Dharmic Use of Nature |
March 25, 1995
Q: At times it is necessary in agriculture to cut trees, sometimes old trees. What should be the approach to doing this? You know, when the lion is in the forest, or the tiger, they will stalk the prey, and then they will kill the beast. One is the aggressor, the other is the victim. In this way, the lion must act, because it is the nature of the lion to eat the meat of the other creatures. It is the nature of the tiger also. So in the forest, the one life kills the other to survive. It is a natural process. One cannot say, "Let us destroy all the lions and tigers because they kill the beasts, and we do not believe in having those who would kill." But it is their nature to kill; it is the way of the jungle that this process of life development works and life feeds upon life. Even the animal which is vegetarian and feeds only on the grasses, kills the grass. The very blade of grass is crushed, pulled, destroyed by the creature eating it. Does the grass not also have the desire for life? So you see, all living creatures want to grow and have the opportunity for life. But it is a fact that life feeds upon life. So while one is growing, one is dying. One is sacrificed for another. Now in this process, some discrimination must be made, and the greater life form is given the most priority due to its higher development. There is greater capacity for suffering in the highly developed entity than in the single blade of grass. There is greater capacity for discrimination, and, at the human stage, there is also knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. So a human being has the most responsibility of all creatures for his or her actions. The human being also has the greatest capacity for decision making and the highest priority in terms of survival. Now if for the purposes of a human being, a creature must come to harm - be it a simple plant, an animal or a tree - what should a human being do? Should they live the life like the Jain where a mask is worn on the face, where they are afraid to even step on the soil because they may kill an insect? This is not a practical approach. It is the natural law that life begets life, and life feeds upon life. So there will be the destruction of microbes, little creatures. And the food that one eats: one is pulling the carrots from the ground, pulling the apples from the tree - all of these actions require the destruction of living beings. Now we may condone this saying this is the natural process. But, then again, if the human being may easily eat the lower forms, the simple living structures, but chooses instead to kill the pig or kill the cow or kills even a lion, then we may say that the human being is doing greater harm for an unnecessary purpose. So you see, between the one who would wear the mask and not even step on the ground lest the insect be stepped on and the one who would kill the lion for mere sport, there is a certain big difference. What is the difference? It is one of necessity. For practical life the human being must walk on the ground, must breath the air; and there is bound to be some destruction of living beings. The human being must eat the fruits and vegetables; there is bound to be the destruction of living beings. But the human being need not kill the lion for sport. This is wanton aggression against living beings. So, what is the determining criteria if one must do harm to a living being? It must be for necessity. It cannot be for a frivolous purpose. If it is necessity that the houses are built for the people to live, and the best building material is the wood from the tree, then the tree may be cut. But to cut and cut and cut only to store the wood and let it rot so that houses that are not needed are built, and wood rots in the yard, is against the natural order. But to cut the wood carefully may do harm to the trees, but the human being will have a structure in which to live. And this is permissible because this is a necessity. Shelter is a necessity of human life. If the forest must be cleared for the family to survive, then clear the forest. But the wanton destruction of mass forests for economic gain and profit, this is against dharma. You see the difference in these actions? So if the feeling is there, "I want such and such, but to acquire it, I must destroy living beings," and you are a sa'dhaka, and you do not wish to destroy any living beings, but you also feel the desire to have a particular event occur, then you must question first the necessity of that which you desire against the harm that will be done to the living beings. If it is basic practical needs, then you may decide to go ahead and clear the forest so the fields may be put in to have crops, or so the house may be built. But then you must think how will you repay these living beings, what you will do to balance this action, because you are not a mere animal, you are a human being. So I would say this decision must be made based on these types of considerations, and if action is done, and if harm is to come to living beings, then thought must be given as to how to minimize the harm. If the trees be cut, may not the seeds of the trees be planted? In this way a decision must be made, and human beings must have the freedom to live a natural life. Just as the cat must live its life in the woods, so the human being must live in the world also and must also abide by its nature. It cannot simply cease to do those actions which are essential for its well-being because harm will be brought to living creatures. Harm will be brought to living creatures no matter how much effort is made to avoid it. And if you will bring no harm to any creature, not even the microbes, then you must die, and look at the harm that is then done to the human being. So you see, you must weigh one against the other. In this way a natural balance is struck. What is needed, what is required must be done. But due to greed, due to arrogance, for these selfish purposes, if harm is done to another then it is not within the realm of dharma. But if, for practical purposes, a task must be done - the food must be taken, the apple pulled from the tree, the house built - these are practical matters that require practical solutions. But should the entire forest be cut, the habitat of the animals destroyed, all of the life impacted for the selfish ends of the human beings so they can have more and more beyond their basic needs, this is not the path of dharma. Human beings should supply their basic needs, take from the animals, take from the plants according to some sense of order, according only to one's basic needs. |