Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-1
Traditional Indian Philosophy of the Environment 1. THE TRADITIONAL INDIAN PHILOSOPHICAL VISION In classical India, philosophy was called ‘darshana’ or vision (of truth). The ultimate goal of philosophy was considered guiding a student towards the direct experience of reality in its truth. Indians, unlike the early Greeks, did not want to separate the rational philosophical enquiry from religious or spiritual experience of truth. They had a holistic understanding of reality, which was both spiritual and material. The material and visible, they thought, had a spiritual side to it. In this lecture, we are considering this holistic vision of reality of the early Indians, which has very important environmental significance. There was a time when these ideas were considered unquestionable, true and valid. With the arrival of the scientific perspective, probably the power of these ideas on the mind of the average Indian has reduced. However, spiritual ideas do coexist with rational and scientific ideas. Especially, in the realm of ethics, most people are guided, at least unconsciously, by their spiritual ideals. This is the case even with people who have consciously taken up very rational and scientific positions in later life. One often hears the apparently contradictory expression in the west: ‘I can describe myself best as an atheistic Christian’. The meaning of such a statement is what I have said above – the power of spiritual ideals in a person’s ethical life, even if one is no more swayed by the religious metaphysics per se. This means to say that the ideas that we are going to discuss here on the early Indian vision of the environment have a very practical power. Hence the question in these discussions is not about the philosophical truth (rational argumentative pull) of the ideas; rather, the issue is the cultural vision that such a philosophy has given rise to. However, there is no pretentious claim at all in this enunciation that the Indian perspective is a solution for all the environmental problems of today, or that all Indians today are essentially more environment-friendly than, say, the average westerner. That is not the point of this lecture. The possibility that a practicing Hindu or Buddhist today could be completely callous about the environment cannot be denied. This enunciation is at best a brief history of ideas. My aim here is to show very briefly the intellectual resources of the Indian tradition (which is no more available to us in its purity since ours is also the modernist, scientific culture) in connection with the philosophy of the environment. You need to be aware that this treatment is not inclusive and is incomplete. We are unjustifiably avoiding the perspectives of the Adivasis who have important animistic perspectives on the environment. Similarly, several other points of view, religious and mundane. India is and was a very pluralistic entity even in antiquity. This fact is to be underlined. Our treatment is, hence, partial and incomplete. 2. INDIAN PHILOSOPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS A positive turn of events for India in the wake of the environmental crisis was a newfound appreciation of the traditional Indian environmental perspectives of Hinduism, Jainism and
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-2 Buddhism. The Indic religions, as a family of religions, are distinct from the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) in their environmental vision. Especially for deep ecology, these religious traditions were great inspirations. However, two views of India emerged in the west when it began to know India in the nineteenth century. The first view was of the ‘irrational other’ who they failed to understand because the Indian view did not fit at all into the western modernist mindset. Lord Macaulay (1800–1859), the architect of British education in India, thought that the whole of Sanskrit literature could not be compared with the intellectual content of an English school book. He planned western education in India to remove what he thought was the typical Indian mindset. The second view of India was that of the ‘spiritual other’ who is an antidote to western materialism, utilitarianism, and consumerism. Mahatma Gandhi and several other spiritual and political leaders of Indian and their admirers in the west championed this view. There were also two views about the traditional Indian environmental philosophy. The first looked at India as inordinately focused on liberation (moksha, nirvana) and the other world, and so completely irrelevant to environmentalism. According to the second view, Indians look at every mountain, rock, and tree with respect; they consider the whole of reality as ensouled. Hence, the Indian view, according to this understanding, is completely relevant to the newfound environmentalism. I now go ahead with a brief treatment of the traditional Indian environmental perspective in three parts: (i) early Indian environmental outlook, (ii) broadly classical Indian outlook, and (iii) the perspective of the Sramana traditions. 3. EARLY INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL OUTLOOK By ‘early Indian’ I mean the Vedic Indian environmental outlook. It was an explicitly ethical outlook. It is remarkable that this early outlook was handed down rather faithfully to this day in the form of religious traditions, rites and injunctions. Ethical virtues like truth, friendship, and calmness were universalized by the Vedic Indians for all that exists (all creation) without any discrimination as human and non-human. The broad principle underlying this outlook was the concept of rta (order, telos). Rta brings about harmony – and harmony has always been a cherished Indian ideal. The greatest Indian poet of the twentieth century, Rabindranath Tagore, writes in the essay ‘Sadhana’: “The fundamental unity of creation was not simply a philosophical speculation for India; it was her life-object to realize this great harmony in feeling and in action… The earth, water and light, fruits and flowers, to her were not merely physical phenomena to be turned to use and then left aside. They were necessary to her in the attainment of her ideal of perfection, as every note is necessary to the completeness of the symphony.” The whole of reality functions according to the law of rta. Natural forces are deified in the Vedas (Indra, Marut, Apas, Prithvi) as upholders of the universal harmony of rta.
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-3 Perhaps the most important concept of the Vedic religious ideology was that of the asu. Asu is conceived as the all-pervading substance that has magical power. The whole universe is infused with existence and life by the asu. It is the vital force, different from the mind and matter, but is there in all. The more one had of asu, the more magical power one wielded. Ritual was thought of as a way to have more of the asu. Nothing was separated from the asu – humans, rocks, animals and rivers. What made the difference was the quality of the asu. The concept of dharma developed in the Atharva Veda as the law that governs all beings. With this, the idea of rta became explicitly moral. The rta that governs everything is not a physical law merely, but a moral law that guides every being towards its teleological end (good or truth or fulfillment). It is not morally correct for the human agent to interfere with this teleological journey of each thing according to its dharma. What is of utmost environmental significance here is the realization of the Vedic Indian of the interconnectedness of the whole of reality. Everything is a part in the big unity. It was thought of as not morally alright to control or manipulate nature. The ideal of existence was one of cooperation with nature and everything else. There was no idea of human dominion over nature. 4. BROADLY CLASSICAL INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL OUTLOOK Around 500 BCE the Upanishads came to prominence as the most important texts in Indian religious life. Here the more realistic outlook towards nature and reality of the Vedas is nearly abandoned. The whole of the experiential realm of reality (all that exists) is considered as based on the single substance called Brahman. Brahman is considered the supreme reality over and above all that exists, the self of all (antaryamin or indweller of all). This view is called Vedanta (meaning ‘the end of the Vedas’ because the Upanishads are literally the end portion of the Vedas, and because they are thought to be the cream – the end, the whole purport – of the Vedas). Now, the Upanishads do not represent a single school of thought. There are many ways in which these texts have been interpreted. According to a major interpretation of the 9th century philosopher Shankara, the ultimate substance or reality is pure, undifferentiated consciousness, wherein there is no object, world or any form of difference as this and that. The world of objects appears on account of the principle called maya, which is a power attached to pure consciousness or Brahman. What is ultimately real is Brahman alone and not maya or the world it causes. Because according to this school nothing is real ultimately except the one Brahman, it is called Advaita or non-dualism. Human ideal or moksha is to renounce the world and seek the ultimate Brahman. For several scholars, Sankara’s interpretation is environmentally irrelevant since, for him, the world is not ultimately real, not a matter of our real concern. However, others point out that he does not deny the harmony of everything in ultimate consciousness. The world and the individual human self, as well as personal gods of religion, are all projections of maya upon
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-4 infinite consciousness. Moreover, his ideal of renunciation is not an environmentally harmful practice, if not particularly kind to the environment. According to other interpretations of the Upanishads (like the 11th century philosopher Ramanuja, and the 13th century philosopher Madhva) by the concept of Brahman the Upanishads mean only that God is the source of everything, indwelling in everything and thus the world is real. These schools of the Vedanta are much more popular among the people than that of Shankar, and environmentally more proactive. Both these ways of interpreting the Upanishads consider renunciation an ideal. Hence there is a lot of resources in these traditions for a non-materialist view of the world. The ideal of renunciation has helped the traditional Indian to look at the world less exploitatively and to disvalue material possessions and property. This can be considered the antidote to materialism and consumerism of the scientific culture that Gandhi denounced. However, this non-materialism was not exactly world-denying. In fact, the values a human being should seek were four, and not only moksha, the others being artha (wealth), kama (pleasure and happiness) and dharma. But the broadly classical period is marked by the development of the concept of dharma. The Sanskrit root of this term means ‘to uphold or support’, and hence, humans have the responsibility to sustain the moral order pervading the whole universe through their practice of dharma. This position is explicitly stated in the Dharmasastras, Arthasastra and the Mahabharata. Moral expectations are systematically laid out according to social positions (varna or caste) and stages of life (ashramas). Dharma thus comes to mean right duties that one owes according to one’s caste and stage of life, and in some cases independent of these, to other human beings and all creation. The universal appeal of dharma is to preserve the organic unity of all beings as we read in the Bhagavad Gita: He who is disciplined by yoga sees The Self present in all beings, And all beings present in the Self. He sees the same (Self) at all times. (6:29) He who sees equality in everything In the image of his own Self, Arjuna, Whether in pleasure or in pain, Is thought to be a supreme yogin. (6:32) I am the liquidity in the waters, Arjuna, I am the radiance in the moon and sun, The sacred syllable (Om) in all the Vedas, The sound in the air, and the manhood in men. (7:8) I am the pure fragrance in the earth, And the brilliance in the tree, The life in all beings, And the austerity in ascetics. (7:9)
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-5 During this era, all reality began to be seen to be ruled by an unseen principle that works autonomously, which is called the law of karma. It does not distinguish between human and nonhuman beings. Everything is under its grip. The principle of karma also means a cyclic rather than a linear view of time. All reality is caught up in a continuous cycle of creation, destruction, and repetition in accordance with karma. It also means the transmigration of the soul (samsara). The prerogative of the human being is not emphasized in the circular view of time because in another life or rebirth the person can be born in any form of existence. The idea of the divine during the classical times was centered on the notion of incarnation. Divine incarnation makes the world sacred and respectable. Moreover, the divine incarnation was not restricted to human forms. Among the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu, the first four are matsya (fish), koorma (tortoise), varaha (boar), and narasimha (man-lion). An important dharma is that of non-injury or ahimsa. What is painful and pleasant to oneself should be seen as painful and pleasant to other beings as well. Hence everyone who seeks moksha should consider ahimsa as the first virtue. Since existence is governed by the process of cause and effect (karma), each being is duty bound to respect the other, and this respect and non-injury leads one out of the cycle of time. 5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SHRAMANA TRADITIONS The Shramana tradition of the renouncers was a parallel to the Bhrahmanic tradition of the classical period in ancient India. Some scholars trace the Shramana tradition to the Indus valley civilization where yogic ascetics seemed to have been prevalent. The tradition of those who were unhappy with the worldly pursuits and materialism gradually gave rise to the monastic way of life, from which arises religions like Jainism and Buddhism. These were considered nonmainstream, eccentric and heterodox by the orthodox Brahmins. The challenge posed by these traditions and their gaining of power and influence in society inspired Hinduism to reform itself. According to Jainism, every entity in the world has the sentient principle or jiva, distinguished by its consciousness. It is the degree of consciousness that varies throughout existence. The jivas are bound to matter by the quantity of karma they have accumulated, and arresting the principle of karma is the liberation from the cycle of birth and death. This requires valiant discipline, renunciation and self-control. Though the lesser beings are not morally responsible, they still have moral value. Many scholars extol the Jaina worldview as the most sympathetic towards the whole ecosystem. The impetus for ethical attitude is freedom from desire, attachment and the karmic cycle, but it also raises the moral profile of the biotic community at large. In Buddhism, the ethical code is similar to that of the Jainas. But the Buddhists begin their moral reasoning from certain facts, as the Buddha did for example, that there is suffering. Moral response is meant to minimize suffering and pain both by understanding the cause of suffering as desire, but also by alleviating the suffering of all forms of life. Hence, human
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 5: Notes-6 behavior is to be regulated towards the world by the virtues of compassion, love, kindness, empathy, equanimity and joy in the happiness of others. So, all creatures, great and small, should be the subject of our moral sensitivity. The Buddha’s teachings are full of stories of generosity towards all species. This tradition is often seen among the spiritually motivated environmental activists of countries like Sri Lanka and Tibet. In Buddhist communities, the virtues of compassion and loving kindness are practiced with diligence as these are thought to be the condition for moral life as such. They also have a pluralistic understanding of existence without any privilege attached to particular species like humanity. This has led to a non-anthropocentric respect for biodiversity. The normative moral expectations from monks, nuns and lay people underscore a concern for the environment. This was seen very visibly in a totally Buddhist society like Tibet, which scholars opine, has deteriorated with Chinese occupation, leading to rampant deforestation, pollution and depletion of resources. 6. TRADITION AND CONTINUITY The traditional environmental sensibility continues to influence environmental activism today. The Indian ethic of ahimsa could merge very well with Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle for the freedom of India. Gandhi was always of the view that this same ethic should reign paramount in our dealings with nature as a whole. He made ahimsa as an active force of life by invoking the earnest desire for change based on inner truthfulness (satya-agraha). The Chipko Andolan, a non-violent movement against deforestation, was also inspired by the Gandhian ideals. Similarly, the Narmada Bachao Andolan practiced nonviolent resistance against the Narmada Dam project, raising environmental concerns as well as concerns regarding the livelihood of the tribals living there. Scholars have argued that India’s intensive damconstruction projects after independence have caused the dislocation of over 50 million people who were living in harmony with nature and had local knowledge regarding conservation. India has produced such environmental activists as Sunderlal Bahuguna (Chipko Andolan), Medha Patker (Narmada Bachao Andolan), Vandana Shiva (a physicist turned environmentalist) and Ramachandra Guha (an environmental historian). There are numerous other local and grassroots level movements that draw their wisdom from tradition. But critics point out that against the onslaught of modernity and technology (the Bhopal tragedy for example), traditional wisdom will be mute. Others, on the other hand, think that a mix of traditional environmental wisdom and scientific techniques and practices will bring about environment-friendly attitudes among the masses in South Asia. A critical suspicion of the modernist paradigm and a rekindling of the cultural spirit of environmentalism, they argue, will help.