*Author wished to remain anonymous
This essay seeks to explore and understand the concept of relational ecology in the context of Hindu and Buddhist thought. Relational ecology is an emerging ethical theory which concerns the interconnectedness of humanity with nature and the recognition that human society is embedded within a wider ecological system. It maintains no clear delineation between humans and nature. Relational ecology is connected to the idea that the value systems we used to designate and refer to environmental resources are often defined by wider cultural and religious frameworks (Saxena et al., 2018). This has implications for ethical conduct and environmental decision-making, and is of particular relevance in nations like India where traditional practice and philosophical thought may be key in ameliorating the environmental destruction wrought by social and economic conditions, including colonisation. Relational ecology contrasts with the human-centric model of anthropogenic ecology, a position exemplified by the philosophical movement of deep ecology. Deep ecology originated primarily through the work of western philosophers, and calls for a paradigm shift in our relationship with nature. Religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism are particularly well-placed to explore these ideas due the prevalence of nature within their narrative tales and due to certain philosophical concepts and beliefs which promote selflessness and interconnectivity (Chappel, 2001).
A central way relational ecology is promoted in these religions is through narratives which bridge the philosophical and relational plane; they provide moral guidance and serve as models for behaviour. The Jakarta tales are stories recounting the previous lives of Buddha before he attained enlightenment. The Crow-Birth tale relationally positions the Bodhisattva as an animal, at the mercy of religious figures, who draws upon the Pāramīs to seek understanding with the king. The crow Bodhisattva is treated as an equal by the king, ultimately linking to the idea of equity for all beings in Nirvana. The tale also establishes that selfish desires – such as the actions of the priest and the crow who fouled him – are evidence of the dangers of unguarded impulses. Such selfish desires come at greater costs than that of the mere individual – just as environmental destruction for wealth or greed affect whole ecosystems. It may be valuable here to point out the contrasting valuations of different species in Hinduism and Buddhism. In the former, scavengers – including crows – are often designated as pest species. ‘Pest’ is an anthropogenic, not ecological, construct and it misaligns with some philosophical concepts, including codependent arising, which forms an integral aspect of the Buddhist tradition, since within that, all beings are important components of the network.
The Buddhist concept of Paticca-samuppada provides an ideal foundation from which to reconsider the human-nature relationship. This teaching explains the arising and cessation of all phenomena as the product of a network of interrelatedness. Codependent arising describes a causal chain which lead to the cycle of samsara, and by acknowledging the feedback loops between human activities and ecological processes, relational ecology can be understood within the Buddhist religion. This cultural and religious framework generates rich traditions and ethical guidelines for a harmonious coexistence with the natural world. The Buddhist Sanghar tradition, for example, promotes the sustainable use of resources through planting and harvesting indigenous plants for their healing remedies.
Paticca-samuppada also promotes the acknowledgement of the impermanent and contingent nature of existence. This is because if all phenomena originate from complex relationships, they are subject to change. This links to the idea of a relational ecology in which humanity is positioned within and not above nature, a dynamic and evolving system (Peterson, 2001). Yet, the idea of impermanence which is present within these religions may not always be compatible with relational ecology. In Hinduism, the epic Mahābhārata’s burning of the Khandava Forest, which as a possible metaphor for pralaya, may represent the valuation of ideology (impermanence and non-attachment) over ecological preservation. The merciless slaughter of forest beings appears to direct no ‘moral standing’ to plants and animals (Framarin, 2014). This is directly incongruous with the values of relational ecology. However, elsewhere, we see that the Hindu Vedas are significant in creating a relational ecology in their animation of the natural world. The deification of landscapes such as the river Ganga as a goddess establishes a spiritual and holy connection between the human form and nature (Alley, 1998). Indeed, Chapple (2001) writes that the animation and deification of the elements generates an ‘anthropocosmic vision’ of the Earth, whereby the human body and nature cannot be separated. In the same way, samsara is reflected in natural elements and invoked through narratives, and it is the equilibrium between these different life stages that underscores the belief that humans must coexist in harmony with nature. Within samsara, the role of concepts like Karma underscore the ethical consequences of our actions upon the natural world, which may help to cultivate an attitude of ecological responsibility.
Deep ecology considers that our state of being is dependent on our environment. Hinduism, in contrast with Buddhism, has a more utilitarian approach to nature. The colonial influence in India may have exacerbated environmental degradation in conjunction with anti-environmental readings of Hindu texts (such as the epics, see Framarin, 2014). Certainly, the western world widely promotes the conservation of nature for the resources and ecosystem services it can provide us with. Yet, through this, nature ascribes meaning to our existence, defining and describing us culturally and societally. The different patterns of relation to nature that we see across cultures is indeed as multifaceted and complex as the Earth’s biodiversity itself. I speculate that the native conditions of southeast Asia, and its high levels of biodiversity (thus greater interconnectivity and web complexity), may have promoted greater eco-consciousness amongst Eastern versus Western religions, with the role of colonialism complicating its expression in, for example, Hinduism (Gosling, 2013). Western science, nevertheless, provides empirical evidence for the secular that we are part of nature; we have the same biological origin as all organisms do. Religions and art (such as literature) can help to animate this intrinsic truth through narratives and metaphorical concepts; consider, for example, the aesthetic parallel that fingerprints are analogous to leaf veins. Similarly, meditation, a Buddhist practice which promotes the recognition of no-self, becomes a form of reflexivity, grounding us in nature and our origins – and ultimately the ethical obligation of compassion (Peterson, 2001).
In conclusion, Hinduism and Buddhism offer invaluable insight into the interconnectedness of humanity with nature and the ethical obligations and implications of a relational ecology. Philosophical concepts and narratives within Buddhism promote virtues like compassion and mindfulness, whilst establishing the ontological justification for harmony with nature. The Hindu tradition is rich with reference to the spiritual and philosophical valuation of nature – such as through the deification of elements and landscapes – but is in practice complicated by utilitarianism. It is also important to acknowledge the challenges and complexities inherent in applying these traditions to contemporary issues – particularly in the context of colonial legacy and socio-economic pressures. Nevertheless, both religions have played critical roles in southeast Asia in mitigating environmental destruction and in lobbying for environmental rights – from the Chipko ‘tree huggers’ to the Sanghar monks – illustrating the potential for relational ecology within a religious framework to work towards a more harmonious future for all.
References
Alley, D. K. (1998). Idioms of Degeneracy: Assessing Ganga’s Purity and Pollution. In Lance E. Nelson (Ed.), Purifying the Earthly Body of God (pp. 297-331). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chapple, C. K. (2001). Hinduism and Deep Ecology. In D. L. Barnhill & R. S. Gottlieb (Eds.), Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Grounds (pp. 59-76). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Framarin, C. (2014). Hinduism and Environmental Ethics: Law, Literature, and Philosophy. London/New York: Routledge.
Gosling, D.L. (2013) Religion and ecology in India and Southeast Asia. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor and Francis.
Peterson, A.L. (2001) Being Human: Ethics, environment, and our place in the world. University of California Press.
Saxena, A.K. et al. (2018) ‘From moral ecology to diverse ontologies: Relational values in human ecological research, past and present’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, pp. 54–60. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.021.