Bio-Note
Suman, Banwari Lal; B Sc (Agri Hons), M Sc (Agro), Ph D (Agro);
Agronomist; b September 24, 1956, Village & Post Office Sarai Nib
Distt. Etah UP, m Manju, one s and one d; Educ Agra Univ, Indian Agri
Research Inst, New Delhi; Technical Asstt.IARI New Delhi 1980-82,
Asst Seed Officer NSC Agra 1982; Scientist Agronomy, I.I.S.R.
Lucknow 1983-90; Scientist Sr Scale Agronomy 1990-97, Senior
Scientist Agronomy 1997-2005, Principal Scientist (Agronomy) 200509 Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (I.G.F.R.I.), Jhansi,
Founder President Panchsheel Parivar 1998, Jhansi; Organized 5
National Seminars, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006 and one Int. Conf.
Buddhism Dec 8-9, 2007; Founder President, SC/ST Welfare
Asson:I.I.S.R. and CIHNP, Lucknow, I.G.F.R.I. Jhansi; Fellow, Bhartiya
Dalit Sahitya Academy, New Delhi 1991; Life Member: Indian Soc of
Agronomy, Indian Soc Agril. Sciences, Indian Soc Agro forestry, Range
Management Soc India, Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Samiti, Indian
Asson Soil and Water Conservationists; Awards Govt. of India
Fellowship, I.C.A.R. Fellowship; Awards for best work in Hindi:
Kendriya Hindi Sachivalaya 1996, I.G.F.R.I. 1992, 1998, 2002,
Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Samiti, Karnal 1998, Triratna Samman,
2006 Samata Buddha Vihar Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, Consultant
Editor American Biographical Institute Raleigh, U.S.A 2002-03; Author
of Books ‘d`f"k] ou&o`{k] i;kZoj.k vkSj ckS) /kEe] xqtjkZ
f”kykys[k vkSj vkl ikl] vkarfjd foi”;uk lk/kuk] HknUr vkuUnnso
egkLFkfoj O;fDrRo ,oa d`frRo] Hkkjr dk Ik;kZoj.k] Ik;kZoj.k
uhfr vkSj ifjn`”;] HknUr izKkuUn egkLFkfoj O;fDrRo ,oa
d`frRo Pub over 300 research, seminar/symposium and popular
articles. Visited Myanmar in Dec 2004, USA in July 2006, Address 702
(1, Baudhraj Compaund) Masihaganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi 284 003,
India.
Email;,
blsuman2004@gmail.com,
banwari_suman@rediffmail.com
Ecology in relation to Buddhism : Way of life
Banwari Lal Suman and Manju Suman
Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi –284 003, India
Phone cell 919415945895, 919415945897
Email : blsuman2004@gmail.com, banwari_suman@rediffmail.com
Abstract
Buddhists usually followed the above principles as a basis for environmental ethics in
their daily actions, either monks or laymen then it seems likely that the consequences
would promote a nonviolent ecology. As Bodhi (1987:vii) writes: With its philosophic
insight into the inter-connectedness and thoroughgoing interdependence of all
conditioned things, with its thesis that happiness is to be found through the restraint of
desire in a life of contentment rather than through the proliferation of desire, with its goal
of enlightenment through renunciation and contemplation and its ethic of non-injury and
boundless loving-kindness for all beings, Buddhism provides all the essential elements
for a relationship to the natural world characterized by respect, care, and compassion. To
some degree there are Buddhist societies which have a nonviolent ecology, but less so in
the present than in the past.
As Berry (1987:6) observes: The smaller Buddhist countries of South and Southeast Asia,
in their pre-modern period, had minimal impact upon the life systems of their regions
because of limited populations, village modes of life, and few large urban centers-supported, of course, by a spirituality that exalted a lifestyle detached from earthly
possessions [Bennett 1976]. Part of the problem is that in any religious and/or
philosophical doctrine, there is often an embarrassing discrepancy between ideals and
practices (Callicott and Ames 1989). Moreover, in many Buddhist societies
modernization has greatly increased this discrepancy (Anderson 1972, Bennett 1976,
Kunstadter 1989, Sponsel and Natadecha 1988:306-308, Swearer 1981). The ubiquity of
this discrepancy suggests that good ideals are not enough, but that other factors such as
material circumstances are also important. This is one reason why a nonviolent ecology
must also be economically and socially just. Despite the discrepancy between ideals and
actions, in recent years there has been "a kind of Buddhist revolt against the deterioration
of nature" in countries like Thailand, according to Sulak Sivaraksa (Gray 1987:25). Thus
in Sri Lanka, Thailand, USA, and Brazil, among other countries, Buddhists are becoming
environmental activists and applying the principles of Buddhist ethics and ecology
(Alyanak 1991, Badiner 1990, Darlington 1990, Davies 1987, Kabilsingh 1987, Sandell
1987, Sponsel and Natadecha 1988). The multiplicity, variety, and energy of these
revitalization movements offers hope that it may not be too late to develop a nonviolent
ecology.
As Shrader-Frechette (1981:28) notes: "How to view man's relationship to the
environment is one of the great moral problems of our time." Buddhism offers some
insights for the solution of this problem, especially for Buddhist individuals and societies.
Buddhism has endured for more than 2,500 years because people have found it
meaningful. That was the reason and other relegion could adopt the teaching of
Buddhism in their own way. Buddhism in such a regigion that has been associated with
trees, forests, animals i.e. living and non-living things ( Brigg 1920, Bidari, 1997,
Baudha, 2000) and that was the main cause to make the scheduled tribes named after
their natural world/process (Troup, 1927, Russel and Hira Lal, 1975,). However, there are
discontinuities as well as continuities in its history. In the future Buddhism will continue
to adapt as it helps humans adapt to new circumstances and challenges in modern
developed world.
INTRODUCTION
Nonviolent ecology refers to a society which is economically, socially, ecologically
sustainable, non-killing and compassionate in relating to its environment (Anderson
1972, Barnaby 1988, Brown and Shaw 1982, Goldsmith 1988, Myers 1984). But first
some preliminary comments are needed about the violence which some suppose to be
inherent and pervasive in nature and in human nature. One major point is that violence
and nonviolence are relative rather than absolute conditions. Some regions are prone to
violent forces in nature such as hurricanes or earthquakes; however, there are other
regions in which such violent forces are negligible or even absent. Competition and
predation between animal species can be violent; however, there are also nonviolent
relations between species such as mutualism (Kropotkin 1914, Lackner 1984, Montagu
1952). Within our own species, individuals and groups can be very violent in their social
interactions however, most interactions are nonviolent (Howell and Willis 1989, Melko
1973, 1981, Montagu 1976, 1978, Sponsel 1991).
Such considerations lead to the conclusion that there are environments and societies
which are nonviolent, and thus a nonviolent ecology is not limited to romantic or utopian
ideals. While there may well be more than one way to cultivate a nonviolent ecology,
Buddhism can certainly be pertinent for such an effort. Disregarding the variation in
Buddhist orthodoxy and orthopraxy at the generic level there are several important
principles inherent in Buddhism which can be applied by individuals and societies for the
creation and maintenance of a nonviolent ecology. Of course these principles are most
relevant to Buddhist individuals and societies. Granted, these principles may not be
sufficient, but they provide one useful place to start. Here they are offered as possibilities
for consideration rather than as any rigid doctrine.
BUDDHIST PRINCIPLES FOR A NONVIOLENT ECOLOGY
Unity and Interdependence
Buddhism is eco-centric rather than anthropocentric since it views humans as an integral
part of nature (Sandell 1987:32). As Kaza (1990) explains, Buddhism focuses on the
interaction of mind and nature through the three practices of direct knowing,
discriminating awareness, and deep compassion: By cultivating these three practices,
one's actions in relation to the environment come to be based in relationship and
interconnectedness, rather than in dualistic subject-object modes of separation. Through
this approach, one's orientation to the world is fundamentally altered from dominant
species to member of a community, from part to process. With interdependence as a core
understanding, an environmental ethic becomes a practice in recognizing and supporting
relationships with all beings.
The Buddhist transcends separateness from nature and instead identifies with the welfare
of all beings (Smith1958:118). Nirvana (the awakening into a state of bliss) is reached
when the boundary separating the finite self from its surroundings and also all mortal
craving are extinguished (Smith1958: 125, 131). Accordingly Kaza (1990:25) recognizes
that: An environmental ethic is not something we apply outside ourselves; there is no out
sideour selves. We are the environment, and it is us. From this recognition of the unity of
human and nature it follows that the laws of nature apply to humans as well as to other
living beings (Komin 1985:175) that could include flora as well as fauna on the earth
surface (Suman and Suman, 2003). Thus the Dhamma includes the discovery of the
nature of things which encompasses the character and processes of the environment as
system (Rajavaramuni 1985:57).
Limits and Sustainability
While environmentalism emphasizes that natural resources are limited, Buddhism is more
direct in encouraging individuals to limit their resource consumption to the optimal
satisfaction of the four basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. This vantage
point renders ecology a very concrete and personal matter. Following the Middle Way,
one lives and progresses in accord with the principles of detachment and moderation
(Saddhatissa 1970:74). In short, the Middle Way avoids the extremes of denial
(asceticism) and overindulgence (consumerism) (de Silva 1987:27-28). This is the
"rationed life" (Smith 1958:94). (This contrasts with the emphasis in materialist
consumer societies on the maximal satisfaction of needs, wants, and desires). Thus
Buddhism points to the fundamental distinction between need and greed (Sandell 1987
:35). Implicit in the Middle Way is also moderation in population reproduction as well as
in economic production and consumption. In such ways Buddhism can contribute to
ecological sustainability as well as economic and social justice. Similarly, biologist
Kozlovsky (1974:106) identifies as "the fundamental rule" of human ecology: "Live as
simply and as naturally and as close to the earth as possible, inhibiting only two aspects
of your unlimited self; your capacity to reproduce and your desire for material things."
Sevweral workers in science as well as society could generate their views as express in
different manner in different languages of the world. However, some of the workers
could reemphasize the role of Buddhism (Lal, 1997, 1998, Suman and Suman, 2003).
However, dependence of livestock on earth grazing and forestry from the same piece of
land in India as well as on the other parts of the world in threat of existence.
Compassion for Diversity
Although in recent years conservationists have shifted their emphasis from individual
species to whole ecosystems, Buddhism has long advocated reverence and compassion
for all life. In the case of animals this encompasses invertebrates as well as vertebrates.
For meditation Buddhists seek a natural and peaceful environment, the highest expression
of which is the forest (de Silva 1987:21-22). Thus traditionally temples were often built
in forests, and by association the surrounding forest became sacred space to be preserved
rather than exploited (Brockelman 1987:97, Buri 1987:4, Pei 1985). Traditionally this
would tend to promote the conservation of all the species diversity within the surrounding
ecosystem. It is noteworthy that the greatest diversity and complexity of life is found in
tropical rain forests. The Buddhist literature could define the record of 42 live forests
those were donated by lay Buddhist to Tathagata in his life time for the sangha in general
and Jetvan in Sravasti by Anathpindak after spreading od gold coins on the earth surface,
So that the dhamma could be gain by people ( Sharma, 1988, Lal, 1997).
Existence and Rights
Buddhism considers the intrinsic value of both humans and nature as providing a more
meaningful way of living (Buri 1987:4, Kabilsingh 1987:8, 11). This is in contrast to
extrinsic value, the economic valuation of nature for resource exploitation for the market
economy. An individual should limit personal use of natural resources to obtaining
optimal satisfaction of basic needs. Instead of the use of nature, the Buddhist is more
concerned with the contemplation of nature, especially through meditation. All life forms
have a natural right to existence as functional components of the ecosystem; thus the
Buddhist should avoid the use of pesticides and other unnecessary destruction of life.
Thich Nhat Hanh (1988:41) writes: We should deal with nature the way we should deal
with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature. Harming
nature is harming ourselves, and vice versa. If we knew how to deal with our self and
with our fellow human beings, we would know how to deal with nature. Human beings
and nature are inseparable. Therefore, by not caring properly for any one of these, we
harm them all.
Thought and Action in Relation to Responsibility
Not so much on the natural resources and Buddhism highlighted. But we must think that
the key to Buddhist ethics is the primacy of the mind "All we are is the result of what we
have thought" (Smith 1958:121). From positive thoughts flow positive actions and
positive consequences, whereas from negative thoughts flow negative actions and
negative consequences. Furthermore, the actions of an individual in the present life can
influence the next one as well. The source of suffering is in the individual, and likewise
the source of happiness is in the individual. Enlightenment derives from the
understanding of this elemental reality (Saddhatissa 1970:33). Thus ignorance rather than
sin is the problem (Smith 1958:121). Wisdom and morality are mutually reinforcing
(Saddhatissa 1970:123-124). Accordingly, Buddhism would encourage the cultivation of
environmental understanding through education as well as the practice of environmental
ethics as a basis for a nonviolent ecology. As Kaza (1990:25) cogently explains: The
qualities of our thoughts and actions are inextricably linked and have a powerful impact
on the environment. It is here that Buddhism can offer a great gift to the world. The root
of the environmental crisis lies in the habits of mind as much as the destructive habits of
behavior. Also relevant to responsibility are the first of both the negative and positive
precepts which are complementary. Non-killing, (the first negative precept), means to
abstain from taking life. Karuna, (the first positive precept), is deep and universal
compassion or loving kindness toward all life (Saddhatissa 1970:90, Skolimowski
1990:29).
Since the first negative precept extends to all life, it includes forms such as insects which
are not usually identified as a concern of environmentalists. Also because of this precept
normally Buddhists would not be involved in the kind of violence which is sometimes
practiced by radical environmentalists (Manes 1990). Similarly this could also apply on
the micro-organisms that we cant see from the nacked eyes i.e. bacteria, fungi,
actinomycetees etc. A nonviolent ecology would realize its ideals through its actions
toward all life forms, even those which are violent towards humans or nature. Education
and persuasion rather than violent confrontation would be used to reach those humans
who degrade or threaten other humans and/or nature. When the Buddha left home in
search of spiritual understanding, he left behind his wife and presumably the pleasures of
sex. After his enlightenment, he encouraged others to do the same: renounce the world of
the senses to seek liberation from suffering. The monks and nuns that followed the
Buddhas teachings formed a kind of sexless society, a society that did not reproduce itself
biologically. (1) By abstaining from sexual relations, Buddhist monastics intended to
reduce attachment and model an alternative to lay life. Buddhist society would continue
via transmission of the teachings, a spiritual form of continuity not dependent on sex. But
of course, the Buddha was teaching ordinary people with ordinary appetites for sexual
contact. And these appetites could really get in the way of spiritual progress; thus we find
no shortage of Buddhist commentary on sexuality and its ramifications. And despite
2,500 years of wisdom on this subject, Buddhist teachers and students are still blundering
into sexual contacts that undermine their own progress and often the progress of others.
Clearly this is not a human fallibility that can be corrected by setting up some simple
rules. In fact, sexuality is one of the most deeply hard-wired neurological drives of the
human organism, not easily uprooted even for lofty spiritual ideals. Such deepens can
only be commence with the vippasanna meditation i.e. technique discovered by Gautam
the Buddha.
From a Buddhist perspective, working with sexuality is working with attachment. How
can we understand that attachment in its biological origins? In A Natural History of Sex,
Adrian Forsyth describes in vivid detail the ecology and evolution of mating behavior in
the animal kingdom. Further every biological strategy you can imagine--from incest to
role reversal, infanticide to sex change--the author shows how costly sex can be to
individual organisms. Though sex is not the only means of reproduction, it certainly
involves the most complex behaviors, anatomical variations, social choices, and in a few
cases, the risk of death ( like insects in particular). What can possibly merit such a great
investment in momentary pleasure (if indeed it is pleasurable for some animals)? The
evolutionary answer is, genetically variable offspring. Variation is the key to surviving
calamity as a species. If all animals of a species were genetically identical, they would be
terribly vulnerable to single events that exploited their weaknesses. But with variation,
there is always a chance that some will make it through and go on to survive the new
conditions (post-earthquake, fire, icestorm, plague, etc.). Seen from the long view of
evolution, sexuality is the key to survival of the species. So it is not surprising that sexual
conditioning affects the entire human brain, a fact well known to human adolescents. To
see how much conditioning must be addressed by Buddhist practice, we can look briefly
at the neural map of the human brain. The part of the cortex that responds to touch is
wrapped around the cerebrum, with specific areas registering touch in the different parts
of the body. The area taken up by the genitals is about as large as the rest of the chest,
abdomen, and back put together. It is equivalent to the area used for the hands or the lips,
two parts of the body where touch is crucial for finding and managing food. Connections
from the sex-sniffing, sex-seeking and sex-reactive areas of the limbic systems radiate to
almost every corner of every cortical lobe, feeding the urge to our conscious minds," (3)
Sexual activity involves not only touch and high-level visual recognition but also
emotion, thought, and, in the frontal lobes, morality--some of our most sophisticated and
abstract thought processes.
Thus it is clear that sexuality presents no small challenge to religious practice, How has
Buddhism attempted to work with this deep biological conditioning? The central
guidelines for Buddhist ethics can be found in the five foundational precepts. Practicing
the precepts is seen as a way to reduce suffering and to deepen one's capacity for
achieving enlightenment. The first two precepts deal with not killing and not stealing, the
third precept deals with not engaging in sexual misconduct, the fourth is not lying, and
the fifth is not using intoxicants. The original language for the third precept in the Pali
texts is kamesu, or wrongful conduct with regard to the five sense organs. (4) Sexual
misconduct is seen as a particularly damaging form of sensual abuse since sexual activity
can generate so much suffering. The Buddha is said to have admonished his followers to
avoid unchastity "as if it were a pit of burning cinders." (5) This is some indication the
Buddha recognized how powerful the sex drive is in forming attachment.
In contrast to the absolute morality expressed in some Christian traditions, where
sexuality may be seen as a sin against God, the basis for Buddhist chastity is more
instrumental, almost pragmatic. Getting tangled up in sex makes it much harder to be free
of attachment and attain enlightenment. Two synonyms for nirvana point to this: viraga
means "absence of lust" and tanhakhaya means "waning of craving." (6) The enlightened
person is one who is free from craving or desire. The Second Noble Truth points to desire
as the cause of suffering. To be free of desire is to be free of suffering. Craving or desire
is seen as driving the twelve links of codependent origination. Desire arises from feelings
generated from sensation through contact (and sexual contact is very strong contact).
Quite quickly, in a single moment, craving can lead to attachment to the feelings (positive
or negative) generated by contact. Attachment generates consciousness, which leads to
further stages of becoming. A lot of attachment keeps one firmly in the grip of the
endless cycle of desire. The Buddha advised his followers to avoid sexual contact in
order to reduce the grip of attachment and thus attain their spiritual goals with less
distraction.
Individual Dependence
Because the locus of either happiness or suffering is in the individual (male or female), it
is up to each individual to cultivate positive thoughts from which will flow positive
actions from which will flow positive consequences. This action rests on the realization
of the Four Noble Truths and the pursuit of the Noble Eightfold Path (Lister 1987). It also
depends on following the Middle Way of detachment and moderation, while satisfying
basic needs and avoiding greed. Meditation in nature is an important part of this process
of reaching nirvana--the union with nature through the extinction of ego and of all mortal
cravings. Thus Buddhism would not blame the ecocrisis on science, technology, industry,
business, advertising, government, or some other amorphous scapegoat. Rather it would
view the ecocrisis as the product of the collective behavior of individuals who are driven
by circumstance, ignorance, and/or greed instead of by wisdom, need, moderation,
compassion, and nonviolence.
Looking at Buddhism historically, we will quickly note that these two dimensions are
rarely given equal stress in any given expression of the tradition. Argument here rests
only on the assertion that both will always be present to some degree-that indeed there is
a necessary complementarity between the two-even when one appears more prominent
than the other. The fact that one dimension or the other will, within the context of a
particular form of Buddhism, frequently receive relatively more or less emphasis thus
raises no problem, since the basic complementarity is not thereby negated. Indeed by
noting in different schools of Buddhism the relative difference in emphasis given to the
developmental or the relational dimensions, we have one useful way of charting the
complex and fascinating permutations that the basic Dharma manifested as the tradition
made its way through the various cultural encounters of its 2,500-year history.
To clarify the variable relationship between these two dimensions of basic
Buddhism, we might think of the two axes of a graph, with the vertical axis
indicating the developmental dimension of the tradition and the horizontal axis
indicating the relational dimension (Fig. 1). We have then a useful heuristic tool
we can use to explore the rich elaboration of different Buddhist schools and
teachings, plotting each in reference to the others by noting the relative degree of
emphasis given to the developmental and relational dimensions respectively.
While this approach is helpful in highlighting and understanding the diversity
within Buddhism, the tool suggesting here will also help us recognise how the
differences revealed indicate not so much a fundamental divergence among the
forms of Buddhism but rather differences in approach and emphasis, 'expedient
means' (upaaya) that reflect the ability of the tradition to adapt to the needs and
dispositions of different historical and cultural settings. One could, no doubt, even
write a history of Buddhism by charting the various permutations of emphasis
revealed by this simple x-y graph (Fig-1), but that would go well beyond the task
at hand.
The first task, however, is to distinguish the two fundamentally different forms of
hierarchy. Thinking, for the moment, not just historically but more theoretically in
terms of a Weberian 'ideal typology,' suggesting that there are two forms of
human practice that are sufficiently related one to the other to fall under the same
general designation of 'hierarchy,' even though their respective outcomes are
nonetheless diametrically opposite.
THE HIERARCHY OF OPPRESSION
To illustrate the two types of hierarchy we can imagine each form encompassing again
both a developmental and a relational dimension of human experience, each of which
we can plot on an x-y graph similar to the one we considered in Fig-1. It is important to
note the difference in what we are graphing now however. Before, in Fig. 1, we were
noting the relative emphasis given to the developmental versus the relational dimension
of the Dharma in different forms of Buddhism, whereas now we shall be using the same
axes to explore a rather different issue. In the next two figures we shall be plotting the
relative balance between the developmental and relational dimensions of our existence
in each of two different models of hierarchy. In each of these two figures, the further
away from the centre point we move horizontally (in either direction) the greater is the
degree of interrelatedness. And the further we move up the vertical axis, the greater the
degree of developmental progress. We shall see, however, that what constitutes vertical
movement differs drastically in each of the two cases, and it is that difference that
makes all the difference.
The first type of hierarchy or hierarchical structure we can designate a 'hierarchy of
oppression'. We can understand its distinctive mechanisms by imagining superimposed
on our x-y axes a triangle or a cone rising from a wide base to a single point at the apex
(Fig. 2). Imagine now that, as we move up the vertical axis, each horizontal section of
the cone corresponding to the present vertical location represents a circle of
interrelatedness. By 'interrelatedness' here not just any sense of relationship, but
specifically an understanding of the sense in which all beings share a communality of
interests. The nature of a 'hierarchy of oppression' is such that as one advances
vertically, one's 'circle of interrelatedness' becomes increasingly smaller. This is so
because one advances in a hierarchy of oppression by exercising one's control over and
domination of all those below. And as a result of one's vertical progress, one
necessarily becomes less and less aware of one's interrelatedness with them.
In the hierarchy of oppression one moves upward only by gaining power over others,
and to safeguard one's power and security one must seek ultimately to control all of
existence, however unrealistic and deluded that aspiration inevitably turns out to be.
And one is able to sustain this aspiration, moreover, only to the extent that one actively
suppresses and denies any sense of meaningful connection. Reaching the apex of the
cone in Fig. 1 would thus represent, in the terms of this model, the ultimate 'success' to
which one could aspire, but that ultimate 'success' would of course be a state of total
alienation-alienation not just from others, but from one self as well-because one can
'succeed' only by rejecting one's actual nature of interrelatedness. If the folly of this
approach to life is not schematically clear from the diagram, one need only reflect on
the course of human history, especially (though not exclusively!) the history of the
modern West.
THE HIERARCHY OF COMPASSION
Imagine now the same image turned upside down, stood literally on its head as in Fig. 3.
Here we find the apex point at the bottom, and we see that the cone broadens as it rises.
This is a model of what would call a 'hierarchy of compassion'. Note the fundamental
difference. As one ascends the vertical, developmental axis in this case, something quite
different happens, something that is precisely the inverse of the previous case (Fig-2). As
one moves upwards the circle of one's interrelatedness (or rather of one's expressed
interrelatedness) increases. In fact, the only way one can move up is by actively realising
and acting on the fundamental interrelatedness of all existence. But the line of vertical
ascent needs to be plotted somewhat differently in this case, because vertical movement
now is not the simple, linear upward assertion of control over gradually more and more of
the rest of existence. In the hierarchy of compassion vertical progress is a matter of
'reaching out,' actively and consciously to affirm an ever widening circle of expressed
interrelatedness. Such an ever broadening circle plotted as a developmental line becomes
the spiral path illustrated in Fig. 3.
REFERENCES CITED
Alyanak, Leyla, 1991. "Man and Nature: The Zen Buddhists of Brazil," The New Road
17:1, 4-6.
Anderson, E.N., Jr., 1972. "The Life and Culture of Ecotopia," InDell Hymes, ed.,
Reinventing Anthropology. NY: RandomHouse, pp. 264-283.
Badiner, Allan Hunt, ed., 1990. Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays inBuddhism and
Ecology. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
Barnaby, Frank, ed., 1988. The Gaia Peace Atlas: Survival into theThird Millennium.
New York: Doubleday.
Baudha, S. S. 2000. Jeevak (Hindi) Pub. Samyak Prakashan, Paschim Puri, New Delhi
110 063.
Bennett, John W., 1976. "The Ecological Transition: FromEquilibrium to
Disequilibrium," In his The EcologicalTransition: Cultural Anthropology and Human
Adaptation, NY:Pergamon Press, pp. 123-155.
Berry, Thomas, 1987. "Religions, Ecology, and Economics,"Breakthrough 8(1-2):4-11.
Bidri, B. 1997. Foreswt and trees associated with Buddha life. The Maha Bodhi 105 : 3949.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, 1987. "Foreword," In Buddhist Perspectives on theEcocrisis, Klas
Sandell, ed. Kandy, Sri Lanka: BuddhistPublication Society, pp. v-viii.
Brigg, W. G. 1920. The Chamars The religious life of India. Pub. Associated Press
YMCA, 5 Ruseli Street Calcutta P 270.
Brockelman, Warren, 1987. "Nature Conservation," In ThailandNatural Resources
Profile, Anat Arbhabhirama, et.al., eds.Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Development
Research, pp. 90119.
Brown, Lester R., and Pamela Shaw, 1982. Six Steps to a SustainableSociety.
Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper 48.
Buri, Rachit, 1989. "Wildlife in Thai Culture," In Culture andEnvironment in Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand: Siam Society,pp. 51-59.
Callicott, J. Baird, and Roger T. Ames, 1989. "Epilogue: On theRelation of Idea and
Action," In Nature in Asian Traditions ofThought: Essays on Environmental Philosophy,
J. Baird
Callicott and Roger T. Ames, eds. Albany, NY: StateUniversity Press of New York, pp.
279-289.
Darlington, Susan Marie, 1990. Buddhism, Morality and Change: TheLocal Response to
Development in Northern Thailand. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan Doctoral
Dissertation.
Davies, Shann, ed., 1987. Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection ofNature. Hong Kong:
Buddhist Perception of Nature Project.
de Silva, Lily, 1987. "The Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature," InBuddhist Perspectives
on the Ecocrisis, Klas Sandell, ed.Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, pp. 929.
Goldsmith, Edward, 1988. "The Way: An Ecological Worldview,"The Ecologist
18(4/5):160-185.
Gray, Dennis D., 1987. "Buddhism Being Used to Help Save Asia'sEnvironment," Seeds
of Peace 3(2):24-26.
Howell, Signe, and Roy Willis, eds., 1989. Societies at Peace:Anthropological
Perspectives. NY: Routledge.
Kabilsingh, Chatsumarn, ed., 1987. A Cry From the Forest: BuddhistPerception of
Nature: A New Perspective for ConservationEducation. Bangkok, Thailand: Wildlife
Fund Thailand.
Kaza, Stephanie, 1990. "Towards a Buddhist Environmental Ethic,"Buddhism at the
Crossroads Fall 1990:22-25.
Komin, Suntaree, 1985. "The World View Through Thai ValueSystems," Traditional and
Changing Thai World View,Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University
SocialResearch Institute, pp. 170-192.
Kozlovsky, Daniel G., 1974. An Ecological and Evolutionary Ethic.Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kropotkin, Petr, 1914. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Boston:Extending Horizon
Books.
Kunstadter, Peter, 1989. "The End of the Frontier: Culture andEnvironment in Thailand,"
In Culture and Environment inThailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Siam Society, pp. 543-552.
Lackner, Stephan, 1984. Peaceable Nature. NY: Harper and Row.Lester, Robert C.,
1987. Buddhism. San Francisco, CA: Harper andRow.
Lal, B. 1997. Ficus relegiosa and Buddhism in relation to ecological significance The
Maha Bodhi 105 : 57-61.
Leslie E. Sponsel and Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel NONVIOLENT ECOLOGY: THE
POSSIBILITIES OF BUDDHISM http://www.globalnonviolence.org/docs/buddhism/
chapter14.pdf#search='Ecology%20in%20relation%20to%20Buddhism'
Manes, Christopher, 1990. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalismand the Unmaking of
Civilization. Boston: Little, Brown.
Mary Evelyn Tucker; Duncan Ryuken Williams1997. Buddhism and ecology : the
interconnection of dharma and deeds Publisher: Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University
Center for the Study of World Religions : Distributed by Harvard University Press,
©1997.
Melko, Matthew, 1973. 52 Peaceful Societies. Oakville, Ontario:Canadian Peace
Research Institute.
Melko, Matthew, and Richard D. Weigel, 1981. Peace in the AncientWorld. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland.
Montagu, Ashley, 1976. Darwin, Competition and Cooperation. NY:Henry Schuman.
1976. The Nature of Human Aggression. NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
____, 1978. Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience of Non-LiterateSocieties. NY:
Oxford University Press.
Myers, Norman, ed., 1984. Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management.NY: Doubleday.
Pei, Sheng-ji, 1985. "Some Effects of the Dai People's Cultural Beliefs and Practices on
the Plant Environment ofXishuangbana, Yunnan Province, Southwestern China," In
Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia, Karl L. Hutterer, A. Terry
Rambo, and George Lovelace, eds., Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Papers on
Southeast Asia 24:321-339.
Rajavaramuni, Phra, 1985. Thai Buddhism in the Buddhist World: ASurvey of the
Buddhist Situation Against a Historical Background. Bangkok, Thailand: Mahachulaklongkorn Buddhist University Wat Mahadhatu.
Russel. R. V. and Hira lal 1875 Tribal and caste of central India Coscon Pub. Delhi. P
139.
Saddhatissa, H., 1970. Buddhist Ethics. NY: G. Braziller.
Sandell, Klas, ed., 1987. Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis.Kandy, Sri Lanka:
Buddhist Publication Society.
____, 1987. "Buddhist Philosophy as Inspiration to Ecodevelopment," In Buddhist
Perspectives on the Ecocrisis,Klas Sandell, ed. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist
PublicationSociety, pp. 30-37.
Sharma, P. 1988. History of Medicines in India. New Delhi.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S., 1981. Environmental Ethics. Pacific Grove,
Press.
CA: Boxwood
Skolimowski, Henryk, 1990. "Eco-Philosophy and Buddhism,"Buddhism at the
Crossroads Fall 1990:26-29.
Smith, Huston, 1958. "Buddhism," In his The Religions of Man. NY: Harper and Row,
pp. 90-159.
Sponsel, Leslie E., 1991. "The Natural History of Peace," In WhatWe Know About Peace,
Thomas Gregor, ed. (in press).
Sponsel, Leslie E., and Poranee Natadecha, 1988. "Buddhism,Ecology, and Forests in
Thailand: Past, Present, and Future,"In Changing Tropcal Forests: Historical
Perspectives onToday's Challenges in Asia, Australia, and Oceania, John Darvagel, Kay
Dixon, and Noel Semple, eds. Canberra, Australia: Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies, pp.305-325.
Swearer, Donald K., 1981. Buddhism and Society in Southeast Asia.Chambersburg, PA:
Anima Books.
Thich Nhat Hanh, 1988. "The Individual, Society, and Nature," InThe Path of
Compassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism, Fred Eppsteiner, ed. Berkeley,
CA: Parallax Press, pp. 40-46.
Troup, R. S. 1927. The silviculture of Indian trees Vol1-7, Pub. Clarendern Presss
Oxford, New york.