Environment or earth sangha: Buddhist perspectives on our global ecological well-being
Environment or earth sangha: Buddhist perspectives on our global ecological well-being
复制标题
环境或地球僧伽：佛教对全球生态福祉的看法
DOI：
10.1080/14639940701636117
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Ruben L. F. Habito
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ruben L. F. Habito
佛教是否支持和促进对我们生态福祉的积极关注，这一问题仍然是一个令人感兴趣的主题，特别是在媒体报道增加的情况下，我们对全球生态问题及其日益恶化的状况的认识有所提高。伊恩·哈里斯（Ian Harris）调查了当代佛教对生态问题的态度，他根据宗教间的来源列出了四种类型，他将其分类为生态灵性、生态正义、生态传统主义和生态护教（Harris 1995）。他列举了这些类型的例子，同时注意到每一种理论的不一致和缺陷，他特别批评并相当轻视第四类，指出这类作品往往“采用一种鼓舞人心的语气，这种语气来自一种假设，通常没有任何文本，历史或文化证据支持，即佛教和环境伦理的兼容性是一个不言而喻的事实”。（Harris，1995，第181页）。哈里斯在批判他所描述的各种方法时所表达的意图是“帮助构建一个真正的佛教环境伦理”（Harris 1995，184），此后他也做出了进一步的贡献（Harris 1997，2000，2001）。自哈里斯1995年的论文发表以来，许多出版的著作都是关于“佛教与环境伦理学”或“佛教与生态学”的，对文本、历史、文化、哲学和其他与此相关的方面给予了应有的关注，为生态问题提供了批判性和建设性的观点。这些较近期的著作提升了关于这一主题的论述水平，并丰富了我们在一个领域的资源，我们可以暂时谨慎地称之为“佛教生态神学”。值得注意的是，“佛教神学”一词是由两个著名的佛教学者约翰·马克兰斯基和罗杰·杰克逊（杰克逊和马克兰斯基2000）在学术界提出的。一些佛教学者和/或实践者可能会反对这个术语，指出术语theos（“神”或“上帝”）不适用于佛教语境。然而，把“神学”作为一门涉及“宗教内部的智力反思”的学科，
The question of whether Buddhism supports and fosters an active concern for our ecological well-being continues to be a theme of lively interest, especially given the heightened awareness, helped by increased media coverage, of our global ecological malaise and its deteriorating situation. Contemporary Buddhist approaches to the ecological question were surveyed by Ian Harris, who lined up a fourfold typology based on interreligious sources, which he classifies as eco-spirituality, eco-justice, eco-traditionalism, and eco-apologetics (Harris 1995). Naming examples of these types while noting theoretical inconsistencies and deficiencies in each, he is particularly critical and rather dismissive of the fourth category, noting that works of this kind often ‘adopt an inspirational tone that proceeds from an assumption, generally not supported by any textual, historical or cultural evidence, that the compatibility of Buddhism and environmental ethics is a self-evident fact’ (Harris 1995, 181). Harris’ expressed intent in critiquing the various approaches he has described is to ‘aid in the construction of an authentic Buddhist environmental ethic’ (Harris 1995, 184), to which he has since also made further contributions (Harris 1997, 2000, 2001). Since Harris’ 1995 essay, a number of published works have appeared on ‘Buddhism and Environmental Ethics,’ or ‘Buddhism and Ecology,’ giving due attention to textual, historical, cultural, philosophical, and other aspects relevant to the matter, offering both critical as well as constructive perspectives on the ecological question. These more recent works have advanced the level of discourse on the theme, and have enriched our resources in an area that we could, tentatively and cautiously, refer to as ‘Buddhist eco-theology.’ By way of note, the term ‘Buddhist Theology’ has been proposed for use in academic circles by two well-regarded scholars of Buddhism, John Makransky and Roger Jackson (Jackson and Makransky 2000). Some scholars and/or practitioners of Buddhism may object to this terminology, pointing out that the term theos (‘god’ or ‘God’) is inapplicable in the Buddhist context. However, taking ‘theology’ as an academic discipline involving ‘intellectual reflection within a religious