Ecodharma, chapter 6

[Kokuu]

This section comprises p151-159 (from the beginning up to The Divine Abodes)

In this chapter David Loy talks about what Buddhism can offer in terms of providing answers as to what we can do about the environmental crisis at hand. He suggests that there are three kinds of action needed – personal, communal and systemic.

Loy thinks that Buddhist communities need to become much more developed, and that sangha is the weakest of the three jewels in western dharma, as a result of the individualistic nature of most western society. In the UK in the 1980s, prime minister Margaret Thatcher declared that “there is no such thing as society”, a statement which acknowledged an age of the individual pursuit of satisfaction, ignoring the fact that individual well-being is, for most of us, largely dependent on the well-being of our society.

He also addresses the fact that many people think politics to be beyond the scope of Buddhist practice. By standing outside politics, we may feel more ‘spiritually pure’ but that achieves little if political change needs to be made.

We should do what we can in terms of all three kinds of action, whilst staying within our ethical training. Compassionate action can be firm even when rendered peacefully. Loy goes on to suggest that the precepts are not only the framework within which we should effect change, but also a means of doing so themselves.

Question for this section:

In what ways do the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance contribute to environmental destruction (okay, the first one is fairly obvious!)?

How can we use the precepts to cause wider, as well as individual, change?

How much is it true that our entire economy is based on ‘taking the not given’?


Gassho
Kokuu

[Dogukan]

Hi again! I caught you after a while. I miss this part of the forum. And, thank you Kokuu for this beautiful introduction.

It was refreshing to read this chapter. Of course not because of the catastrophic actual situation Loy describes at length. After the first chapters, where the writer investigates some of the theoretical aspects of both the eco and the Dharma, now he starts to offer actions that we can engage in personally, communally and systematically. That's why it has been a refreshing reading experience for me.

As for the questions,

In what ways do the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance contribute to environmental destruction (okay, the first one is fairly obvious!)?
As you said, the relationship between environmental destruction and the first poison is quite obvious. Greed only knows to destruct, whether personally or environmentally. And when it's not satisfied, it often comes out as anger. Therefore, I would dare to suggest that maybe, we are subconsciously angry at nature since it does not provide us with an unending resource. Its limited resources despite our limitless and overambitious desires and produced needs might be frustrating. Perhaps it is this invisible anger that makes it somewhat easier for us to destroy nature. Well, it's just a theory but at the end of the day, it's for sure that without a certain degree of anger, we would not be able to harm nature as we've done in the last centuries. And the contribution of ignorance to this unfortunate process is clearer to my eyes. We, as modern humans, just theoretically know that we owe our food, our oxygen, and our water to nature. We have always found our food on our plates, our oxygen around, and our water running from the faucet. We never chased after a gazelle or tried to find some edible grass, and never migrated for finding water. The world surrounding us always implies that there will be never a time without food or water. We might have read some books and watched some documentaries about the environmental crisis, yet this particular poison, ignorance, cannot be eliminated with some pieces of information. We have to comprehend the exact gravity of the situation to weaken the effects of this poison. Otherwise, the inner voice that can be able to stop us when we do something harmful to nature never raise.

How can we use the precepts to cause wider, as well as individual, change?
We take refuge in Buddha. Buddha never did anything harmful to nature. We take refuge in Dharma. Dharma never preaches anything harmful to nature. We take refuge in the sangha. We can raise awareness of this issue by working collectively. We are intended to refrain from harming sentient beings. It is an unachievable thing by poisoning their environment. The list can be expanded. We can construct an environmentalist Buddhist narrative able to create an individual change by using the precepts. But I believe that especially practising truthful communication with others and refraining from possessiveness can be very useful to cause a wider change. A wholesome speech, in one way or another, will affect the audience. That might be a good start to building a responsible and active community. And a non-possessive way of perceiving nature might be a brilliant achievement to break our current misstructured hierarchy between nature and our kind.

How much is it true that our entire economy is based on ‘taking the not given’?
Well, it's completely true in my opinion. If your main aim is to maximise your profit, then there is no way to refrain from taking the not given. Sooner or later, this system leads all of its participants, ranging from the very common ones to the distinguished members, to take the things that are not given to them. Isn't it enough just to watch post-apocalyptic movies where the entire planet and entire human civilisation are destroyed but somehow money and the current economic understanding still survive? I am afraid that we had assimilated this system as our second nature at first, but after a while, we replaced it with real nature.

[Naiko]

In what ways do the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance contribute to environmental destruction (okay, the first one is fairly obvious!)?

As you say, greed can be seen everywhere. I suppose we can see anger as manifesting in the dreadful cost and waste of war: https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-damage-the-environment/

Ignorance is the root, though, of it all. We fail to understand the consequences of our actions and see that we are not separate from nature and the other beings here with us.

How can we use the precepts to cause wider, as well as individual, change?

I suppose I have only thought of the precepts in relation to my thoughts and behavior and not as guideposts for responding to justice issues, but why not? For Ango this year, I will challenge myself to explore each precept in relation to climate crisis.

How much is it true that our entire economy is based on ‘taking the not given’?

This calls to mind Loy’s very interesting discussion of property in Chapter Three. It feels like a lot, doesn’t it? I believe our modern economy and Industrial Revolution grew out of the influx of resources and wealth poached from colonized lands, often built on the backs of colonized people. We observe the same predatory practices today when companies like Nestle steal millions of gallons of water to bottle and sell, leaving creeks and springs to run dry, during a 20+ year drought in the western US. It’s also impossible for me to see any animal product as anything but stolen.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.
Gassho,
Naiko
st lah

[Tairin]

In what ways do the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance contribute to environmental destruction (okay, the first one is fairly obvious!)?

Greed is pretty obvious. We want stuff. We are never satisfied with what we have and society more or less compels us to want more.

I think ignorance is also pretty obvious. For a long time it just wasn’t clear what the ramifications of our lifestyle were on the environment. Even now I don’t think the message is really sinking in for many.

Anger? That one seems less obvious to me. I’ll be curious to read other's thoughts here

How can we use the precepts to cause wider, as well as individual, change?

I liked Loy’s framing of the Precepts in terms of the global catastrophe. I certainly try my best to live according to the Precepts and every year during Jukai the readings we do cause me to reevaluate and expand my view of the Precepts. Loy and TNH are both causing me expand my view again

How much is it true that our entire economy is based on ‘taking the not given’?

The Bible states “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Psalm 115:16

Obviously that is just one view from one perspective but it is a dominant perspective from a society that has been dominant through most of our industrialization. For many this is without question and so the thought would follow that we are only using what God had given.

It is hard to break that mind set


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Heiso]

In what ways do the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance contribute to environmental destruction (okay, the first one is fairly obvious!)?

These may be obvious at times but I think there is an interesting interplay between how the three poisons contribute to the environmental emergency we are facing. Greed in out relentless need for more, ignorance in the impact this has on the world and then anger in when we can't get what we want, or don't have what other have. I also think there is an anger coming out of ignorance as seen by some of the reactions from climate change deniers - although to be ignorant to the damage we are causing the planet at this stage is largely willful by now.

How can we use the precepts to cause wider, as well as individual, change?

I really like TNH's approach to the precepts and interbeing, particularly around not closing our eyes to the suffering of the world and not pursuing wealth but sharing resources. As Loy alludes to, I think the precepts challenge our individualization, or dualistic approach to being which is a form of mental commodification.

How much is it true that our entire economy is based on ‘taking the not given’?

I think it is true that currently our system encourages the commodification of the world. In English companies law the directors have a legal obligation to promote the best interests of the company. This is generally taken to mean profitability and profitability at any cost lands us in the situation were are in in terms of the environment, but short term profit chasing is also how we ended up in the financial crisis of 2008. The big question is how to change that? I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to change the underlying desire for profit which is really what is needed and what most if us here aim for. But we can, and possibly are, changing what is being commodified from finite to renewable resources.

Gassho,

Heiso

StLah

[Doshin]

I have little to add that others above have not already so well addressed.


Greed and Ignorance are easy to relate to the ecological challenges we are confronting. However, Anger gave me pause. My first reaction was about the anger I feel towards the greed that led us here and even to those who are ignorant by choice. I pondered what good is that anger within me? Is it not what my practice all these decades has being trying to conquer? (I am imperfect) Does my anger (and that of others who feel the same) make me impatient and thus not a good communicator to dispel ignorance? Does my anger motivate me? I think there is anger because of the evolving paradigm that we cannot have all we want or desire. Is not the message of modern society is that we deserve it? Are those who have little and yet suffer the consequences of the greed of others angry?

Doshin
st

[Tairin]

Hi Doshin

I think emotions such as anger are perfectly valid here for the reasons you state. Honestly I’ve only really been conscious of the urgency to make changes in the last 15 years. I get the feeling you’ve been on the front lines for much longer. It must be a lot like watching Nero play the fiddle as Rome burns to the ground.


Tai
Sat today and lah