystems are mere
collections of individual organisms, and find nothing more than these collections. In
fact, ecocentrism goes beyond locating value to individual organisms, and locates value
in all ecological entities such as species and ecosystems.89

It may not be possible to explain Ecocentrism without citing Aldo Leopold, who
supported Ecocentrism in the 20th century.90 This is because his idea of the land ethic is
a major element to this philosophy. Aldo Leopold‟s summary of the land ethic is thus:
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the
biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise.”91 According to him,
Ecocentric ethic recognizes that all species and organisms are interrelated in their life
processes. In his Land ethic, it is said that it is essential to extend ethics to cover the
living systems of the Earth. According to him, all members of the land are considered
87
D.E Booth, “The economics and ethics of old growth forests”, Environmental Ethics 14: (1992), 43-
62.
88
“Ecocentrism”, The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009.
89
Dustin Mulvaney, ed, Green Politics: An A-to-Z Guide, (New Delhi: SAGE, 2011), 115.
90
Julie Newman, Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide, (New Delhi: SAGE, 2011), 133.
91
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River, (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1949; New York: Ballantine Books, 1966), 262.
 159

as the ethical community in which consists of living beings and non-living things,
human and non-human. All humans are merely one component of an ethical
framework. Thus he proposed that we should include “land” in an ethical frame work.
He called this the land ethic. He believes that the land ethic is helpful for the continued
existence of all ecological entities in a natural state.

The basic tenet of land ethics is focused on the idea that what deserves moral
consideration is whole ecosystems, and perhaps even more broadly, whole regions of
land. This requires a notion of “integrity” for an ecosystem. The land ethicist holds that
actions are good to the degree that they support or promote the integrity of an
ecosystem. It should be noted that the land ethic includes the rivers, the soils, the fauna
and flora, but it does not cover global warming and ozone holes. Aldo Leopold keeps
silent on population explosion, and sustainable development.92 The land ethic is a
holistic approach to ecosystems. It is therefore in accord with ecocentrism that
attributes value to biotic and abiotic entities. Indeed, the land ethic is ecocentric
because it focuses on protecting holistic natural entities and ecological entities,
processes, and relationships.93

In the field of environmental philosophy, it is clear that ecocentrism is a new

ethic for all different species of the Earth. It focuses on ecosphere health prior to human
welfare. This theory gives the way to solving such as problems: the Growth Problem,
the Population Problem, and the Technology Problem, which are virtually unsolvable
within biocentric frameworks. It is evident that ecocentrism gives new direction to
philosophers, economists, scientists, and engineers. Therefore, ecocentrism is described
not only as one of the ethical theories in environmental philosophy but also as a theory
that advocates the necessity for a new spiritual relationship to the Natural world. It is
also worthy of note that ecocentrism has many similarities with “deep ecology”, which
was coined by Arne Næss.

4.3.1. Deep Ecology

The expression “Deep Ecology” was introduced by Arne Naess in 1972. As the
result of discussions between Naess and his colleagues Sigmund Kvaloy and Nils

92
Holms Rolston III, “Nature and Culture in Environmental Ethics”, In Klaus Brinkmann, ed Ethics:
The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, vol. 1, (Bowling Green, OH:
Philosophy Documentation Center. 1999b.), 151-158
93
Dustin Mulvaney, Op.cit, 114.
 160

Faarlund, “Deep ecology” was born in Scandinavia.94 In fact, it was said to be the
beginning of prominence toward the philosophy of Ecocentrism. The distinction
between “shallow” and “deep” ecology was made by philosopher Arne Naess in his
1973 article “The shallow and the deep long-range ecology movement.” What is
evident is that shallow Ecology is anthropocentric in its approach, but Deep Ecology is
a holistic approach. Hence, deep ecologists have their roots also in post modernism and
thus their outlook is modern. The deep ecologists do not make a clear cut division
between humans from the natural environment. As such, they have an inclusive
approach wherein all creatures-living and non-living- are regarded as a part of Mother
Nature. According to them, all objects in the world are interrelated and thus
interdependent. Deep ecology brought the whole of nature under moral consideration.

4.3.1.1. Deep Ecologists and Shallow Ecologists

Shallow ecologists hold the view that nature exists more or less for the benefit
of human beings. Accordingly, they consider human beings as the centre of universe.
Such a view affirms that only human beings are valuable and thus to be saved. In other
words, they are anthropocentric in their ways. Following such an outlook, they are
more towards consumerism and thus advocated the plea that natural resources are
meant for human interests. Hence, what they offered was technological solutions to
ecological problems. Furthermore, they support the production of more food on the
Earth instead of reducing consumerism.

According to the Deep ecologists, all living beings have a right to live in this
earth and thus their views are antagonistic to shallow ecologists. Thus, the deep
ecologists are critical of any form of environmentalism that is not nature-centered.
Accordingly, they criticize human-centered environmentalism. One of the reasons that
we can advance for this view of the deep ecologists is that shallow environmentalists do
not adequately care for the wild animals and such other species and man‟s care for the
animals and such other species is centred on, they argue, the self-interest and particular
needs of humans. They perceive Nature as a store house wherefrom man needs to make
use of himself as a consumer. On the other hand, the deep ecologists perceive Nature as
spiritual abode of all living and non-living beings and using nature just for man‟s need
are unethical. This is to suggest that the deep ecologists hold the view that nature

94
Arne Naess, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement”, Inquiry 16, (1973.
Reprinted in Sessions 1995), 151-155.
 161

should be respected as valuable in itself, regardless of its usefulness, or ugliness. In

other words, the deep ecologists maintain the intrinsic value of nature. Nature for them
is not merely a valuable object because it is useful to humans. Their claim is that
humans ought to have the same kind of concern for nature and all creatures as they
have had historically for the human species. Deep ecologists have argued that the
alarming threat of present and future ecological catastrophe is the consequence of
Western anthropocentrism. They maintain that western philosophical theory of dualism
that separates human consciousness with Mother Nature annihilates nature of its
inherent value. They advise human beings to replace Western anthropocentrism with
biocentric egalitarianism, atomism with relationalism, dualism with non-dualism, and
utilitarianism with an attitude of respect and love for all beings so as to preserve a richly
variegated complex ecosystem.95

As mentioned earlier, deep ecologists affirm that all things have a right to survive
and have equal inherent worth. They advocate a simple life style which helps in reducing
the human impact on other species and environment. According to them, modesty and
humility are the central virtues that should guide the humans. Consequently, deep
ecologists have proposed that the environmental impact of human beings could be
restricted by living in mixed communities in bioregions. Bioregionalism helps to protect
our local environment and culture. In line with Native American philosophy and the
Eastern traditions, deep ecologists have tried to explain the importance of sustainable
development which argues for the systematic reduction of industrial activities and
production on Earth, changing of life styles, stability of human population and
restoration of ecosystems

According to Arne Naess, sustainable development does not merely reflect the
protection of special spectacular items–pandas, wolves, ozone layer and the like, but
“ecologically sustainable development will automatically refer to the whole planet and
not to ecologically arbitrary boundaries of nations.”96 Deep ecologists advocate a form
of wide ecological sustainability which has much to do with overall ecological
conditions which ensures the full richness and diversity of all life forms on the Earth.
On the other hand, the shallow ecologists have a narrow approach to ecological
sustainability which is concerned with the protection of humans from great ecological

95
Ibid.
96
Arne Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Tran & Ed, by David
Rothenberg, (Cambridge University Press: 1990), 90.
 162

catastrophes. Arne Naess criticised the so-called Brundtland Commission Report

(1987), for not taking the population issue seriously. He thinks that without subsequent
population reduction, sustainable future development is impossible.97 Deep ecologists
also argue that recycling, appropriate technology and renewable sources of energy must
be used by human beings in order to minimise the destruction of non-renewable limited
resources. These considerations obviate the necessity to argue that deep ecology
provides a new philosophy and a new set of values that accounts for a sustainable
relationship amongst all creatures with the natural world.

In view of the above considerations, we can argue that western worldview is

human-centered and consider humans as superior to all other creatures and thus have
dominance over nature. They believe that humans have obligation towards only human
beings and is privileged to have unrestricted use of natural resources. But, Deep
ecology worldview maintains that humans have an obligation to themselves and the
environment as well. They advocate equal dignity to all forms of life and assert that
every creature has the right to exist and aren't lower in dignity and right to any other
species. This is to suggest that humans are just equal to other species and are not
superior to other creatures.

Such an approach of the deep ecologists is against the given worldview of

western society and thus they are on the opposite ends when it comes to environmental
worldview. One believes that humans have dominance over nature and the other
believes that humans and other species are equal. It follows then that many people may
refuse to hold fully either of the world views. The paramount reason is that Western
worldview is predominantly anthropocentric and regards humans as the centre of the
universe and Deep ecology worldview, on the other hand, upholds the view that all life
forms are valuable and considers humans as one species among others.

4.3.1.2. Deep Ecology: Platform Principles

The acclaimed eight doctrines formulated by Naess and George Sessions in 1984
is considered as the foundational principles of deep ecology. The deep ecologists argue
that human is merely a component of other systems of the earth and nothing is superior
to him. Furthermore, they do not believe that the world exists as a resource and can be
freely exploited by humans. We would like to enlist those eight foundational principles

97
Arne Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Tran & Ed, by David
Rothenberg, (Cambridge University Press: 1990), 92-93.
 163

98
in order to explain their claims which supported a major philosophical and ethical
movement. The principles are as follows:
1. “The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have
value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-
human world for human purposes.”

2. “Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values
and are also values in themselves.”

3. “Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital
needs.”

4. “The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial

decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires
such a decrease.”

5. “Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.”

6. “The dominant socio-political living situation must therefore end. This will affect
basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of
affairs will be deeply different from the present.”

7. “The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating quality (dwelling in

situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher
standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between
big and great.”

8. “Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or

indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.”

These principles can be summed up into three simple propositions: They are: (1)
“Wilderness preservation”, (2) “Human population control”, and (3) “Simple living”.99

We may also take into consideration here some lifestyle guide lines proposed by
Arne Naess as a further step. His guidelines undergird the worth of all forms of life,
protection of ecosystems, using simple means, consume less, gratify vital needs rather
than desires, live in nature as a part of it and promote community, eliminate injustice
98
Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, (USA: Gibbs Smith
Publisher, 1985), 70.
99
John Barry and E. Gene Frankland, International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics, (London
and New York: Routledge, 2002), 161.
 164

not only to humans but also to all species and so on. The deep ecologists hold the view
that “simple in means is rich in ends.” The intent of this platform is to articulate central
views and values agreed by a variety of schools on environmental reflections. Thus, the
restricted sense of deep ecology is characterized by the following principles:
1. “Holism. Nature should be visualized as an integrated system, rather than as a
collection of fragmented individual things. We should not understand that the
“oneness” of nature is monistic, denying the reality of individual things and their
differences. Rather, the natural world consists of an organic whole wherein
interaction of diverse species and their habitats take place. In fact, diversity is the
watchword which is essential to the health of the natural world.”
2. “Devoid of Ontological Division. Humans are entirely a part of nature, and there
is no ontological separation between human species and others.”
3. “Self-in-Self. Each person is not an autonomous individual independent of the
whole; rather it is a a self-in-Self, a distinct mode in the web of nature.”
4. “Biocentric Egalitarianism. Nature is endowed with unqualified intrinsic value
with humans having no privileged position in nature's web. Emphasis is placed on
value at holistic levels, such as populations, ecosystems, and the Earth as a whole,
rather than individual entities.”
5. “Intuition. An affective and intuitive communion with the Earth provides us a
unique insight into nature and our relationship with it. Although scientific
knowledge and technological advancement is essential and useful, yet science
should be holistic which can recognize and appropriate the intrinsic value of Earth
and our interdependence with it.”
6. “Environmental Devastation. The modern societies should be highly conscious
about the impending disaster that Nature is undergoing a cataclysmic degradation
which can lead up to an ecological holocaust.”
7. “Anti-anthropocentrism. This destructiveness is rooted in anthropocentrism, an
arrogant view that we are separate from and superior to nature, which exists to
serve our needs.”

8. “An eco-centric Society. The objective of any human society ought to be based on
an eco-centric view of nature which upholds harmony with nature and accept the
natural tendencies and the limits of natural world.”
 165

9. “Self-realization. What is the aim at individual level is the identification of

oneself with nature and understand the importance of nature within one‟s life.
This involves a participatory attitude with the nature which is devoid of the sense
of an independent self; rather, it does not even surrender the loss of the self in the
oneness of nature. In brief, Self-realization is the full awareness of the self-in-
Self.”

10. “Intuitive Morality. The moral ideal, therefore, does not propose a rational self
which is supposed to be the depository of rationally deriving principles which act
as criteria of human behaviour. Rather, it is the realization of our identification
with nature.”100

We should also take into consideration that many of these above mentioned
qualities have been appropriated by nature-affirming spiritualities including Buddhism
and Native Americans. One cannot forego the contributions by Western philosophers
like Baruch Spinoza and Martin Heidegger toward the development of such a
philosophy. One can certainly apply these principles to practice through different
means. The fact is that the foundation of these principles is backed by various holistic
worldviews. It is implied that the emergence of deep ecology is a significant turn
towards reformist ecological thinking with a radical outlook. It is a turning point in the
history of ecology in general and ecological ethics in particular from anthropocentric
approach to eco-centric holism.

4.3.2. Buddhism and Ecological Discourses

It is clear that moral and ethical degeneracy is a major cause of ecological
problem. It is because human beings have an effect on the nature through either the
moral or immoral actions. When human beings are weak in the practice of morality,
eco-crisis increases. This indicates that immoral actions generate ecological problems.
If one does not recognize the interconnectedness of moral actions to beings and nature,
then one‟s moral framework will likely lack a commitment to sustainability of nature.
Without moral virtue, it is virtually impossible to build the sustainable relationship of
man with nature. Buddhist philosophy can support an ecological way of living because
it has many ethical, spiritual and intellectual resources. Buddhist moral responsibilities
and ethical practices are able to be applicable to eco-crisis. Buddhist philosophy is

100
https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Deep_ecology (accessed December 9,2017)
 166

built on morality which is regarded as an important basic level to reach the second level
of spiritual development and the third level of wisdom. It is accepted in Buddhism that
the goodness or the badness is a result that is born by certain actions which are either
moral or immoral. Whether people are noble or not is determined by their moral
actions. The fact that all beings are determined by their moral actions reminds one that
they all have to take responsibility for whatever they do.

4.3.2.1. The Adhammika Sutta

The Adhammika Sutta states that moral degradation affects eco-crisis. When a
king of a country is immoral, his ministers become immoral. When a minister is not
righteous, people in the cities become unrighteous. When people in the cities are not
ethical, people far from the cities become unethical. Due to ethical and moral
degeneracy of those people, sun and moon go around incorrectly. Due to incorrect
going of sun and moon, stars go incorrectly. Due to incorrect going of stars, night and
day become incorrect. Due to incorrect night and day, three seasons change. Due to
abnormal seasons, the wind blows inharmonious way; it does not rain properly.
Therefore, crops do not grow well. The people who have such food become short lived,
are of bad colour, and full of sickness.101 It is clear that unwholesome behaviors cause
the arising of many bad effects in the world. An unrighteous action of a king and his
people has a bad effect on the environment; due to moral degeneracy, there is less rain
and poor crops; people became gradually short-lived. It affirms there is relatedness
between the eco-crisis and human morality. The whole system of the world is ever
changing. Though it is described as a natural state of things, it is affected by morality.
This indicates that morality plays the most important role in ecological problems.

4.3.2.2. The Aggañña Sutta

The Aggañña Sutta states the beginning of a world and its evolution. It is stated
that in the beginning of the world, beings partake zet (pīti) as food; they were luminous
and weightless; they wonder and exist in the sky for a long time. At the time, the whole
world was darkness and a mass of water. There was neither sun nor moon nor stars nor
night nor day nor male nor female in the world. After a very long period, there
appeared a savoury earth which was full of good flavour like butter. When a curious
being tasted the savoury earth with its finger, there arose a craving in it. As other beings
also tasted the stuff with their fingers, craving arose in them as well. Consequently, the

101
A.IV. 386-388.
 167

arising of craving causes their self-luminance to disappear. As a result of the

disappearance of their self-luminance, there appeared moon and sun; there
distinguished night and day; there appeared months and four nights; there appeared the
year and its seasons. Their bodies became coarser for they had been consuming the
savoury earth for a very long time. While some became good-looking, some became
ugly. Such different looks caused conceit among them. As it was much conceived of
the good-looking ones to assume that they were better looking than other, the savoury
earth disappeared. And then, there cropped a fungus like mushroom which was of a
good flavour. As beings partook the fungus for a long time, their looks were more
different among them. Simultaneously, the conceit about looks increased more in them.
Hence, the fungus also disappeared due to the increase of their conceit about their
looks. When the fungus disappeared, creepers like bamboo appeared; when creepers
disappeared, there appeared rice in open spaces. The grains taken in the evening had
grown again and were ripe in the morning, and those taken in the morning were ripe
again in the evening. When they ate rice, their bodies were greatly changing in different
looks; some became male and some became female. For morning meal, they took rice
once in the morning, and one in the evening for evening meal. A lazy one took rice for
one day; then other took it for two or three days and so on. Hence, they had to set
boundaries for food and private property rights. When a greedy one took rice from the
neighbour‟s plot, the owners of the land caught and punished the thief. Thus stealing,
punishment, censure and telling lie occurred since then.102 The Aggañña sutta shows
that human morality has a direct bearing on nature. It has been found that though
admitting the nature‟s capacity to change it draws a direct linkage between the
degeneration of nature and the deterioration of human morality, and the moral
deterioration is always linked with a tendency to resort to excessive exploitation of
natural resources. It also states how a man impelled by greed begins to continuously
and ruthlessly exploit nature and nature in return reacts by withdrawing away it
bountifulness and abundance. It indicates that such moral degradation affects ecology.

4.3.2.3. The Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

According to the Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta, the immorality causes human life-
span to reduce by ten years. It was when the seventh universal king had gone into
ascetic hood. Though his son could rein his country righteously, the country did not

102
D.III. 66-81.
 168

develop as much as the rein of the senior universal king. He could not provide property
to those who were in poverty. Thus the poverty increased more and more. Due to the
increase of poverty, taking what was not given happened. The thief was taken to the
king. Instead of punishing him, the king provided property and admonished him not to
do again. It was because he knew that the thief committed stealing as there was not
enough for living. In doing so, the thieves increased in his country. As he worried about
the increase of thieves in his country, finally he ordered to punish a thief by way of
cutting the head. And then some not only took property what was not given but killed
the owners of it with sharpen weapons. Thus as the poor were not provided the
property, the poverty increased. As the poverty increased, taking what was not given
increased. As the theft increased, the use of weapons increased. Due to the increase of
weapons, the life-span of beings decreased; the colour of body decreased. The children
of the parent who lived long for 80 thousand years had life-span of 40 thousand years.
During the life-span, a thief told a lie to the king in spite of stealing. Consequently their
life-span decreased by 20 thousand years. And then slanderous talk arose among
beings. It affected the life-span and beauty of beings. Instead of the 20 thousand years,
the life-span decreased by 10 thousand years. Among these beings, some were good-
looking, but some were not good looking. Beings who were weak in look attached to
the good-looking ones. Hence unlawful indulgence in sensual pleasures happened in
beings. The life-span of such beings decreased by 5 thousand years. During the life-
span of 5 thousand years, harsh speech and frivolous talk arose among beings. Thus the
life-span of beings decreased by 2,500 years. When covetousness and malevolence
arose in beings, the life-span of beings decreased by 1,000 years. When wrong view
arose in beings, the life-span of beings decreased by 500 years. During that age, craving
for one‟s property (adhammarāga), greed for one‟s property (vosamaloba), and wrong
practice (micchādhamma) arose in beings; hence the life-span of beings decreased
gradually. Some lived for 250 years; some lived for 200 years. It is told that as beings
failed to perform duties on parents and senior citizens, their life-pan decreased by 100
years. Such immoral activities caused the life-span of beings to decrease by ten years.
At the time of ten year life-span, wholesome activities had completely disappeared but
unwholesome activities had greatly developed among beings. This is because beings
follow the immoral paths of life through greed. Only when they performed wholesome
activities, their life-span had gradually developed again till 80 thousand years.103

103
D.III. 54-61.
 169

4.3.2.4. The Paloka Sutta

It is also stated in the Paloka Sutta that there are three causes which ruin human
world. They are: 1. Craving for one‟s property (adhammarāga), 2. Greed for one‟s
property (visamalobha), and 3. Wrong practice (micchādhamma).104 Human beings
become selfish; they think to get what they want; they focus on getting and neglect
moral activities. As they are not satisfied with what belongs to them, they crave for
others‟ belongings; they are greedy for others‟ property. As there is strong desire,
sexual activities with unsuitable ones occur among human beings. These evil attitudes
and activities arise dependent on greed (lobha), which is one of the unwholesome
mental factors. When such evil mind arises in them, negative activities occur easily in
the environment. When human beings have such evil activities, they kill each other
with sharpen weapons. Due to these activities, there is not enough rain; crop does not
grow enough; therefore human beings die of starve. This indicates that moral
degeneracy effects on the relationship between man and ecology. The world is the web
of beings in which nothing can be separated from the whole. It is therefore said that
human beings have the moral responsibilities to cooperate in promoting the welfare of
all.

The changes of the world are able to be understood as the nature of

impermanence, but it is said that though it is inherent in nature, natural processes are
affected by the morals of human beings. In Buddhism, nature is regarded as a living
web that has interconnection between individual beings by way of interdependence. In
order to survive, all beings depend on nature. In fact, nature is not a part of us; we
humans are a part of nature. This is Buddhist awareness of nature that is capable of
eliminating anthropocentric view, and supporting ecological point of view. This
indicates that Buddhism see the world from an ecocentric point of view. It is therefore
said that as Buddhism focus on protecting holistic natural entities as well as
ecocentrism does on protecting species and ecosystems, Buddhism has holistic
ecological world view.

4.3.3. By Way of Conclusion: Ecological Implications on Buddhist Virtues

Though many studies on the causes and effects of ecological crisis have been
conducted from scientific approaches, our primary intention is to find solution of the
problem from the Buddhist perspectives. It is learned that lots of evidences from recent
ecological crisis are caused by the consequences of humans‟ negative actions. If human

104
A.I. 159-160.
 170

beings live with moral responsibilities to ecological entities, then they should utilize the
natural resources in a sustainable way. We should make a note of the fact that though
greed is unlimited, the natural resources are very limited. If human beings fail to take
responsibilities in protecting the natural environment, their endless greed for wealth and
possessions will deplete the natural resources leading to ecological crisis. It is therefore
suggested that human beings should content themselves with meeting basic needs. As
Mahatma Gandhi said “Earth provides enough to satisfy everyman‟s needs, but not for
everyman‟s greed”. It is evident that some Buddhist discourses related to the protection
of natural environment show a proper management which suggests the required
thorough practice of Buddhist moral virtues; in turn, it focuses on respect and
responsibilities toward not only humans but to all life and nature as a whole also.

4.3.3.1. Four Measures of Livelihood (Nissaya)

In Mahāvagga, it is described that four measures of livelihood (nissaya) are
allowed for the Buddhist monks. 1. Piṇḍiyālopabhojanaṃ: a monk has to live on food
received through collecting alms; if it is possible to receive any other types of food, he
is allowed to partake it. 2. Paṃsukūlacīvaraṃ: a monk has to wear robes made of rags
taken from dust-bins; if good robes are available, he is allowed to use it. 3.
Rukkhamūlasenāsanaṃ: a monk has to dwell under a tree; if accommodation or
monastery is available, he is allowed for dwelling in monastery. That is to say, a tree is
allowed to be used as monastery (vihāra) by monks who have no accommodation. 4.
Pūtimuttabhesajjaṃ: a monk has to take medicine made of urine of cow; if modern
medicine is received, he is allowed to use it.105 Indeed, the four requisites (nissaya) are
necessary for survival. As basic requirements for beings in order to be survival, monks
are allowed to live monkhood with these four measures of livelihood. But they are
allowed to use in the limitation of them. In the Vinaya piṭaka, it is stated that the
Buddha laid down some rules related to food, robes, accommodation, and medicine. As
the four requisites for the monks are the natural resources, over use of resources causes
great effect on nature. Since human beings are helped by the condition of their
environment, it is a concern for what humans have at stake – benefits, costs, and their
just distribution, risks, pollution levels, rights and torts, needs of future generations. It
is suggested that human beings need to include nature in their ethics; human beings
need to include themselves in nature. This is because there is a relationship between
Human and Nature.

105
Vin.III. 73.
 171

4.3.3.2. Sublime States (Brahmavihāra)

It is stated that Sublime States (Brahmavihāra) comprise (1) “loving-kindness
(mettā), (2) compassion (karuṇā), (3) appreciative joy (muditā), and (4) equanimity
(upekkhā).”106 These four are also called the illimitables or immeasurables
(appamaññaā).107 These four sublime states or the four immeasurables are described as
meditation practices to be cultivated in Buddhism. In fact, these meditation practices
are Buddhist virtues that are quite relevant in ecological crisis. This is because
universal responsibilities towards nature as a whole are based on love and compassion.

(1) Loving-Kindness (Mettā)

Mettā means “loving-kindness” towards all sentient beings.108 It is a Buddhist
virtue that is the first of meditation subjects in Buddhism. As it belongs to the nature of
warm and pure affection towards others, it is capable of making friendliness,
gentleness, calmness, and peace not only towards who cultivate it, but also towards the
natural world. It is suggested in the Mettā Sutta that “loving-kindness” should be
cultivated towards whatever living beings there are– “feeble or strong, long, stout or
medium, short, small or large, visible or invisible, those dwelling far or near, those who
are born or those who await rebirth”. Without any discrimination, it is to extend
“loving-kindness” towards all living beings equally. It is said that “just as a mother
would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, one should cultivate a boundless
heart towards all sentient beings”.109 It is stated in commentary that “loving-kindness
(Mettā) has characteristic of promoting the welfare of others, its function is to desire
their welfare, it manifests as the removal of annoyance and its proximate cause is
seeing the loveableness of beings.”

(2) Compassion (Karuṇā)

Karuṇā means “compassion” towards all sentient beings.110 It is a Buddhist
virtue that is the second of meditation subjects. This virtue is extended towards all
sentient beings in a pain or suffering. What is difference between mettā and karuṇā is
that while “mettā” is willing to bring about the well-being and happiness of others,
“karuṇā” is willing to remove pain and suffering from others. It should be noted that
compassion can be cultivated not only for the suffering of us but also the suffering of

106
Vism.I. 107.
107
Vbh. 289, 295.
108
Vbh. 284.
109
Khp. 10, 11.
110
Vbh. 286.
 172

others. When worldlings experience pain or suffering, it is a nature of worldlings that

their reactions are often to avert. The cultivation of compassion helps them to
manipulate their feeling without aversion in response to their sufferings. While seeing
others in suffering, “compassion” impels us to help the suffering beings. It is
“compassion” that we ourselves feel as if we experience pain of others like them in the
same situation. It is evident that the Buddha has done for the welfare of all beings out
of compassion. When we are compassionate, we, out of compassion try to remove a
pain or suffering from others. It is therefore said that compassion gives birth to all the
other virtues just as cooling rain makes the crops grow.

(3) Appreciative Joy (Muditā)

Muditā means “appreciative joy” towards all sentient beings. 111 It is a Buddhist
virtue that is the third of meditation subjects. This virtue is extended towards all
sentient beings in happiness and success. It is implied that “appreciative joy” refers to
the ability that delights in the happiness of others. It can be understood as the different
expressions of love. When the worldlings see the happiness of others or their success, it
is a nature of the worldlings that they, instead of delighting in good-fortunes, are envy
to the gains of others.

(4) Equanimity (Upekkhā)

Upekkhā means equanimity towards all sentient beings.112 It is seen in the list of
forty meditation subjects, the ten perfections (pāramita), and the seven factors of
enlightenment (bojjhaṅga). It is a Buddhist virtue that is the fourth of meditation
subjects. It is stated that Upekkhā refers to the quality of being emotionally stable when
facing worldly fortune. It is important to note that “equanimity” should not be confused
with indifference. When the worldlings meet eight worldly conditions: “gain and loss,
honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain”, it is difficult to stay in
unshakeable balance of mind. The cultivation of “equanimity” helps us to stay neutral
in all conditions.
Though each of the sublime states has its own quality, all of them have inter-
relation. These different qualities of sublime states are helpful to approach different
sentient beings in the different situations. It is stated that the “four sublime states” are
capable of counteracting the defilements such as lust, aversion and ignorance. When the

111
Vbh. 287.
112
Ibid. 288.
 173

defilements increase among the sentient beings, it is evident that the ecological-crisis
increase in the natural world. Through the cultivation of “four sublime states”, all of us
must make a sincere effort to take our moral responsibility to the nature as a whole. As
results, it has been shown that moral degeneration causes the degradation of personality
as well as the environment. It is therefore suggested to cultivate all of the four sublime
states simultaneously to take care of ecological crisis. The Mettā Sutta says thus,
“ When standing, walking, sitting, lying down, Whenever he feels free of tiredness Let
him establish well this mindfulness―This, it is said, is the Divine Abode”.113
Moreover, Verse no. 360 and 361 in the Dhammapada say thus, “It is good to
control the eyes; it is good to control the ears; it is good to control the noses; it is good
to control the tongue; it is good to control the body; it is good to control the speech; it is
good to control the mind; it is good to control everything; a Bhikkhu who control all is
free from all suffering.”114 If we apply the same dictum to all creatures including non-
humans, it makes logically true to suggest that such a position supports to take
responsibility to ecological entities. Most of human beings fail to control the eyes, ears
and so on. They therefore use the natural resources more than their needs for their
sensual pleasure. In fact, their evil deeds effect not only on the ecology, but also effect
to ecological entities and human nation. Verse no. 127 in the Dhammapada goes on to
say thus, “Not in the sky, nor in the middle of the ocean, nor in the cave of a mountain,
nor anywhere else, is there a place, where one may escape from the consequences of an
evil deed”.115 It is clear that for their survival, all sentient beings including humans
depend on nature for their food, clothing, shelter, medicine and so on. No matter why
we humans should not destroy the nature except partaking the natural resources for
survival. Verse no. 49 in Dhammapada emphatically asserts thus: “As the bee collects
nectar and flies away without damaging the flower or its colour or its scent, so also, let
the Bhikkhu dwell and act in the village”.116 Though this virtue is overtly prescribed for
monks, it can be understood as ecological principles for all to live harmoniously with
nature without affecting ecological entities. In sum, it is implied that human beings are
expected to utilize the natural resources without depleting them in a sustainable way.

113
Khp. 11.
114
Dhp. 65.
115
Dhp. 32.
116
Dhp. 20.