DISCUSSION
Forum #2: Buddhist Cosmology
October 11, 2013
After a stimulating presentation by Sid Brown on a Buddhist understanding of the environment,
the discussion began with the commonalities seen between the previous Christian presentation
and this Buddhist one. For example, the importance of detachment in both religions was
highlighted, and set against the consumer model that is lifted up in society.
Healing and reconciliation between humans and the land was also brought up as a consistent
theme in the discussion. How might “being with” the land work to bring about such
reconciliation? The new ritual developed in a Buddhist tradition - the Council of All Beings that Sid described might be a particularly relevant avenue to explore. The idea of enlivening
current rites and innovating new ones gained traction within the group conversation. How might
humans need to ask for forgiveness from the land and, if so, how might they do this?
Another theme of the discussion was how religious buildings involve land and how they offer a
way to see human/creation relationship. The description of the Buddhist Temple grounds as a
part of the building itself reminded one participant of Sewanee’s Organic Prayer Project. Others
in the group were quick to note that Christian buildings in general have a very different concept
of “grounds.” Christian monasticism was highlighted as an avenue of building/land advocacy,
particularly a convent/monastery pair in Kentucky (Sisters of Loretto and Gethsemane) that have
fought against a proposed pipeline crossing their lands. They argue that the land is part of their
monastery.
A priest in the group noted that Buddhism in some ways has an easier “in” to connecting with
nature and environmental concerns. He thought Christianity had a more cumbersome translation
problem than Buddhism. Where in Christianity can we find a place for “re-sacralizing the
planet?” The Hebrew Bible was brought up as an option.
Is Buddhism actually more “environmentally friendly” than Christianity? Sid stated that
Buddhism faces many of the problems Christianity faces. The comparison depends upon the type
of Buddhism and its location. She remarked that the variety of Buddhism makes impossible to
have a direct or generalized statement about the environment, and that the U.S. is in a “charmed”
and idealized state currently regarding its perception of Buddhism. For example, Buddhist
temples in Thailand in some areas do not have any grounds at all, but have only the religious
building. Many temples in the US have replaced their grounds with parking lots. And, in some
places Buddhism appears to have capitulated to consumerism.
The group then moved to talking about how Christian communities that are agrarian may have a
different understanding of Scripture, and dove into original intent of the Bible and the natural
imagery of the Scriptures. An Old Testament scholar talked about consumerism and the
standards of Amish life and how they continue to live in a relevant agrarian way. A seminarian
brought up land romanticism and the falsehood of projecting our nostalgia for the land on those
who actually work on it and who may be hardened by it in ways we cannot understand.
The conversation continued to talk about wealth and the concepts that privilege affords those
who are able to think about these topics, versus those who actually derive their living from the
land. For example, Wendell Berry’s books sell in cites yet not in rural areas. Cities were
discussed as centers of creativity and potential for efficiency. One person expressed a desire to
see a fiction that would imagine what right relationship, health and well-being with land in cities
would look like, that doesn’t depend on a long distance relationship with land. City design is
crucial to this conversation, Robin Gottfried noted. How might we design a city where we
encounter the sacred in people and place? A new obstacle is the internet revolution – are we so
wired up that would we even notice a well-designed city?
There were a few quick comments on repentance and the land, and how religions offer us a
context to express that need for repentance and a place where an individual can rejoin the
community. Sid offered Thich Nhat Hahn’s quote about how taking care of the environmentalist
was the best way to take care of the environment. A professor commented that many consider the
realm of Sewanee a temple and that he requires that in his first year course students keep journals
and go to a natural space periodically and listen. Getting in touch with this stillness profoundly
affects his students. He also noted the diversity of thought that comes out of people who care
about the land. What’s right to do and not right to do in a temple? Some want to leave large parts
of the land alone, and others want to manage it in various ways. So, “How can we think about
our land here in Sewanee in these terms, as a temple, and how should we manage it?”
The Center’s outdoor contemplation program, “Opening the Book of Nature,” is another avenue
in which many are helped to encounter the sacred in nature and in themselves. Robin remarked
on the importance of looking for the sacred around us and of being awakened accordingly.
Another person was struck with the glorification of intelligence instead of our holistic creaturely
instinct, and how we need to give credibility to our built-in system of rapport and healing with
nature. What is the proper pace of human life? three or sixty miles an hour? How do we slow
down and get in touch with our limitations and with nature while still living in our society? We
are starting to redesign hospitals so that patients encounter nature and heal more quickly as a
result. How might we extend that concept more broadly to our built environment?
The conversation then shifted back to the presentation. Someone asked how the Buddhist
tradition sees the created world in terms of salvation. Is the created world saved already? Who
needs salvation? Christians believe a new creation will come. Are we the problem or is nature?
How does the Buddhist tradition see creation, particularly wilderness?
The presenter responded at length, explaining that the world is somewhat determined by our
ethics. Much Buddhist practice is about transforming our thoughts, actions, and speech so we
perceive the world differently. Old texts didn’t romanticize wilderness at least the way we do
today. She told a story about a meditation on loving-kindness that came from the wilderness
experience of some monks:
The Buddha told a few monks to go to the forest to meditate. They were freaked out because
they were taking over the forest from the tree spirits, so the spirits started making spooky noises,
scaring the monks away. The monks told the Buddha that the forest was not a good place to
meditate. So the Buddha gave them this meditation to solve their fear: send out loving intentions
to ALL beings. The monks went back and sent out loving-kindness. The spirits saw this change
in the monks and then helped the monks build their huts, providing each house with all monks
needed. In the story, the monks’ relationships with the spirits of the wilderness are transformed
by the loving-kindness of the monks. Buddhists do not have a creation concept or a linear view.
Rather, they see the world as interdependent, believe that our view of the world is affected by
our perception. If we change our perception, the world responds. In a world affected by
environmental “sin,” the world reflects our ethical development.
One reaction to this story was how Christianity has seen this in Scripture and tradition; for
example, “cursed is the world because of you”; mountains skip for joy, saints have wolves lie at
their feet, a bear becomes a saint’s pack mule, St. Francis and the birds. There is a powerful
Christian tradition in which one no longer dominates but sends out love and the creaturely world
responds.
At this point, the discussion turned to the practical. What if we really started to “repent”, and
become skillful in interacting with the world? What would happen? One noted that Western
thought doesn’t allow for this relationship, but the idea of it could be very powerful. Creation is
groaning and waiting for us to come “into our own,” is co-broken with us and co-redeemed with
us. There is a desperate need for Christians to articulate our relationship with creation in our
salvation story. The threads are already there, but in a very muted manner. How can we promote
the concept that humans and the world are “all in this together?” Our mutual concern for the
environment indeed is pulling the world’s religion together to work for the common good.