英文原文
Various typologies of Buddhist ecophilosophies have been proposed but they have overlooked temporal dynamics and the relationship between beliefs and practice. I address this research gap by proposing a three-tier diachronic scheme. The first premodern phase featured a mixed bag of attitudes and behaviors in relation to ecology, with some being supportive of environmental ethics and others subversive. The second phase arose with the early counterculture environmental movement and consisted of ecophilosophies and activism with limited influence. The third phase started in the mid-1990s with political acknowledgement of the ecocrisis and has gained momentum. It consists of global adoption of ecophilosophies and environmental practices, including conservative Asian organizations, and new radical ecology. The dynamics indicate that a tradition of accommodating to prevailing political paradigms may have obstructed Buddhist environmentalism in the past but could facilitate it in the future.
The relationship of Buddhism to the environment has aroused lively discussion among Buddhists and academicians in the global North since the late 1960s. Especially since the late 1980s, Asian Buddhists have also increasingly addressed environmental issues. These discussions have coincided with the emergence of environmental awareness and movements in these regions and globally.
In philosophical discussions, several taxonomies of Buddhist ecophilosophies have been proposed. In 1994 and 1995, Ian Harris proposed two sets of four-tiered classifications of Buddhist ecophilosophies, and in 2006, Donald Swearer proposed a five-tiered classification. The taxonomies form continua from uncritical endorsement to downright rejection of Buddhist environmental ethics, with various more nuanced approaches in between. The latter include stressing the environmental implications of Buddhist ethics relative to Buddhist ontology, and explicitly constructive approaches to formulating Buddhist environmental ethics instead of claims of traditional authenticity.
Here I argue that a wider reading stretching until today clearly demonstrates a temporally dynamic nature of the Buddhist stances on the environment. The analysis delineates three primary historical phases in the development of the Buddhist stances on the environment (1) A premodern phase where traditional Buddhist views and practices were not framed according to contemporary ecological concepts and concerns and had a mixed bag of effects in relation to them (2) an early environmentalist phase starting in the 1960s where Buddhist inspired ecophilosophies began to be developed in response to current ecological concepts and concerns particularly as part of the counterculture movement in the global North and among the intelligentsia (3) a more mainstream environmentalist phase where ecophilosophies and related practices have been increasingly adopted by Buddhists across the world and where environmentalism can bring Buddhist organizations image benefits. The analysis suggests, in particular, a current state differing from the states previously described. While I do not refute the utility of synchronous typologies of Buddhist ecophilosophies, I contextualize them as originating in one part of this diachronic typology and suggest that debate about whether an authentic Buddhist environmental ethic can be construed has become a purely speculative question. I argue that in this zeitgeist Buddhism must respond to the environmental crisis, both in ideology and practice, to survive and to thrive.
Buddhism, which emerged in Northern India some 500 years BCE, widely adopted the philosophy of harmlessness (Skt. ahiṃsā) possibly deriving from as far as the Indus Valley Civilization (3300–1300 BCE). This was reflected in the teachings and ethical precepts of the Buddha as the encouragement to avoid the intentional killing or harming of animals, in particular, but also insects and even plants in certain cases. The prohibitions were supplemented by the encouragement to develop loving kindness and compassion toward all sentient beings. Other animals were deemed inferior to humans in that being born as an animal was considered a sign of unskillful behavior in previous lives and it being near-impossible for animals to practice Buddhism. However, humans were considered similar to other animals in terms of the possibility of being born as one another in the cycle of rebirth and possessing similar basic characteristics, such as a desire to avoid suffering and experience happiness.
The global North and global intellectual circles experienced an environmental awakening in the 1960s triggered by visible ecological signs of pollution, followed by the acknowledgement of natural resource limits for the prevailing infinite growth based economic model. One reason proposed for the environmental crisis was the idea of human dominion over nature found in Abrahamic religions. Perceiving nature and humans as separate and the former as having been specifically created as a resource for the latter were considered pivotal root causes for human activity leading to the degradation of natural environments and overexploitation of natural resources.
A central figure in the discussion was the historian Lynn White who suggested that Asian religions, particularly Buddhism, are better for the environment owing to their more holistic take on the human-nature relationship. Following White, during the next three decades, Western Buddhists and Buddhists scholars developed several Buddhist ecophilosophies largely based on his premise. The discussion developed in conjunction with the emergence of deep ecology with bidirectional influences. In practice, the development of early ecophilosophies was reflected in the adoption of environmental policies in some Western Buddhist centers as well as sporadic cases of Western Buddhist environmental activism (e.g. anti-pollution, -logging and -nuclear). The discussion mainly originated from politically progressive figures from the global North representing the counterculture movement.
Key U.S. West Coast liberal progressive figures developing early Buddhist ecophilosophies include Gary Snyder and Joanna Macy. Gary Snyder studied Zen Buddhism in Japan in the mid-20th century and is a globally renown counterculture and environmental poet. Based on Zen and other ideological influences, he developed his own form of bioregionalism, reinhabitation. In this model, a person intentionally reinhabits neglected or overexploited land and seeks to create an environmentally and economically tenable lifestyle in intimate connection with the local natural surroundings and community. Central among the Buddhist influences is the cultivation of a tangible sense of interconnectedness, a doctrine emphasized in Mahāyāna Buddhism, with all living and non-living phenomena, through sensory and psychological contact with one’s immediate living environment. Snyder also reconceptualized the concept of Sangha, often widely understood as the community of Buddhist practitioners, as the even wider community of all beings inhabiting a region. Furthermore, seeking to live in proximity and harmony with nature echo themes of East Asian Zen monastic and literary culture. Buddhist insight co-occurs with an environmentally sustainable lifestyle and is conceptualized at an ecosystem level. This represents a merging of Buddhism with contemporary ecological concepts, deep ecology philosophy, as well as Transcendentalist and American motives of exploring and seeking a better life in the US wilderness.
Joanna Macy has created her own unique blend of Mahāyāna Buddhist interconnectedness, ecological systems thinking and deep ecology philosophy. This ecophilosophy is reflected in her concept of ecological self, where a person experiences themselves as inseparable from the ecological network of the natural environment. Instead of the bioregional lifestyle emphasis of Snyder, Macy has stressed the utility of meditative and emotional practices. These include a practice called the Council of All Beings where members of a group of practitioners take turns to identify and speak on behalf of another life form, which can also be an ecological feature such as a swamp and may have experienced damage from human activity (e.g., endangered animal species or logged forest). The practices developed by Macy are directed not only at developing a tangible sense of (inter)connectedness with the natural environment but also at connecting with the emotional pain of environmental degradation whose avoidance may otherwise obstruct environmental activism.
Macy has also developed the concept of Ecosattva, an ecological extension of the Mahāyāna Buddhist concept of Bodhisattva, an ideal practitioner who out of compassion vows to work to relieve endless suffering and help countless beings until all sentient beings have reached the shore of enlightenment. The Ecosattva extends this vow to the well-being of the whole Earth and its ecosystems based on the insight of the deep interconnectedness of all living and non-living phenomena. Macy has held workshops on these practices across the world, including for White House staff, as well as having authored several influential books on the theme. She is widely considered a pioneer in the fields of deep ecology, environmental emotions, and environmental education.
One of the best-known cases of early Asian Buddhist environmentalism is the tree ordination ceremonies carried out since 1988 by the so-called environmental monks of Thailand. The practice has spread across the Theravāda Buddhist world, and similar ceremonies have now been conducted also in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. During intensive economic development starting in the 1960s, Thailand suffered large-scale forest loss due to logging for export, and the life conditions of rural people failed to improve in par with the rest of the society. A few Buddhist monks in the forest tradition inhabiting remote rural areas experienced both these factors negatively affecting their surroundings and local community served by their temples, as well as their own traditional forest-based ascetic-meditative lifestyle, and they started to develop different kinds of solutions to address the problems. The solutions have included, among others, environmental awareness education for the local community, integrative and subsistence farming to promote environmentally and economically sustainable lifestyles, reforestation, and creating forest and fish sanctuaries. In these contexts, the monks have creatively drawn from the collective, symbolic, and performative significance of various Buddhist rituals and customs, most notably, ordination of elder trees in forests intended for protection by wrapping a monk’s robe around the tree. The ecophilosophies of these monks have highlighted the importance of forests to the historical Buddha during his life. They have also stressed the benefit of observing basic Buddhist ethical precepts (not killing, stealing, committing adultery, lying, or using intoxicants) to diminish excessive craving that underlies environmentally and economically unsustainable modes of human behavior.
The international environmental movement in its current form took shape in the early 1990s with the emergence of widespread political awareness of human-impacted climate change and sustainable development ideology. In 1992, the UN held the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro issuing the Convention on Climate Change, which was extended into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Climate change awareness has increased during the 21st century particularly owing to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, created under UN in 1988), especially reports from 2007 and 2014. The forecasts of IPCC based on large-scale scientific consensus demonstrate considerable environmental, societal, and economic threats in the following decades without drastic restrictions in carbon emission primarily caused by use of fossil fuels which widely reflects human natural resource use and consumption activities.
Gradual political acknowledgement of these threats has led to a situation, particularly within the last decade, where international organizations, states, and large corporations are increasingly committing to major climate goals. There are efforts to replace previous dominant socioeconomic ideology based on overexploitation of natural resources by developmental ideologies based on environmental sustainability. This includes discussion of replacing economic models based on constant growth with alternative models. Nevertheless, contentions and counter-movements continue to occur around the greening trend.
The international developments have led to a new phase in Buddhist views and practices regarding the environment as Buddhists have been increasingly exposed to environmentalism, which has become more mainstream rather than being restricted to counterculture and opposition movements. In this new era, Buddhist organizations have had to engage in environmentalist discussions and develop sustainability and climate change mitigation agendas just as other organizations in society. There are even cases where Buddhist groups have experienced external political pressure to develop environmental agendas. More generally, in the new atmosphere, such agendas and related ideologies can bring Buddhist groups image benefits and therefore a competitive advantage in the religion market. There is a blurry line between the second and third phase, with some third-phase developments arising already in the mid-1990s and an increasing number of signs indicating a shift from the second to third phase in more recent years. Nevertheless, the global political and scientific acknowledgement of climate change and need for sustainable development in the 1992 UN Earth Summit represents an important demarcation point laying the foundation for these third-phase developments.
China, for example, has within the previous decade adopted environmental sustainability as a key national policy goal. This is also seen in the treatment of Buddhist ethnic minorities. The development of the Tibetan plateau is no longer as strongly focused on exploitation of the natural resources in the region as before, but in addition nature preserves have been created, environmental regulation imposed, and ecotourism developed in the region. Tibetan Buddhists are allowed and even encouraged to follow their traditional lifestyle to the degree it adheres to the newfound state policies, which has facilitated the revival of local Tibetan Buddhist culture. In this context, the Green Tibet movement has shifted from a Chinese state opposition movement to strategic state policy alignment.
Starting from the mid-1990s, the politically conservative prominent Buddhist organizations in Japan have started to promote environmental sustainability practices in tens of thousands of temples and environmental awareness campaigns directed at their lay membership. The policies include efficient use of water and energy as well as recycling. The best-known example is the Green Plan of the Sōtō Zen school, representing over 15,000 temples. As part of these projects, Buddhism is described as inherently compatible with contemporary conservation and sustainability goals, with reference made to Mahāyāna Buddhist concepts such as the presence of Buddha nature in all living and non-living phenomena, thought to have enabled Japanese Buddhists to live in harmony with nature. Because of the conservative nature of the Buddhist institutions, environmental policies are likely to hold different meanings to them compared to Western politically progressive Buddhist organizations. It has been suggested that environmental policies represent for them a means for legitimizing their existence in light of current social concerns, creating a positive public image and competitive advantage among other religious and secular ideologies in the religion market, and even promoting religious nationalism.
The largest Buddhist organization of Taiwan, Tzu-Chi, whose two to three million members represent over ten percent of the population, has especially since Hurricane Katrina (US) in 2005 emphasized climate conscious practices. Climate awareness emerged in the politically conservative organization participating in international catastrophe relief work owing to the increased occurrence of hurricanes. This involved cooperation with other international organizations concerned about climate change. Interestingly, in addition to Buddhist ideological influences, the Confucian concept of self-restraint takes center stage in Tzu-Chi environmental philosophy. A key practical consequence has been the initiation of large-scale recycling activity. In Taiwan, the organization maintains five thousand recycling stations with over 200,000 regular volunteers. Indeed, today Buddhists in Taiwan engage in environmental practices more compared to other religions.
The phenomenon of increasing interest in climate change and environmental issues within and between religions can also be seen in the Buddhist circles in the West both as the increasingly mainstream embracing of ecophilosophies and as the development of radical, or dark green, ecology. One representative of radical ecology is philosophy professor and Zen practitioner David Loy who argues that Buddhists need to take stronger responsibility for their ecological footprint as an existential issue. Loy criticizes Buddhists for overtly focusing on otherworldly goals, such as enlightenment or a better rebirth, or on maximizing personal psychophysical well-being (e.g., mindfulness movement) at the expense of caring for the state of the world. Loy has founded the Rocky Mountain EcoDharma Retreat Center seeking to develop radical ecology in practice, similar to another center, the Ecodharma Center, located in the Pyrenee Mountains in Spain and founded by Guhyapati, a member of the Western Buddhist Triratna organization.
Western Buddhists have also engaged with the new climate movement and participated in an organized fashion in climate protests. Examples include the originally UK based Extinction Rebellion Buddhists group, which has subsequently grown into an international network, and the Buddhist Action Coalition NYC organization operating in New York City. Notably, the need to protect the environment and mitigate climate change may also arise for Buddhist actors in Asia, as well as the West, for reasons unrelated to Buddhism such as climate change threatening their life conditions and livelihoods. Therefore, not all environmentalism by Buddhists today should be considered Buddhist environmentalism.
I have identified major historical developments in the Buddhist stance on the environment with respect to current conservationist and sustainability concepts and concerns. From this I propose a novel diachronic typology of the Buddhist stances on the environment. The first premodern phase lasted until the environmental awakening of the 1960s and consisted of a mixed bag of views and behaviors regarding current ecological concepts and concerns. The second phase started in the 1960s particularly as a counterculture movement in the global North and consisted of the development of early Buddhist inspired ecophilosophies that had a relatively minor impact on Buddhist views and practices on a global scale. The foundation for the third phase was laid in the early 1990s, although the phase has started at different times in different geopolitical regions and Buddhist organizations and the transition is still underway. It consists of the mainstream adoption of ecophilosophies and environmental agendas and practices by Buddhist organizations across the globe. In the new era, Buddhist environmentalism is no longer restricted to marginal or counterculture movements but can produce general image benefits and even be propelled by governmental pressure.
After the environmental awakening in the 1960s and 1970s, non-Buddhist and Buddhist actors alike, particularly in the West, began to draw on conservationist and sustainability motives in Buddhism to promote ideologies and life modes less destructive and more sustainable compared to prevailing models. These interpretations occasionally entailed simplistic and naïve claims about the Buddhist stances overlooking the historical heterogeneity of beliefs and practices. Already in his landmark Science paper, Lynn White (1967) describes the man-nature relationship in Zen Buddhism “as very nearly the mirror image of the Christian view,” the latter being described as a dualism between man and nature where it is God’s will for man to exploit nature.
Nevertheless, such simplistic interpretations of Buddhist environmental stances could also serve or intentionally represent constructive and creative use of Buddhist elements to find solutions to current problems. In the initial decades, the ecophilosophies and related practices were promoted by counterculture and opposition figures, with limited influence in the Buddhist world. However, particularly with the growing global political recognition of anthropogenic climate change and the unsustainability of the dominant socioeconomic system during the 1990s, a development accelerated in recent decades due to the impending climate crisis, Buddhist environmentalism started to shift from an opposition movement to mainstream paradigm alignment. This shift, which is still in progress, has also entailed the emergence of a new type of opposition movement radical, or dark green, Buddhist ecology.
Several features of the Buddhist tradition may obstruct effective action as an opposition movement. In addition to the factors listed above contributing to lack of care for the state of the world, namely, focus on otherworldly or personal goals, these include doctrinal elasticity (as opposed to emphasis on literal doctrinal interpretations and sets of dogmas), stressing the danger of attachment to views and craving for specific worldly outcomes avoidance of aspects typical of confrontation situations, such as speaking or acting upon anger and situations that may trigger anger, and promoting social harmony.
Because of such features Buddhism has been able to flexibly adapt to various social settings and coexist with diverse belief systems and life modes during its 2,500-year history. Nevertheless, the same aspects have also made Buddhism relatively passive in addressing social issues compared to the Abrahamic religions with a strong history of social involvement and addressing injustice. These factors may also explain, in part, why the early Buddhist response to the environmental crisis was fragmentary, marginal, and largely promoted by Western progressive figures who also held a cultural background of individualism and activism. However, now that environmentalism is gradually becoming a dominant social paradigm across the world, these same features in Buddhism may explain why environmentalism has been widely embraced even by many conservative Asian Buddhist actors compared to a more heterogeneous response among, for example, Evangelical Christians.
Although Buddhism is still in the process of greening, the current trend indicates a high potential for continued embracing of ecophilosophies and related practices. The future of radical green Buddhism remains less clear, as it continues the tradition of opposition environmentalism but is still likely to grow with the growth of general environmentalism.
The increasing greening of Buddhism also calls for heightened concern over its potential repercussions for the religion. For instance, Ugo Dessì (2017) has argued that if current ecological concepts and concerns are allowed to dominate how we see the human-nature relationship in Buddhism, this may lead to a lack of appreciation of alternative ways of framing this relationship occurring in Buddhist history. Such diverse ways of approaching nature can be seen as an important part of the Buddhist contribution to human cultural diversity.
中文翻译
尽管已有多种佛教生态哲学的分类被提出，但它们往往忽视了时间动态以及信仰与实践之间的关系。我通过提出一个三阶段的历时性方案来填补这一研究空白。第一个前现代阶段在生态方面呈现出态度和行为的混杂组合，其中一些支持环境伦理，另一些则具有颠覆性。第二阶段随着早期反文化环境运动而兴起，由影响力有限的生态哲学和行动主义组成。第三阶段始于20世纪90年代中期，伴随着对生态危机的政治承认，并获得了发展势头。它包括全球范围内对生态哲学和环境实践的采纳，涉及保守的亚洲组织以及新的激进生态学。动态表明，适应主流政治范式的传统在过去可能阻碍了佛教环保主义，但在未来可能促进其发展。
自20世纪60年代末以来，佛教与环境的关系在北方全球的佛教徒和学者中引发了热烈讨论。特别是自20世纪80年代末以来，亚洲佛教徒也越来越多地关注环境问题。这些讨论与这些地区及全球环境意识和运动的兴起相吻合。
在哲学讨论中，已提出了几种佛教生态哲学的分类法。1994年和1995年，伊恩·哈里斯提出了两套四层分类法，2006年，唐纳德·斯韦尔提出了一个五层分类法。这些分类法形成了从无条件认可到彻底拒绝佛教环境伦理的连续体，中间包含各种更细微的方法。后者包括强调佛教伦理相对于佛教本体论的环境含义，以及明确构建佛教环境伦理的建构性方法，而非主张传统真实性。
我认为，更广泛的阅读直至今天清楚地展示了佛教对环境立场的暂时动态性质。分析勾勒出佛教对环境立场发展的三个主要历史阶段（1）前现代阶段，传统佛教观点和实践未根据当代生态概念和关注点构建，对其产生了混杂影响（2）早期环保主义阶段始于20世纪60年代，受佛教启发的生态哲学开始发展，以应对当前生态概念和关注点，特别是作为北方全球反文化运动和知识分子的一部分（3）更主流的环保主义阶段，生态哲学和相关实践被全球佛教徒越来越多地采纳，环保主义可以为佛教组织带来形象利益。分析特别表明，当前状态与先前描述的状态不同。虽然我不否认同步分类法的效用，但我将它们置于这一历时分类法的一部分中，并认为关于是否能够构建真正的佛教环境伦理的辩论已成为纯粹推测性问题。我认为，在这种时代精神下，佛教必须在意识形态和实践上应对环境危机，以生存和繁荣。
佛教起源于公元前约500年的北印度，广泛采纳了无害哲学（梵语ahiṃsā），可能源自印度河流域文明（公元前3300–1300年）。这体现在佛陀的教义和伦理戒律中，鼓励避免故意杀害或伤害动物，特别是昆虫，甚至在某些情况下包括植物。这些禁令辅以鼓励对所有有情众生培养慈爱和同情心。其他动物被认为低于人类，因为投生为动物被视为前世不善行为的标志，且动物几乎不可能修习佛教。然而，人类被认为与其他动物相似，在轮回中可能相互投生，并拥有相似的基本特征，如避免痛苦和体验快乐的欲望。
北方全球和全球知识界在20世纪60年代经历了环境觉醒，由可见的污染生态迹象触发，随后认识到基于无限增长的经济模式的自然资源限制。环境危机的一个原因被认为是亚伯拉罕宗教中人类对自然的支配观念。将自然和人类视为分离的，且前者被专门创造为后者的资源，被认为是导致自然环境退化和自然资源过度开发的人类活动的关键根源。
讨论中的核心人物是历史学家林恩·怀特，他认为亚洲宗教，特别是佛教，由于其对人与自然关系更全面的看法，对环境更有利。在怀特之后，接下来的三十年里，西方佛教徒和佛教学者基于他的前提发展了几种佛教生态哲学。讨论与深层生态学的兴起同时发展，具有双向影响。在实践中，早期生态哲学的发展体现在一些西方佛教中心采纳环境政策以及西方佛教环保行动主义的零星案例中（例如反污染、反伐木和反核）。讨论主要起源于北方全球代表反文化运动的政治进步人物。
发展早期佛教生态哲学的关键美国西海岸自由进步人物包括加里·斯奈德和乔安娜·梅西。加里·斯奈德在20世纪中叶在日本学习禅宗佛教，是全球知名的反文化和环境诗人。基于禅宗和其他意识形态影响，他发展了自己的生物区域主义形式，即重新居住。在这种模式中，一个人有意重新居住被忽视或过度开发的土地，并寻求与当地自然环境和社区紧密联系，创造环境和经济上可持续的生活方式。佛教影响的核心是培养对一切生命和非生命现象的有形互联感，这是大乘佛教强调的教义，通过感官和心理与直接生活环境的接触实现。斯奈德还将僧伽的概念重新概念化，通常广泛理解为佛教修行者社区，扩展为居住在一个地区的所有生命的更广泛社区。此外，寻求与自然亲近和谐生活呼应了东亚禅宗寺院和文学文化的主题。佛教洞察与环境可持续生活方式共存，并在生态系统层面概念化。这代表了佛教与当代生态概念、深层生态哲学以及超验主义和美国在荒野中探索和寻求更好生活的动机的融合。
乔安娜·梅西创造了自己独特的大乘佛教互联性、生态系统思维和深层生态哲学的混合。这种生态哲学体现在她的生态自我概念中，一个人体验自己与自然环境的生态网络不可分割。与斯奈德的生物区域生活方式强调不同，梅西强调了冥想和情感实践的效用。这些包括一种称为“众生议会”的实践，修行者小组的成员轮流识别并代表另一种生命形式发言，这也可以是生态特征，如沼泽，可能经历过人类活动的破坏（例如，濒危动物物种或被砍伐的森林）。梅西开发的实践不仅旨在培养与自然环境的有形（互）联系感，还旨在连接环境退化的情感痛苦，避免这种痛苦可能阻碍环保行动主义。
梅西还发展了生态菩萨的概念，这是大乘佛教菩萨概念的生态延伸，菩萨是理想的修行者，出于同情心发誓工作以缓解无尽痛苦，帮助无数众生，直到所有有情众生达到觉悟的彼岸。生态菩萨将这一誓言扩展到整个地球及其生态系统的福祉，基于一切生命和非生命现象深层互联性的洞察。梅西在全球举办这些实践的研讨会，包括为白宫工作人员，并撰写了多本有影响力的主题书籍。她被广泛认为是深层生态学、环境情感和环境教育领域的先驱。
早期亚洲佛教环保主义最著名的案例之一是自1988年以来由泰国所谓的环保僧侣进行的树木授戒仪式。这一实践已传播到上座部佛教世界，类似仪式现已在柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸和斯里兰卡进行。自20世纪60年代开始的密集经济发展期间，泰国因出口伐木遭受大规模森林损失，农村人口的生活条件未能与社会其他部分同步改善。少数居住在偏远农村地区的森林传统佛教僧侣经历了这些因素对其周围环境和寺庙服务的当地社区以及他们自己传统的基于森林的苦行冥想生活方式的负面影响，他们开始开发不同类型的解决方案来解决问题。这些解决方案包括，除其他外，为当地社区提供环境意识教育，综合和自给农业以促进环境和经济可持续的生活方式，重新造林，以及创建森林和鱼类保护区。在这些背景下，僧侣们创造性地借鉴了各种佛教仪式和习俗的集体、象征和表演意义，最显著的是，通过将僧袍包裹在树上，为旨在保护的森林中的老树授戒。这些僧侣的生态哲学强调了森林在佛陀生平中的重要性。他们还强调了遵守基本佛教伦理戒律（不杀生、不偷盗、不邪淫、不妄语、不饮酒）的好处，以减少过度贪欲，这是环境和经济不可持续的人类行为模式的基础。
当前形式的国际环境运动在20世纪90年代初形成，伴随着对人类影响的气候变化和可持续发展意识形态的广泛政治意识。1992年，联合国在里约热内卢举行地球峰会，发布了《气候变化框架公约》，1997年扩展为《京都议定书》。21世纪气候变化意识增强，特别是由于政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC，1988年在联合国成立）的报告，尤其是2007年和2014年的报告。IPCC基于大规模科学共识的预测表明，在未来几十年，如果不严格限制主要由化石燃料使用引起的碳排放，将面临相当大的环境、社会和经济威胁，这广泛反映了人类自然资源使用和消费活动。
对这些威胁的逐渐政治承认导致了一种情况，特别是在过去十年中，国际组织、国家和大型公司越来越多地承诺主要气候目标。努力取代先前基于自然资源过度开发的主导社会经济意识形态，转向基于环境可持续性的发展意识形态。这包括讨论用替代模型取代基于持续增长的经济模型。然而，围绕绿化趋势的争议和反运动仍在继续。
国际发展导致了佛教对环境观点和实践的新阶段，因为佛教徒越来越多地接触环保主义，环保主义变得更加主流，而不再局限于反文化和反对运动。在这个新时代，佛教组织必须参与环保讨论，制定可持续性和气候变化缓解议程，就像社会中的其他组织一样。甚至有些佛教团体经历了外部政治压力来制定环境议程。更一般地说，在新氛围中，这样的议程和相关意识形态可以为佛教团体带来形象利益，从而在宗教市场中获得竞争优势。第二阶段和第三阶段之间存在模糊界限，一些第三阶段发展早在20世纪90年代中期就已出现，越来越多的迹象表明近年来从第二阶段向第三阶段的转变。然而，1992年联合国地球峰会对气候变化和可持续发展需求的全球政治和科学承认代表了一个重要的分界点，为这些第三阶段发展奠定了基础。
例如，中国在过去十年中将环境可持续性采纳为关键国家政策目标。这也体现在对佛教少数民族的处理上。青藏高原的发展不再像以前那样强烈侧重于该地区自然资源的开发，而是此外创建了自然保护区，实施了环境监管，并在该地区发展了生态旅游。藏传佛教徒被允许甚至鼓励遵循其传统生活方式，只要符合新的国家政策，这促进了当地藏传佛教文化的复兴。在这种背景下，绿色西藏运动已从中国国家反对运动转变为战略性的国家政策对齐。
自20世纪90年代中期以来，日本政治上保守的著名佛教组织开始在其数万座寺庙中推广环境可持续性实践，并针对其在家信众开展环境意识运动。政策包括高效使用水和能源以及回收利用。最著名的例子是曹洞宗的绿色计划，代表超过15,000座寺庙。作为这些项目的一部分，佛教被描述为与当代保护和可持续性目标内在兼容，参考了大乘佛教概念，如一切生命和非生命现象中的佛性，被认为使日本佛教徒能够与自然和谐共处。由于佛教机构的保守性质，环境政策可能对他们具有与西方政治进步佛教组织不同的意义。有人认为，环境政策对他们来说是一种在当前社会关注下合法化其存在的手段，在宗教市场中创造积极的公众形象和竞争优势，甚至促进宗教民族主义。
台湾最大的佛教组织慈济，其两到三百万成员代表超过百分之十的人口，特别是自2005年卡特里娜飓风（美国）以来，强调气候意识实践。气候意识出现在这个参与国际灾难救援工作的政治上保守的组织中，由于飓风发生频率增加。这涉及与其他关注气候变化的国际组织合作。有趣的是，除了佛教意识形态影响外，儒家自我约束概念在慈济环境哲学中占据中心地位。一个关键的实际后果是启动了大规模回收活动。在台湾，该组织维护五千个回收站，拥有超过20万定期志愿者。事实上，今天台湾的佛教徒比其他宗教更频繁地参与环境实践。
宗教内部和之间对气候变化和环境问题兴趣增加的现象也可以在西方佛教圈中看到，既表现为日益主流地拥抱生态哲学，也表现为激进或深绿生态学的发展。激进生态学的一位代表是哲学教授和禅宗修行者大卫·洛伊，他认为佛教徒需要对其生态足迹承担更强责任，作为一个存在主义问题。洛伊批评佛教徒过度关注来世目标，如觉悟或更好的转世，或最大化个人身心福祉（例如，正念运动），而牺牲了对世界状态的关怀。洛伊创立了落基山生态佛法静修中心，寻求在实践中发展激进生态学，类似于另一个中心，生态佛法中心，位于西班牙比利牛斯山脉，由西方佛教三宝组织成员古雅帕蒂创立。
西方佛教徒也参与了新的气候运动，并以有组织的方式参与气候抗议。例子包括最初基于英国的灭绝叛乱佛教徒团体，后来发展成国际网络，以及在纽约市运作的佛教行动联盟NYC组织。值得注意的是，保护环境和缓解气候变化的需求也可能出现在亚洲和西方的佛教行动者中，原因与佛教无关，如气候变化威胁其生活条件和生计。因此，并非今天所有佛教徒的环保主义都应被视为佛教环保主义。
我已经确定了佛教对环境立场的主要历史发展，涉及当前保护和可持续性概念和关注点。由此我提出了一个新的佛教对环境立场的历时分类法。第一个前现代阶段持续到20世纪60年代的环境觉醒，由关于当前生态概念和关注点的观点和行为的混杂组合组成。第二阶段始于20世纪60年代，特别是作为北方全球的反文化运动，由早期受佛教启发的生态哲学发展组成，对全球范围内的佛教观点和实践影响相对较小。第三阶段的基础在20世纪90年代初奠定，尽管该阶段在不同地缘政治区域和佛教组织开始时间不同，且过渡仍在进行中。它包括全球佛教组织主流采纳生态哲学和环境议程及实践。在新时代，佛教环保主义不再局限于边缘或反文化运动，而是可以产生普遍的形象利益，甚至由政府压力推动。
在20世纪60年代和70年代环境觉醒之后，非佛教徒和佛教徒行动者，特别是在西方，开始借鉴佛教中的保护和可持续性动机，以推广比主流模式破坏性更小、更可持续的意识形态和生活方式。这些解释偶尔涉及对佛教立场的简单化和天真主张，忽视了信仰和实践的历史异质性。早在他具有里程碑意义的《科学》论文中，林恩·怀特（1967）将禅宗佛教中的人与自然关系描述为“几乎与基督教观点的镜像”，后者被描述为人与自然之间的二元论，其中人类剥削自然是上帝的意志。
然而，这种对佛教环境立场的简单化解释也可能服务于或有意代表对佛教元素的建设性和创造性使用，以找到当前问题的解决方案。在最初几十年，生态哲学和相关实践由反文化和反对人物推广，在佛教世界影响力有限。然而，特别是随着20世纪90年代全球政治对人为气候变化和主导社会经济系统不可持续性的认识增强，近几十年来由于迫在眉睫的气候危机加速发展，佛教环保主义开始从反对运动转向主流范式对齐。这一转变仍在进行中，也导致了新型反对运动的出现激进或深绿佛教生态学。
佛教传统的几个特征可能阻碍其作为反对运动的有效行动。除了上述导致缺乏对世界状态关怀的因素外，即关注来世或个人目标，这些还包括教义弹性（与强调字面教义解释和教条集相对），强调执着观点和渴望特定世俗结果的危险避免对抗情境的典型方面，如基于愤怒发言或行动以及可能触发愤怒的情境，以及促进社会和谐。
由于这些特征，佛教在其2500年历史中能够灵活适应各种社会环境，并与多样信仰系统和生活方式共存。然而，这些相同方面也使佛教在解决社会问题上相对被动，与具有强烈社会参与和解决不公正历史的亚伯拉罕宗教相比。这些因素也可能部分解释为什么早期佛教对环境危机的反应是零散、边缘的，且主要由西方进步人物推广，他们也具有个人主义和行动主义的文化背景。然而，现在环保主义逐渐成为全球主导社会范式，佛教中的这些相同特征可能解释为什么环保主义已被许多保守的亚洲佛教行动者广泛接受，相比之下，例如福音派基督徒的反应更为异质。
尽管佛教仍在绿化过程中，当前趋势表明继续拥抱生态哲学和相关实践的高潜力。激进绿色佛教的未来仍不太明确，因为它延续了反对环保主义的传统，但仍可能随着一般环保主义的增长而增长。
佛教日益绿化也引发对其对宗教潜在影响的更多关注。例如，乌戈·德西（2017）认为，如果允许当前生态概念和关注点主导我们如何看待佛教中的人与自然关系，这可能导致对佛教历史中出现的其他框架这种关系的方式缺乏欣赏。这种多样化的接近自然的方式可以被视为佛教对人类文化多样性的重要贡献。
文章概要
本文基于关键词“Buddhist approaches to environmental awareness in middle age”，探讨了佛教环境意识的历史演进。文章提出一个三阶段历时性模型前现代阶段（至20世纪60年代），佛教观点和实践未按现代生态概念构建，影响混杂早期环保主义阶段（1960年代起），受佛教启发的生态哲学在反文化运动中兴起，但影响力有限主流环保主义阶段（1990年代中期起），生态哲学和环境实践被全球佛教组织广泛采纳，成为竞争优势。文章详细分析了各阶段的典型案例，如泰国的树木授戒、西方的深层生态佛教实践，以及当代亚洲佛教组织的环保行动，强调佛教在应对环境危机中的动态适应和未来潜力。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容
这篇文章讲的是佛教怎么看待和保护环境的故事。很久以前，佛教就有不伤害动物的想法，比如不杀生，还对所有生命有爱心。但那时候人们还没像现在这样担心污染或气候变化。到了1960年代，有些人开始觉得佛教可以帮助保护地球，比如在美国，有些人学习禅宗后，搬到自然中生活，觉得所有东西都是连在一起的。在泰国，和尚们给大树穿上袈裟，就像给树受戒一样，来保护森林。现在，全世界很多佛教团体都在做环保的事情，比如节约用水、回收垃圾，甚至参加抗议活动来呼吁保护地球。文章说，佛教正在变得越来越“绿”，也就是更关心环境，这可能帮助佛教在未来更好地发展。
佛学的各个宗派视角评价，突出《显密圆通成佛心要集》的视角
从佛学宗派视角看，这篇文章展示了佛教环境意识的多元发展。大乘佛教强调众生平等和