New Page 1

Discussion Questions: Ian Harris Buddhism and Ecology

1. On page 116 Harris states that through, “casuistical chain of reasoning the adverse karmic effects” of a farmer’s plowing, that kills many creatures, is compensated by donations of their crops. Is an environmental approach focused on the karmic system worth pursuing?

2. Sa?sara (cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) implies a close kinship between all things (119). Is this conducive to a helpful ecological view? If so, would it have worth outside of Buddhism?

3. Is it a problem that, “practitioners are positively dissuaded from extending metta (loving kindness) towards specific animals” (119)? Or that it only focuses on individuals not species (120)?

4. There exists a definite hierarchy in sa?sara, animals are inferior to humans (121). Indeed, the goal of meditation on metta is primarily for the practitioner (120). Does this anthropocentricism affect a Buddhist environmental ethic?

5. “The first of the four noble truths states all things to be duhkha, or unsatisfactory” (122). Harris argues that this is not a good foundation for an environmental ethic. In looking to Buddhism for an environmental ethic, how can this be addressed?

6. From page 122, Harris argues that since everything is impermanent, Buddhism is dysteleological; that it denies a final cause or purpose for all things. How does this affect ecology?

7. Harris claims that Joanna Macy’s idea of interdependence and interrelatedness is not conducive to an environmental ethic because it means everything is dependent on, for example, nuclear waste and pollution. Is Harris correct in asserting Macy’s stance leads to “absurd conclusions” (125)?

8. Nature is pivotal in a Buddhist’s quest for enlightenment (127). From this nature can be held in high regard, but are these reasons appropriate for an ecological stance?

9. In Buddhism the earth and plant kingdom are devoid of sentience (128). Does the East Asian tradition have the right idea allowing them to reach nirvana?

10. Harris argues that the romantic idea of an ecologically friendly Buddhism rests on dubious grounds (132). Is this a problem?

2. Sa?sara (cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) implies a close kinship between all things (119). Is this conducive to a helpful ecological view? If so, would it have worth outside of Buddhism?

3. Is it a problem that, “practitioners are positively dissuaded from extending metta (loving kindness) towards specific animals” (119)? Or that it only focuses on individuals not species (120)?

4. There exists a definite hierarchy in sa?sara, animals are inferior to humans (121). Indeed, the goal of meditation on metta is primarily for the practitioner (120). Does this anthropocentricism affect a Buddhist environmental ethic?

5. “The first of the four noble truths states all things to be duhkha, or unsatisfactory” (122). Harris argues that this is not a good foundation for an environmental ethic. In looking to Buddhism for an environmental ethic, how can this be addressed?

6. From page 122, Harris argues that since everything is impermanent, Buddhism is dysteleological; that it denies a final cause or purpose for all things. How does this affect ecology?

7. Harris claims that Joanna Macy’s idea of interdependence and interrelatedness is not conducive to an environmental ethic because it means everything is dependent on, for example, nuclear waste and pollution. Is Harris correct in asserting Macy’s stance leads to “absurd conclusions” (125)?

8. Nature is pivotal in a Buddhist’s quest for enlightenment (127). From this nature can be held in high regard, but are these reasons appropriate for an ecological stance?

9. In Buddhism the earth and plant kingdom are devoid of sentience (128). Does the East Asian tradition have the right idea allowing them to reach nirvana?

10. Harris argues that the romantic idea of an ecologically friendly Buddhism rests on dubious grounds (132). Is this a problem?