ECOLOGY AND
DIALOGUE The ecological crisis in its
present form is a new phenomenon: it has to do with the spread of
industrialisation, urbanisation, overpopulation and exploitation of the
earth. We cannot expect traditional
religions anywhere to offer us either a theology anywhere to offer us either a
theology or a praxis directly addressing the human-induced ecological collapse
that we anticipate in the near future.
What we can do is to highlight some basic religious attitudes that would
be helpful in supporting, with philosophical and theological arguments, a
contemporary ecology needed to save the earth.
This observation of Kalus K.
Klostermaier adds
weight to a discussion on “Dialogue and Ecology”. These are two concepts very
much in use today: the former in the context of the accepted fact of ‘religious
pluralism’ – each religion having its own traditions, identity and each
wielding tremendous influence on those who subscribe to its faith; and the
latter, in the context of the ecological crisis of which we hear and read every
day. Though apparently unrelated concepts, in fact, these two are very much
related to each other. It is my firm conviction that inter-religious dialogue
can certainly lead to some sound praxis as regards issues related to ecological
crisis are concerned. On the other hand,
a dialogue on ecological aspects of religions and concrete action in this field
would lead us to the actual goal of dialogue – ‘ecumenism’.
However, since ‘dialogue’ and
‘ecology’ are two very vast subjects, it would be wiser to restrict the scope
of this reflection, by concentrating on ‘Hindu-Christian Dialogue, in the
context of the Ecological Crisis in India Today’.
Before going into the details the
terms are to be clarified.
Dialogue: Literally, it
means a two-way communication or talk.
Technically, it is used to mean discussion between any two partiesdes:
“Dialogue can be understood in different ways.
Firstly, at the purely human level, it means reciprocal communion. Secondly, dialogue can be taken as an
attitude of respect and friendship…This can be appropriately called ‘the spirit
of dialogue’. Thirdly, in the context of
religious plurality, dialogue means ‘all positive and constructive
inter-religious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths
which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment”.,
in obedience to truth and respect for freedom.
It includes both witness and the exploration of respective religious
convictions.”
The Goal of Dialogue: From
the description given above we find that dialogue aims at (i) knowing and
understanding each other’s views on crucial issues, (ii) finding out
commonalities between the parties concerned, (iii) sorting out differences, if
possible, and (iv) finding out areas of mutual cooperation. Going further, the
goal of dialogue can be termed ‘Ecumenism’.
Dialogue in India: Dialogue
with believers of other religions is not something new for Christians in India.
The St. Thomas Christians lived in cultural and existential dialogue with the
surrounding religious groups, as can be seen from many of the liturgical and
popular religious customs which they have adopted from the local
religio-cultural traditions, which they have preserved in their own
fashion. The western missionary
endeavours, though generally were anti-dialogical, the example of Robert de
Nobili stands out as something unique in the field of Hindu-Christian dialogue.
Later on, with the growth of Oriental Scholarship, Max Muller, K.N. Banerjee (a
Brahmin who accepted the Christian faith), T.E. Slater, J.N. Farquhar, P.
Chenchiah, A.J. Appasamy and C.F. Andrews laid the foundation for
Hindu-Christian dialogue in India. Among Catholics, Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya (a
Bengali Christian, who held that he was “a Hindu by birth, a Christian by
rebirth”), J. Monchanin, Abhishiktananda, Bede Griffiths and a few others
creatively contributed to this field. The fruit of the efforts of these
pioneers is seen in decrees nos. 24 and 25 of the first plenary council of
India in 1950 and
more boldly, in the Declaration of the All India Seminar in Bangalore in 1969:
We wish to be in the contact and
communion with other religions of our
country, which we value for their great contribution to the spiritual treasure
of mankind… we now invite them to a common witness of the transcendent destiny
of man in our present crisis of modernisation and secularisation…
Further, in 1974, the mind of the
CBCI on dialogue with the members of other religions was expressed thus:
In view of the fact that India
has nurtured several of the world’s great religions, the Church in India is
called upon to be an earnest pioneer in the inter-religious dialogue. It is the
response of Christian faith to God’s saving presence in other religions and the
expression of the firm hope of their fulfilment in Christ. Done in a spirit of fraternity, dialogue is a
mutual communication and sharing of religious experience, of spiritual and
moral values, enriching both the partners in a communion that seeks to foster
unity among people and promote the good things found among them.
In spite of the momentum given to
it by the ecumenical movement as a result of Vatican II, dialogue between
Hinduism and Christianity has remained at the peripheral level. Of course, the
Christians adapted some traditional Hindu/Indian architectural models for their
places of worship, and used a few Hindu scriptural passages for their
liturgical services, there had been some discussions between the intellectuals
of both religions, some praying together. There it all ended. It never became a
concern for people at large.
My reflections led me to conclude
that intellectualism devoid of action dominated the dialogue framework. By
action, I imply real action, in which all parties concerned can become involved
and can contribute their share. For that we must have a field of common
interest – this could be anything ranging from the eradication of poverty to the
spread of literacy or enhanced livelihood options. But these were not given serious
consideration ever. However, in the
present context of ecological crisis, especially on account of the urgency for
finding a solution, I think, a golden opportunity is offered to us to work
together. This leads us to a brief discussion on Ecology and ecological crisis.
Ecology: The word
‘ecology’ is a word brought into currency in the late 1930s by the famous
writer H.G. Wells (The Shape of Things to Come), and has caught on only by the
1970s, i.e., within the framework of environmental questions.
Etymologically it means ‘science of the home’ (from Greek ‘oikos’ = home and
‘logos’ = science). In other words, a
science which studies about cosmos which our (the entire classes of living
beings inhabiting it) common home.
Oxford Learners’ Dictionary defines ecology as ‘the branch of Biology
that deals with the habits of living beings, especially in their relationship
to their environment’.
Other Related Terms:
Eco-system: Ecological
systems are inter-related, inter-dependent and inter-penetrating systems,
dwelling in a given environment. They
share resources with each other and sustain and uphold each other.
Ecological Principle: The presence and success of any organism or a
group of organisms depend on a complex of conditions. Any condition that
approaches or exceeds the limits of tolerance is said to be a limiting
condition or a limiting factor.
Ecological Crisis: All
know that there is an ecological crisis.
It is a multifaceted phenomenon resulting from overpopulation,
industrial over-production, indiscrete exploitation of natural resources,
excessive consumerism resulting from a totally anthropocentric vision of this
world, and due to careless dumping of organic, and industrial wastes into the
environment.
Ecological Problems: The complex
phenomenon that ecological crisis is, it presents itself through the following
problems:
i)
Abuse of nature and injustice to life on earth
ii)
The biological system loses its capacity to care
for itself.
iii)
Forest resources are getting exhausted.
iv)
Small farmers are forced into marginal lands.
v)
The rich and the poor gap widens
vi)
Waste and poison exceed nature’s capacity to
absorb them.
vii) The greenhouse effect causing global warming
effecting rise in sea level and irrevocable climatic changes.
viii)
Wholesale destruction of various species due to
the destruction of their ecosystems, which is the result of the pollution or
destruction of a conducive environment.
Even without an analysis of the
crisis, one can understand the gravity of the situation. Everyone is informed about the need to act.
But the fable question often has no takers: ‘Who will bell the cat?’. However,
in this crisis situation, religions indeed can bell the cat or even tie it
down, if religions are means of well-being and channels to the ultimate good.
Inter-religious dialogue can play a worth-while role to bring about Ecumenism
Ecumenism: Goal of Dialogue
and Solution to the Eco-crisis
The post-Vatican era saw the
growth in attempts in the direction of Ecumenism. Generally, it was construed as a movement for
the union of the various Christian churches, in advanced theological
discussions, it also meant efforts tot enhance true human relationships,
irrespective of caste and creed, colour and nationality. An etymological analysis of the word will
give us a deeper understanding of the word, which certainly can be of great
importance in our present discussion.
The word ‘ecumenism’ is derived
from the Greek word ‘oikumene’ which means ‘the inhabited earth’. Now ‘oikumene’ itself is a noun form deriving
from the Greek noun ‘oikos’ which means ‘home’.
On the basis of this etymological analysis, we can define ecumenism as
‘a movement which stands and works for an understanding of this our inhabited
earth as our home’. The word ‘our’ means
all human beings. Such an ecumenism is
regarded as the goal of dialogue.
In order that this goal of
dialogue becomes the solution to the ecological malaise, the understanding of
the concept of ‘ecumenism’ is to be deepened further. For this, a totally
anthropocentric vision is to be transcended and a biocentric, or rather, a cosmo-centric
vision is to be attained. “Between humans and nature stand animals and other
biological forms of life. Tangible respect for them becomes an important part
of this understanding of ecumenism. Dr
Charles Hartshorne (Logic of Perfection:309) observes: Human values emerge (in
the Cosmos), sure enough but are there not simian values, amoebic values – and
who dares to assign a first level of values?”
If understood in this sense,
ecumenism should go beyond the idea of a ‘global village’ and reach the ideal
of ‘earth is my family’ (vasudhaiva kutumbakam). The terms like ‘bhumi mata’ (mother
earth) quite familiar to the Indian mind, are gaining currency all over the
world.
True ecumenism, hence, implies
the acceptance of this world as our home and all the members of this planet
earth, from human beings to tin microbes
or even inanimate objects, elements of the earth etc. as closely related to and
dependent on each other. In this home,
‘live and help live’ or ‘be and help be’ becomes the motto. Viewed from this
angle, ecumenism embraces relationships between human beings, between humans
and their environment, living organisms and the elemental universe… the
relationships between all beings on this cosmos which is their oikos (home). Working for the preservation, betterment and
transformation of this common home can be a field of interest to all human
beings, irrespective of their creed and culture. This ecumenism which is the true goal of
dialogue, can certainly be a solution to the most vexing crisis of our times,
the ecological crisis.
Now to the central theme of the
discussion: Hindu Christian dialogue and ecological crisis in the Indian
context today. This can be dealt with
in two sections, viz., (i) an effort to identify concepts and themes linked to
ecology in both the traditions, and (ii) possibilities of concrete action in
this regard.
Today, thinking people have come
to accept the fact there ‘it is not any particular form of religion, but
religion itself which is on trial in the modern world, and only an ecumenical
movement among religions, each learning to accept and appreciate the truth and
holiness’ and authentic ecological values ‘to be found in other religions, can
answer the need of religion today’ (Griffiths, 1982:22).
For a Christian…to enter into
dialogue with other religions is not easy.
Yet more and more the necessity for contact is being realised, and those
who attempt to do so are finding that dialogue, when properly understood, is
not a compromise with error but a process of enrichment by which each religion
opens itself to the truth to be found in the other religion, and the two
parties grow together in the common search for truth. Thus we begin to realise that truth is one,
but that it has many faces, and each religion is, as it were a face of the one
Truth, which manifests itself under different signs and symbols in the
different historical traditions
(Griffiths, 1982:24-25).’ Thus dialogue
on any aspect of truth is complementary and must eventually lead to mutual
enrichment and welfare of the cosmos.
Ecological Concerns in Hindu
and Christian Traditions
Idea of God: The Christian
conception of God is that of an utterly transcendent being, set over against
the world as its Creator and Lord and ruling its destiny from above. The spatial imagery is, of course, only
symbolic, but the concept is one of ultimate transcendence (Griffiths, 1982:
25). The result is seen in the negative
attitude towards this world, which is regarded as a hindrance in one’s ascent
to the transcendent God. In the past,
more often this world-denying aspect was stressed in the Christian
tradition.
The Hindu concept of God or the
Ultimate Reality, is that of an immanent power in nature and in man, hidden in
the heart of every creature. The figure
of Siva Nataraja, the Lord of the Dance, is perfect symbol of this. He creates, sustains and dissolves the world
with his rhythmic dance, and the whole cosmic order is nothing but this dance
of Siva. What is distinctive in this
vision is that God is conceived not so much above the universe as in it. As it is said in the Upanishads: ‘The God who
is in the fire, the God who is in the water, the God who has entered into the
world, the God who is in the plants and the trees, adoration to that God,
adoration to Him’ (Svetasvatara Upanisad 2:17).
This vision of God as immanent in human beings and in the world leads
the Hindu mind to look at the nature with awe and reverence. Hence, in India, everything in nature is
worshipped.
The other aspect of both
traditions has to be noted. It is true,
that in the Christian tradition, God is also conceived as immanent in nature, as
the ‘pan en theism’ presented by St Paul himself when he speaks about
God in everything and everything in God (I Cor.15:28).
On the other hand, Hinduism also
presents the world-denying aspect in the concept of ‘maya’ and also in
the various ascetical practices for which India is famous.
The difference is that of
emphasis. In the Christian tradition,
the starting point is the transcendent God and there is a gradual discovery of
the immanent God; the Hindu starts from the immanence of God; the Hindu starts
from the immanence of God and reaches towards his transcendence. It is a difference in approach. Each approach is complementary to the other
and opens up a different perspective (Griffiths, 1982:26).
Yet it must be admitted that
dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity has certainly helped Christianity to
re-discover the biblical understanding of god as present in His world (Jn 3:16)
and this has led Christianity to develop a more positive attitude towards this
world of cure, which is our home (Pathrapankal, 1971).
Concept of Man: In the apparently
anthropocentric Christian worldview, inspired by the creation story of the book
of Genesis, of man in the image and likeness of God, humankind is the crown of
creation the Genesis story of creation is the basis for this vision (Gen.
1:27). The Genesis text presents God’s
command to man ‘to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth’ (Gen. 1:28) and the text which
describes all other living creatures as means for human fulfilment has been
described as ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’ by Lynn White Jr
(Nelson, 1991).
While it can be argued that this understanding of ‘man’
as the centre of creation has certainly led to indiscreet exploitation of
nature, resulting in the present-day ecological crisis, it is also to be
pointed out that it was not necessarily the biblical text that was at the root
of the crisis; however, if accepted for an argument, a wrong understanding of
the same. It is debatable whether the insatiable thirst for more found in
humans across the world, but more especially in the domineering and innovating
West European, White, Christian male culture has to be attributed to Christian
interpretation of the Biblical text or something else. We see a similar dominating culture,
predominantly male, in pre-Christian Greece, Rome, Assyria and Babylonia – most
of them neither Christian nor Jewish.
In the Biblical text, if man is ordained to have dominion over nature,
he is also asked to protect it (cfr Pathrapankal, 1986:39-48) – he is asked to
name the creatures indicative of care and protection; in the devastating flood,
Noah is the representative of human race, entrusted with the care of not only
his family but of the entire range of species on earth (Gen. 7:2-3); Isaiah
(chapter 11) gives a beautiful description of the Lord’s reign in which man and
animals will live side by side peacefully; Jesus Christ himself was a man who
considered himself totally in the world and who drew inspiration to live a life
according to the will of God, the caring father of the entire cosmos (Mtt
6:25ff); St. Paul, the most prominent proponent of Christian faith in the
initial phase of the Christian movement, also sees man as part of this cosmos –
in his description of the groaning of the human beings, he also mentions the
groaning of the entire ktisis (material creation) which waits for
transformation along with that of the children (Rom 8:21; Pathrapankal,
1986). So the Bible has several passages
showing humans as part of the created nature, and in whom the responsibility to
protect, preserve, care for and transform the material creation of which they
are part, is placed. The discovery of
this dimension of human nature had to wait for the ecological crisis. The contribution of dialogue with religions
like Hinduism also has to be recognised in this connection.
In the Hindu worldview, the case
is different. Here, humans are not seen
as the centre of the created world. Rather,
the centre is the undefinable Brahman, the satyasya satyam (the truth of
truth) who is manifested as atman in the various beings (jiva). Human beings certainly have a dignified
position among the jivas, but they are only one among them. The punarjanma (rebirth) theory
enhances this concept (Kinsley, 1991).
In the next birth a human being could be an animal, a plant, an insect
or a micro-organism. In the infinite cycle of birth and rebirth, any jiva
could become any other jiva, depending on the karma, he or she
performs. Certainly, there are different
grades of life, of which that of a human being is considered the highest, and
Krsna teaches that the birth as a man is a very precious and rare gift of God. Yet there is the possibility for any jiva
to get out of the cycle of birth and rebirth, by performing its karma in
a detached manner.
This concept of human beings as
‘first among equals’ gives the Hindu mind a special reverence to all that is in
the nature of which they too are a part and into which they also could be born
again in the forms existing around them.
But their higher call is not disregarded: ‘…man, while he has to take
his place in a democracy of an indefinite number of living species, is
nonetheless not only their crown in an evolutionary-hierarchical sense but also
their priest, first fruit and spiritual guardian’ (Arapura, 1991:98).
Concept of Animals and Plants
(Cfr. Jaini, 1991): Though there is
the Biblical understanding of human beings as the crown of creation and the
rest of the created world with all its living beings as means for his
fulfilment, a modern Bible scholar can present many key passages in the Bible
which show animals and plants as God’s agents, doing God’s will and even
leading them to God. Thus we see the
donkey of prophet Balam in the biblical book of Numbers (chapters 22-24); the
whale in the Jonah story (Jon 2); the plant and the insect in the Jonah story
(Jon. 4); the crows in the Elijah story (I Kg 17); the bear in the Elisha story
(II Kg 2:14); the various living beings described in the psalms (Ps 104; 8);
the donkey in the glorious entry of Jesus into the town (Jn 12)… all these
denote the place of honour living beings other than humans have in the
Bible. Even Jesus himself used several
imageries of animals and birds to drive his message into the hearts of his
listeners.
But it is to be admitted that
this sort of understanding of the Bible is relatively of modern origin. The ecological crisis and inter-religious
dialogue have certainly contributed their share to the development of an
ecological re-reading of the Bible.
Hindu religious literature such
as Valmiki Ramayana, Bhagavatapurana, Jatakamala, Pannasa Jataka, Brhat-katha
Kosa of Harisena etc. give sufficient indication to the enviable position
animals, birds and plants had enjoyed in the Hindu world vision. The concept of ahimsa
is a direct outcome of this world vision.
Concept of the
World/Nature/Cosmos
We have already spoken about the
world-denying attitude which the traditional Christianity had fostered till the
middle of 20th century.
Certain texts in St. John’s and St. Paul’s writings
have been put to use to emphasise this worldview. There the world is described
as something evil, and hence despicable.
The Greek term ‘eion’, which means the values of the world such as
power-seeking, selfishness, egoism, pride and so on, was employed to denote
this. This sort of world is to be denied forever. Only thus can one affirm the world which God
so loved (cosmos) so as to give His only Son to redeem it (Jn 3:16). A world-denial of this sort can help men and
women to transform this world (ktisis – material creation), which is our
home, into a world of God. Such a
world-denial only can help one to transcend the world and go beyond to the God
who is in this world and who is beyond this world.
The modern Christian
understanding of the world is a world affirming one. It is based on the Biblical understanding of
the world which God created as good (Gen 1:31).
It is the sacred duty of human beings to take care of, preserve,
protect, and transform this common home into God’s own world (Gen 1:28;
Pathrapankal, 1982:26-30).
Indian ethics is fundamentally
cosmo-ethics, which means that the ethical norms are not necessarily those that
put the work of human beings exclusively at the centre of the scheme, as if the
environment or nature even when we seek to preserve it, must somehow,
primarily, serve human interests, chiefly the preservation of human species.
What the Indian cosmo-ethics has for its world is something indefinitely larger
than our planet, but that is so in principle. For, in fact, the planet earth (bhuloka)
with all forms of life in it, is its immediate world (Arapura, 1991).
And the Hindu perceives ‘this
world, verify, is Brahman’ (Chandogya Upanishad 3:14.1). For the Hindu, the world is permeated with
the absolute in such a way that everything in this world, including the
subject’s very self, is perceived as Brahman. The Upanishadic saying hence:
īśāvāsyamidaṃ sarvaṃ yatkiñca jagatyāṃ jagat |
tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam || 1 ||
(Isa Up. 1:1)
This entire universe is permeated
with the Lord, …. Hence use it, but with a spirit of sacrifice – i.e., with
restraint and reverence.
This ennobling w vision of the
world as permeated with the Divine, lead s us to two fundamental Indian (Hindu)
concepts, which can be very helpful in attaining the goal of dialogue and the
solution to
ecological crisis, viz.,
ecumenism, where the entire creation including humanity is perceived as one
family (vasudhaiva kutumbakam) or as one nest (yatra sarva vishwam bhavti
eka nidam)
Ahimsa (Cfr Arapura, 1991)
Ahimsa is a gift of Indian
culture to the world at large. It is a
principle accepted not only in Hinduism, but also by other Indian traditions
such as Buddhism, Jainism etc. The Indian
principle of ahimsa defines an ethical attitude that involves some profound
cosmological perspectives to furnish valuable guidance to the environmental and
ecological thought and praxis.
Ahiṃsā is an ancient
concept with profound and poly-dimensional meanings. It is the opposite of hiṃsā,
from the root ‘han’ which means to kill.
Beyond this, it has a deeper, semantic meaning, i.e., the deliberate
disavowal of hiṃsā acts by one who has the technical know-how for
performing them.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (5:2.1-3)
uses 3 da-based expressions: damyata (have self-control), datta
(give) and dayadhvam (have compassion). The foundation for formulating ahimsa as
positive compassion (daya) has been thus laid. In Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3:17.4), the word is
used with a cluster of virtues, such as penance (tapah), giving (dānam),
uprightness (ārjavam) and truth-speaking (satyavacanam). In it
there is a striking passage which says ‘… he who comports himself ahimsa-wise
towards all beings…he will not have rebirth’ (i.e., he becomes liberated). ‘All beings’ are described by Śaṅkara
as proceeding from Brahman, on the basis of Puruṣa Sūkta (Ṛgveda 10.90). According to him, is the way one who is
devoted to the quest for the knowledge of Brahman experiences his own existence
within the organic wholeness of the cosmic community of beings, while at the
same time establishing his senses in the Ātman (Arapura, 1991).
The Mahābhārata epic describes ahiṃsā
as the supreme dharma (ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ) to be chosen by all
beings (Ādi Parva 11.12.12; Anuśāsana Parva 13.115.2). Padma Purāṇa,
Kūrma Purāṇa, and
Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa
extol the greatness of ahiṃsā.
The Manusmṛti lists five yajñas
(sacrifices) incumbent upon men. The fifth, bhūtayajña, is the act of
nurturing all living beings, especially through the provision of food to
animals. It is unclear whether Manu's inclusion of this sacrifice reflects a
concern for the continuation of the human race and its food supply, or a
broader anticipation of widespread ecological destruction. In any case, his vision appears to be really
modern. Clearly, Manu brings the whole
weight of the Hindu tradition on the side of what we would today call ecology –
through ahiṃsā and associated virtues.
Manusmṛti, the Yoga Sūtra and the
Kūrma Purāṇa enumerate a set of virtues: yama, concerning one's outward
conduct, that is, in relation to the cosmos and others, including animals; and niyama,
concerning one's inward self-conduct, that is, purely in relation to oneself.
Each category comprises five principles, and ahiṃsā falls within the yama
group.
Even the Bhagavad Gita, which is
given in the context of a great war, extols and insists on ahiṃsā in
more than one place, not in the limited sense of human relationships, but in a
much wider sense of cosmo-ethics, governing one’s relations to all beings. Jñāneśvar (CE 1275-1296), a Marathi
poet-saint, famous for his commentary on Bhagavad Gita, goes to the extent of
denouncing even Ayurveda for the destruction of medicinal plants. He describes a man of ahiṃsā as an avatara
of wisdom: “When thou seest a man
has entirely renounced the doing of harm in speech, in thought or in outward
action, know him to be an abundant store-house of wisdom...”
The Christian understanding of
non-violence as ‘agape’
or self-giving love is certainly radical and deep. But it was always considered and discussed in
the limited field of human relationships only.
The present-day ecological crisis is an invitation for Hindu-Christian
dialogue and action based on the religious principles of ahiṃsā and agape.
They present a radical and profound approach to the world wide web of
relationships – a readiness to live and even give up one’s life for the good of
others, for any and all beings in this common home.
Lokasaṃgraha This is a
principal teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, besides ahimsa. It means social harmony and welfare as well
as world preservation. It implies a
synthetic approach which implies that the individual, the social and the
universal goals are to harmonised, as being equally important and
interdependent. Vivekananda
interpreted this as Niskama Karma, the work for one’s own spiritual
perfection as well as for the welfare of the world. This concept is to be enunciated along with
global goals for sustainability.
The Upanishadic equivalent for
the term lokasaṅgraha also is equally inspiring: ‘lokānāṃ sambhedaḥ’,
which means protecting the worlds from falling apart. Taking a cue from this concept Gandhiji
launched ‘svadeśī’ and ‘svarāj’.
The Gītā ideal of ahiṃsā, enhanced by other supporting ideals of Gītā
itself, such as ‘samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu’ (an attitude of equality towards
all creatures), and ‘dayā bhūteṣu’ (compassion towards all) helped him
to work for ‘lokasaṅgraha' by making efforts for self-reliance (using svadeśī
dress etc., and by limitng one’s needs and by working for the removal of all
caste and creed based discriminations) (Agarwal, 1991). Vinoba Bhave’s Bhūdān
movement was also the direct outcome of the influence the concepts of ahiṃsā
and lokasaṅgraha of Gītā had on him (ibid).
The call of a Christian (or any
human being) implied in the Pauline text of Romans 8:19ff. to transform this
material universe, which is the common home, while trying to grow into the
mature humanhood of Christ, is nothing but lokasaṅgraha. It aims at the vision of the reign of God
envisaged in Isaiah 11, where all living beings dwell in harmony and mutual
dependence. The means to achieve this
goal is ahiṃsā or agāpe for this
cosmos, which is our oikos (home).
Practical Implications
Having found mutually enriching
ideals of denying the world to affirm it, transform it and to transcend it, in
both traditions, now our aim must be to find areas of concrete action leading
to the eventual solution of the ecological crisis. There could be many possible fields. I prefer to restrict our concerted efforts to
just a single field, that of ecologically educating the children (Agarwal,
1991). Sounds simple, but it is a tough
task. I will merely enumerate a few
practico-practical suggestions which greatly appeal to me.
(i)
For the first three year of schooling, teach the
children. Let them have nothing but
slate or soil to learn their basics.
This has two consequences: (1) such a vast amount of precious forest is
saved (2) children get more time to know and enjoy nature, the world around
them, leading to a tension-free future generation.
(ii)
Insist that the children use everything as many
times as possible, especially the goods of synthetic stuff, so that when they
have to be finally discarded, they disintegrate quickly, thus lessening the
burden on the atmosphere and the earth.
(iii)
Give children opportunity to be creative, not by
lavishing money on them, but by enabling them to make use of the various waste
materials, properly guided.
(iv)
Make them realise by presenting real-life cases
as to how nature is being polluted by human lifestyle, industrialisation, and
careless dumping of organic and industrial wastes, and thus help to form in
them a conscience sensitive to the crimes committed on nature.
(v)
Teach them the interdependent nature of the
various beings on earth and the need to preserve the delicate balance between
them.
(vi)
Make known to them the need to conserve energy –
encourage them to read in day light, rather than under an electric lamp. Teach them how to save precious energy by not
opening the refrigerator frequently, by using dry cells to the maximum limit,
by using re-chargeable ones instead of the one time use cells, by training them
to go by a bus or a bicycle rather than by a car or a motorbike.
(vii)
The notebooks and textbooks which the children
use, the schools and class rooms must have something which helps children
understand the need to love and care for nature.
(viii)
Above all teaching the children to use their
time fruitfully.
Children thus educated can ensure
‘ecumenism’. But why this appeal for the
ecological education of children, when we discuss ecological crisis in the
context of Hindu-Christian dialogue in India? Plainly because: In India, there
are hundreds of highly influential Hindu and Christian educational
institutions, spread all over the country.
Hence, it is quite possible for them to inculcate ecological virtues or
sustainability values in the children of their institutions. Other fields of action, though many, are
quite unwieldy.
Dialogue for a Cosmo-centric
Ethics and Eco-sensitive Conscience
It all appears too simplistic and
of no great consequence – the ecological education of children, where religions
can come together beyond their dogmatic differences. The scriptural and
religious arguments may be different, however, the outcomes could be the same –
should be the same – Human life on the planet must not be at the expense of the
planet and the rest of the beings.
Dialogue on Ecology offers an
opportunity for broader ecumenism.
Dialogue implies mutual sharing of views and values, enriching mutually,
leading to the affirmation of the planet earth as our common home and all those
indwelling it as the members of one family.
This is ecumenism. If this goal of dialogue is taken to the level of
praxis, it is one step in the direction of solving the ecological crisis. To
consider this material creation as our common home, to work for its
preservation and transformation as its members - this is the ecumenism which is
the intended outcome of dialogue among religions. This is something anyone, irrespective of
one’s religious affiliations, can work toward.
As Christians living in a
predominantly Hindu culture, or as Christians by faith and Hindus by culture,
it is incumbent upon every Indian Christian to work to bring about this
Ecumenism (concern for the Common Home), by drawing from the rich resources of
these two spiritual traditions.
An analysis of the concept of
God, human species, living beings and cosmos in both the traditions gives us a
holistic understanding of the reality.
The two traditions have common basis, they enrich each other, they complement
each other and they provide tools for people to work together.
(1)The mutually complementing and
comparable concepts of ahiṃsā and agape – implying human
disposition to live and even give up one’s life for the preservation and
transformation of this material creation which is our family (vasudhaiva
kutumbakam or cosmos our oikos). (2)
Lōkasaṅgraha understood as the
effort to work for social goals while trying of one’s own spiritual
fulfilment. In other words transforming
the world in the human efforts in the direction of self-realization or
God-realization. It implies altruism, a foundational Christian virtue (golden
rule of the gospels – Mtt7:12).
The tedious, but sweet task of
ecumenism is to be begun with the mission of educating children in order to
form an eco-sensitive conscience, an ecological consciousness. Klostermaier’s observation appears relevant here:
“…It took Christianity many centuries before it awoke to its social dimension
and it is essentially modern Christianity which began engaging in socially
relevant activities. Christianity as a religion has not yet awoken to the
challenge posed by the ecological crisis.
There are hundreds of groups of Christians who take up ecological
issues, but they are quite marginal, in a literal sense” (Klostermaier, 1991).
In a general climate of lack of
conscience, of increasing brutalisation and growing insensitivity, it is
difficult to expect a large scale ‘conscientisation’ of ecology either from
Hinduism or from anywhere else. But the effort must be on. As genuine religion
begins and ends in conscience - and not in books, organisations or
professionals – so also true ecology begins and ends in conscience. Ecology
willnot succeed unless and until people at large feel guilty in their
conscience when they pollute air and water, when they poison the soil and
destroy vegetation. Legislation will
never succeed, nor will mere ‘reasoning’.
When even scientists who are ecologically concerned return to religious
idioms
to make their point, let us hope that a true meeting of religions will bring
about the desired change, a conscientious effort for ecumenism, with the care
for our common home as the starting point and leading to the formation of
consciences that aspire: lokāḥ samastāḥ sukhino bhavantu!!
References
Agarwal, S.P. 1991. Lokasamgraha and Ahimsa in the Bhagavad
Gita. Journal of Dharma, XVI, 1991.
Arapura, John G. 1991. Ahimsa.
Journal of Dharma, XVI, 1991, pp. 197-210
Griffiths, Bede. 1982. The
Marriage of East and West. William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.
Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1991. Animals
as Agents in Ahimsa Action and Spiritual
Life. Journal of Dharma, XVI,
1991 pp. 269-281.
Kinsley, David. 1991. Reflection
on Ecological Themes in Hinduism. Journal of Dharma, XVI, 1991 pp.
229-245.
Klostermaier, Klaus K. 1991. Bhakti,
Ahimsa and Ecology. Journal of Dharma, XVI, 1991 pp. 246-254.
Nelson, Lance E. 1991. Reverence
for Nature or Irrelevance of Nature: Advaita Vedanta and Ecological Concern.
Journal of Dharma, XVI, 1991 pp. 282-301.
Pathrapankal, J. 1971. Metanoia
Faith Covenant. Bangalore: Dharmaram
Publications.
Pathrapankal, J. 1982. Christian
Life. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications.
Pathrapankal, J. 1986. Critical
and Creative. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications.
CBCI. 1989. Guidelines for
Inter-religious Dialogue. New Delhi: CBCI Commission for Dialogue and
Ecumenism, 1989.
Dialogue and
Proclamation. Bulletin of the PCID
no. 77, 1991: 201-250.
ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां
जगत् ।
तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्य
स्विद्धनम् ॥ १ ॥
