Living the Dharma Includes Being Green

It is incredibly bizarre to me when I come across short-sighted Buddhists who see environmentalism and vegetarianism as not being part of the Dharma. They express resistance to the green movement, thinking it is straying away from the Dharma, which is only about advancing towards enlightenment - period. Here is my simple reasoning on why the two issues are more integral to living the Dharma than it seems, in the course of advancing towards enlightenment...

Vegetarianism is part of environmentalism. In case you havn't heard, according to UN's 2006 report, meat consumption is responsible for at least 18% of the emission of greenhouse gases - with more drastic effects than all motor transportation in the world combined. What's so non-Dharmic about taking care of the world's climate for the welfare of Earthlings? Conversely, what's so Dharmic about not being green? Countless people have already perished due to climatic anomalies.

Vegetarianism is about the reduction of cruelty and killing of animals - through not participating in the supply and demand loop of meat and murder. What's so non-Dharmic about cutting off support of the wrong livelihood of butchery? Conversely, what's so Dharmic about supporting butchery? Granted that the first precept (of not killing) is usually taught to be not about eating meat, eating meat supports the breaking of the first precept - because others are paid to kill for meat-eaters.

As such, environmentalism and vegetarianism are aspects not at conflict with Right Action in the Noble Eightfold Path (especially on the Bodhisattva path) - which is to not harm sentient life (in)directly, and thus naturally, by extension, to protect their living environment. Is this not the practice of compassion and wisdom? It is definitely not all of the practice of the duo, but it is undeniably part of it - to the extent that if you neglect environmentalism and vegetarianism, your Dharma practice is definitely incomplete. No Buddhist in their right mind will say being green is not Right Action. With room for improvement, why not be more green - by being more animal and Earth-friendly? No one is demanding those uncomfortable to be green overnight. But practice makes perfect.

A common argument is that being green is not enough. This is missing the point - because no green Buddhists in their right minds ever claimed being green will lead to enlightenment directly. The questions to be asked are these instead... How do you continually lead the animals you continually devour to enlightenment? How do you continually lead the beings, whose environment you continually neglect and destroy to enlightenment? How do you continually advance towards full enlightenment (with perfect compassion and wisdom) by continual wilful selfish neglect of these questions?

The worst argument I came across reminds the animal and Earth-friendly that everything is subject to impermanence. So are we supposed to be apathetic? Why did the Buddha teach the Bodhisattva precepts then? It is to be socially-engaged with all beings for the right causes using skilful means - whatever they may be - life after life. These practices of generosity aid one another to move further ahead on the path towards Buddhahood. For goodness' sake, the Buddha gazed at the Bodhi Tree for seven days in gratitude for sheltering him - he did not thanklessly contemplate that it will just wither and die. The Buddha might as well comtemplate that humans will wither and die, and that teaching them the Dharma is pointless! Thank goodness that did not happen.

Practice of the Dharma is not just a matter of hiding in a cave and closing your eyes to the world to meditate. The great masters are great because they eventually emerge from their caves after attaining great realisations. They become socially-engaged, to share the Dharma, which naturally includes teachings of caring for animals and the environment. If one has yet to enter a cave, or has no plans to enter one, why even imagine socially-engaged (which includes being ecologically-engaged) Dharma being straying away from the Dharma? Instead, such persons are the ones who strayed off. As long as the world is not green enough, we need the green movement - to be advocated and followed by as many as possible.

Being environmentally and dietically-conscious are just simple parts of doing what needs to be done to fulfil the Bodhisattva path, among many other things. If you can't see the sensibility of this, how far can you advance on the Bodhisattva path? Check out the Bodhisattva precepts and you will see the essence of environmentalism and vegetarianism in there, among other concerns.

In fact, if the teachings of Buddhism neglected the importance of environmentalism and vegetarianism, I would not be a Buddhist at all. No one needs to be perfectly green to be Buddhist - but to be a truer and truer Buddhist, everyone needs to be more and more green. When it is perfected, along with realisation of other aspects of compassion and wisdom, one becomes a Buddha. After all, who has ever heard of a Buddha who doesn't care for the welfare of animals and the environment? That would be Mara; not Buddha.

Related Articles:

Environmental Protection, by Thich Tri Quang
http://www.quangduc.com/English/enviroment.html
Environmental Protection and Spiritual Environmental Protection, by Master Sheng Yen
http://www.chan1.org/ddp/channews/06-1997.html#environment
Environmental Protection, by Master Sheng Yen
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dailylife/environment.html
The Inner Ecology: Buddhist Ethics & Practice, by Ronald Epstein
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Inner%20Ecology.htm
The Relevance of Vipassana for the Environmental Crisis
http://www.quangduc.com/English/relevance.htm