Changing Lifestyles not Religions

In Lily De Silva’s article, “The Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature” she explains that the lifestyle and teachings of morality, non-violence, and respect of Buddhism lend itself perfectly to be the answer to the question of how to fix our environment after it has been in crisis for so long. I agree with Silva’s that Buddhist teachings do harbor a kinder and gentler mind-set toward all things in nature from plants to animals to even the basics of the air we breathe. Its teachings on karma, rebirth and the interdependence of man and nature make a person’s relationship with nature one that the world should be interested in adopting while we try to mend what he have so clearly broken.

However, while I agree that these teachings and ideas coincide with our efforts to save the earth not everything she mentioned had to be taken to the degree that she did. The Buddhist way of life is one people should strive to live up to, however it seemed that she was trying to convert the world to adopt not only the moral mindset of this religion in regards to nature but the entire religion itself. Her repeated belief that mans immorality is directly responsible for the deterioration of this earth can easily be refuted by anyone outside this religious belief.

I think it would have been a stronger argument to put forth the ideals of the religion as a way to base one’s life off of but not necessarily taking on the entire religious way of life and beliefs. Statements like, “Man has to understand that pollution in the environment has been caused because there has been psychological pollution within himself” makes me think that she is merely trying a new angle to be evangelical. I understand her theory, that if we change the attitudes within ourselves about greed and the like than we will change our attitude toward greed in the ecologic sense. Yet, this change within us does not have to include a change of religious practice to do so.