Do we need an Ecological Buddhism?

Coming back to blogging here I had to rethink what exactly am I trying to achieve here. Why do I want to write about ecology and Buddhism? Are they compatible or is this just one person’s argument?

Let me start by asking then ‘was Buddha an environmentalist’? An easy question with an easy answer. No, not in the conventional sense. In Buddha’s time and place conservation or environmentalism as a concept simply did not exist. It has been pointed out that he was one against the some of the dominant contemporary ideas of the time, especially within Hinduism. But there is much more to Buddha and his thought than that.

Would he have been an environmentalist if it had existed in his time? I think asking such questions really is irrelevant. He may have been but this is only idyll thought, a game that even Buddha would have rejected as a waste of time.

So then is ecology and Buddhism compatible, and should these two words be said in the same breath? Buddhism, as a lifestyle, has many similarities to ecological conservation or ecology, and is perhaps one of the gentlest lifestyles without going to extremes. It most certainly was influenced by the other popular then contemporary philosophy, Jainism, which tries to not affect the environment by wearing masks and carrying brooms so as not to harm other life.

Clearly Buddhism respects all life in a way similar to ecology, but that does not mean all Buddhists are ecologists. The question of whether there is such a thing as Ecological Buddhism (or Buddhist Ecology) is only a matter of names. It just so happens that I like both ecology and Buddhism, but I don’t think it is possible or even necessary to consciously combine the two, just as there is not a need to combine Buddhism and ethics to create a philosophy of Buddhist Ethics.

Buddha would probably not deal with these questions. More than likely he would have thought them unnecessary. So let’s stop here and get on with the important issues.

5 thoughts on “Do we need an Ecological Buddhism?”

  1. Hmm, now I have to admit that “Trinifar” is completely made up. Well almost, there is a bit of local geography in it, but nothing clever. Mostly I just liked the sound of it, and it seemed adequately gender neutral.

    I’d been struggling for a relevant blog name and lacking the ability to come up with one that didn’t collide with existing ones, I went with the name I picked to use as a personal pseudonym, forcing the poor thing to do double duty.


  2. Yes, there is much in common. If Buddha were alive today he’d probably be using environmental terminology instead. But that is only speculation.

    Thanks for the name compliment.

    I have yet to decipher the meaning of your name. Something to do with Trinidad, maybe? Or trininear (as in ‘bilinear’), maybe. I am leaning towards the latter since you were an engineer.


  3. Buddha would probably not deal with these questions. More than likely he would have thought them unnecessary.

    Yes! And I agree you can not assume all Buddhists are ecologists. I do think, though, that developing an understanding of Buddhism leads naturally to a deep appreciation of ecology and care for the earth. The ideas of interdependence, compassion, not taking more than you need, etc. are so closely tied to sustainability that the kinship between Buddhism and ecology is very tight. One could even give it a name — like, oh I don’t know, maybe sustainability dharma! ;-) And what an excellent name that is.


Leave a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s