Nikayla: I’m curious to hear, from a scholar’s perspective, about this “Touching the Earth” story. I’ve heard it told as when the Buddha was seated under the tree, on the verge of full enlightenment, he reached down to call upon the Earth as his witness. In the Ecodharma world, this story is sometimes used to imply that a connection between the Buddha and the Earth was essential for his full awakening.
David: Before we get into that, it’s worth mentioning that this story is non-canonical. It’s a fable, and a lovely one at that, but it’s not found in the early versions of the Pali canon. This story was added later. Even if it were in the Pali Canon, we need to remember that those earliest texts were not written down for over two centuries. We don’t know what was lost or added, or became distorted during that period. It’s impossible to go back to the original source, the Buddha himself.
In the way the “Touching the Earth” story is usually told, it is not an ecological fable. It’s about the fact that the Buddha, in his previous lifetimes, had earned enough good karma that he was ready to sit there and become enlightened. But I think today, we can reinterpret “Touching the Earth” in a more ecological direction, and maybe we even have a responsibility to do that.
Generally in Buddhism, as in other religions, such stories are metaphorical and symbolic. They sometimes need reinterpretation in order to speak to us today, and given our ecological situation, Touching the Earth is a wonderful story to work with, isn’t it?
Nikayla: How much do the pure and original teachings really matter for us today, if the original teachings were metaphorically relevant to a time and a place we no longer belong to?
David: I think trying to recuperate the original teachings is a mistake, because it can’t be done. The question we need to ask is: What is there within Buddhist teachings that can be helpful to us today, that helps us understand not only ourselves but also the situation we’re in today, and how to respond to it? I think this is the perpetual challenge not only for Buddhism but for all spiritual traditions.
I think it’s important to understand Buddhism as a living tradition that is responding to a situation, whatever it may be, in order to be most liberative and address that situation’s suffering and delusions.
Buddhism is not just what the Buddha said – may have said! – Buddhism is what the Buddha began: a transformative tradition that is able to adapt to new circumstances. When Buddhism went to China, it interacted with Taoism and became something very different than it was in South Asia. For example, the Buddha never taught Chan or Zen Buddhism!
I think it’s important to understand Buddhism as a living tradition that is responding to a situation, whatever it may be, in order to be most liberative and address that situation’s suffering and delusions.
Nikayla: Is Ecodharma Buddhism’s response to living in the modern world at this time of polycrisis?
David: Yes, I think it’s a new development within the Buddhist tradition that focuses on how to respond to the polycrisis. Although “eco” emphasizes the ecological aspect, it’s not only the ecological crisis, because the ecological crisis is tangled up with everything else: political, social, economic, and so forth.
Nikayla: I really only hear about the strengths of this Ecodharma development. What might be the weaknesses?
David: I lived in Japan and practiced Zen Buddhism there for about 20 years, and within such traditional Asian forms of Buddhism there is usually a wariness about social engagement, for a number of different reasons. While I disagree with some of the reasons, I can’t say they are all wrong. You can become so socially engaged that you deemphasize individual practice and personal transformation.
The real Bodhisattva path is a double one. You’re serving others and you also have a personal meditation or mindfulness practice. And it’s because we are transforming ourselves, seeing through the delusion of a self that is separate from others, realizing our non-duality with each other and with the world, that we’re able to engage in the most meaningful way.
Nikayla: Tell me about the relationship between Buddhism and power.
David: I can’t think of any Buddhist texts that directly address the problems with power. Buddhism in Asia had to be careful when it came to the political powers-that-be. If Buddhists criticized rulers for the dukkha they caused, or challenged the political, social, or economic order, they could get into trouble. Early Buddhists wanted royal support, not persecution.
The result was that early Buddhism focused on individual transformation, not social change, and it worked well enough that for centuries, Buddhism successfully spread throughout Asia. But unwillingness to challenge political authorities led to problems. For example, in the last century in Japan, the Buddhist establishment largely supported Japanese fascism and militarism.
Today Buddhism has spread to the modern western world, which at least for now supports democracy, promotes free speech, the right to assemble, fair elections, and so on. This has opened up new possibilities for Buddhism to address institutionalized dukkha — institutionalized greed, ill will, and delusion.
Nikayla: Instead of just working to resist institutionalized dukkha, it’s more motivating for me to think about working for the institutionalization of the four Brahmaviharas — compassion, equanimity, sympathetic joy, and lovingkindness.
David: Yes, institutionalized compassion! I think a fine example of that is a national healthcare system. Every other developed nation in the world has a nationalized healthcare system. But here, in the United States, if you are sick and can’t pay for your healthcare, it’s your own problem.
Today our economic system has become a good example of institutionalized greed. I’ve read that American billionaires often pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than you or I do! A more equitable tax system could fund more compassionate programs that help everyone, like universal preschool.
I think working to institutionalize goodness is implied by many religions. We find encouragement of it in Christianity, for example. In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” There is a similar teaching in Buddhism:
The Buddha visited a hut where a monk was lying in his shit because he’s got dysentery. The other monks weren’t helping him, so the Buddha asked, “Why don’t you help him?” The monks said, “Well, he’s done nothing for us, so we do nothing for him.” The Buddha and his attendant Ananda cleaned the monk up, and then he said, “If you would do it for me, you should do it for him.”
What’s the institutionalization of that?
Nikayla: Changing institutions can feel like a daunting, at times impossible task. Where else might we begin?
David: Let’s suppose a Christian church congregation becomes inspired by Matthew 25, and they choose to work together towards realizing this teaching in their community. That’s not institutionalization, but it may be impactful. The same could be done by a Buddhist sangha.
Nikayla: I want to return to power for a moment. Reflecting on my work in the world, I always feel like I show up with much more power when I’m grounded in a spiritual practice. In the context of environmental activism, spiritual practice opens a fuller connection to the Earth, and it feels very powerful.
David: Spiritual practice liberates us. We can act without attachment to results or trying to make a big name for ourselves. Cultivating that can be very powerful.
Such practice helps us to open up, to respond appropriately to whatever the situation may be. There is power in that, too. When we’re liberated from egotistical preoccupations, we become more aware of something flowing through us, something greater than ourselves. We’re manifesting that and we’re responsible to that. It’s a helpful correction to the Western preoccupation with the freedom of individualism.
This power is always there, it’s just about whether or not we are open to it.
And to return to the issue of Sangha, this experience of openness also points to another nonduality: nonseparation not only from each other but nonseparation from the Earth, from the more-than-human. I think this has real implications for our understanding of Sangha, especially in our ecological context. We should broaden the idea of what our spiritual community is, to include the Earth and the more-than-human. How might that impact our values? The meaning of our lives?
