Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Biodiversity
Rev. Upali
University of Peradeniya
1. Introduction
Ian Harris, a prominent scholar, in his essay Buddhism and Ecology, has
initially stated that:
It is with great ingenuity that one can identify approximate Buddhist
equivalents to the terms, such as ‘environment ‘, ‘eco-system’,
‘ecology’, or indeed ‘nature’ itself, that are central to the contemporary
discourse of environmental concern.1
1
Ian Harris, p.112
2
The term ecology was introduced by the German biologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel in 1866;
it is derived from the Greek oikos (“household”), sharing the same root word as economics.
Thus, the term implies the study of the economy of nature.
The term ecosystem was coined in 1935 by the British ecologist Sir Arthur George Tansley,
who described natural systems in “constant interchange” among their living and nonliving
parts.
Both quotations from - Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation.
3
Prakŗti, formed as pra+kŗti in Sanskrit and pakati (pa+kati) in Pāli; kŗti from Sanskrit root
kŗ (to do) means ‘making up, constituting etc.‘ and combined with pra means ‘the original
characteristics that make up’. In usages, this means nature. pakati also refers to habit; as
the term ‘nature’ in the expression – human-nature etc. is used.
for nature in sinhala language is ‘svabhāva’ which has its origin in Pāli
(sabhāva)4 and Sanskrit (svabhāva). Lily De Silva proposes three terms –
‘yathābhūta’5, ‘dhammatā’6, ‘niyāmatā’7 - as most appropriate to ‘nature’.8
All these terms have been used to convey basically twofold ideas – the
material nature, and the natural law. In the Buddhist discourses, rather than
the general meanings denoting nature, these terms have been
philosophized. Although etymologically defined they have subtle differences,
when the comprehension or realization of intrinsic nature of phenomenal
existence is concerned they convey the parallel idea. The question of
defining the ‘intrinsic nature’ has been developed to such complexity in later
Buddhism that some schools relating the theory of aniccā (impermanence)
and anattā (soullessness) have concluded, there is, in fact, no intrinsic
nature. In spite of such philosophical expositions of these terms their general
meanings are not altogether to be ignored. In fact, when necessity
commands such usages have to be popularized.
In spite of all the terms pointed above, Buddhism recognizes and addresses
several plants and animal kinds. The words satta, pāna and jīva are used to
refer to all forms of sentient beings on earth. Thus, in the expressions
contending to develop all-encompassing metta (loving kindness) and even
when the precept of refraining from harming lives are considered there is no
sense of any discrimination. In other words, these terms have been used
commonly for all the living beings including human. Thus, the recognition of
nature and natural objects in Buddhist literature have been incorporated with
the same human values, except in the sense that by nature animals are
morally and intellectually inferior to human beings, but this distinction is true
only as long as humans keep up their moral standard.
10
saṁvāsa, formed as saṁ (together)+vāsa (living) literally means ‘living together’, also
means co-residence.
11
Added ‘piya’ to the above term to denote the favourable co-residence.
12
Cullavaggapāli (English translation) p 330; (Pāli) p.236-37 [Natthi te bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ
saṃvāso]
In establishing the necessity of a harmonious saṁvāsa more intelligibly I
present a short parable. Two fruit sellers, who have taken up this occupation
for existential needs, have the same ambition – to make a better profit. To
succeed in this aim they sacrifice much of their moral values. As a result, one
selling mango has to adapt artificial methods to ripen the fruits sooner. The
other one selling bananas too does the same; but, when he buys mangoes
and eats only then he realizes the absence of natural taste and blames the
seller. In this way, in the unrestraint desire of ‘profit-making’ and ingenuity
each of us lose the natural taste of fruits that we ought to enjoy, thus
harming interpersonal trusts. The same argument is applicable to establish a
sustainable co-existence in bio-diversity. One may cut a tree for various
necessities; but, admitting the fact that by his act a source to dissolve large
part of carbon-gas emitted from factories he should replant more trees.
Therefore saṁvāsa or harmonious co-existence claims not only for genuine
inter-personal relationships but also an honest interaction between human
and nature. This demands for restraint use of natural resources.
4. Conclusion
From the above enumeration of Pāli terms, ‘pakati’ and ‘sabhāva’, as also
used in other languages, are the direct equivalents for nature while the other
terms have similar application. In English, eco-system and biodiversity
explain the way various organisms live. But, when human beings claiming
superior to other organisms approach, it is not possible to maintain peace in
that system because of their dominating tendencies. Therefore, human
beings have more responsibilities for establishing peaceful co-existence with
nature and other fellow beings and preventing environmental pollutions.
saṁvāsa, although a vinaya term, conveys a sense of a system of living in a
community. This seems the best rendering from Buddhist literature to explain
the sustainable disciplines of co-existence.
References
1. Pali-English Dictionary, PTS, London 1925
2. Cullavaggapāli (both Pāli edition and English translation), PTS edition,
3. Ian Harris, Buddhism and Ecology, in ‘Contemporary Buddhist ethics’,
edited by Damien Keown. Curzon Press, 2000.
4. Lily de Silva, The Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature, pp.9-29 in Buddhist
Perspectives on the Ecocrisis, edited by Klas Sandell, The Wheel
Publication, BPS, Kandy, 1987