Should Christians Be Environmentalists? Part Nine *

DSCN3458 (640x480)

Do Hinduism and Buddhism Teach Environmental Ethics and Stewardship?

We saw in the previous blog article that Eastern religious philosophy—pantheism—is not theological or philosophically capable of fostering environmental ethics and stewardship. Two doctrines in particular demonstrate this.

The Eightfold Path

One feature of Eastern philosophy that is widely touted as promoting greater sensitivity toward nature—in this case among Buddhists—is the Eightfold Path. Buddhism teaches that all suffering comes from cravings. If there are no cravings, there is no suffering. The way to eliminate cravings (and hence suffering) is to follow the Eightfold Path (which is the last of the so-called Four Noble Truths). The Eightfold Path is a disciplined course of self-improvement that can lead to Nirvana, the extinction of desires and individual consciousness. In this state, all earthly passions, including cravings (along with greed, hate, and other human foibles) are extinguished.

The ecological attraction of this philosophy lies in its opposition to consumption. Unlike many Westerners, who often measure success according to the quantity of things they possess, the Buddha taught his followers not to crave anything. A Buddhist desires liberation from earthly passions, including material cravings. The obvious appeal of such a philosophy, environmentally speaking, is that fewer human demands will result in less consumption of natural resources, which, in turn, will result in less environmental abuse.

Although this sounds good on paper, few people in the West would consistently go along with a philosophy that rejects material possessions. Apparently, it’s unlikely many people in the East will either, if they can afford to live otherwise. Witness the immense desire for automobiles and other modern conveniences in China as it has become an increasingly wealthy country.

Ahimsa
An even stronger alleged ecological dimension common in Eastern religions is the doctrine of ahimsa—the law of non-violence toward all living things. Ahimsa has its roots in karma and the transmigration of souls. The “law” of karma is a principle of cause and effect in which one’s actions in this life determine his or her fate in the next stage of existence. To westernize this concept, there will be retribution in later lives for “sins” committed in earlier lives.

Most pantheists believe that before people reach oneness with the ultimate reality (Nirvana to Buddhists and Brahman to Hindus), their eternal souls are trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of births, lives, deaths, and rebirths as dictated by the law of karma. To reach a state of bliss wherein one is set free from this cycle, people must maintain good karma. Bad karma results in a debt against the soul, negatively affecting a person’s destiny, either in this life or the next. Because souls can wander through every life form (human, bird, rodent, insect, etc.), all living things, even the lowliest, are respected and preserved.

Ecologically speaking, this “sanctity” of life is assumed to result in greater compassion for the suffering of all creatures. The question, however, is not whether some Eastern religions instruct followers to avoid harming other creatures, but whether this aversion is a theological teaching designed to protect animals independent of human self-interest—a characteristic of true stewardship. The answer to this question is no. The desire to avoid harming animals does not flow from a religious doctrine that teaches altruism toward other living things. Rather, it is totally human-centered. In other words, a Hindu’s apprehension over harming animals is not about protecting creatures because they are of value in their own right or because it honors and pleases God. Rather, the motivation driving ahimsa is to maintain good karma. Harming other creatures can result in bad karma. This negatively impacts a person’s future existence and hinders his or her progression toward eternal bliss.

In sum, any respect for animals in Hinduism or Buddhism can be viewed with skepticism as a side effect of the doctrines of ahimsa and the transmigration of souls. It is not a religious principle mandated by deity to protect animals for their own sake or the overall ecological welfare of nature. (c)

Another religious ideology that is assumed to nurture greater sensitivity and responsibility toward the natural world than Christianity are various forms of so-called “nature religions.” We’ll take a look at this growing “spirituality” in next week’s blog article. ©

* The blog articles in this series are adapted from my book Should Christians Be Environmentalists?, published by Kregel Publications in 2012. The blog articles do not contain all the chapters, data, quotes, references, or my personal experiences, which the book includes. So, for “the rest of the story” you will need to purchase the book, which is available in both paperback and Kindle. This and the following articles are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced in book or article form. But feel free to send links to these articles to your personal email list, Facebook friends and groups, Twitter followers, or other people who may enjoy them. I encourage interested reader to subscribe to my blog or request to be added to my personal email list. This will ensure that you receive notices whenever I post a new blog article or other ministry related materials.

2 thoughts on “Should Christians Be Environmentalists? Part Nine *”

  1. I really like your new format! Read the last few articles and as usual, your simple, concise style is easy to read and you make good points. Love the photos-especially the rainbow one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *