engaged buddhism and deep ecology: beyond the - okcir

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

, VI, 3, S

UMMER

2008, 51-66 51

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

ISSN: 1540-5699. © Copyright by Ahead Publishing House (imprint: Okcir Press). All Rights Reserved.

HUMAN ARCHITECTURE

Journal of the Sociology of Self-

A Publication of OKCIR: The Omar Khayyam Center for Integrative Research in Utopia, Mysticism, and Science (Utopystics)

Within popular discourse (and classicsociological theorizing), science and reli-gion are often set up as diametrical oppo-sites: the “rationality” of the sciences oftenis constructed in opposition to the “irratio-nality” of religions—sometimes referred toas “false consciousness” (Marx and Engels1970). Moreover, Orientalist categorizationsof “Western” versus “Eastern” worldviewsare often mapped onto, and reproduce,these same binaries (Said 1993, 1994). Con-sequently, we are left with constructed dis-tinctions between materialist/modern/Western views of nature as a resource uponwhich to capitalize and mystical/pre-mod-

ern/Eastern understandings of nature as asource of spiritual fulfillment. On the onehand, we might imagine a rationalistic, ego-driven, capitalist West which (scientificallyand technologically) objectifies “the natu-ral.” On the other hand, we sometimes re-vere the image of a mystical, simple Eastwhich is (naively but spiritually) “at one”with nature.

We offer this paper, in part, as a critiqueof these stereotypes and as an attempt toundo such dualistic binary thinking. Morespecifically, in the context of increasing con-cern over environmental degradation, weargue, it is important to move beyond such

Julie Gregory (first author) is currently pursuing her doctorate in Sociology at Queen’s Univer-sity, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her interests lie in the areas of social constructionism and thesociology of knowledge, with special attention paid to the ways media construct certain phe-nomena—particularly school shootings—as social problems. Samah Sabra is a doctoral studentin Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Her current researchexplores how people move from the category of “Newcomer” to that of “New Canadian,” withan aim of exploring relationships between ideas about “becoming” Canadian and people’s con-ceptualizations of home. Julie Gregory would like to thank Dr. Karen Krug of Brock University,St. Catharines, Ontario, for her comments on an early draft of this paper.

Engaged Buddhism and Deep EcologyBeyond the Science/Religion Divide

Julie Gregory & Samah Sabra

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario & Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

[email protected] • [email protected]

Abstract: In this article, we suggest that recognition of the shared ontological premises ofengaged Buddhism and deep ecology can move us beyond constructed categorical distinctionsbetween Western science and Eastern religion. Specifically, we show how Thich Nhat Hanh’sengaged Buddhism and Arne Naess’s deep ecology argue for expanded notions of self whichdisrupt distinctions between self/other, human/nonhuman, sentient/non-sentient, and social/natural. Following their lead, we hold that meditative practices, which may be thought of asmethods of connecting thought and action, can provide routes toward embodying the sharedinsights of deep ecology and engaged Buddhism. We conclude with reflections on the implica-tions of these insights for relations between the individual, society, and nature.

52 J

ULIE

G

REGORY

& S

AMAH

S

ABRA

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

, VI, 3, S

UMMER

2008

dichotomized categorizations of “scientific”versus “religious” views of nature. Indeed,we suggest that it is important to highlightthe ways so-called scientific and religiousparadigms might be understood as comple-menting and reinforcing one another. Tothis end, we examine the ways engagedBuddhist and deep ecologist activists andscholars have drawn on elements of Bud-dhism (often understood as an “Eastern” re-ligion) and ecology (often understood as a“Western” science) to address issues of en-vironmental degradation.

We begin with a brief introduction toBuddhism’s development as a religion, pro-viding an overview of the two main strandsof Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana.We then review the rise of engaged Bud-dhist practices, paying particular attentionto the writings and teachings of Thich NhatHanh, a Vietnamese Zen monk living inPlum Village, France. We go on to providereaders with a general outline of the mainprecepts of deep ecology. This leads into adiscussion of the overlaps to be read be-tween engaged Buddhism and deep ecol-ogy. We suggest that in arguing for ex-panded notions of self, Nhat Hanh’s en-gaged Buddhism and Arne Naess’ deepecology offer practitioners shared ontologi-cal premises with the potential to undo anumber of deeply entrenched constructeddualisms. We conclude with reflections onthe implications these overlaps may havefor understanding individual-society-na-ture relations.

I

NTRODUCTION

TO

B

UDDHISM

: E

ASTERN

M

YSTICISM

?

Academics generally place the begin-ning of Buddhism in Northern India, atroughly 2,500 years ago. According to thestory of the Buddha, Prince SiddharthaGautama, who had led a sheltered and priv-ileged life, left his secluded palace and cameacross an ill person, an aged person, a ca-

daver, and a religious renunciant.

1

Feeling adeep sense of empathy for the suffering as-sociated with each of these sights, PrinceGautama began his quest to understand thesource of such suffering. At the age oftwenty-nine, the prince shaved his hair,traded his clothes with a passer-by, and re-nounced his luxurious lifestyle, leaving be-hind the palace and his wife and child.Prince Gautama then wandered the hill-sides of India as an austere ascetic in searchof explanations for the suffering he saw inthe world.

It was only during an intense session ofmeditation that Siddhartha achieved

nir-vana

and became the Buddha, however.

2

Atthis moment of deep reflection, under alarge Bodhi tree, he travelled the eightfoldpath (as discussed below) and awoke to theunderstanding that it is only through thecessation of ignorance, caused by desire forand attachment to material goods, that suf-fering can be obliterated. The Buddha’s en-lightenment is often associated with his rec-ognition of the Four Noble Truths: that thereis suffering; that there is a cause for suffer-ing (attachment); that there can be an end tosuffering (

nirvana

); and that the way to endsuffering is the Eightfold Path. As G.P.Malalasekera (1983a: 35) explains, the noblepath “consists of eight items: Right View,Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Action,Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mind-fulness and Right Concentration of Mind.”What is “Right” about each element of theeightfold path is the cultivation of the “mid-dle path”—i.e. avoiding both excessive aus-terity and excessive indulgence in one’sthoughts and actions.

Because the beginning of the Buddha’s

1

“Buddha” is translated by Richard Robin-son and Willard Johnson (1997: 1) as “the Awak-ened One.”

2

“

Nirvana

” is understood as a “state of ab-solutely transcending all pairs of opposites, andso all conditioned reality, by the blowing out ofall flames of attachment” (Ellwood and McGraw1999: 131). Thus, to achieve

nirvana

is to achieveenlightenment.

E

NGAGED

B

UDDHISM

AND

D

EEP

E

COLOGY

53

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

, VI, 3, S

UMMER

2008

story emphasizes the above fours insights,and due to the Buddha

’s

proclamation that“all life is suffering” (the first Noble Truth),traditional Buddhism has been described asa pessimistic worldview that stresses the in-evitability of pain and suffering in this life(Callicott 1987). More than this, as a non-theistic tradition which calls for “detach-ment,” Buddhism has been criticized as astrictly ascetic and individualistic philoso-phy that, as such, does not constitute a reli-gion at all (Queen 1996). As Joanna Macy(1996: 154) points out, however, such critics“forget that what the Buddha taught wasdetachment from ego, not detachment fromthe world.” Thus, although Buddhism en-courages individual practitioners to seekliberation through meditation, the aims ofthis meditation are to cultivate a sense ofmorality and insight into the reality that allsuffering is the effect of desire and selfish at-tachment to the

material

world (Barnhill2004). This is to say that from a Buddhistperspective, deep reflection facilitatesawareness that “we are burning up our-selves and our world in our intense quest tosatisfy unnecessary desires” (Kinsley 1995:87).

Although these ideas are shared bymost Buddhists, discussions of Buddhismusually outline two main traditions withslightly different emphases for how best tolive an enlightened existence: Theravadaand Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada Bud-dhism is more prevalent in South andSouth-East Asia, while Mahayana Bud-dhism is most common in Tibet, China, Ja-pan, Korea, and Vietnam. Translated intoEnglish, Theravada means “Path of the El-ders” (Ellwood and McGraw 1999: 135). Ascan be surmised from the translation, thisstrand of Buddhism is closely associatedwith traditional Buddhism; similar to tradi-tional Buddhist doctrines, that is to say,Theravada practice emphasizes the drive tobecome an

arhant

, one who has reached per-sonal

nirvana

without directly working forthe liberation of others (Thurman 1996).

Also, because this form of Buddhism isaimed most directly at the individual be-liever, especially members of the Buddhist

sangha

(the community of monks), it is oftensubject to the above critiques launchedagainst Buddhism in general (i.e., that it ispessimistic, strictly ascetic, individualistic,etc.).

3

Contrary to some allegations, however,

lay Buddhists are not entirely excludedfrom Theravada practice. As Malalasekera(1983b: 43) explains, “while laymen couldpractice the teachings and enjoy many ofthe blessings of the religious life, the Bud-dha held that the path to holiness could notbe fully traversed among the occupationsand interests of common life.” Thus, accord-ing to Theravada teachings, members of thelaity are taught that the next best thing toperpetual meditation and joining the

sangha

is adherence to the five precepts: “not totake life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct,lie, or take intoxicants” (Ellwood andMcGraw 1999: 140). Notwithstanding theimportance of these precepts, according tostrict Theravada teachings, full enlighten-ment is usually restricted to male monks,who may become

arhants

and achieve

nir-vana

upon death. Consequently, this factionof Buddhism has also been charged with be-ing austere, idiosyncratic, and androcentric(Gross 1993).

In contrast to traditional interpretationsof Theravada Buddhism, the Mahayana tra-dition teaches that enlightenment is anachievable goal for all humans, in this life-time, here and now. Mahayana Buddhists,

3

What we present here is a brief overviewof the general tendencies in the ways these tra-ditions have been interpreted. It is important tonote that there have been some very active, com-munity-based Theravada engaged Buddhistmovements. For a discussion of some of thesetraditions, refer to Christopher Queen and SallieKing’s (1996) edited volume. For a more de-tailed discussion of the particular strategies em-ployed in relation to environmental activism byTheravadan monks and lay people in Thailand,refer to Nicola Tannenbaum (2000) and SusanDarlington (1998).

54 J

ULIE

G

REGORY

& S

AMAH

S

ABRA

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

, VI, 3, S

UMMER

2008

in other words, hold that enlightenment isaccessible for men, women, laity, and mem-bers of the

sangha

alike.

4

This division ofBuddhism emerged about a century afterthe Buddha’s death and is translated as“Great Vessel” (Ellwood and McGraw 1999:135). Unlike Theravada, Mahayana Bud-dhism offers practitioners a vessel towardsawakening that can travel many routes; inaddition to meditation, enlightenment maybe achieved through methods as diverse as“the numinous wonder of a temple thatcauses one to forget oneself for a moment;the quasi-hypnotic rhythm of chanting;[and] the magical concentration of evoca-tion” (143). In other words, any gesture thatbrings one closer to a lost sense of individu-ation—i.e., to an understanding of the selfas only one node along an endless cycle ofbeing—is understood as one step closer toseeing the world as the Buddha did underthe Bodhi tree.

By replacing the image of the

arhant

with the notion of the

bodhisattva

, Mahay-ana teachings tend to emphasize the idealsof compassion, altruism, and non-hierarchi-cal relationality—qualities embodied by the

bodhisattva

.

5

As Rita Gross (1993:10) ex-plains,

In addition to significant philo-sophical differences with earlierBuddhism, nascent MahayanaBuddhism understood the … Bud-dhist community, differently …One of the critical developments inMahayana thinking was the Bod-dhisattva path toward completeenlightenment, recommended

now for all serious practitioners.Instead of striving for individualnirvana bringing release from cy-clical existence, Mahayana Bud-dhists were encouraged to take theBoddhisattva vow to attain en-lightenment for the sake of all sen-tient beings.

Following from this, not only do schol-ars tend to draw clear distinctions betweenTheravada and Mahayana teachings—dis-tinctions epitomized by the ideal of the

ar-hant

and the

bodhisattva

respectively—theyalso note Buddhism’s almost exclusive fo-cus on sentience. It is this focus, as will be-come clear below, which engaged Bud-dhists and deep ecologists challenge.

E

NGAGED

B

UDDHISM

: M

YSTICAL

E

COLOGY

?

Thich Nhat Hanh’s training as a monkin Vietnam included the teachings of bothTheravada and Mahayana Buddhism, theblending of which was officially formalizedwith the establishment of the Unified Bud-dhist Church of Vietnam in 1963. In 1965,Nhat Hanh founded the Order of Interbe-ing, which extended Theravada under-standings of the

sangha

, was “designed as amanifestation of engaged Buddhism [, andwas] … composed of laypersons as well asmonks and nuns” (King 1996: 323). ForNhat Hanh, “engaged Buddhism,” a termhe coined, is meant to evoke and induce aform of spirituality that is socially and polit-ically aware and active.

One year after establishing the Order ofInterbeing, Nhat Hanh was exiled fromVietnam as a result of his peace activismduring the Vietnam War. He went on tofound Plum Village (a

sangha

in the style ofthe Order of Interbeing) in Southern Francein 1982. He has been living there since, shar-ing his teachings about engaged Buddhismto an international audience at retreats,

4

In Japan, where Buddhism met Shinto, de-bates have emerged about whether nonhumanorganisms are to be considered as capable ofachieving enlightenment. For an elaboration ofthis discussion, please refer to David Kinsley(1995: 91-98).

5

Robert Ellwood and Barbara McGraw(1999: 142) describe a bodhisattva as a person onthe verge of Buddhahood who declines full lib-eration out of sheer compassion to help fellowbeings to escape the cycle of worldly suffering.

E

NGAGED

B

UDDHISM

AND

D

EEP

E

COLOGY

55

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF

S

ELF

-K

NOWLEDGE

, VI, 3, S

UMMER

2008

workshops, and through his publishedworks in several languages. Through histeachings, Nhat Hanh offers a unified, en-gaged Buddhism which emphasizes a par-ticular ontological understanding of theworld: that everything is connected.

This understanding of the world is re-flected in the inaugural sermon given byNhat Hanh at the spring retreat at Plum Vil-lage in 1998 during which he imploredthose present to reflect on reality. Beginningwith traditional teachings of the Buddha,Nhat Hanh (1998: 20) argued that we need“to let go of self, person, living being andlifespan,” which form the basis of “all otherideas.” For Nhat Hanh, “letting go is a prac-tice” which begins with letting go “of theidea that ‘I am this body’” (19). Once we re-alize that our forms, feelings, and percep-tions are non-permanent, he said, then “webegin to see the no-self nature, then we seethe interdependent nature, and once we seethe interdependent nature, we see the Bud-dha” (14).

This process of “letting go” is premisedon a worldview which understands allthings as co-dependent. Nothing, accordingto this perspective, exists independentlyfrom anything else. In this same sermon,Nhat Hanh (1998: 15) illuminates this ontol-ogy:

We look into a flower and we seethe flower is made of the sky, theclouds, the earth, space and time…We see ourselves, and we see weare made of our teacher, our father,our mother, our ancestors, ourbrothers, sisters, our vegetables,water, and all those things. Whenwe see them in the light of interde-pendence, we see the Buddha. Wesee that we do not have a separateself… When we see our interde-pendence we see interbeing.

Given the above excerpts from his 1998sermon, it is clear that for Nhat Hahn, to

speak of Buddhism is to speak of the con-nectedness of all things; it is to acknowledgethat we are nothing and everything simulta-neously. Moreover, according to this view,to speak of self is to speak of other and viceversa: I am myself, my teacher, father,mother, ancestors, brothers, sisters, vegeta-bles, water, etcetera, and they are me.

Nhat Hanh’s conceptualization of inter-being permeates not only his sermons, butalso much of his writings. For example, con-sider the first six stanzas of one of his mostwell-known poems, “Please Call me By MyTrue Names” (Nhat Hanh 1996a:104-105):

Don’t say that I will depart tomorrow –even today I am still arriving.

Look deeply: every second I am arrivingto be a bud on a Spring branch,to be a tiny bird, with still-fragile wings,learning to sing in my new nest, to be a

caterpillar in the heart of a flower,to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.

I still arrive, to laugh and to cry,to fear and to hope.

The rhythm of my heart is the birth and death of all that is alive.I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river. And I am the bird that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.

I am the frog swimming happily in the clear water of a pond. And I am the grass-snake that silently feeds itself on the frog.

I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as bamboo sticks. And I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to Uganda.

Again, what is highlighted in this poemis Nhat Hanh’s belief in the interconnected-ness of all things/beings mentioned: the “I”

56 J

ULIE

G

REGORY

& S

AMAH

S

ABRA

H

UMAN

A

RCHITECTURE

: J

OURNAL

OF

THE

S

OCIOLOGY

OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE, VI, 3, SUMMER 2008

of the poem encompasses a bud, a tiny bird,a caterpillar, a jewel, a mayfly, a frog, agrass-snake, a starving child, and an armsmerchant, for example. In this sense, the I/self is not a single individuated ego; ratherit reflects a “we-self” (Coward 1997).

In explaining his motivation for writingthis particular poem, Nhat Hanh(1996a:104) has said, “I have many namesand when you call me by any of them, Ihave to say, ‘Yes’.” Again, this is because ac-cording to his worldview, all things/beingsare interconnected in a complex web of so-cio-historical and political circumstanceswhich both produce and are produced byone another. This is why Nhat Hanh sug-gests that to understand our place in theworld, we must begin by grasping our in-terbeing. For Nhat Hanh, this recognition isthe necessary first step toward socially andpolitically engaged action which, for him, isinseparable from both personal well-beingand an environmentally sound paradigm, apoint taken up in our conclusion.

As Sallie B. King (1996: 342) puts it, theabove poem “expresses an affirmation of anaturally compassionate Buddha nature aswell as experiential identification with bothvictim and victimizer. In the context of animperative to eliminate suffering, this pro-duces Nhat Hanh’s engaged Buddhism,”which requires “self-knowledge beyond thelevel of the ego personality.” For King, it isimportant to understand that this poem is acommentary on the place of humans in theworld. King argues that in identifying witha bud or a frog, for example, Nhat Hanh em-phasizes that “humans are not a specialclass, different in our essential nature fromother forms of life” (339). It is also of notehere that Nhat Hanh does not simply iden-tify in this piece with what are oftenthought of as sentient beings. His identifica-tion goes beyond that of human and animalto consider his interbeing with a bud on abranch or a jewel, et cetera.

This inclusion of non-sentient beingsinto discussions of interbeing also is evident

in the rewriting of the five precepts (not totake life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct,lie, or take intoxicants), as expressed on thePlum Village website. Here, the first precept(not to take life) is rewritten as a mindful-ness training for Nhat Hanh’s sangha:

Aware of the suffering caused bythe destruction of life, I vow to cul-tivate compassion and learn waysto protect the lives of people, ani-mals, plants and minerals. I am de-termined not to kill, not to letothers kill, and not to condone anyact of killing in the world, in mythinking and in my way of life.(“Five Trainings” N.d.: 4)

Note that what is being protected hereis not just human life, but also “the lives of… animals, plants and minerals.” Accord-ing to this engaged Buddhist precept, then,it is not enough to refrain from physicallykilling; practitioners also must vow thattheir thoughts do not participate in the pro-duction of a worldview in which the takingof any life is condoned.

Similarly, in the rewriting of the secondprecept as a mindfulness training, the pro-scription against stealing is expanded to in-clude awareness “of the suffering caused byexploitation, social injustice, stealing andoppression,” as well as a vow “to work forthe well-being of people, animals, plantsand minerals,” and to “prevent others fromprofiting from human suffering or the suf-fering of other species on earth” (“FiveTrainings” N.d.: 5). In both of these contexts(as in the rewriting of the other precepts),people are encouraged to become aware ofsuffering. Moreover, we are asked to ex-pand this awareness beyond an anthropo-centric (or even sentience-centric) realmand to ensure that our thoughts and actionsaccord with such an awareness.

These ideas are clearly in keeping with,and lend support to, deep ecological think-ing—for which Nhat Hanh (1996c: 165),himself, explicitly advocates:

ENGAGED BUDDHISM AND DEEP ECOLOGY 57

HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE, VI, 3, SUMMER 2008

Our ecology should be a deep ecol-ogy—not only deep, but universal.There is pollution in our conscious-ness. Television, films, and news-papers are forms of pollution for usand our children. They sow seedsof violence and anxiety in us andpollute our consciousness, just aswe destroy our environment byfarming with chemicals, clear-cut-ting the trees, and polluting thewater. We need to protect the ecol-ogy of the Earth and the ecology ofthe mind.

As is clear from the above examples ofhis teachings and writings of “mindful-ness,” Nhat Hahn encourages right actionthrough the recognition of interconnected-ness, or what he refers to as “interbeing.”Moreover, despite the fact that much ofNhat Hanh’s original ideas developedwithin the context of a critique of the Viet-nam War, his concern is not merely with thehuman elements of war. Indeed, the invoca-tion of nature imagery in book titles such asVietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire (Nhat Hanh1967) calls attention to the environmentalimpacts of the war—in particular, the use ofnapalm to burn forests and rice paddiescomes to mind. In other words, NhatHanh’s engaged Buddhism emerged with asense of environmental and ecological con-cern.

INTRODUCTION TO DEEP ECOLOGY: WESTERN SCIENTISM?

The belief in the interconnectedness ofall things also is central to the writings ofArne Naess (1977), the Norwegian philoso-pher who coined the term “deep ecology”as a way to distinguish this approach fromwhat he understands as the disconnectedand shallow methodology of more tradi-tional ecological sciences. Naess argues that(shallow) ecology, often conceptualized as a

value-free science, is used to conceive theworld as a machine to be monitored by hu-man scientists.6 From a shallow perspec-tive, he claims, “nature” is somehow sepa-rated from humans, compartmentalized, di-vided into categorical distinctions, andquantified. In contrast to this, deep ecology,as Naess describes it, is a way of perceivingthe intrinsic value and interconnectednessof the natural world, which, for him, is in-separable from the “social” or humanworld. For Naess, to compartmentalize andobjectify the study of ecology is to miss theinterconnectedness of the parts. In this way,deep ecologists believe that the subjects ofecological study, and the implications ofsuch research, need to be expanded.

In a manner that clearly parallels theteachings of Thich Nhat Hanh (as outlinedabove), Naess (1977: 84) distinguishes be-tween “the narrow self (ego) and the com-prehensive Self.” Based on this distinction,he argues that when scientists study nonhu-man forms of life, notions of Self must be re-conceptualized—i.e., the boundariesaround the narrow/ego self and betweensentience and non-sentience must becrossed. According to him, the “dependen-cies and interrelations which [are] broughtto light, thanks to ecologists, [make] it easierfor people to admit and even to cultivatetheir deep concern for nature” (89). Naessargues that this notion of Self “correspondsto that of the enlightened, or yogi, who sees‘the same,’ the atman, and who is not alien-ated from anything” (87).7

Drawing out further the links he under-stands to exist between deep ecology andwhat are often understood as “Eastern” reli-gious practices, Naess proposes meditation

6 It is now a fairly common academic argu-ment that ecology, like other sciences, is not, infact, value free. Instead, “natural sciences” areunderstood as encompassing a system of valueswhich are represented as neutral, but whichnevertheless reflect philosophical systems thatseparate and elevate “the human” (equatedwith “the social”) beyond “the natural” (Latourand Woolgar 1979; Latour 1987).

58 JULIE GREGORY & SAMAH SABRA


as an ideal means by which to expand theboundaries of identification. For him, thisform of deep reflection is “a spontaneous,non-rational, but not irrational, processthrough which the interest or interests of an-other being are reacted to as our own interest orinterests” (86, original emphasis). Thus, forNaess, the goal of meditation is to abolishconstructed divisions between self/other,human/nonhuman, sentient/non-sentient,and social/natural.

Stated more systematically, Naess’s(1994) “deep ecology platform” is made upof seven precepts. The first precept is a “re-jection of the man-in-environment image infavour of the relational, total-field image”(120, original emphasis). Second, is the con-cept of biospherical egalitarianism, whichholds that although “killing, exploitation,and suppression” are unavoidable realities,the right to life of all beings is “intuitivelyclear” (121). Next, are the principles of di-versity and symbiosis, which highlight theneed to recognize both inter- and intra-spe-cies differences to appreciate fully the con-nectedness of all aspects of life. The fourthprinciple is “anticlass posture,” by whichNaess means that we must recognize thatalthough “the exploiter lives differentlyfrom the exploited… both are adversely af-fected in their potentialities for self-realiza-tion” (121). The fifth tenet of deep ecology ispresented as expanding the “fight againstpollution and resource depletion” (122, originalemphasis). Here, Naess emphasizes theneed to address these environmental issuesin relation to their impacts on all aspects ofthe natural world, both living and non-liv-

ing. The sixth precept is “complexity, notcomplication,” (122) which again is meantto highlight the need to recognize that whatmakes social existence complex, as opposedto complicated, is an overall organizing sys-tem governing all relations within the eco-sphere. The final principle Naess offers is“autonomy and decentralization” (122), apremise that favours non-hierarchical con-nections between individuals and systems.

In Ecology and Religion, David Kinsely(1995: 188) addresses what he understandsas the deep ecological argument that “therights of the individual must be subordinateto the well-being of the whole, because thewhole is prior to the individual, and with-out the whole no individual could exist.”For Kinsley, such deep ecological reasoningis in contrast with the (stereo)typical West-ern atomistic reading of the environmentthat prioritizes human beings and separatesthem not only from other beings, but alsofrom their surroundings. Western societiesare characterized by Kinsley as idealizingindividuality and attributing success andmerit outside of external environmental fac-tors. According to a deep ecological under-standing of life and of the environment, hesays, this reasoning is faulty.

At the same time, in keeping with ourdiscussion of divisions constructed betweenhuman/nonhuman, sentience/non-sen-tience, we hold that Kinsley’s (1995) way ofphrasing this issue is problematic becauseto subordinate the rights of the individual tothe rights of the whole is to relate them hier-archically. Instead, a non-hierarchical rela-tion would suggest that our thoughts andactions must ensure that we prioritize nei-ther the individual nor the whole. This is inkeeping with the deep ecological positiondiscussed above, which understands thatwithout individuals the whole would alsobe unable to exist, insofar as deep ecologistsbelieve that there is an intimate relationshipto be uncovered between all life forms,without exception. Kinsley (1995: 190) him-self notes that according to deep ecologists

7 The term “atman” is generally used in Hin-duism, and is often translated to mean “soul” or“self.” In most Hindu traditions, the idea of theatman emphasizes that a person’s innermostsoul is identical with Brahman, a deity who con-tains the entirety of the universe within himself.The idea is elaborated to mean that if one isidentical with Brahman, one is identical with theuniverse, and thus, one has no single, individualsoul or self. Where Buddhism is concerned, asimilar idea is expressed negatively as “anat-man,” or “no self.”



“any individual, human or nonhuman, ani-mal or plant, is the end result of the entirehistory of its species’ interaction with the ec-osystem at large.” From this reading, deepecology is an attempt to deconstruct anthro-pocentric divisions between human andnonhuman, sentient and non-sentient. Toreturn to Naess (1977: 83), to support a deepecological platform is to assert that “equat-ing value with value for humans reveals aracial prejudice.”

As a self-identified deep ecologist andBuddhist, Bill Devall (1994: 126) explores al-ternatives to dominant (North American)scientific paradigms that focus on shallowanthropocentric understandings of natureas a resource to “satisfy the material wantsof citizens.” In his article, “The Deep Ecol-ogy Movement,” Devall outlines fifteenprinciples that are central to deep ecologicalperspectives, many of which are in keepingwith those outlined by Naess (1994) and allof which “support radical critiques of mod-ern society and of dominant values of thissociety” (Devall 1994: 135). Devall con-cludes his piece with the assertion that as arevolutionary environmental movement,deep ecology “seeks transformation of val-ues and social organization” (128). Morespecifically, he represents the fusion of whathe understands as “Eastern” philosophies(such as Buddhism) and “Western” ap-proaches (such as ecology) as an optimalroute for fostering an ecological conscious-ness, one which can disrupt and expanddominant, shallow, and exploitative ap-proaches to nature.

CONVERSATIONS: SCIENTIFIC AND MYSTICAL SCIENTISM?

Based on all of the above, we argue thatboth Buddhism and deep ecology may beconceptualized as radical environmentaland ethical critiques of anthropocentric,highly individualistic, so-called “Western”conceptualizations of the world. At the

same time, we recognize that it is importantnot to romanticize uncritically either Bud-dhist teachings or deep ecological ideals. Inthis context, we highlight Devall’s (1994)claim that there is a major point of diver-gence between Buddhism and deep ecol-ogy: in general, Buddhists—even followersof the less conservative strands of Mahay-ana—place undue emphasis on sentience,an emphasis which does not allow us fullyto develop our capacities for deep ecologi-cal thought.8 Significantly, Devall does notunderstand this as an unbridgeable diver-gence; instead, he points out that “Buddhistwisdom, including the awareness that ev-erything is related to everything else andthat the mind is a vast ocean of ignorance, isechoed in the modern science of ecology”(185).

At this point, the links between Bud-dhist and deep ecological ontologies shouldbe increasingly apparent. To reiterate whatwe have suggested up to this point: thethemes of community, selflessness, non-vio-lence, and deep empathy are central in thewriting and activism of the most prominentscholars and activists of engaged Buddhismand deep ecology (Devall 1994, 1996; Macy1994, 1996; Nhat Hanh 1967, 1996c). More-over, the two main ecological themes of(both traditional and engaged) Buddhismare the importance of cultivating “empathytoward the suffering of others” and “empa-

8 The debate about the place of non-sentientbeings within Buddhism has had a long history,especially among Mahayana Buddhists in Japanand China. In fact, some Buddhist teachers,most notably a Japanese monk named Ryogen,have argued that there are “no better Buddhistyogis in the world than the plants and trees in[our] garden[s]: still, silent, serene beings disci-plining themselves toward nirvana” (Lafleur1990:139). Notwithstanding this claim, in moststrands of Buddhism (except, perhaps, someforms of Shinto-inspired Buddhism most pre-dominant in Japan), the human form is venerat-ed as the only being able to attain fullenlightenment. For a discussion of this ongoingdebate and the relationships between nature im-agery and Buddhist art, please refer to WilliamLafleur’s (1990) piece, “Sattva: Enlightenmentfor Plants and Trees.”



thetic identification” (Kinsley 1995: 85).These themes seem to correspond withwhat deep ecologists call “identification”and “Self” (Naess 1977), respectively. In ad-dition, adherents of both Buddhism anddeep ecology offer meditation as an idealmeans toward recognition of interconnect-edness. In both cases, what results is theproduction of an ontological understandingof the social world as, not merely insepara-ble from, but even synonymous with, na-ture.

These convergences are made explicitby Joanna Macy (1994: 297) in her article,“Toward a Healing of Self and World,”where she argues that “the point of Bud-dhism, and I think, of Deep Ecology too, isthat we do not need to be doomed to theperpetual rat-race.” In the face of environ-mental destruction, she believes that an ex-panded “green self” must necessarily re-place conventionally shallow understand-ings of the ego-self. According to Macy, thisgreen self is the product of the combinationof “the mystical with the practical and thepragmatic, transcending separateness,alienation, and fragmentation” (294). Em-ploying Mahayana teachings of the ideals ofthe bodhisattva and interconnectedness,Macy offers meditation as an optimal routetoward achieving this self. In particular, shedraws on the image of the “jewelled net ofIndra” to call for awareness that when weprotect nature, we also protect ourselves.9

Similarly, and to emphasize the waysBuddhist environmental activists have en-

gaged key ecological insights, KennethKraft (1994) replaces the term “engagedBuddhism” with “Green Buddhism.” ForKraft, there are many aspects of Buddhistpractices that may be (re)imagined as envi-ronmental activism. In this vein, he quotesDogen, a thirteenth-century Zen master, inorder to ask readers to “consider whether ornot there are any conceivable worlds whichare not included in the present time” (3).Kraft argues that reflection on Dogen’squestion reminds us that our actions impactfuture generations, just as our current livingconditions are the results of the actions ofpast generations.

For Kraft (1994), what are sometimesunderstood as individual Buddhist prac-tices are better understood as startingpoints for, or methods of, cultivating deepecological thought (and action). Just as weargued above that deep reflection/medita-tion is a useful way to expand and facilitateawareness of interbeing, Kraft contends thatmeditation is “supposed to reduce egoism,deepen appreciation of one’s surroundings,foster empathy with other beings, clarify in-tention, prevent what is now called burn-out, and ultimately lead to a profound senseof oneness with the entire universe” (6). Ac-cording to this view, when one reduces indi-vidualistic egoism and attachment to indi-vidual desires, one’s priorities and actionswill shift accordingly. To elaborate uponthis point, Kraft gives the example of indi-vidual practices taught by Nhat Hanh in theform of gathas, “short poems that canprompt us to maintain awareness in dailylife” (9). Following Nhat Hanh, Kraft offersvarious gathas as a means by which to culti-vate mindfulness. More specifically, he ex-plains, the recitation of gathas is meant totransform actions which may have previ-ously been thoughtless, taken-for-grantedparts of our daily lives into ritualized waysof practicing thoughtful actions; they be-come a form of praxis.

As an illustrative example, Kraft (1994)presents readers with a gatha Nhat Hanh en-

9 As David Kinsley (1995: 88) explains, In-dra is a deity who wears a net of jewels, each ofwhich reflects all of the others. This classic Ma-hayana image is meant to be the archetype ofconnectedness: each jewel in the net encompass-es within it all of the other jewels. In this way,without all of the jewels in the net, no jewel canbe seen as a single, individuated, self-containingentity. Consequently, when a person thinks ofher/himself as one of the jewels on the net, s/hecomes to understand the “self,” not as an ego-based “I-self,” but rather as a necessarily rela-tional “‘we-self’ in which we are connected toeverything and everything to us” (Coward 1997:268).



courages practitioners to recite either outloud or mentally when turning on a faucet:“Water flows from high in the mountains./Water runs deep in the Earth./Miracu-lously, water comes to us,/and sustains alllife” (10). The reminder here is that the wa-ter coming out of a faucet is not separatefrom the water that “runs deep in the Earth”or “flows from high in the mountains.” Thisis meant to serve as a point of realizationthat all life forms are in an interdependentrelationship which is mediated throughsuch things as water. Also present in theabove gatha are reminders that water “sus-tains all life,” that we could not survivewithout its availability, and that as such, weare in the same position of dependencyupon water as all other plant and animal lifeco-habiting the earth.

The significant claim here is that indi-vidual meditative practices advocated byengaged Buddhists, such as Thich NhatHanh, may have very real (environmental)consequences that extend beyond the indi-vidual. Indeed, they are meant as practicesthat expand conceptions of the self beyondindividual, egotistical understandings andactions. Buddhist teachings that heightenone’s sense of interconnectedness with theworld, it is argued, increase one’s intimacywith the world. Echoing Macy (1996), Kraft(1994: 17) holds that “walking in the worldas if it were our lover leads inevitably todeep ecology.” The logic here is that whileintimacy may imply knowledge of theworld, or an understanding of one’s rela-tionship with the world, it also comes withresponsibility toward that with which one isintimate.

CONCLUSION: MOVING, NOT SITTING

So what is it about engaged Buddhismand deep ecology that is so similar that theymay re-enforce and complement one an-other? How engaged is a form of praxis that

appears, ultimately, to be concerned withindividual, human mindfulness? What doengaged Buddhists and deep ecologistsposit as the relationship between the indi-vidual, the social, and the natural? To re-spond to these questions, let us first reviewthe above discussion.

Buddhism is often considered an East-ern religion meant to induce liberation fromsuffering while ecology is often representedas a Western science premised on rational,value-free calculation. Although, based onsuch categorizations, these ontologies mayappear incompatible, putting insights fromdeep ecology into conversation with Bud-dhist discussions of nirvana—as “transcend-ing all pairs of opposites” (Ellwood andMcGraw 1999: 131)—one can argue that op-positions between Eastern/Western, self/other, human/nonhuman, sentient/non-sentient, and social/natural must be in-cluded in this equation. In fact, this appearsto be one of the main points of convergencebetween engaged Buddhism and deep ecol-ogy: to disrupt deeply entrenched dualisticthinking with an aim toward addressingimminent environmental issues. WhileBuddhism and ecology, as popularly con-ceived, may seem to be unlikely bedfellows,the relations that have been formed be-tween the two—especially in the context ofThich Nhat Hanh’s engaged Buddhism andArne Naess’ deep ecology—suggest other-wise. As mentioned above, the major over-laps in the ontological insights of these ac-tivist-scholars are (a) critiques of ego-driven, environmentally unsound cultures;(b) an understanding that to overcome thesecultures, we must expand our senses of selfbeyond our ego-selves; and (c) a belief thatthis extension of self is contingent upon rec-ognition of interconnectedness.

Notwithstanding these similarities, andagain as outlined above, there remains atleast one major distinction between thesetwo ontologies: the Buddhist expansion ofthe self often stops at all sentient beings. Thisconstant reminder of sentience within Bud-



dhism—particularly within the context ofdiscussions of reincarnation, suffering, andenlightenment—reinforces a hierarchicaldualism that seems to ignore the impor-tance of rocks and trees, for example. Thus,while engaged Buddhist (and deep ecologi-cal) discussions make room for non-sentientbeings to be included in the chain of inter-dependence, the question remains as towhether or not non-sentient beings canachieve enlightenment.

There are ongoing scholarly debates asto whether or not Buddhist doctrines at-tribute special status to sentient beings, andespecially to human beings. The affirmativeresponse to this debate—that yes, undo em-phasis is placed on sentience by Bud-dhists—is epitomized by claims that whilenature imagery has a significant place inBuddhist stories, “the Buddhist traditiondevelops its attitudes toward nature in thecontext of an ‘ecology of the mind’ and aimsat a ‘purified’ world with man as its stew-ard” (Eckel 1997: 340). According to Mal-colm David Eckel, “the focus [in manystrands of Buddhism] is on the naturalworld as a locus and as a guide for the spir-itual transformation of the monk himself”(337). In this sense, even when nature imag-ery is used, nature often is represented as ameans toward an end: human liberation.

This distinction between Buddhist andecological paradigms has remained implicitin this paper up to this point. Yet, it is at thispoint of divergence that we think deep ecol-ogy can offer something important to en-gaged Buddhist teachings, particularlythose which aim at addressing environmen-tal degradation. For example, deep ecolo-gists may point out that sentient beings aregenerally understood within Buddhists tra-ditions as those with a range of movement,vocalization, and/or relations with one an-other that are in keeping with human expe-riences. Consequently, deep ecologists, suchas Aldo Leopold (1966), argue that to takesentience as the basis of our identificationsremains shallowly anthropocentric. From a

deep ecological perspective, the challengefor human beings becomes to think “like[such things as] a mountain” (137) as a wayto challenge our taken-for-granted authori-tative and privileged positions.

It is likely within this same context thatsome people read Nhat Hanh as arguingthat “humans are not a special class, differ-ent in our essential nature from other formsof life” (King 1996:339). At the same time,self-proclaimed engaged, or “green,” Bud-dhists such as Joanna Macy (1994) continueto advocate for more ecologically soundparadigms by emphasizing that when weprotect nature, and all its components, wealso protect ourselves. As we see it, this em-phasis on our own protection as the ulti-mate end fails to get beyond an anthropo-centric equation of “value with value forhumans” (Naess 1977: 83; Anderson 2001).The need to redefine measures of value ap-pears to be a more central discussion for thedeep ecologists discussed above than forengaged Buddhists. From a deeply ecologi-cal perspective, in other words, anthropo-centric or sentience-centred paradigms areunderstood as shallow in the sense that theycontinue to posit hierarchical relations inwhich the components—and particularlythe sentient components—of the ecosystemare given priority over the whole.

This is not to invert stereotypical repre-sentations, suggesting instead that in “East-ern” religious traditions nature is necessar-ily viewed as a means to a human end orthat “Western” traditions offer a more inclu-sive route toward addressing environmen-tal degradation. Rather, it is to reiterate thatdivisions constructed between “Eastern”and “Western” worldviews are highly prob-lematic and likely inaccurate. Indeed, asEckel (1997: 346) argues, it is a matter of se-mantics whether or not using the image ofnature as “the teacher when one meditatesabout impermanence” is exploitative andhuman-centric, especially given that hu-mans cannot be separated form their natu-ral surroundings. It is this point that is par-



ticularly highlighted when our ontologicalstarting point is Naess’s (1994: 12) first deepecological precept (i.e., “rejection of theman-in-environment image in favour of therelational, total-field image”) or Nhat Hanh’s(1998: 15) engaged Buddhist notion of inter-being, which is premised on awareness that“we are made of our teacher, our father, ourmother, our ancestors, our brothers, sisters,our vegetables, water, and all those things.”

From our understanding, both NhatHanh and Naess ask readers/practitionersnot only to understand the world as an in-terconnected entity, but also to ensure thattheir actions in the world reflect that onto-logical understanding. On the basis of this,they each offer an epistemological view:mindfulness and deep reflection are opti-mal routes to grasping the world as it trulyis. According to this epistemological stand,meditation is both thought and action; it ishow we can know things for certain. Thepoint is that until we personally (and intu-itively) come to understand the world—interms of the interconnection of all things/beings—there can be no cessation of suffer-ing and our ecological paradigms will re-main disengaged and shallow.

The notions of interbeing and intercon-nectedness also can be drawn upon to pro-vide an answer to critics who argue thatBuddhist practices, such as meditation andthe recitation of gathas, are individualistic,self-interested practices. Again, taking thelack of an individualistic ego-self as our on-tological starting point, we might argue thatmeditation does not seclude an individual-istic ego-self in deep thought. Instead, thegoal of meditation is to separate the practi-tioner from the idea of this personal ego-selfand to move her/him toward recognition ofa socio-natural, ecological “we-self.” More-over, since gathas are intended to make usconstantly mindful of our actions in theworld, and to foster senses of interconnect-edness, they are offered as a form of practicethat may reflect and influence theory.Rather than passive thought processes,

meditative practices, thus, may be betterunderstood as moving, meditative actionsthrough which we may come to embodyour thoughts. Thus, although the ultimategoal of such practices may be self-reflection,to look within oneself may be an extremelyuseful exercise, especially as a path towardrecognizing one’s complicity in environ-mental degradation. As Nhat Hahn(1996b:7) holds, “meditation is to be awareof what is going on—in our bodies, our feel-ings, our minds, and the world.” For NhatHanh, in order to achieve world peace, wemust first have inner peace; we must first bemindful of the ways in which liberation isinevitably interdependent. Again, thismindfulness is contingent on recognitionthat the individual cannot be separatedfrom the social, which itself must be under-stood as synonymous with the natural.

This is an important point and one that,as sociologists, we were taught long ago byC. Wright Mills (1959) in his classic work,The Sociological Imagination. In this text,Mills describes personal troubles and socialissues as inextricable and reflective of oneanother. Mills urges scholars from all disci-plines to dismantle this distinction because,as he argues, “no study that does not comeback to the problems of biography, of his-tory and of their intersections within a soci-ety has completed its intellectual journey”(6). Mills, much like Nhat Hanh, in otherwords, argues that only those scholars whouncover—or can at least imagine—intersec-tions between micro personal biographiesand macro social histories can successfullyproduce research that is both intellectuallyand politically stimulating and active.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Kay. 2001. “The Nature of ‘Race’.”Pp.64-83 in Social Nature: Theory, Practice,and Politics, edited by Noel Castree andBruce Braun. Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing.



Barnhill, David Landis. 2004. “Good Work: AnEngaged Buddhist Response to theDilemmas of Consumerism.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 24: 55-63.

Callicott, J. Baird. 1987. “Conceptual Resourcesfor Environmental Ethics in Asian Tradi-tions of Thought: A Propaedeutic.” Phi-losophy East and West 37(2): 115-130.

Coward, Harold. 1997. “New Theology on Pop-ulation, consumption, and Ecology.”Journal of the American Academy of Religion65(2): 259-273.

Darlington, Susan. 1998. “The Ordination of aTree: The Buddhist Ecology Movement in Thailand.” Ethnology 37(1): 1-15.

Devall, Bill. 1994. “The Deep Ecology Move-ment.” Pp. 125-139 in Key Concepts inCritical

Theory: Ecology, edited by CarolynMerchant. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press.

Devall, Bill. 1996. “Ecocentric Sangha.” Pp. 181-188 in Engaged Buddhist Reader: Ten Yearsof Engaged Buddhist Publishing, edited byArnold Kotler. Berkley, CA: ParallaxPress.

Eckel, Malcolm David. 1997. “Is There a Bud-dhist Philosophy of Nature?” Pp. 327-349in Buddhism and Ecology, edited by MaryEvelyn Tucker and Duncan Ryuken Will-iams. Boston, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Ellwood, Robert and Barbara McGraw. 1999.Many Peoples, Many Faiths: Women andMen in the World Religions. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

“Five Mindfulness Trainings.” N.d. Plum Vil-lage Practice Centre. Retrieved March 16,2008 (http://www.plumvillage.org/HTML/practice/html/5_mindfulness_trainings.htm).

Gross, Rita. 1993. Buddhism After Patriarchy: AFeminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruc-tion of Buddhism. Albany, NY: State Uni-versity Press of New York.

King, Sallie B. 1996. “Thich Nhat Hanh and theUnified Buddhist Church: Nondualism in Action.” Pp.321-363 in Engaged Buddhism:Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, edited by Christopher Queen and SallieKing. New York: State University Press.

Kinsley, David. 1995. Ecology and Religion: Eco-logical Spirituality in Cross-Cultural Per-spective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Kraft, Kenneth. 1994. “The Greening of Bud-dhist Practice.” Cross Currents 44:2.Retrieved March 13, 2008 (http://www.crosscurrents.org/greening.htm).

Lafleur, William. 1990. “Sattva: Enlightenmentfor Plants and Trees.” Pp. 136-144 inDharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Bud-dhism and Ecology, edited by AllanBadiner. Berkley, CA: Parallax Press.

Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Labora-tory Life: The Construction of ScientificFacts. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac:With Essays on Conservation from RoundRiver. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Macy, Joanna. 1994. “Toward a Healing of Selfand World.” Pp. 292-298 in Key Conceptsin Critical Theory: Ecology, edited by Caro-lyn Merchant. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

Macy, Joanna. 1996. “World As Lover, World AsSelf.” Pp. 150-161 in Engaged BuddhistReader: Ten Years of Engaged Buddhist Pub-lishing, edited by Arnold Kotler. Berkley,CA: Parallax Press.

Malalasekera, G.P. 1983a. “The Noble EightfoldPath.” Pp. 35-41 in Buddhist Concepts: Old and New, edited by Buddhadasa Kirthins-inghe. Delhi, India: Sri Satguru Publica-tions.

Malalasekera, G.P. 1983b. “The Community ofMonks.” Pp. 43-50 in Buddhist Concepts:Old and New, edited by BuddhadasaKirthinsinghe. Delhi, India: Sri SatguruPublications.

Marx, Karl and Fredrick Engels.1970. [1846].The German Ideology. Edited by C.J.Arthur. New

York: International Publishers.Naess, Arne. 1977. “Identification as a Source of

Deep Ecological Attitudes.” Pp. 83-93 in Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians,edited by Eldon Soiffer. Peterborough, Canada:

Naess, Arne. 1994. “Deep Ecology.” Pp. 120-124in Key Concepts in Critical Theory: Ecology,edited by Carolyn Merchant. AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

Naess, Arne. 1996. “Living a Life that ReflectsEvolutionary Insights.” Conservation Biol-ogy 16(6): 1557-1559.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. 1967. Vietnam: Lotus in a Seaof Fire. New York: Hill and Wang.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. 1996a. “Please Call Me ByMy True Names.” Pp. 104-110, in EngagedBuddhist Reader: Ten Years of Engaged Bud-dhist Publishing, edited by Arnold Kotler.Berkley, CA: Parallax Press.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. 1996b. “Suffering is NotEnough.” Pp. 7-9, in Engaged Buddhist



Reader: Ten Years of Engaged Buddhist Pub-lishing, edited by Arnold Kotler. Berkley,CA: Parallax Press.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. 1996c. “This Sun My Heart.”Pp. 162-170, in Engaged Buddhist Reader:Ten Years of Engaged Buddhist Publishing,edited by Arnold Kotler. Berkley, CA:Parallax Press.

Nhat Hanh, Thich. 1998. “The Four Establish-ments of Mindfulness.” Plum VillagePractice Center. Retrieved March 16, 2008(http://www.plumvillage.org/HTML/dharmatalks/html/thefourestablish-mentsofmindfulness.html).

Queen, Christopher. 1996. “Introduction: TheShapes and Sources of Engaged Bud-dhism.” Pp. 1-44 in Engaged Buddhism:Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia,edited by Christopher Queen and SallieKing. New York: State University Press.

Queen, Christopher and Sallie B. King (eds.).1996. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Libera-tion Movements in Asia. New York: StateUniversity Press.

Robinson, Richard and Willard Johnson. 1997.The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Intro-duction, fourth edition. New York: Wad-sworth Publishing.

Said, Edward. 1993. Culture and Imperialism.New York: Vintage Books.

Said, Edward. 1994 [1979]. Orientalism. NewYork: Vintage Books.

Tannenbaum, Nicola. 2000. “Protest, Tree Ordi-nation, and the Changing Context ofPolitical Ritual. Ethnology 39(2).

Thurman, Robert E. F. 1996. “Nagarjuna’sGuidelines for Buddhist Social Action.”Pp. 79-90, in Engaged Buddhist Reader: TenYears of Engaged Buddhist Publishing,edited by Arnold Kotler. Berkley, CA:Parallax Press.

engaged buddhism and deep ecology: beyond the - okcir

Documents