The Potential of Buddhism as a Background Philosophy for Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics
Table of contents
Introduction:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P1-P2
Chapter 1: The emergence of
"animal ethics" in Australia
and
the global spread of "animal welfare" policies-------------------------------------P2-P5
Chapter 2: "Environmental
Ethics" and its issues
that
emerged around the same time as animal ethics
----------------------------------P5-P8
Chapter 3: The Meaning and Position
of
the
Precepts of Non-killing and Compassion in
Buddhism--------------------------P8-P9
Chapter 4: The importance of
compassion strictly ordered in the early Buddhist scriptures:
----P9-P10
Chapter 5: Compassion as emphasized
in Mahayana Buddhism
and
its premise of indiscriminate
wisdom--------------------------------------------P10-P13
Chapter 6: The History and Current
State of the Ideological and Practical Impact
of
the Idea of Compassion in Buddhist
Countries-----------------------------------P13-P14
Chapter 7: Can Buddhism be a
Background Thought
for
"Animal Ethics" and "Environmental Ethics"?
---------------------------------P14-P17
Final chapter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P17-P18
INTRODUCTION
The
fundamental question, “Why should others, including not only humans but also
animals and other living things, be valued?” This fundamental question has been
discussed by various philosophies and religions since ancient times. Since the
latter half of the 20th century in particular, “animal ethics” and
“environmental ethics”—ideas and activities for the protection of animals and
plants—have been spreading worldwide.
In
Buddhism, the answer to this question is to be found in "indiscriminate
wisdom," which is said to be a prerequisite for becoming a Buddha. The
reason for this is that to have “indiscriminate wisdom” is to have of a state
of mind that transcends the distinction between “self” and “others.”
Bodhisattvas—those whose goal is to become a Buddha—endeavor to embody this
state of mind through “bodhisattva practice.” In the case of bodhisattvas, the
suffering and joy of “others” is their own suffering and joy, and “others”
means not only human beings but all living beings.
Because
it reflects the perspective of a Buddha's indiscriminate wisdom that there is
no distinction between self and others, or between human beings and other
living beings, and that all living beings are objects to be cherished equally,
Buddhism places the precept of non-killing as the first of all its precepts.
The
idea that all living things are to be cherished equally, which lies behind the
precept of non-killing, is the forerunner of the "animal ethics"
concept that has recently come to be recognized mainly in Australia, Europe,
and the United States. In addition, this viewpoint of equality stemming from
indiscriminate wisdom can be the ideological basis for "animal
welfare," and even "environmental ethics," which require the
utmost consideration for all living things. Therefore, further research on the
concept of compassion in Buddhist thought, which is based on this
indiscriminate wisdom, should contribute in no small way to the current global
trend of "animal welfare," "animal ethics," and
"environmental ethics.
In
the West, it was not until the latter half of the 20th century that the theme
of "animal ethics" came to be considered in earnest as a field of
research that questions the ideal relationship between humans and animals. In
the East, however, the concept of absolute non-killing has existed for more
than 2,000 years in Buddhism and Jainism, and there have been examples of
legislation based on Buddhist thought, such as the edicts of King Ashoka in
ancient times in India, and the “Order for the Pity of Living Creatures” by
Tsunayoshi Tokugawa 300 years ago in Japan. Yet, with a few exceptions such as
the Jains and other traditions in India, in the wave of modern Westernization
of Asia all of these laws seem to have become a thing of the past. And now,
Japan finds itself to be one of the countries that are lagging behind with
regard to issues like animal welfare. It is only in the last few years that the
theme of "animal ethics" has begun to be recognized in Japan.
Buddhism
must have established the precept of non-killing as its most important precept
considering that it was a manifestation of the state of indiscriminate wisdom
requisite to Buddhahood. However, research on the significance of the precept
of non-killing and its relationship with indiscriminate wisdom, as well as
research on the relationship between these concepts and recent animal ethics
thought in western countries, has not yet been sufficiently conducted.
In
Japan, pioneering research on animal ethics has been conducted by Dr. Masaki
Ichinose and Dr. Tetsuji Iseda, and over the past few years, several books have
been published on the subject. Yet, it would not be an exaggeration to say that
there is still little recognition of this issue by the general public.
Furthermore,
while this issue of animal ethics has had a major impact on the development of
laws and the reform of the livestock industry in western countries, Japan has
lagged far behind in both the development of that kind of legislation and the
reform of the livestock industry. In fact, the Japanese egg and poultry
industry, alarmed by the above trend in the west, gave bribes to the Minister
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in an attempt to prevent the
establishment of such laws.
In
western countries, many people are becoming vegetarian or vegan to stop a
meat-eating habit. Also in recent years, it has become clear that the
greenhouse gas effect of the methane gas contained in the farts and burps
emitted by livestock around the world is greater than that of carbon dioxide
from human industrial activities. Therefore, in order to stop global warming,
it is said that we should do away with such a habit of meat-eating.
Incidentally,
it was in the early 1970s that the issue of environmental ethics began to be
discussed in western countries, at about the same time as the above-mentioned
issue of animal ethics was proposed. In Japan, however, the issue of
environmental ethics came to be discussed relatively early, but the issue of
animal ethics seems to have been discussed very little. In most of the
developed countries, both animal and environmental ethics have been discussed
at about the same time since the 1970s.
However,
while animal ethics tends to neglect the issue of forest protection for plants
and other insensitive animals, in environmental ethics, and even in deep
ecology and biocentrism—which are the spearhead of cherishing all living
things—meat-eating is allowed for human survival, and thus animal ethicists
criticize environmental ethicists and environment ethicists criticize animal
ethicists for each other’s inadequacies. It can be said that there has yet to
be an idea that is consistent with both.
ーPage 1ー
As
mentioned above, when we look at the current state of animal and environmental
ethics, we can see that Japan is now in a state of global backwardness in terms
of animal ethics. Yet, Japan is regarded as a Buddhist country by the rest of
the world. If this is the case, then Japan should rather be an ideologically
advanced country in animal ethics, animal welfare, and environmental ethics.
And in actuality, given the fact that both academic research on Buddhism and
the activities of Buddhist religious organizations are flourishing, I believe
that Japan should be able to develop innovative proposals on animal ethics,
animal welfare, and environmental ethics through its many academic research
initiatives and activities based on Buddhist thought.
In
light of this situation, this paper will examine the current state of
background thought on animal ethics and animal welfare in the west, clarify the
problems and issues involved, and outline the current state of environmental
ethics and its related issues—which began to emerge at the same time, and which
call for the protection of the environment, including plants.
In
order to do this, I will first reconfirm the importance of the precept of
non-killing, the meaning of compassion as the basis for this precept, and its
position in Buddhist doctrine as a whole. Then, I will confirm (1) that it is
based on the requisite condition for attaining the state of Buddhahood, (2)
that it is also based on the view of equality which sees no distinction between
self and others or between human beings and other living beings and sees all
living beings as objects to be cherished equally, and (3) that, therefore, the
practice of the precept of non-killing originally must have been the most
important theme of Buddhism.
However,
as Buddhism developed and spread in the world, it was not always practiced as a
central theme— which has resulted in the current backward state of animal and
environmental ethics in Japan where Buddhism is supposed to be flourishing. In
order to overcome such a situation, in addition to looking at the meaning of
the precept of non-killing based on the indiscriminate wisdom of the Buddha and
its significance as the essential factor in Buddhism, we must reexamine the
importance of compassion as well. Finally, I will look at the fundamental
problem of the deep-seated selfishness that is part of human existence which
prevents us from implementing such ideals and principles as they should be.
From
this, I will verify that the keys to realizing compassionate animal welfare and
solving environmental problems in the future will be to become aware of our own
selfishness and arrogance as human beings, to make efforts to overcome such
traits, and to learn ultimate humility toward all other living beings as
exemplified by the Buddha.
CHAPTER 1
The Global Spread of "Animal
Ethics" and "Animal Welfare" Policies Born in the West
In
1975, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer published Animal Liberation: A
New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Singer explains “why the ethical principles on which human equality rests requires us to
extend equal consideration to animals too”①: “The basic principle
of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal
consideration.”② “It is an implication of this principle of
equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their
interests ought not depend on what they are like or what abilities they may
possess.”③
In
conclusion, “– the taking into account of
the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be – must, according
to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white,
masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.”④ “If a being suffers there can be no
moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No
matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that
its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as a rough
comparison of suffering can be made–of any other being.”⑤ “So the limit of
sentience (using the term as a convenient if not strictly accurate shorthand
for the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment) is the only defensible
boundary of concern for the interests of others.”⑥ .
① “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer, HarperCollins Publishers
(2009) – P.1.L2~L4
② Ibid – P.2.L29~L30
③ Ibid – P.5.L21~L24
④ Ibid – P.5.L30～L34
⑤ Ibid – P.8.L32～L36
⑥ Ibid – P.8.L38～P9.L2
In
other words, Singer came to the conclusion that according to the ethical
principles that underlie human equality, the infliction of suffering on all
sentient beings must necessarily violate those principles, and he began to
denounce the human infliction of suffering on all animals. The majority of
people who do not apply the ethical principles of humanity to other animals do
not care for the suffering of non-human animals simply because they are of a
different species.
In
particular, animal experimentation and the breeding of livestock for food are
the most serious acts that cause suffering to animals and are typical of
speciesism. In Chapter 2, Singer describes in detail various examples of animal
experiments and their fearless cruelty.
In
the following chapter 3, he introduces the current situation and the cruelty of
raising livestock for food. In the chapter 4, he describes in detail the
benefits of becoming a vegetarian in order not to be complicit in the greatest
human deception, speciesism, and the outrageous cruelty it perpetrates on
hundreds of millions of animals.
In
Chapter 5, he points out that the background to today's speciesism and the
justification of humanity's use of animals is in no small part due to the
influence of Judaism and ancient Greek thought, and the Christianity that
succeeded it.
In
other words, traditional Western philosophy has developed as an extension or
antithesis of the Greek or Christian view of the world and human beings. He
believes that there should be no difference between human beings and all living
things that can feel suffering as well as human beings, and that equal
consideration should be given to them. In this respect, there seems to be a
similarity with the basic stance of Buddhism, which does not recognize any difference
between humans and non-human sentient beings as objects to be considered.
However, the approximations and fundamental differences will be examined again
in another section.
In
any case, the assertion by Western thinkers such as Singer that humans should
give the same consideration to all non-human creatures that can feel suffering
as they do to humans, from a perspective that is completely different from the
monotheistic worldview and value system that had been in place up to that time,
and the painful accusation of the cruelty of raising laboratory animals and
livestock for food as a result of species discrimination without such
consideration, shocked many people.
In
his final chapter, Singer states. “We
have seen how, in violation of the fundamental moral principle of equality of
consideration of interests that ought to govern our relations with all beings,
human inflict suffering on non-humans for trivial purposes; and we have seen
how generation after generation of Western thinkers has sought to defend the
right of human beings to do this. In this final chapter I shall look at some of
the ways in which speciesist practices are maintained and promoted today, and
at various arguments and excuses that are still used in defense of animal
slavery.” ⑦ Singer goes
on to say: “It is important to expose and
criticize this ideology, because although contemporary attitudes to animals are
sufficiently benevolent – on a very selective basis – to allow some
improvements in the condition of animals to be made without changing his basic
attitude to animals, these improvements will always be in danger of erosion
unless we alter the underlying position that sanctions the ruthless
exploitation of non-human beings for human ends. Only by making a radical break
with more than two thousand years of Western thought about animals can we build
a solid foundation for the abolition of this exploitation.” ⑧
The
main reason why people today continue to eat meat is the misconception that it
is essential for human beings, and that this misconception is instilled in
children from an early age. However, in reality, plant proteins alone are
sufficient to nourish the body, and in fact, there are many famous active
athletes who are vegetarians, and it has been shown that they are even better
than meat-eaters in terms of athletic performance and health.
He
also points out that if humans eat the same grains and legumes that are fed to
meat animals (cattle), the energy efficiency is less than 1/17th, in other
words, only 1/17th of the grains and legumes harvested in the same area are
converted to meat, which is a major cause of global food shortages and hunger.
It
also points out that the methane gas in the burps and farts of hundreds of
millions of farm animals around the world has a greenhouse effect greater than
the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in all industries.
In
short, Singer shows that stopping the meat-eating habit is essential not only
to ending cruel animal cruelty, but also to averting a human food crisis and
halting global warming.
First
published in 1975, Singer's "Animal Liberation" was a huge sensation,
and a movement to denounce cruelty to laboratory and farm animals began to
spread around the world. Until then, most people were not informed about the
realities of laboratory and livestock animals. In fact, it would not be an
exaggeration to say that they had been daring to turn a blind eye.
⑦ Ibid – P.213.L5～L13
⑧ Ibid – P.213.L19～L29
ーPage 3ー
In
response to this situation, this book presents a number of hair-raising and
cruel acts that are actually being committed against animals, with examples so
concrete and relentless that the reader wants to cover his eyes. The impact of
this book was so great that it seems that there are few people who can remain
unmoved after reading it.
The
book has gone through several editions over the past 40 years, and in the
meantime, the “animal welfare” policies that were inspired by the book and
began to be institutionalized in countries around the world are now being
enforced as a matter of course in developed countries, and as a result, Japan
has fallen into a situation where institutionalization is the slowest among
developed countries.
In
his foreword to the 2009 edition, Singer notes that since the first edition was
published in 1975, the book has had a much greater response than he had
anticipated, and lists the following examples of that response. “In the 1980s, under pressure from the
animal movement, cosmetics corporations began putting money into finding
alternatives to testing on animals. The development of product testing methods
not involving animals now has a momentum of its own in the scientific community
and is partly responsible for holding down the number of animals used. Despite
‘fur is back’ claims by the industry, fur sales have still not recovered to the
level they were at in the 1980s, when the animal movement began target it.”⑨ “The
first breakthrough for farm animals came in Europe. In Switzerland, the battery
cage system of producing eggs described in Chapter 3 became illegal at the end
of 1991. Instead of cramming their hens into small wire cages too small for the
birds to spread their wings, Swiss egg producers moved the birds to sheds where
they could scratch on a floor covered with straw or other organic material and
lay their eggs in a sheltered, soft-floored nesting box. Once the Swiss had
shown that change is possible, opposition to battery cages mounted throughout
Europe, and the European Union (EU), covering 27 member states and almost 500
million people, has now agreed to phase out the standard bare wire cage by
2012, giving hens more room, access to a perch, and nesting box to lay their
eggs in.”⑩
Furthermore,
the practice of confining veal calves and sows in crates where they cannot move
for long periods of time was already banned in the UK in 1990, and is now
completely banned in the European Union, as well as in the US. In the United
States, it was banned in 2007 and will be banned by 2017. In addition, many
chefs, grocery stores, and caterers have declared that they will not use pigs,
chickens, or eggs that have been raised in cruel conditions. In 2008, it was
decided that batterie cages would be completely banned in California by 2015.
Thus,
since Singer’s shocking book “Animal Liberation” was published in 1975, public
opinion in Western countries has erupted to demand a review of the way humans
treat animals. While this became a tidal wave of public opinion that culminated
in today’s legislation for “animal welfare,” Japan remained outside the scope
of such international trends and most people had never even heard of the term
“animal welfare. The typical Japanese response to the anti-whaling and
anti-dolphin fishing campaigns by Western activists was that it was
contradictory to give special treatment to whales and dolphins when Westerners
kill and eat cows and pigs without hesitation. However, the anti-whaling
movement in the West is part of a movement to rethink the cruel treatment of
animals by humans as described above, and anti-whaling activists are naturally
anti-livestock and anti-laboratory animalists, vegetarians or vegans.
The biggest problem with the
current situation in Japan is that most Japanese people do not even understand
the background of that bribery scandal.
Although Japan is internationally
regarded as a Buddhist country, it has been rapidly westernized by the
importation of Western lifestyles and industrial structures since the opening
up of Japan to Western civilization in the Meiji era (1868-1912), and the
practice of eating meat has become commonplace. It seems that this is the
reason why Japan has become such a backward country in terms of animal welfare,
and it is undeniable that the current backwardness of Japan’s animal welfare to
the extent that it is frowned upon by developed countries in the West is partly
due to the indifference of the Buddhist community and the Buddhist Studies
Association in Japan to this issue.
Singer’s
decision to limit his concern to “animals that have the ability to feel pain”
was concrete and made it possible to respond in a realistic manner. However, it
is also true that the fact that animals, plants, and even humans, who cannot
feel pain, were excluded from consideration was the subject of criticism from
various quarters.
In particular, in his “Practical
Ethics,” he said, if a fetus is confirmed to have a serious disability and is
known to suffer only pain at birth, it should be aborted when it is not yet
aware of the pain. He goes as follows.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
⑨ Ibid – P.X.L9～L17
⑩ Ibid – P.X.L30～L42
ーPage 4ー
“My
suggestion, then, is that we accord the fetus no higher moral status than we
give to a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness,
awareness, capacity to feel and so on. Because no fetus is a person, no fetus
has the same claim to life as a person. Until a fetus has some capacity for
conscious experience, an abortion terminates an existence that is – considered
as it is and not in terms of its potential – more like that of a plant than
that of a sentient animal like a dog or a cow. (The issue of the difference the
potential of the fetus should make is still to be discussed.) Once the fetus is
sufficiently developed to be conscious, though not self-conscious, abortion
should not be taken lightly (if a woman ever does take abortion lightly).” ⑪
“I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more
plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman
animal at a similar level of rationality, self-awareness, capacity to feel and
so on, and that because no fetus is a person, no fetus has the same claim to
life as a person. Now we have to face the fact that these arguments apply to
the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and
self-aware being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality,
self-awareness, capacity to feel and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week
or a month old.” ⑫
Such cold attitude of Singer toward
human embryo was severely criticized by anti-abortionists. Besides, Singer
assumed animals and plants with less evolved senses of pain, such as shellfish
and plants in general, as the beings that are not subject to consideration.
Such discriminative attitude toward less evolved animals and plants has been
criticized by environmental ethicists as it cannot be a background philosophy
for environmental ethics.
Singer's
insistence on the need to care for "animals that feel a great deal of
pain" has won the sympathy of many Westerners, and the enrichment of
"animal ethics" and "animal welfare" and laws based on them
has brought about significant social change. On the other hand, his
cold-hearted attitude toward "animals, plants, and humans that do not feel
pain" have to be regarded as "speciesism," which Singer himself
has repeatedly condemned.
After all, the target of concern
should be "all living things," and among them, the target of urgent
action should be "animals that feel pain to a great extent," and in
turn, consideration should be given to "all living things.
If this had been the case, Singer's
philosophy could have been an environmental ethics philosophy that takes into
consideration all living things on earth, including plants.
However,
Singer made a clear distinction between "objects that need to be taken care
of" and "objects that do not need to be taken care of. This is the
limit of Singer's thought and the biggest difference from Buddhist thought,
which will be examined more thoroughly in the following chapter.
CHAPTER 2
“Environmental ethics” and its issues
that emerged around the same time as animal ethics
Originally, the term
"ethics" meant a normative path to be followed in the order of human
life, in other words, human ethics, and thus the term was used only for humans
or human society.
The reason why the term
"ethics," which was originally intended for humans, came to be used
for non-human animals and the environment is because people began to argue that
animals and the environment should be given the same consideration as for
humans.
The concept of "animal
ethics" has been recognized since Singer's " Animal Liberation,"
and the term has become established.
As
for "environmental ethics,” with the publication of "Man and
Nature" by George Perkins Marsh in 1864, peoples' attention was drawn to
the environment and the Forest Reserve Act was enacted in the United States in
1891. In 1944, Aldo Leobold proposed the concept of a "land ethic,"
which advocated a shift in human position from that of a dominator of the land
to that of a member of an interdependent ecosystem. In 1967, American historian
Lynn White wrote in “The Historical Root
of Our Ecological Crisis” that the root of the current environmental crisis
lies in the “Judeo-Christian tradition” and that "God had created … the earth and all its plants, animals, birds
and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam…Man named all the animals, thus
establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for
man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save
to serve man’s purposes.”⑬
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
⑪ “Practical Ethics” （Third Edition）by Peter Singer,
Cambridge University Press (2011) – P.136.L3～L16
⑫ Ibid – P.156.L10～L18
⑬ “The Historical Root of Our Ecological Crisis” by Lynn White
(1967) – P.5.L37～P6.L1
ーPage 5ー
In
the early 1970s, people began to question the anthropocentric view of nature as
all non-human beings are existing for human use. At the Third World Congress on
Future Studies held in Bucharest in September 1972, Aarne Næss, Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, gave a lecture entitled “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range
Movement.” He denounced that the environmental movement, whose main
objective is to “Fight against pollution
and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people
in the developed countries.”⑭
is an anthropocentric, superficial, and shallow ecology. In contrast, he
described the Deep ecology as “Rejection
of the man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image.
Organisms as knots in the biospherical net or field of intrinsic relations.
……..To the ecological field-worker, the equal right to live and blossom is an
intuitively clear and obvious value axiom. Its restriction to humans is an
anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the life quality of humans
themselves. This quality depends in part upon the deep pleasure and
satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life. The
attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has
contributed to the alienation of man from himself.” ⑮
In
other words, Ness said that for humans, the totality of relationships with all
living things is the true self, and treating other living things as objects for
use is nothing but self-alienation. True environmental protection for human
beings is to protect the totality of the relationships among all living things,
which is also an act of self-realization for each and every human being. And
then he named such environmental protection activities Deep Ecology, as opposed
to the anthropocentric Shallow Ecology mentioned above.
The
emergence of Deep Ecology, which called for consideration of the totality of
relationships among all life forms, including humans, led to the spread of the
recognition that the environment is also an object of ethics, and the term
Environmental Ethics came into use.
In
1973, the Australian philosopher Richard Routley presented a paper at the 15th
World Congress of Philosophy entitled "Is There a Need for a New, an
environmental Ethics?" in which he argued that in order to deal with
environmental problems, traditional Western ethics is limited to humans, and
that even if humans destroy natural things, as long as they do not harm others,
such actions are not morally reprehensible, but may even be permissible. In
order to cope with this situation, a "new ethics" is needed to
replace the old one.
Routley
saw Aldo Leopold's land ethic, or "the ethical rules governing the
relationship between humans and the land and the plants and animals that depend
on it," as the prototype, and called for a new environmental ethic based
on Leopold's "land ethic.
However,
in 1974, another Australian philosopher, John Passmore, published "Man's
Responsibility for Nature," in which he argued against Routley. He
disagreed with Routley and argued that there was no need for a new ethic.
Passmore
argued that "there is an urgent need to change our attitude towards the
environment, and that man cannot continue the unconstrained exploitation of the
biosphere. He did not agree with attempts to clarify environmental issues
through a radical revision of our ethical framework, such as that advocated by
deep ecology, which he considered to be false mysticism and irrationalism.
Passmore was highly skeptical of attempts to attribute intrinsic value to
nature, and his favored position was to value nature in terms of what it
contributes to the flourishing of sentient beings (including humans). He
refuted Lynn White's claim above that Judeo-Christianity was the source of
anthropocentrism and environmental destruction, saying that Christianity gave
humans the role of managing the natural environment and animals, not allowing
them to use or destroy them as they please. He argued that since it is our role
to protect and manage the natural environment and animals, the existing ethics
for humans are sufficient and there is no need for a new ethics.
Thereafter,
the major debates in environmental ethics thought continued to be over whether
to be anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric, life-centric or ecocentric,
ideological or pragmatic.
Yet,
apart from such controversies in environmental ethics, the actual philosophy
that drives the environmental protection policies of governments in various
countries is that if the environment continues to be destroyed, the survival of
human beings themselves will be at stake, which is based on the shallow and
anthropocentric ideas of so-called shallow ecology. After all, what motivates
most people is their own survival, and they may inevitably become
anthropocentric.
However,
as we have seen in the previous chapter on animal ethics, the number of people
who have given up eating meat and become vegetarians or vegans for the pure
reason of caring for animals in pain is increasing all over the world, and it
is also true that legislation to improve the treatment of farmed animals is being
developed all over the world.
It is no exaggeration to say that this is the result of a
chain reaction of people sympathizing with Peter Singer's
arguments
that appeal to people's conscience and sensibilities.
⑭ “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Movement.” By
Aarne Næss (1972) –
P.1.L10～L12
⑮ Ibid – P.1.L13～L16 / P.2.L2～L9
ーPage 6ー
Yet,
as I have already mentioned, Singer limits the objects of human concern to
animals that feel a considerable amount of pain and above, and does not
consider animals and plants that do not feel much pain as objects of concern.
In
the non-anthropocentric and ecosystem-centric movement of J. Baird Callicott
and others, which is becoming the mainstream of environmental ethics today, the
protection of ecosystems is the main objective. If the original ecosystem of
the area has been altered due to the propagation of alien species, a thorough
extermination of the alien species is openly carried out to restore the
original state. It is as if alien species are evil, and the extermination of
alien species is a natural justice in order to preserve the native species.
In
this sense, the current mainstream environmental ethics of
ecosystem-centeredness or ecosystem conservationism does not consider the
dignity of the lives of individual organisms for the cause of maintaining the
indigenous ecosystem. Such an attitude is unacceptable in terms of the ideas of
people such as Singer and Tom Reagan, who claimed that animals have the right
to live without human interference or exploitation.
Thus,
the fact that the background ideas that are the main driving force behind
current animal ethics and the background ideas that are the main driving force
behind environmental ethics are incompatible with each other and contain
fundamental contradictions is a truly serious problem, and there is an urgent
need to come up with a coherent idea that is consistent with both animal and
environmental ethics.
In
this sense, the deep ecology of Arne Ness, Albert Schweitzer, who advocated
reverence for life based on the value that “all life is equally sacred,” and
Paul Taylor, who reorganized Schweitzer's values in the context of contemporary
environmental ethics and advocated life-centeredness. Their philosophy, which
advocate life-centeredness, are likely to be the background ideas that underlie
both of animal ethics and environmental ethics, in that they consider all life,
including animals and plants, as the object of consideration. However, they are
also incompatible with animal ethicists such as Singer and Reagan in that they
accept the deprivation of other life on the condition that there is a
justifiable moral reason. On the other hand, environmental ethics thinkers of
ecological conservationism have criticized life-centered environmental ethics
such as deep ecology as being too ideological and unrealistic to be
implemented.
It
is an unavoidable fact that human beings have to take other lives in order to
survive. This fact, which cannot be excused, is the greatest cause of heartache
for those who truly wish for the well-being of others. It can be said that
Buddhism focused on the fundamental contradiction and conflict between wishing
for the happiness of others and maintaining one's own survival. Therefore, in
Buddhism, life with such a fundamental contradiction is “suffering,” and as
long as we are greedy for self-preservation, trying to survive by ourselves
even if we push others away, we cannot escape from the “suffering” that is the
result of such a fundamental contradiction. That is why the ultimate goal is to
completely overcome such greed for self-preservation and to continue striving to
transcend the form of existence of “life” that can only exist at the expense of
others and to sublimate into the form of existence as a Buddha.
In
other words, from the Buddhist point of view, all living beings should be
cherished and their lives should not be taken for any reason. It is an
unavoidable act. This recognition of the fact that it is an unacceptable but
unavoidable act is an extremely important point in considering the issues of
animal and environmental ethics.
This
is because the act of taking another living being's life can never be
justified, nor should it be done, for any reason, and it should never be
accepted or even recognized as a right.
It
would not be an exaggeration to say that the root of the problem is the
“excusable self-justification” those human beings have decided upon, such as
that eating animals and cutting down forests are God-given human “rights,” that
the killing of alien species is “necessary” for the preservation of ecosystems,
that meat eating is “acceptable” for human survival, and that it is “okay” to
kill creatures that do not feel pain, although sentient animals should not be
killed.
Human
beings, once their acts have been accepted or recognized, almost forget their
guilt, remorse, guilt, and reservation, and as if they have the “right” to do
so, they unreservedly commit acts against their “original ideals.”
For
this reason, “the awareness that we are doing something that cannot be
tolerated or justified, but that we cannot help but do” can be the greatest
deterrent to minimize the damage to others caused by our actions.
To
use a very simple example, in Japan, the Road Traffic Law stipulates that
bicycle should be ridden on the road and not on the sidewalk. In other words,
riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is clearly illegal. Yet, in reality, riding a
bicycle on a narrow road is extremely dangerous and can hinder the passage of
cars, and in some cases, it is necessary to ride on the sidewalk to avoid
danger. However, because bicyclists ride on sidewalks is illegal, the riders
immediately return to the road if there are people walking on the sidewalk and
give top priority to the safety of pedestrians. Yet, what if bicycles were
allowed to ride on sidewalks and legalized as it is unrealistic and idealistic
to force bicycles to ride on the road? Because it is a “right” granted by the
government, a “necessity,” and “accepted” by everyone, almost all bicycle
riders will use sidewalks. As a result, accidents between bicycles and
pedestrians will increase dramatically, resulting in many deaths and injuries.
ーPage 7ー
In
this way, the key to putting a stop to human behavior is to be aware of the
fact that we are doing things that cannot be condoned or justified, but that we
have no choice but to do so.
CHAPTER
3
The
Meaning and Position of the Precepts of Non-killing and Compassion in Buddhism
Buddhism,
which was preached by (Shakyamuni) Buddha, who is said to have attained
enlightenment at Buddha Gaya in India around 450 B.C. has spread not only in India but also in neighboring
countries, Southeast Asia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, and now all over the
world.
In
Buddhism, the first precept to be observed by both monks and lay followers is
the precept of non-killing. The teachings and interpretations of the Buddha's
teachings vary greatly, and there is still much debate as to what the Buddha's
true teachings were. Yet, it can be said with certainty that the Buddha set the
precept of non-killing first and foremost in his code of conduct as a Buddhist,
and it may be the point that all the Buddhists can agree on. In other words, it
would not be an exaggeration to say that Buddha considered breaking the precept
of non-killing to be a violation of the fundamental principles of the Buddha's
teachings.
Yet,
it seems that the meaning and ideological basis of this important precept of
“non killing” has not been explored deeply enough in history.
In
the early days of Buddhism, the precept of “non killing” was accepted as a
basic premise to be observed, and there may have been no need to explain its
meaning or reason in depth, nor was there any necessity to delve into it.
However, considering the detailed and meticulous analysis of the Buddha's
teachings by the later schools of Buddhism, it is unlikely that the issue of
“non killing” and compassion as its basis was considered to be of paramount
importance, given the fact that so little attention was paid to this important
topic, and rather too much attention was devoted to even trivial issues.
Furthermore,
from the teachings of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and impermanence
and anātman (no permanent self or essence) which are said to have been first
taught by the Buddha, it would seem that the significance of compassion, which
is the basic premise of the precept of non-killing, cannot be easily derived.
In
other words, if you go through the theory of anātman (no permanent self or
essence), the self, which is the object to be attached to in the first place,
has no essence nor substance, and the purpose of practice is to realize that
all objects to be attached to, including the self, have no substance, and to be
liberated from all attachments, never to be reborn in this world again, and
thus to attain the so-called Arhat-ship.
In
this way, the fact that all objects to be attached to, including the self, are
insubstantial means that all living beings, the objects of compassion, are also
insubstantial in nature and cannot be objects to be attached to nor cared for.
This
is clearly a contradiction. If the theory of anātman (no permanent self or
essence) and the practice of becoming an arhat based on this theory do not lead
to the necessity of compassion, then it becomes unclear why the Buddha had set
non-killing as the first item in his code of conduct as a Buddhist and strictly
ordered compassionate practice.
The
fact that the Buddha strictly ordered non-killing precepts and compassionate
acts, and the fact that he taught the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path,
impermanence, and anātman (no permanent self or essence), and the way to
practice to become an Arhat, are both almost certain historical facts.
If
one of these two important facts is not derived from the other, or contradicts
its philosophy, it may be an indication that one of the facts does not present
a complete picture that encompasses both facts.
In
other words, if the inevitability of the precepts of non-killing and compassion
cannot be derived from the particular interpretation of teachings as taught in
the Theravada Buddhism to attain Arhat-ship, it may be clear that they do not
represent the whole picture of Buddhism as originally taught by the Buddha.
The
issue of compassion was finally discussed in depth in Mahayana Buddhism, and it
was made clear that it was a prerequisite for attaining Buddhahood, which is
beyond Arhat-ship. Yet, compared to the so-called early system of the teachings
found in Theravada Buddhism, the concept of bodhisattva conduct based on
compassion in Mahayana Buddhism was so extensive in its logical development
that it was once advocated that Mahayana Buddhism is not the teachings of the
Buddha.
However,
the issue of compassion is the basis for the fundamental premise of the
Buddhist precept of non-killing, and in a sense, it should have been the most
important issue for Buddhists. Yet, the disciples after the Buddha did not
deeply delve into this most important theme, and the focus of their attention
was fixed on the mastery of the Arhat path, which is not necessarily connected
to the significance of compassion. As a result, the precepts of non-killing and
the practice of compassion have been treated as mere precepts and desirable
virtues.
ーPage 8ー
Obviously,
this did not reflect and explain the significance and meaning of the fact that
the Buddha, set the precept of non-killing as the first code of conduct for
Buddhists and strictly ordered the compassionate acts. In this sense, it can be
said that the interpretation of Buddhism before the emergence of Mahayana
Buddhism was not complete enough in the sense that it failed to show the whole
picture of the original Buddha's teachings which placed the precept of
non-killing and the compassionate conducts for all living beings as the most
important prerequisite.
Therefore,
we will first go back to the early Buddhist scriptures and examine how the
importance of compassion was taught there. First, the Buddha's teachings only
explain the importance of practicing compassion and do not give any reason or
necessity for doing so. Secondly, in later Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha's
teachings on the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and impermanence and
anātman (no permanent self or essence) were delved into in depth, and as a
result, compassion for all sentient beings arose from the state of equanimity
that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas attain through their indiscriminate wisdom. As a
result, the motivation for the precept of non-killings, the first code of
conduct for Buddhists, was naturally derived.
CHAPTER
4
The
Importance of Compassion strictly ordered in the Early Buddhist Scriptures
Chapter 1: The Serpent
8: Compassion
“143 The following is what a person who has attained the ultimate ideal should do to attain this state of peace. He should be capable, upright, righteous, gentle in speech, meek, and without conceit.
144 He should know what is sufficient, live frugally, do little in the way of chores, have a simple life, be quiet in all senses, be intelligent, not overbearing, and not covetous in all (other) houses.
145 And never do anything that is vile, so that you may be reproached by other person of good sense. Be happy, be at ease, be at peace, all living beings.
146 Let not any living creature, whether frightened or strong, long, great, medium, or short, minute or coarse, or anything of the kind, be it visible or invisible.
147 Happy are all living things, visible and invisible, dwelling far and near, born and to be
born.
148 Let no man deceive another, neither let him despise another, wherever he may be; neither
let him wish to afflict another with anger.
149 Just as a mother would protect her only child at all costs, so too should you be
immeasurably compassionate toward all living beings.
150 And raise up a heart of immeasurable compassion for the whole world. Upward, downward,
and sideways, without hindrance, without resentment, without enmity (do charity).
151 As long as you stand, walk, sit, lie down, and do not
sleep, be sure to keep this mindfulness
(of compassion).In this world, this state is called the
sublime state.
152 He who is free from all evil thoughts, who keeps the commandments, who has knowledge,
and who is free from the greed of all desires, will never again be conceived in a mother's
womb.” ⑯
This
is a verse from the Sutta Nipata, which is considered to be one of the oldest
Buddhist scriptures in existence, especially in verse 149:“Just as a mother would protect her only child at all costs, so too
should you be immeasurably compassionate toward all living beings.”
In
this way, we should have a heart of compassion for all living beings. The
compassion for all living beings expressed here is not merely “do not harm
living beings,” but is so great that we are told to protect them even at the
cost of our own lives, “just as a mother protects her only child even at the
cost of her own life.”
In
other words, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the lives of all
living beings are clearly stated to be of equal value to one's own life.
However,
no reason is explained here why the lives of all living things are so
important, nor is there any reason why we should protect them even at the cost
of our own lives.
As
for the question of whether plants are included in the list of all living things
mentioned here, some studies
have suggested that the original
Pali word translated in 146 as “whether frightened or strong” can be translated
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
⑯ “Sutta Nipata”
(translated from Pali into Japanese) by Hajime Nakamura (1984, Iwanami)
(translated from Japanese into
English by author)
ーPage 9ー
as “whether movable (tasa) or
immovable (thāvara) and the word “tasa” can be interpreted as “animal” and
“thāvara” can be interpreted as
“plant.”⑰ Thus, it
seems possible to assume that at least at the time this sutra was compiled,
plants were included among the living beings.⑱
Yet,
as a result of the doctrinal analysis of the Buddha's teachings by his later
disciples, the object of compassion was determined to be the so-called sentient
beings, meaning living beings with senses. The fact that only “sentient beings”
are considered as objects of mercy seems to be akin to Peter Singer's
definition of protection as only “animals with some degree of sentience or
more.” However, Singer's biggest problem seems to lie in the fact that he
differentiated the animals with a certain degree of sentience and above and
other less sentient animals and plants. (I will examine this point again in
Chapter 7), and this attitude is fundamentally different from Buddhism.
As
mentioned above, according to the doctrine that was later systematized by the
disciples of the Buddha, the object of compassion is beings that are sentient.
But this does not mean that only sentient animals can be the object of
compassion, and other living beings such as plants are excluded. Because, as
quoted above, in the Sutta Nipata which is considered to contain the oldest
teaching of Buddha, it is said “should
you be immeasurably compassionate toward all living beings. And as term
“all living beings” is used here, there seems to be no reason to exclude plants
from “all living beings.”
The
reason why animals and plants are separated is probably because in the process
of analyzing the teaching of Buddha, it was thought that only sentient animals,
which accumulate actions with a certain degree of sensation and emotion,
accumulate Karma, and according to that karma they go through reincarnation.
And only the beings that go through reincarnation are regarded as sentient
beings.
Yet,
in a sense, these are the metaphysics conceived by the disciples, and it is
questionable how much of the Buddha's original intentions and worldview were
reflected in them.
In
any case, the Buddha's command to "protect all living beings even at the
cost of one's own life" may have been a supreme command to all Buddhists,
but the reasons for it, its importance, and its place in the overall Buddhist
doctrine were not discussed until the rise of Mahayana Buddhism.
CHAPTER
5
Compassion
as emphasized in Mahayana Buddhism
and
its premise of indiscriminate wisdom
In
the early Buddhist scriptures, Sutta Nipata, it is ordered to protect the lives
of all living beings even at the cost of your own life, but later in Theravada
Buddhism, the main aim became to realize that there is no substance to be
attached to in oneself, or any other things, and to pursue the path of
liberation from all attachments.
This
meant that all living beings, the objects of compassion, were also essentially
insubstantial and somethings not to be attached to. This was probably the main
reason why the issue of compassion was not deeply delved into in Theravada
Buddhism, but how then did Mahayana Buddhism derive the necessity of compassion
from the theory of anātman (no permanent self or essence) ?
One
of the distinctive Mahayana Buddhist
scriptures, known as Ten Stages Sutra (Sanskrit: Daśabhūmika Sūtra), later
incorporated into Avatamsaka Sutra as the Chapter of Ten Stages. The following
is a quotation from its 6th stage.
<Verse 14>In this way, without the slightest doubt,
the Bodhisattva perceives the truth of the origination of deluded beings caused
and conditioned by various correlations. It is like a phantom, appearing
untruthfully as if it were something that really exist. It is like a dream, in
which the ego-subject is tormented, even though there is no ego-subject to be
tormented. It is like all the images that appear in the mirror of truth. It has
a nature similar to that of a shimmer, and it misleads the unenlightened
beings. (24)
The bodhisattva, through the wisdom
of enlightenment, sees through the truth, from ten kinds of true perspectives,
that deluded beings are caused and conditioned by various correlations, and in
that there is no self, no sentient being, no life, no human being, nothing
substantial, and śūnya (devoid of its own essential nature). With the wisdom of
enlightenment, the Bodhisattva clearly recognize the truth that there is
neither an individual ego that acts nor an individual ego that suffers.
In that process, the various paths
to attain the enlightenment of free liberation (the entrance gate to
the liberation by the recognition of
śūnya) appear through the suchness of śūnya as it is.
⑰ “Do Plants Have Life?
-Theravada Buddhism's Two Types of Life Root,” by Akira Fujimoto
(Annual Report of the The Nippon
Buddhist Research Association, No. 68, 024) –
P.102
⑱ The problem of the
sentience of plants in earliest Buddhism by Lambert Schmithausen – P58-P65
ーPage 10ー
The Bodhisattva achieves the ultimate free liberation as
these components of deluded beings are essentially extinct, without substance.
There is no individual substance of any being. Thus, for the Bodhisattva, the
various paths to free liberation (the gate of formless liberation) emerge
before him through the suchness of being without individual substance. When the
Bodhisattva has thus mastered the suchness of śūnya and the suchness of no
individual substance, no desire can arise anymore. Aside from great compassion
and the desire to bring all sentient beings to maturity on the Bodhisattva
Path. In this way, for the bodhisattva, the various paths to free liberation
(the gate of liberation without desire) will appear through the suchness of not
seeking desire.⑲
Here,
the Bodhisattva who has mastered the state of egolessness is aware that there
is no ego, no sentient being, no living being, no human being, and all of them
are not substantial but śūnya (devoid of its own essential nature). Once one
has mastered the suchness of śūnya and no individual substance, no desire
arises. However, the desire to bring all sentient beings to maturity on the
Bodhisattva Path through the “Great Compassion” that exists from the beginning
is different and will never disappear.
In
other words, from the perspective of being aware of the true reality of things,
there is nothing substantive about the self, sentient beings, or anything else,
they are śūnya and cannot be the object of one's attachment or desire, yet for
those sentient beings who are not aware of the true reality of things, all
kinds of suffering that arise from their ignorance is very real, and unless the
bodhisattva leads them to the bodhisattva path so that they too can be free
from suffering, their suffering will continue forever.
Such
suffering of sentient beings is ultimately delusional and insubstantial, but an
attitude of leaving it as someone else's problem without doing anything to them
is the proof of "separating" enlightened oneself from unenlightened
others, and have not yet transcended “the state of self-separation.”
In
this sense, those who remain on the arhat path, neglecting the implementation
of compassion and seeking only their own enlightenment, can be said to have not
yet surpassed the above-mentioned state of self-separation.
The
following passage is a continuation of the previous quote.
<Verse15> In this way, when one recognizes the
truth of the origination of deluded beings caused and conditioned by various
correlations, then there only emerges the suchness of śūnya as it is. For those who have wisdom, when the various
conditions cease to exist, then there only emerges the suchness of being
without individual substance. If one recognizes that individual substance is
not really there, one will not seek it anymore, except for taking rebirth, only
because of deep compassion to sentient beings. (25)
If one practices the various paths to free
liberation through these three kinds of suchness, the bodhisattva will no
longer have the notion that there is a distinction between self and other. He
will not have the notion of an individual ego-subject who acts nor an
individual ego-subject who suffers. The notion of existence and nothingness
will disappear. Then, one will be more and more inspired by the Great
Compassion and will strive harder and harder, in order to perfect the various
practices that lead to bodhi without leaving any part that has not been
perfected yet.
The bodhisattva thinks, “It is only
when various conditions are corelated that deluded beings (conditionally caused
phenomenon) arise. If the correlations are broken somewhere, it will never
arise. It is only when the various conditions are brought together in unison
that deluded beings arise. If that unison is broken somewhere, it will never
arise. Yes, I know that every deluded being is contaminated with many
erroneousness. Let me try to break the correlations and unison of these various
conditions. Nevertheless, I must not become fully aware of the ultimate
extinction of arising process (conditional causation of phenomenon)-egocentric
operation- of all deluded beings. Because I must help all sentient beings
mature into the Bodhisattva path.”
Thus, all of you, disciples of the
Buddha, by the wisdom of enlightenment as you are clearly recognizing that
arising process of deluded beings are contaminated with many erroneousness and
devoid of its own substantiality and essentially non-phenomenal, then at that
time, with emergence of great compassion, the bodhisattva never cease to work
for the sentient beings. Because of it, it is said “the wisdom with complete
freedom emerges.” The Bodhisattva practice with Prajñā (the finest perfect
wisdom) appear before one’s eyes. It manifests vividly.
In this way, the Bodhisattva fully
attains the wisdom and exemplifies the Bodhisattva actions with most excellent
Prajñā (the finest perfect wisdom). There, one achieves one’s goal by
accumulating
various efforts to complete the various practices that lead
to bodhi. However, making the effort does
not mean that one remains complacent among the deluded
beings. Rather, by the wisdom of enlightenment, one clearly recognizes
essential extinction of arising process of deluded beings. Yet,
⑲ “Ten Stages Sutra” translated by Noritoshi Aramaki (from Sanskrit
to Japanese)(Chuko Bunko) P191.L4～L15
(translated from Japanese to English by author)
ーPage 11ー
one does not remain complacent in the state of extinction. This is because if one does so, the various practices that lead to bodhi will not be fulfilled. ⑳
Here,
as mentioned above, it is said that for the bodhisattva, who practices the
various paths to attain the enlightenment of free liberation (the entrance gate
to the liberation by the recognition of śūnya) through the suchness of śūnya,
the various paths to free liberation (the gate of formless liberation) through
the suchness of being without individual substance and the various paths to
free liberation (the gate of liberation without desire) through the suchness of
not seeking desire, will have “no more notions of separating self and other.” This means that the Bodhisattva has reached a state of
“indiscriminate wisdom” that transcends the “separation of self and others.”
Furthermore,
in (Verse15), it is said, “if one recognizes that individual substance is not
really there, one will not seek it anymore, except for taking rebirth, only
because of deep compassion to sentient beings.” It means that the bodhisattva's
rebirth in the world of reincarnation is not due to obstinance to one’s ego,
but due to compassion for sentient beings.
Then,
“the bodhisattva fully attains the wisdom and exemplifies the bodhisattva
actions with most excellent Prajñā (the finest perfect wisdom). There, one
achieves one’s goal by accumulating various efforts to complete the various
practices that lead to bodhi. However, making the effort does not mean that one
remains complacent among the deluded beings. Rather, by the wisdom of
enlightenment, one clearly recognizes essential extinction of arising process
of deluded beings. Yet, one does not remain complacent in the state of
extinction. This is because if one does so, the various practices that lead to
bodhi will not be fulfilled.” In other words, bodhisattvas do not remain in the
world of delusion, yet although they are aware of the essential extinction of
arising process of deluded beings, they do not remain in the world of nirvana,
but rather strive to perform the various practices that lead sentient beings to
bodhi.
Furthermore,
it goes “Let me try to break the correlations and unison of these various
conditions. Nevertheless, I must not become fully aware of the ultimate
extinction of arising process (conditional causation of phenomenon)-egocentric
operation- of all deluded beings. Because I must help all sentient beings
mature into the Bodhisattva path.” This means that although it is quite
possible to become fully aware of the ultimate extinction of activities of
self, one does not dare to go that far because if one does so, the agency that
bring the bodhisattva to world of delusion to lead sentient beings to enlightenment
would also be extinguished and it would let the bodhisattva enter into
so-called parinirvāṇa (complete nirvana), making it impossible to continue the
practice of bodhisattva.
In
this way, Mahayana bodhisattvas also recognize that both their own selves and
sentient beings are essentially insubstantial, simply arising by various
correlations as described by the theory of anātman (no permanent self or
essence). This view is same as Theravada practitioners who aim to attain
arhat-ship. However, in fact many sentient beings are actually suffering and
their suffering will never be eased until unless some enlightened ones guide
them to the liberation. Seeing the sufferings of so many sentient beings,
without trying to guide them toward enlightenment, (thinking that they are not
the objects to be clung as they have no intrinsic substance), just trying to
free oneself from all attachments and quickly enter the state of nirvana alone
can be regarded as a self-centered attitude.
Also,
it may be a disregard of the Buddha's stern command (in Sutta Nipata) to
“protect all beings, even at the cost of your own life.” In this sense, it must
had been a matter of historical necessity that Mahayana Buddhism later
questioned such a way of Buddhist practice that neglected the first code of
conduct for Buddhists, and established a new doctrinal interpretation and
system of practice that included the issue of compassion that had been left
unresolved in the Theravada Buddhism.
In
the Sthiramati’s commentary on the Mahayana-sutra-alamkara-karika, which is
said to have been expounded by Maitreya, the founder of the Yogachara School,
there is a description as follows. ㉑
When one attains the First Stage,
one acquires the view of the equality of self and others, hence it is termed “The
View of All-inclusive Great Self.” Thus, by viewing “self and others are equal”
it benefits infinite sentient beings, hence it termed “The View of
All-inclusive Great Self.” In other words, “at the time of attaining the First
Stage” then as one settles in the view of “the equality of self and others,” so
one "takes refuge in The View of All-inclusive Great Self,” which is
extremely rare, it means.
When it is said "No view of
self is here but still there is view of self,” (K.38, a) it means when
one attains the First Stage, it can be said that one will
have “view of self” but at the same time
⑳ Ibid
– P192.L10～P194.L8
㉑ A Study on the Theory of No-Self
and Ethics: Focusing on Altruism in the Early Yogachara School
by Koji Chiba (Komazawa Women's
Univ.)
ーPage 12ー
one will have “no view of self.” The
reason why one will have “no view of self” is when one attains the First Stage,
one breaks off the physical view of oneself, so it is said that one will have
“no view of self.” Then why is it said that one will have “view of self ?” It
is because one regards oneself and sentient beings equally like as all sentient
beings are oneself. That is why it is said that one will have “view of self.”㉒
(Omission)
“But it is not so [with the
bodhisattva], because for the bodhisattva, sentient beings and oneself are
equal.” (K.41, d) thus when it is said so it means that [the above
bodhisattva's actions] are not rare. In other words, if the above occurs in
those who have not attained sama-citta (empathetic equality mind) with regard
to self and others, [it is] rare. But if [even such people] have compassion for
themselves and strive to be happy, it is not rare for them [to do the above for
themselves.] Likewise, in this case, if the bodhisattva has attained empathetic
equality mind toward oneself and others, and assimilate that all sentient
beings are nothing but oneself, then how can it be rare to benefit all sentient
beings and wish for their happiness? That is why it is said it is not a rare
thing.㉓
In
other words, a bodhisattva who has attained the indiscriminate wisdom that
transcends the distinction between self and others has attained sama-chitta
(empathetic equality mind) with regard to self and others, and understands that
all sentient beings are nothing but oneself, and that it is quite natural and
not rare to benefit all sentient beings and wish for their happiness.
In
this way, through the ideological development of Mahayana Buddhism, the
importance of compassion emphasized by the Buddha was incorporated into the
system of thought, while taking into account the Four Noble Truths, the
Eightfold Path, and the theory of impermanence and anātman (no permanent self
or essence). In the past, the purpose of Buddhist practice was to free oneself
from all attachments and to be free from the world of samsara, but now,
compassion is the basic premise, and the purpose of Buddhist practice is to
walk the path of enlightenment together with sentient beings as the practice of
compassion. In the end, the ultimate goal was to attain the indiscriminate
wisdom that transcends the distinction between self and others, and to reach
the state where all sentient beings are the self, and that is the state of the
Buddha. Here, at last, the consistency of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold
Path, the theory of impermanence, and the theory of anātman (no permanent self
or essence), as well as the precept of non-killings as the most important
precept and the practice of compassion as the basis for this precept, have been
clarified and integrated ideologically.
CHAPTER 6
History and Current State of the
Ideological and Practical Impact
of the Idea of Compassion in
Buddhist Countries
As
we have seen above, the Buddha's stern command in the original Buddhist
scriptures to "have compassion for all living beings at the risk of one's
own life, just as a mother protects her only child at the risk of her own
life," became the basis for the precept of non-killings. However, the significance of this Buddha's
command was not sufficiently conveyed by his later disciples, especially in
terms of doctrine, and it was treated as just one of the precepts and as a
result its ideological influence was limited.
Later
on, people who felt the contradiction of the actual practice of monks who were
isolated from society, despite the importance of compassion emphasized by the
Buddha, pursued the meaning of the importance of compassion in both doctrine
and practice. It is thought that the system of thought that later came to be
known as Mahayana Buddhism, which is rooted in the Mahayana philosophy, came to
appear as the Mahayana sutras.
However,
although the system of thought appeared as the Mahayana sutras and treatises,
it is unclear how much the practical groups that actually put the thought into
practice developed. And Mahayana Buddhism went through esotericization in India
and later declined.
In
the meantime, Mahayana Buddhism, while esotericized, spread to East Asia and
Tibet, and developed in
each
place. However, bodhisattvas who have attained the indiscriminate wisdom that
transcends the
distinction between self and others, such as those described
above in the Ten Stages Sutra and the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara Karika, have
attained the sama-chitta (empathetic equality mind) with regard to self and
others,
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
㉒“Sthiramati’s
commentary on Chapter 14 of Mahayana-sutra-alamkara-karika”(translated from Sanskrit to Japanese by
Nobuchiyo Kotani) (Bunrido), 1984. P179.L16-L27 (translated from Japanese to English by author)
㉓ Ibid – P182.L16～L25
ーPage 13ー
and understand that all sentient
beings are the self, and wish to benefit all sentient beings and wish for their
happiness. Aside from a few legendary examples, such as those of famous monks
and the followers of the Sanjiejiao (Three Levels Movement) of the Tang
Dynasty, there have not been many instances of the ideal of bodhisattva
practice being put into practice.
The
reason for this is that the Mahayana Buddhism that was introduced to East Asia
and Tibet was mainly focused on individual meditation or seeking salvation by
praying to a deified Buddha, and a religious movement like the one described
above, where many people would practice the philosophy of bodhisattva conduct,
such as “understanding that all sentient beings are the self, benefiting all
sentient beings, and wishing for their happiness,” could not become a major
social movement.
It
was because, as we can learn from the history of the above-mentioned Sanjiejiao
(Three Levels Movement) of the Tang dynasty in China, which was thoroughly
suppressed by the regime of the time, for most of follower really came to live
for the benefit of others rather than themselves, and a mutually supportive
community was really created, and as the result the ruler virtually became
unnecessary, the most inconvenient situation for those in power.
This
is probably the reason why Sanjiejiao (Three Levels Movement) was suppressed so
thoroughly that no trace of it remains. Yet, it was truly “one of the religions
with the most thoroughgoing spirit of altruism, which can be said to be the
essence of Mahayana Buddhism,”㉔ and its
followers were practicing the ideal of bodhisattva conduct.
Since
Buddhism spread under the supervision of the regime of the time, it was
tolerated by the regime to the extent that it did not interfere with the
governance of the people. Therefore, the content of Buddhism had to focus on the
spiritual fulfillment and salvation of the individual, and social movements
that would drastically change the nature of society as a whole were not
tolerated.
However,
this fact means that if all people would actually live a life of
"understanding that all sentient beings are nothing but oneself, doing
good to all sentient beings, and wishing for their happiness," it could
bring about drastic changes in the way society works, the way animals are
treated, and the state of environmental problems.
Although
Mahayana Buddhism has blossomed into an ideology that can bring about such
wonderful results, it is unfortunate that we have not had the opportunity to
utilize its real results in the real world so far. However, for the future,
there is a good chance that Buddhism could become a basic philosophy that could
revolutionize the current state of human society.
CHAPTER
7
Can
Buddhism be a Background Philosophy
for
"Animal Ethics" and "Environmental Ethics"?
As
mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, the two main schools of thought in the West
today, animal ethics and environmental ethics, are mutually critical of each
other because of their conflicting philosophies. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian orthodox view that
domestic animals and the natural environment were created by the Creator for
human beings, and therefore humans are empowered to use them or obligated to
manage them, which had long been the basis for the ethical view of people in
the West, was rejected as anthropocentric.
In
other words, for the past 2,000 years, Judeo-Christians have believed that
eating domestic animals and clearing forests for human use were approved by the
Creator and that there were no ethical problems. But now, due to the
accumulation of human actions that must had been allowed by the Creator, the
environment of the earth is being destroyed, and the survival of human beings
themselves is being endangered. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the greenhouse
gas effect of the total amount of methane gas contained in the burps and farts
of domestic animals, which are supposed to be fed to humans, is said to exceed
the greenhouse gas effect of the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by
human industrial activities, and this is one of the main reasons why global
warming is becoming more serious.
Since
the latter half of the twentieth century, attention has been drawn to
environmental problems by the anthropocentric idea that the natural
environment, which is essential for the comfortable survival of human beings,
must be protected for the perpetuation of the human race. The other is the
non-anthropocentric view of environmental ethics, which says that the
anthropocentric view has been destroying everything around us and
disrupting harmony for many years,
and that we need to change the anthropocentric view itself. At present, non-
anthropocentric ecocentrism seems to
be becoming the theoretical guideline.
In
1975, Peter Singer's “Animal Liberation,” which I mentioned in Chapter 1, was
published, and it made a
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
㉔“Zhiyan, Fazang and Sanjiejiao”
Kiyotaka Kimura (Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, p.
107)
ーPage 14ー
huge impact on many readers in
Western developed countries by listing many specific examples of how cruelly
farmed and laboratory animals were being treated today. As a result, cruel
treatment of animals was banned, and animal husbandry and animal experiments
were forced to undergo a major overhaul and animal welfare was legislated in
developed countries.
However,
Singer argued that the protected species should be animals with a significant
sense of pain and above, and that animals with a substandard sense of pain,
plants in general, and even human fetuses before they can feel pain need not be
protected. This extreme argument has been criticized by environmental ethicists
as lacking an environmental ethical
perspective, and human rights groups have also criticized it as inhumane.
As
already mentioned, it is an undeniable fact that Singer's writings and activities
have led to the development of animal welfare legislation in the West today.
Singer's writings and activities have caused many people to reconsider the way
they used to do things, and even the way they eat, live, and fashion in the
West has changed drastically. The fact that this has happened is astonishing.
In recent Western history, there have been few instances where the influence of
a single thinker has changed the very nature of Western culture, so the
magnitude of this influence is truly epoch-making.
However,
even though Peter Singer has had such a tremendous impact, his influence is now
limited due to criticism from various quarters. The biggest problem with his
ideas is that he presents his criteria as if humans have the right to decide
whether or not living creatures should be protected.
Of
course, it is natural for human beings to decide what to do, but the attitude
that human beings should decide whether non-human creatures should be protected
or not, and even decide their fate, shows the conceit of human beings. The same
attitude can be seen in the environmental ethics thinkers and activists who are
ecocentric.
They
claim that their ideas and activities are non-anthropocentric and
ecosystem-centered, but they openly carry out genocidal acts, such as the
elimination of alien species, under the guise of the idea of preserving the
ecosystem. Humans are deciding the right of survival of non-native species. If
their first priority is to preserve the ecosystem, the first thing to be
eliminated should be human beings themselves. Humans should be the worst
invasive species among all species, destroying and changing ecosystems and
causing the extinction of many organisms. The fact that humans, the main
culprit in the destruction of ecosystems, are openly killing off non-native
species as a hindrance is like the mafia taking out thieves under the guise of
maintaining security in a town.
However,
the fact that even Peter Singer, who so drastically altered the cruel treatment
of animals, is still criticized for being inhumane, and the ecological
conservationists, who advocate non-anthropocentrism, are slaughtering
individual unwanted organisms from a totalitarian perspective, makes me wonder
if they were not exempted from the influence of the mythical premise that human
beings were granted special powers by the Creator from the very beginning and
their cultural traditions.
Both
Singer and the ecosystem conservationists questioned the very premise and used
their own judgment to object to the mistreatment of animals and ecosystems at
the expense of humans, which in itself should have been revolutionary. However,
since the Creator had originally given them special authority, even if humans
later limited that authority at their own discretion, they only changed the
content and extent of the authority, and they could not completely eliminate
the premise that humans had the authority to decide the fate of all living
things from their own way of thinking.
Originally,
the premise that the Creator created livestock and the natural environment for
the sake of human beings was nothing more than a convenient myth invented by
human beings and had no basis in fact. However, over the past 2,000 years, some
human beings have been exercising this unfounded authority as a matter of
course, almost without question, and their cultural influence has allowed their
values and lifestyles to permeate almost the entire world, including Japan.
In
any case, the only objective fact is that human beings and other creatures
coexist on the earth. As I mentioned earlier, some humans have interpreted this
situation as the Creator creating livestock and the natural environment for the
sake of humanity, and this way of life has greatly influenced the way of life
of all humans.
On
the other hand, another part of the human race was extremely pained by the fact
that their survival was at the expense of other creatures. They came to the
conclusion that the root cause of the problem was self-centered greed and
obsession with oneself, trying to survive at the expense of other creatures. And they decided to dedicate their
entire lives to the practice of overcoming such self-centered greed and
attachment to themselves. All the while, they tried as much as possible to
avoid sacrificing other living beings for their own survival. And they adhered to the most
important code of conduct, “Just as a mother would protect her only child at
the risk of her own life, so too should you have a heart of compassion for all
living things.”
ーPage 15ー
As
mentioned above, there were those who believed that man was empowered to decide
the fate of all other creatures as a basic premise, while these ultimately
humble people felt that man, rather than deciding the fate of other creatures,
could only live with the utmost restraint so as not to interfere with the lives
of other creatures. And ultimately, they
must have felt that they had no choice but to overcome their self-centered
greed and obsession with themselves and eventually reach a way of existence
that would not require them to sacrifice any other living beings.
This
ultimate state of existence, in which all living beings do not have to be
sacrificed at all, is considered to be the state of nirvana. This may be the
reason why the Buddha set the precept of non-killing as the most important
precept, strictly emphasized the importance of compassion, and set nirvana as
the goal of his practice.
If
this is the case, then Buddhism can be considered not only as a background for
animal ethics, but also as a background for true environmental ethics that
values all living things, including plants.
However,
it is clear that living while eating living things while claiming to value all
living things is a contradiction and a deception, and that it is unrealistic
and inconsistent in terms of ethics, and that it is incomplete as an ethical
thought. That is why both Deep Ecology and "life-centeredness" ultimately
accept killing for survival, and Singer's exclusion of lower animals and plants
from consideration seems to have been due to the need to provide food for his
own survival.
In
this way, they tried to maintain the reality and consistency of ethics, and to
maintain the integrity of a complete ethic, but in doing so, they forcibly
positioned the killing of others, which should have been unacceptable, as a
legitimate or acceptable act. However, it cannot be denied that by accepting
such exceptional killings, the original premise of valuing all living things
becomes only words but no substance and, in the end, it becomes a hollow
ethical thought.
It
is a contradiction and a deception to say that we should care for all living
things, yet live by eating them, because human beings, as actors, are
inherently imperfect and incapable of doing completely right things. However,
this does not mean that there is any deception or hypocrisy in the idea of
taking care of all living things.
In
short, human beings are inherently unholy beings who have no choice but to
sacrifice many other living beings just to stay alive.
And awareness of this could be the
greatest deterrent to minimize the destructive actions of human beings to other
living beings.
If
“cherishing all living things” is the ultimate justice and ethics, then it is
the human beings who are unable to carry it out literally because of their
inherently selfish nature. So, we cannot dismiss such ideal ethics itself as an
unrealistic and impracticable idealism simply because it is difficult to
implement. For, if we degrade the ethics according to the human viability, then
that ethics inevitably have to reflect the unholy and selfish nature of human
beings. Yet, we tend to forget the fact that the ethics that can be carried out
by unholy human beings are essentially unholy and they can never represent the
perfect justice. And human being always make mistake by believing in such
incomplete ethics or belief as if they represent perfect justice, and proudly
try to mete out their own imperfect justice.
Unfortunately,
such mistakes have been repeated many times in the past, and it is clear from
the history of mankind how much misery has been caused by the ethics, justice
or belief of people who are not aware of their own inherent selfishness and
unholiness.
Buddhism
teaches that all living beings, including ourselves and others, are the sum
total whole of infinite interconnections of various causations and conditions,
and that no distinction nor separation is possible. And it teaches us to live
for the well-being of all living beings as our own selves or just go into
nirvana not to sacrifice anyone of them anymore.
In
any case, as a third path that can stop the current bipolar opposition between
anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism, ecocentrism and life-centrism in
animal ethics and environmental ethics, it is a path in which the self, others,
animals, plants, and the whole of nature are an unbroken whole with infinite
connections, and all of them must be cherished. I believe that this spirit of
indiscriminate compassion can be a background thought that integrates both
animal ethics and environmental ethics for humanity in the future.
The
idea that animals, plants, and nature as a whole are an unbroken whole with
infinite connections is itself something that has been said in environmental
ethics such as ecosystem-centeredness, life-centeredness, and deep ecology. However,
Buddhism would never say that the connected and unbroken whole is more
important than individual life forms, or the sacrifice of others is acceptable
for the sake of our own survival.
From
a Buddhist perspective, the value of each individual life is something that
humans should never be allowed to judge or decide on their own, and even if
they are forced to take a life, it is never justified or condoned. It is solely the actor's own
responsibility that respect for life cannot be literally implemented, and the
consequences must be taken seriously by the actor himself/herself. In the Buddhist view, no human being
or anyone has the authority to justify or condone what cannot be done according
to the principles by saying that it is practically unworkable. Such ultimate humility seems to be
the basic premise of the precept of non-killing and the spirit of compassion as
taught by the Buddha.
ーPage 16ー
However,
the precept of non-killing and the practice of compassion, which Buddha
established as the primary code of conduct for all Buddhists, should have been
the central theme of Buddhism, and as we have seen earlier, the Bodhisattva
philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, which ideologically grounded the necessity of
Buddha's compassionate acts, should have had a greater impact on the way of
life and lifestyle of many more human beings, just as the Christian doctrine
has had a great influence on the way of life of all mankind, but unfortunately,
the current situation is not so.
If
this is the case, then, in rethinking our way of life and lifestyle for the
future, we must change the great misconception that “human beings are empowered
to decide the fate of all other living creatures,” which has been the source of
the environmental destruction and cruel treatment of animals up to now, and
change our attitude toward the world as the Buddha strictly commanded, “Just as a mother would protect her only
child at all costs, so too should you be immeasurably compassionate toward all
living beings.” This is the philosophy that can be the guiding principle
for all humankind from now on. This ultimately humble attitude, which makes no
exceptions, no excuses, and no justifications, is the essential attitude for
the future of animal ethics and animal welfare, and environmental ethics and environmental
protection.
Final Chapter
This
essay began with the fundamental question, “Why should others, including not
only humans but also animals and other living things, be valued?” Peter Singer,
who can be said to have triggered the development of animal ethics and animal
welfare legislation in Western developed countries, proposed the reason that
beings beyond animals that have the ability to feel pain and suffering need to
be protected from such suffering.
However,
on the other hand, this meant that creatures including plants that do not feel
such pain need not be protected, and because that, it cannot be a background
thought for protecting plants and environment.
Environmental
ethics, on the other hand, can be divided into three types: those who believe
that the environment must be protected for human survival, those who believe
that the preservation of the ecosystem is of paramount importance and that
anything that interferes with this is to be eliminated, and those who value
individual life but tolerate sacrifices for their own survival. However, all
three approaches are unacceptable from the standpoint of animal ethics, in that
they all condone the killing of animals that are capable of feeling pain.
This
leads us to the conclusion that in order to completely eliminate all unjust
treatment of all living creatures, not only humans and animals but also plants,
we must completely eliminate any kind of “speciesism,” value all living
creatures equally, allow no exceptions, and provide no excuses or justifications
for failure to do so.
However,
rather than rejecting such ideals out of hand because they are unrealistic and
unworkable, I believe that what is most needed today is the humility to
reexamine our own ways of being, which are not capable of literally
implementing such ideals and try to change it.
In
this sense, as Buddha strongly encouraged all his followers 2,500 years ago,
saying “Just as a mother would protect
her only child at all costs, so too should you be immeasurably compassionate
toward all living beings,” and later Mahayana Buddhism delved deeper into
the significance of this and concluded that the ultimate goal of Buddha’s
teaching is to attain the indiscriminate wisdom that transcends the distinction
between self and others, and to reach the state where all sentient beings are
the self (that is the state of Buddha), attaining such state of mind is truly a
state beyond any kind of “speciesism” in a real sense. And this idea that
humanity should act with the “feeling that all humans, animals, and plants are
nothing but their own selves” can be the background philosophy for animal and
environmental ethics in the world in the future. Furthermore, it is required of humankind in the future that
we look at the self-centeredness of human existence, which contradict with
above mentioned ideals, realize the depth of its roots, and humbly walk the
path of overcoming it. This is what Buddhism has been teaching us from ancient
time.
This
paper concludes that the path to the true realization of animal welfare and the
solution of environmental problems is for humankind to learn the ultimate
humility taught by Buddhism and to share the common understanding that
minimizing the sacrifice of all living beings should be the most important goal
shared by all humankind.
As
a subject for further research, it is believed that humans have empathy to feel
the suffering of others as their own, and that this empathy gives rise to
compassion and caring for others, but at the same time, humans are aware that
they are forced to sacrifice others for their own survival.
Looking
back through history, we can see that this feeling of compassion and caring for
others is increasing and becoming more and more universal. The fact that many
people have become vegetarians as a result of Singer and others' animal ethics
and that animal welfare policies are spreading around the world is evidence of
this.
ーPage 17ー
In this way, it is expected that the feelings of compassion and caring for others will increase even more in the human race in the future, and the feelings of conflict between such strong feelings and the contradiction of having to sacrifice others in order to survive will also become more universal. It seems to me that the Only then will the meaning of what Buddhism has been teaching for 2,500 years be understood with empathy by more and more people.
If
such an understanding is spread, Buddhism will not be merely a religion of the
East, but will be reaffirmed as a universal system of thought for overcoming
the conflict that arises between the altruistic state that higher beings such as
human beings inevitably reach in the process of biological evolution and their
own selfish nature, which is in contradiction to the altruistic state.
I
believe that in the future there should be research on Buddhism from such a
perspective.
ーPage 18ー
Comments
Post a Comment