GRATITUDE FIRST TO MY TEACHERS ON THE PATHjtheir guiding influence informs this book on every page. I am particularly indebted to Robert Aiken, Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, and Gary Snyder for their green wisdom and full hearts. Thanks also to my students and colleagues at University of Vermont who share my pas- sion for this work. May we continue to inspire and encourage each other s creativity as we think hard about what lies ahead.

A special thanks to writing friends Christian McEwen and Patricia J. Anderson, who read earlier drafts of the manuscript with attention and encouragement. Thanks also to my editor, Jennifer Brown, who coaxed the book along to the finish line. Finally, my deepest gratitude to Davis for his endless love and kind support.

VI1

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/mindfullygreenpeOOkaza

Introduction

every spring I realize just how lucky I am to be working with people on what I love most—our beautiful world. Why spring? Spring is the season of student achievement, when graduate students and seniors present their bright ideas to the wider community. I get to hear about green maps, carbon planning, smart growth, permacub ture, and other hot trends in sustainability. These students give me hope for our world; they are jumping right in to take up the impor- tant work of whole earth thinking. Like so many of us, they want to help make the world a better place. This bright energy is exactly what we need today to lift our spirits and encourage our efforts.

At times it can seem like we are making little progress on environmental problems. Over and over I hear these questions: What can one person do? What should I do .^My answers have come a long way from the early eco-enthusiasm of the 1960s. We felt sure we could save everything if people only knew how much was at stake. Today we face environmental concerns with more awareness, recognizing the political, economic, and social constraints that limit our actions. The more we understand ecosystem complexities and human inequities, the more we realize how much effort it will take to turn the ship toward a sustainable future. Truthfully we can’t even begin to realize how much

effort it will take. In the last few years there has been a deluge of books on the market and internet websites offering “easy steps” to being green. People everywhere are wanting to do the right thing; there is a hunger for information and guidance. Most often the focus at this first stage of response is personal: What can Ido to create a green lifestyle?How can Ilive in a more eco friendly manner? The guidebooks point out ways to save energy, make wise food choices, and consider green products. These are important steps in the right direction; they offer a way to begin living with the earth’s health in mind. But we will need to take this conversation much further ifwe are to truly address the state of the world today.

This hook is a contribution to that conversation, an opportunity to face into the harder questions. Lifestyle change is only part of the path to green living; we also need to spend some time thinking about our actions. What are the ethics and values behind our choices ? How do we find the emotional and spiritual resolve to keep going under the multitude of challenges ? Who can we turn to for green wisdom in these difficult times ? What most needs our attention ? These are cru- cial questions that can help shape our actions in a thoughtful way.

As I have listened to students and spoken to audiences around the country, I have been struck by what could be called “green zeal,” an almost fervent sense of engagement with environmental concerns. People feel passionately about protecting rain forests and whales; they want everyone to know that polar bears and penguins are threatened. Behind the passion is a deeply felt need to do something right, to find a way to correct our past environmental errors. Almost no point on the globe is free ofhuman influence now; we have left our mark in virtually all the world s ecosystems. People today feel the sorrow of these thoughtless actions in the past—the once-expansive forests so diminished, the native peoples decimated. There is a great well of shame and grief wanting relief from the painful consequences of our own shortsighted actions. This manifests as a need for healing,

for making life changes that will take us in a kinder direction, one that can sustain our own lives as well as the rest oflife on earth.

Our anxiety over an uncertain future has become particularly acute with the new understanding that climate change will affect us all. We have the sense that global support systems are lurching out of control, that things have gone too far, that we may already be in serious danger. Climate advocates are urging government leaders to invest in a green vision for a more hopeful future. Businesses are making energy and waste audits to cut costs and improve long-term economic viability. Voters are calling for a “green jobs” economy to help us make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Green zeal is necessary to change our ways quickly, to meet environmental goals that would be impossible without global cooperation.

In the midst of so much greening activity, many people are mak- ing significant changes to their lives, taking up what I’ve come to call the “green practice path.” They are changing their lightbulbs, taking the bus, insulating their homes, serving on community boards, and passing along green values to their children. From what I’ve observed, these efforts are based in much deeper motivation than home improvement. People are thinking deeply about what matters to them and taking their actions seriously. I believe they are bringing their best ethical and spiritual attention to environmental concerns and trying to match their actions to their moral principles.

People come to green practice from many walks oflife and are taking initiative in many different arenas. Green zeal is turning up in every corner of the earth. Thousands of people are living their own inspiring stories as they find a way to share their green ethics on behalf of a more peaceful and genuinely happy world. There is no single green path; the path is determined by individual experience, local needs, and personal motivation. The green path is, by and large, a secular practice, open to all who feel the call. It seems to me to reflect what the Dalai Lama calls an “ethics for the new millennium,” an

ethics built on compassion, restraint, and acceptance of universal responsibility for the well-being of the earth.

If we engage green living in more depth, it becomes an expression of our deepest moral values. The “work” of green living becomes less a chore and more a locus of ethical development. We conserve water not because we should be frugal but because we respect the earth’s resources. This shift in thinking and understanding can be quite profound. The conversation moves from personal sacrifice to real consideration of the nature of our connection with the earth. When we come to see ourselves as part of the great web of life, in relationship with all beings, we are naturally drawn to respond with compassion.

This book offers one entry point to this way of thinking about the environment. In these pages I’ve outlined three aspects of the green practice path. Part 1, “Seeking Green Principles,” identifies a core set of principles for setting out on the path. This approach is based on an ethical foundation that emphasizes the importance of reducing harm to the earth in order to help life flourish. Once we recognize the environmental impacts caused by human action, we can make a conscious effort to reduce that harm on behalf of the planet. Reducing harm requires that we face the suffering of the world as it is, including the egregious ravaging of ecosystems that degrades them beyond repair. Both these orientations are informed by taking the deep view of systems thinking, a way of seeing that promotes effective problem-solving and respect for differences in viewpoint.

Part 2, “Following the Green Path,” offers ways that each of. us can strengthen our personal commitment to green practice, moving from novice to what I call a “lifeway.” Lifeway practice is based in clear intention, community engagement, and shared wisdom. This shift involves finding the causes that speak to us and developing the resolve to stay committed to the work. But the path is not without

obstacles, so we need to work directly with the emotional challenges of doubt, anxiety, anger, and despair as part of the practice. To help along the way, we must find sources ofwisdom and inspiration in the form of teachers and friends. These may be wise human elders steeped in the green tradition or beings much older than ourselves—the trees, oceans, and mountains. All of these wisdom resources can help us find our way in a very uncertain world.

Part 3, “Acting on Green Values,” the final section of the book, takes up specific arenas for engaging the green practice path. In this section, we consider three broad practice fields that offer multiple opportunities for personal and global action. We first look at how to develop energy awareness, considering how to conserve and main- tain energy and exploring why that is necessary in a consuming world. Second, we investigate the nature of desire and examine its multiple allures for today s consumers. In the context of desire, Buddhist teach' ings are very effective in developing inner discipline that supports the practice ofrestraint while cultivating the antidote ofcontentment. Finally, we explore the ways that our capacity for earth'keeping can be greatly improved by investing in peace. These three practice arenas—maintaining energy, managi ng desire, and coming to peace- can provide a solid spiritual foundation for walking the green practice path and cultivating inner strength for the journey.

This book reflects my own experience with Buddhist teachings in addressing environmental issues. I have found traditional Buddhist wisdom to be practical and down-to'earth as well as being support' ive of spiritual practice. The Buddha insisted that students should test the teachings for themselves and see what worked to reduce their suffering and open doorways to understanding. The teachings in this book are offered in that spirit as part of the experiment of the green practice path. I hope you will find something of value in them and can apply their pragmatic advice in your own work on this path, whether you consider yourself a Buddhist or not. As with many of the

world religions, the time-tested teachings of Buddhism offer impor- tant wisdom that can guide us through the difficult challenges we face today. The Buddhist tradition is particularly rich in its under- standing of the interdependence of people and nature, an emphasis reflected in the strong ethical admonition to respect all life and refrain from killing. Buddhism is also very sophisticated in its treatment of desire, the fundamental driver in consumerism. W esterners today seem to be finding Buddhist contemplative practices useful in slowing down the helter-skelter pace of modern electronic life. Such reflective time is almost certainly necessary to make the deep changes required by the global environmental crisis at hand.

The principles and stories in this book arise from my own spiritual commitment to Buddhist practice. I have been a student of Zen Buddhism for most of my life, having benefited from the great flowering of Buddhism in America in the late twentieth century. As I began my academic career, the scholarly held addressing religion and environment was just emerging. Because of my practice background in Buddhism, I was often asked to provide a Buddhist perspective on environmental questions. Much of my writing over the past twenty years has contributed to the held of Buddhist environmental thought. At the same time I have been teaching college students introductory and elective courses in environmental studies, staying up-to-date with the latest issues and approaches to environmental problem-solving. My approach to these concerns is both contemplative and pragmatic.

I have come to my own green practice path as an environmental educator, a professor, a writer, and an advocate for sustainability. Since the hrst Earth Day in 1970 ,1 have been an environmentalist in one form or another, often as a teacher taking up the job of promoting environmental awareness. My work is deeply satisfying—it is a life-calling, and I am grateful that over these many years I have been able to share my environmental concerns with young people, ac-

tivists, colleagues, and readers far and wide. I am also grateful for all my colleagues who keep us moving forward. I see this book as yet another opportunity to pass the green spark on to others, especially those who will follow me in this work.

It is my hope that the ideas, tools, and practices presented in this book can be of benefit to anyone passionate about saving the planet. In my own life these principles and practices give me strength to continue this work and share it with others. This book is an explo- ration of my personal sense of the green path ; it is only one view. There are many ways to express and act on our love for the earth, our home. May these ideas be of use and may the merit of this work serve the many beings we live with here on this beautiful and fragile blue pearl.









'

PART ONE

Seeking Green Principles

Reducing Ha rm

to get our bearings on the path, it is helpful to have some compass points for orientation. The first three chapters of this book consider principles that provide an ethical foundation and a pragmatic direction for the green path. Foremost of these is the commitment to reduce harm wherever possible. We begin by looking at the nature of environmental harm and exploring choices to reduce that harm. Offering kindness becomes a core practice of non-harming, a way to be with the suffering of the natural world, hard as this may seem. To gain a wisdom perspective on harm and suffering, the third chapter takes up the deep view based on interdependence. With ethical principles and systems thinking to guide us, we can have a certain measure of confidence in setting out on the path.

REDUCING HARM

The Dalai Lama often opens his speeches by saying, “Everyone wants to be happy. No one wants to be unhappy.” Stemming from this statement is much of the world s moral and religious philosophy. Another way to put this is, “Everyone wants to be unharmed. No one wants to be harmed.” All beings, from baby grasshoppers to

giant redwood trees and people the world over, would prefer to be safe, to be free from harm, injury, violence, and suffering, to be af lowed to live their lives in peace. Nobody really wants to be hurt, abused, or threatened in any way.

The Christian principle of reducing harm is contained in the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In 1993 the Parliament of the World’s Religions proclaimed this moral code of reciprocity or mutual respect to be the common basis for a global human ethic. For Hindus, this is expressed as the practice of ahirnsa, or nomharming—that is, taking up the path of not causing harm. In Buddhism, monks and laypeople take vows to “save all sen- tient beings from suffering.” Reducing harm through mutual respect is a central ethical principle in all religious and ethical traditions because it is fundamental to keeping human societies functional and not self-destructive. It is difficult for people and their support systems to thrive if everyone is hurting each other all the time.

This same logic can be extended to human relations with ecological systems. It is difficult for ecosystems to thrive and for people to thrive in them if plants and animals, groundwater, streams, mountains, oceans, and air are constantly under assault. Damaged support systems don’t work as effectively as healthy systems. They are less resilient, less capable, and less functional overall. Human beings trying • to live in damaged or ailing ecosystems don’t do well either. They pick up waterborne disease from polluted streams. They struggle with asthma from poor air quality. They are vulnerable to extreme weather events from climate change.

So what does it mean to reduce harm ? How can such a principle work when applied in a practical situation ? How would one use such a guideline to be a good ecological citizen ? As you would imagine, most environmental questions do not have simple answers. We don’t always know when harm is being done, and even when we can see there is harm, we don’t always know what the cause is. And further, there may be many reasons why it is difficult to reduce the

Reducing Harm

harm that is happening. Choosing the ethical path of reducing harm turns out to be a complex and demanding practice. But that should not discourage us. Many wisdom traditions have prepared the way for this practice, and we can work with welf proven methods to help us along the path.

DEGREES OF HARM

In any given situation, people try to work out a way to get what they need without causing too many repercussions. We are constantly evaluating trade-offs and potential risks to minimize harm to ourselves as well as others with whom we have ongoing relations. We learn to do this in our family settings as we cope with household stress while keeping our safety intact. We maintain polite protocols to be good neighbors even ifwe disagree on politics. This balancing act reflects our evolutionary development as social animals; there are many good sociobiological reasons for being well-practiced at evaluating the potential for harm. Those who do this well assure both their own well-being and the well-being of their kin. Since this process of discrimination is already well developed, we can use it to help us on the green practice path. In order to reduce environmental harm, we must be able to identify it and then evaluate our own contribution to that harm.

Everyone has to eat, so this is a good place to practice looking for environmental harm and checking our participation in that harm. By “practice,” I mean engaging the questions around harming for a period of time and asking them over and over in different contexts. It is a form of discipline, remembering that this is what you are trying to do, bringing your attention back to the questions with a fresh mind again and again. Practicing with food presents an opportunity for mindfulness because so much of our time is spent in obtaining, preparing, and consuming food. When we stop to consider how much

harm is involved in growing or making our food, we can make more informed choices about what we eat and what degrees of harm we will embrace.

Let’s explore several ways of evaluating degrees of harm in food. Looking at the broad picture, we can measure the various environ- mental impacts generated by the growing and processing the major food groups. Fortunately for us, the Union of Concerned Scientists has already done this research, laying down reliable benchmarks based on scientific analysis. These are outlined in their book The Consumers Guide to Effective Environmental Choices . 1

The authors considered 120 types of environmental impacts and then consolidated this list to six primary concerns: air and water pollution, land use, solid and hazardous waste, and climate change. They then examined U.S. national data for producing all of our food sources—fruits, vegetables, grains, meat. They were able to show which impacts were associated with each type of food production. Their study indicates that meat production is the leading cause of agricultural water pollution. This is because cows and hogs are fattened for slaughter in large feedlots and their manure runs off into the groundwater, polluting nearby streams and lakes. Production of grains and vegetables takes its toll on soil health and habitat biodiversity. So we can use factual data to measure the types and degrees of harming— in the arena of food production and other areas as well.

Another way to evaluate harm is to examine the impacts on individual plants and animals that we choose to consume. Many people are concerned about the treatment of animals in the industrial food system, which causes distress and suffering for the animals. Classic philosophical arguments for vegetarianism point out that animals have awareness and intelligence, that they experience physical and emotional suffering as we do. The infliction of cruelty and suffering- such as clipping hogs’ tails, cutting chicks’ beaks, or branding the hides of cattle—are standard operations in domestic meat production. Animals experience further anxiety and stress from being crowded

Reducing Harm

in small cages or packed into trucks for long-distance transport. Calves and piglets are often traumatically separated from their mothers before weaning. If you eat meat, you can evaluate which of these types of harming is acceptable to you. If you want to reduce harm to the soil and groundwater as well as to individual animals, you can reduce the amount of meat you eat. The Union of Concerned Scientists strongly recommends cutting back on meat consumption to directly reduce both animal suffering and environmental degradation.

Evaluating harm to plants is more difficult because we don’t understand how plants experience harm. We know that poor soil, lack of water, and overharvesting can leave plants weak and nutrient- deficient. But do plants suffer in the same way if their evolutionary integrity is altered through genetic engineering? Does mono-cropping harm plants or soils or both? With the rise of the organic farming movement, green consumers looking to reduce harm choose organic over conventional produce options. They reason that organic plants have been better nourished by the soil and perhaps also more lovingly cared for by the farmer, at least in small-scale operations. Workers on industrial-scale organic farms, however, may not hold such intimate relations with their crops.

Another way to evaluate degree of harm is in terms of the eater, rather than the eaten. Meat-intensive diets have been correlated with high rates of human heart disease and cancers of the digestive tract. Some vegetarians have turned away from meat to protect their health and avoid meat-associated medical risks. Studies now show that hormones used in beef production can affect human reproductive development, causing early puberty and male infertility. The heavy use of antibiotics in conventional meat and dairy operations is a human health concern as well, undercutting the effectiveness of these valuable drugs in treating human infection. Reducing harm to ourselves is a viable and important aspect of reducing environmental impact, reflecting the recognition that we too are part of the environment that is under siege.

We can also consider degrees of harm relative to spiritual well' being. In many world and indigenous religious traditions, abstaining from meat is a common practice in cultural ceremonies or as train- ing in self discipline. Practicing restraint requires constant vigilance and the tempering of deeply conditioned appetites. Buddhists and Hindus emphasize the merit gained from cumulative acts of compassion in relation to animals. They further believe that a meat-free diet generates a calmer mind, more disposed toward equanimity and patience and therefore less likely to harm others.

In the last few years a new criterion has arisen for evaluating harm: the distance a food has traveled from production to market. The harm, in this case, is to our climate, since long shipping distances contribute significantly to the carbon emissions impact of food products. Farmers’ markets across the nation have been promoting “loca- vore” campaigns, challenging people to eat 10 or 20 percent of their diet from local foods only. Authors Barbara Kingsolver and Gary Nabhan have taken on the experiment of eating 100 percent locally in their Midwest and desert regions, inspiring others with their stories. In this measure, degree of harm reflects the number of food miles associated with a specific food. We can choose to reduce our diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by eating locally and cutting down on food miles.

NO UNNECESSARY HARM

Evaluating harm in these specific ways takes research and self- reflection. In most cases, the information we need to make sound ethical decisions is not available on the food labels. Our choices often must be based on incomplete knowledge and some amount of guesswork. For some people, animal suffering is the most significant harm; others are concerned more with harm to soil and climate. It is not possible to stay up-to-date on every bit of product information

in order to reduce harm. The Buddhist poet Gary Snyder offers an- other approach based broadly on what we might call “whole earth thinking.” He speaks of the necessity of eating as an opportunity for spiritual practice, where everyday actions are the manifestation of your personal ethics. The green practice path becomes less a process of changing the foods we eat but of eating with a larger view, trans- forming our inner orientation to eating. For Snyder, this larger view is “one that can acknowledge the simultaneous pain and the beauty of this complexly interrelated real world .” 2 In his wily Zen way, Sny- der urges us to face the fact that causing harm is necessary for us to live. There is no harmTree lunch. We all participate in the big story of eating and being eaten. There is no way to escape this fact. If our spiritual goal is to reduce harm in the world, we must ask some hard questions: What do I actually need? What is myfair shared How do my choices impact the food available to others?

Questions like these are not meant to be answered quickly or com- pletely. Any single answer is bound to be inadequate. Choosing vege- tarianism, for example, is not a final or complete answer to the harm associated with food. Body needs change over time; a colder climate may require you to eat more warming, higffprotein foods such as meat. Choosing to eat locally may work well in summer, but do you have the time to can and freeze enough food to get through winter? The point is to ask these hard questions with full attention and see where they lead you, being ethical but also realistic. In Zen this sort of question is called a koan, a continually unfolding puzzle that takes more than mental effort to answer. You live with a koan, you wrestle with it, you get stumped by it, you have sudden breakthroughs with it—all with the question burrowing itself into you like an irritating thorn. The path of “committing no unnecessary harm,” as Snyder puts it, is riddled with such questions. If you come to answers too quickly, you will have missed the deeper insight hidden in the questions.

As an ethical foundation for the green practice path, finding ways to reduce harm in all aspects of our lives is imperative. We

have been considering the fundamental activity of eating as one place to evaluate harm, but we could look at any of our activities and take up the same questions. You could examine your use of water or the disposal of your waste, investigating which lands and waters are affected, which neighborhoods suffer. Then you would wrestle with other questions: How much water do I need? What is the cost of my waste? Who on the planet is affected by my needsfor water and my production of waste ? Keeping a firm focus on reducing harm in all of our activities can provide a strong moral compass for the green practice path. “Compass” is a useful metaphor here, for we can only aim in the right direction and then do the best we can. There are no absolute answers waiting for us; as poet Rainer Maria Rilke has said, we must “learn to love the questions.”

Sometimes it can be helpful to raise these questions with other people who are also seeking viable alternatives to causing harm. I think of my colleagues at the Center for Whole Communities who are working hard to craft real-life answers to these questions. Every summer, groups of land conservation professionals, environmental advocates, and community organizers come to Knoll Farm in Vermont for weeklong retreats in “whole thinking.” The center is committed to caring for the land and maintaining a working farm on the property. The closely run operation depends on constant input and reflection from the staff Guests are invited to participate in this reflection across the week through dialogue discussions supported by meditation. The days schedule begins and ends in silence, providing plenty of space for considering less harmful ways of living.

At the straw-bale bathhouse, retreatants find instructions in minimizing harm by practicing attention to water. The convivial rounded hall was built of mud and straw and decorated with stained glass; its beauty is a testimony to the loving hands that shaped it. Standing by the woodstove and lanterns, you sense that you would not want to cause any harm to the spirit of the place through your own carelessness. Small signs in the restrooms remind people to conserve water,

Reducing Harm

since the solar pump can only move water uphill at the modest rate of one gallon per minute. The showers have been left open to the sky, evoking Gary Snyder’s big view of the universe. This, too, contributes to reducing harm through appreciation of our place in the very wide universe.

Whole thinking retreats ask participants to consider how the land is harmed by people and also how people harm each other in the process ofbeing careless about their impact on the environment. The Center for Whole Communities is dedicated to raising chah lenging questions about diversity and justice in land-protection eft forts. Knoll Farm retreat groups purposely include urban gardeners or advocates for environmental justice from culturally and racially diverse backgrounds. These environmental leaders are protecting open spaces and community gardens in urban areas, often with little economic or political support. They are quick to point out the priv' ileges and benefits that come with race, class, or gender status. Not everyone has the same opportunities to make choices to reduce harm. The koan of “no unnecessary harm”must also include the harm to feft low human beings who work as laborers harvesting crops or line workers in the slaughterhouse. How do we understand the harm we consume that is tied up with human sweat?

The underlying curriculum in every aspect of Knoll Farm is this consideration of harm. Teachers encourage retreatants to look closely at these problems in a calm and present way. This is very helpful for sorting out degrees of harm. People are asked to consider these questions, among others: What is the nature of environmental and human harm ? How does it impact workers and families ? How is the harm manifested? Can it be reduced or moderated? The am swers are arrived at collectively, through mutual support in dialogue conversations, with everyone’s experience becoming a piece of the whole. The hope is that people will carry this curriculum back to their own lives and let it enliven their work in the world.

The staff at Knoll Farm draw on the teachings of Buddhism and

other wisdom streams to invite a deeper sense of personal reflection when considering degrees of harm. In Buddhist spiritual practice, monks work with nomharming by taking vows to uphold specific ethical guidelines to the best of their ability. The first of these formal precepts is stated unequivocally: do not kill. It is considered a serious ethical injunction, aimed at protecting life. The other core precepts build on this first command, pointing to the root of Buddhist under- standing: all things are related and interdependent. To protect the life of others is to protect your own life. Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh has phrased this precept with strong guiding language to help his students with their practice.

Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I vow to cultivate compassion and learn ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life . 3

The verbs in this passage are important: “vow” means “I commit to giving this my full intention”; “learn ways” means “I still have much to find out about taking care of life.” This orientation suggests an openheartedness, a sense of being willing to try hard, given that we don’t have all the answers and never will. Thich Nhat Hanh sees the precepts not as a set of rules but rather as an ethical compass providing guidance for our actions. If we take this precept seriously, it becomes clear that “no unnecessary harm” applies not only to all living beings and the earth but also to our own minds and thoughts.

The practice of non-harming, or aiming to reduce harm wherever possible, is not a trivial undertaking. I believe this is a central ethical guideline on the green practice path. In the northern Buddhist tradition, non-harming is known as the great vow, the bodhi- sattva vow. A bodhisattva is a “heroic benefactor” and guide, an archetype of liberating energy, a figure who embodies tremendous

Reducing Harm

motivation for helping others . 4 Bodhisattvas are radiant, enlighten- ing beings that exist in myriad forms, appearing as needed in any given situation. The bodhisattva vow is the pledge to reduce suffering and to care for all beings in whatever way possible. The full scope of bodhisattva practice includes but also extends broadly beyond environmental concerns to address harming in all its manifestations. Making such a pledge is a statement of intention; the pledge itself helps to strengthen that intention.

An “ecosattva” is one form of bodhisattva—someone who cares deeply about all beings and the health of the planet and is willing to take action after action to help all beings thrive. This word was first coined by Buddhist activists in northern California engaged in forest protection actions. One of the most beloved bodhisattvas in the Buddhist tradition, Jizo, embodies this definition of an ecosattva. Jizo is known as a protector of vulnerable children and travelers, willing to go to the ends of the world to help those who are suffering. His name means “earth storehouse” or “earth womb.” Sometimes called the “earth mother” bodhisattva, Jizo’s vow is filled with tenderness and compassion. He makes it seem possible to continue to engage these tough questions in everyday real life. We can look to ecosattvas in real life for inspiration to keep going with the endless work before us.

OFFERING KINDNESS

The Dalai Lama often tells people, “I am a simple monk, that is all. I only wish to practice kindness.” Although he holds the highest degrees in Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and is recognized as a world religious leader, he insists his central practice is to offer kindness to himself and to others. This is really the heart of non-harming. Kindness is the balm for alleviating suffering; offering kindness is a way of practicing non-harming. Here, surely, is something that applies in all situations of environmental concern. How can we find a way to

offer kindness that will reduce the suffering of trees or birds or peo- pie on the land ? How can kindness help mitigate conflicts between opposing parties ? How can the practice of kindness make life more sustainable for those committed to environmental work ?

Reducing harm is not something that is done only in situations “out there.” It is internal work, too, a practice in reducing harm to body and mind. This precious self the one who wants to be a good eco-neighbor on this planet, the one who struggles with these dilemmas, he or she, too, is in need ofkindness. Practicing kindness to yourself is essential in taking up the path of non-harming. It will not be possible to solve all of the earths environmental problems in one lifetime. If you choose to take up the green path, you must settle in for the long haul and rest in the practice itself. A strong wish for the welf being of others can then be grounded and reinforced in a strong wish for your own well-being. This is not really being selfish, it is being practical. The less energy that is bound up in negative thought patterns or personal distress, the more energy is available for serving others. The greater the care you give yourself the more you will be able to take on challenges for others. The more clear and calm your mind, the more you will be able to see how to act ethically in a given situation.

Environmental work is not an easy path. It brings up all our concerns for the very flourishing of life on this planet. Reducing harm, taking up the path of not killing—this is a place to begin, a life practice that is espoused by all the world’s great philosophical and religious traditions. It is wise but practical, too. And no one is left out. Offering up the great bodhisattva vow of intention, we can face fearlessly into each environmental concern, looking for ways to offer kindness and sooth suffering. The practice itself is about staying present, one action at a time, always asking, What is the kind thing to do now ?

with all our best efforts, it will still be impossible to eliminate all of the harm being done to the world. The scale of envi' ronmental suffering is too widespread and too deeply entrenched. Many of today s predicaments were set in motion long before our time. Many situations are simply out of our control. While we can do our best to reduce the harm associated with our own actions, we are limited in how much we can reduce the extensive harm caused by others. Even if we convert our homes to solar energy, it will be a long time before the coal mining scars are healed. Even if we stop eating meat, factory farms will continue to harm the environment, and animals will still be slaughtered for human use. How do we cope with this understanding? How do we respond to the large- scale harm being done to the earth ? In this chapter we look at how to witness the suffering of the earth, trace the causes of suffering, and cultivate a compassionate heart on the green practice path.

THREATS TO LIFE

Today we look around the world and there is no shortage of environmental suffering. Strip-mining for coal now destroys whole

J 5

mountains in West Virginia, filling valley streams with sludge and people’s homes with toxic waste. Millions of used computers are shipped to China, where valuable parts are stripped out as people breathe acid fumes; useless material is dumped in nearby waterways. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean a floating waste dump the size of Texas collects billions of pieces of plastic debris—false “food” that attracts animals from up and down the ocean food chain. When we see or hear of this scale of suffering we have a very natural response: Oh no! This is not good! We sense the harm as a threat to life and the well-being of the world. We feel compelled to block the threat for our own safety or somehow reduce its impact. This response is very much at the root of the modern environmental movement.

The environmental activism of the 1960s arose out of a collective response to witnessing suffering and understanding the greater threats to all life on earth. We were all ecologically naive then, uninformed about the complicated biogeophysical relations that sustain life in all the world’s eco-regions. The earth seemed to absorb our human insults and continue to support life, as far as we could tell. We thought, Plow the soil intofarmland and it will grow food. Cut theJwest down and seedlings will sprout to form a new forest. In the United States, with all its spacious lands and abundant waters, a frontier mentality reigned right into the twentieth century. No matter what we did, most people were sure there would always be plenty to go around.

While 1 was in college in the 1960s, I thought I would try to ride my bike to Take Erie. I had come to Oberlin College from western Oregon and really had no idea what the Great Lakes were. I pedaled with some anticipation through the cornfields of northern Ohio, enjoying the fresh air and local apple stands. But when I finally arrived at the shore, I was horrified. Hundreds, maybe thousands of dead fish lined the edge of the water. As far as I could see were piles after piles of stinky fish. What were they doing there ? Why were they dead? I felt sick to my stomach and angry all at once. What could possibly have caused such an upheaval of death in this

lake ? I knew that something was very wrong here, but I did not know what to do or who to tell about it. My innocent bike ride turned into an ecological epiphany.

That vivid image was soon upstaged by newspaper photos of the Cuyahoga River on fire. How could a river burn ? Were things that bad ? I signed up for the first ecology course offered at Oberlin; maybe this new science would explain what was going on. Ecologists were documenting the complex and highly evolved patterns of biological relations in land and water systems, throwing out many previous as- sumptions about the natural world. I found out that I was not the only one who was concerned about impacts on the environment. Senior scientists were sounding the alarm, speaking out on popula- tion growth, air pollution, the increasing pressures on earth systems. These concerns built on the fears unleashed by the shocking de- struction of World War II. We now knew that atomic bombs could destroy all life on earth. We now knew that people could carry out unspeakable atrocities such as Auschwitz. Innocence around the world was shaken by these extremes, throwing people off once-solid moorings, exposing the true human capacity for destruction. No one said anything about the impact on non-human life, but there it was: we could destroy that too. Was the human race a scourge on the earth?

The strong stirrings of concern for the environment in the 1960s were galvanized by this sense of threat. As each new loss or harm was exposed, the scale of urgency seemed to multiply. The prosperity of postwar times spurred energy and transportation development and increased production of consumer goods. As demand for resources escalated, ecosystems were under assault everywhere, especially in the western United States. The Sierra Club launched a campaign to save the stark redstone beauty of the Southwest from hydroelectric energy projects. “Save Glen Canyon" became the rallying cry in an effort to hold back the engines of the industrial economy. Despite extensive promotion and political lobbying, environmentalists failed to stop the damming of the canyon. To people’s great

Contents

SEEKING GREEN PRINCIPLES

FOLLOWING THE GREEN PATH

ACTING ON GREEN VALUES

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Reducing Ha rm