佛法觀點的環境論（英文稿）

A Buddhist Perspective on the Environment

本文探討佛教對環境的看法，先從「世間」這個佛典語彙的定義與範疇進行分析。「世間」涵蓋了人類、動物、植物、微生物和非生物因素。此中有兩種「世間」。「有情世間」是指有感知能力的眾生世間，包括人類和動物，但不包括植物。而「器世間」指的是除人類和動物所賴以生存的環境。其次從「緣起、護生、中道」之核心教義，在理論和實踐上建構有關佛教環境倫理的完整論述。接著就動物、植物、非生物與微生物分別探討其範疇、特徵與其倫理地位：一、佛法主要是以有「感知能力」的有情，作為道德關懷的對象。動物與人同樣具有喜怒哀樂的情緒與痛苦的覺受能力，所以同情共感的關懷面，應不只及於人類，而必然會擴大到所有有情（包括動物）的身上。然而，在面對威脅人類生命安全的動物時，可能無法達成百分之百的「護生」理想，而必須無私地做出相對最好的抉擇，也就是採取「中道」的倫理行動。二、即使植物有許多生機盎然的跡象，但植物的感知力未若動物這般強烈，且有情既然有存活的本能需求，那麼食用植物以維活 是有其必要性的。因此佛法並未將植物的倫理地位等同於動物。即使如此，佛教戒律還是規範僧人，要在可能的範圍內溫柔地對待植物。三、微生物即使擁有生物的特徵，但人們在肉眼層次無法見及。而且微生物無所不在，很難從行動層面建立一套對待微生物的倫理態度。即使如此，佛陀還是要求僧侶，在可能的範圍內，儘量減少對微生物的侵損。四、非生物既無「趨生畏死」與「趨樂避苦」的本能，也沒有生機盎然的跡象，因此佛法看待非生物，可以直接訴諸「工具」原理，將它們視作人、動物與植物存活所須依賴的工具，但對於這些等同「工具」的存有，人們依然要抱持「惜福」與「感恩」的倫理態度。最後簡述當代環境倫理學的「個體論」與「整體論」，以及「大地倫理」與「深層生態學」，並從佛法觀點給予回應。

This article expounds on the Buddhist approach to how it regards the environment. It starts with the definition and scope of the Buddhist term Loka. The term “Loka” means the worlds in which humans, animals, plants, microorganisms, and inanimate objects exist. There are two types of worlds, the Sattva-Loka (Sentient being world), which includes all beings with perceptions (humans and animals), but not plants; and the Bhājana-Loka (Container world) which refers to a survival environment comprised of plants, microorganisms and inanimate objects. Then, from a discussion of the definition and the meaning of the core concepts: dependent origination, protection of life, and the middle path, a complete discourse regarding Buddhist environmental ethics in practice and in theory unfolds. Following that, an investigation of the scope, characteristics, and ethical status of animals, plants, inanimate objects and microorganisms ensues in the following order: 1. The core ethical concern of Buddhism is focused on sentient beings because of their perception capability. Animals, like humans have many emotions including joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, and they also have perceptions of suffering. Therefore, when talking about the aspects of sympathy and empathy, these should not be limited to humans only but expanded to all sentient beings. However, when confronted with animals that might threaten the safety and survival of human lives, the Buddhist ideal of total protection of life may not always be possible. Rather, relative best choices which may eliminate the lives of animals need to be made, which is the ethical action that follows the middle path. 2. Even if many plants thrive, their perception is thought to be less keen than animals. In addition, sentient beings have a fundamental survival instinct, and it is necessary at a minimum for them to consume plants in order to stay alive. Therefore, Buddhism does not consider plants to have the same ethical status as animals. However, in taking Buddhist vows, monastics are required to treat plants with as much care and respect as possible. 3. Even though microorganisms possess some characteristics of living creatures, compared to plants, they are not visible to the naked eye. They are ubiquitous, which makes it difficult for humans to develop an action plan based on an ethical attitude toward them. Even so, the Buddha still asked monastics to try their best not to harm microorganisms. 4. Inanimate components have no instincts to “avoid death and suffering or attempt to live and seek happiness”. Nor do they possess any sign of vitality. Therefore, from the Buddhist perspective, these inanimate components can be regarded as instruments that humans, animals, and plants rely on for survival. Although their existence is regarded as instrumental, humans should still hold ethical attitudes such as cherishing and gratitude toward them. Finally, there is a brief introduction to aspects of modern environmental ethics including the philosophies of Holism, Individualism, Land Ethics, and Deep Ecology, followed by a response to these from the Buddhist perspective.