The Natural World If there is one area in which both education and the media
have a special responsibility, it is, I believe, our natural environment. This
responsibility has less to do with questions of right or wrong than with the
question of survival. The natural world is our home. It is not necessarily
sacred or holy. It is simply where we live.
It is therefore in our interest to look after it. This is common sense. But
only recently have the size of our population and the power of science and
technology grown to the point that they have a direct impact on nature. To put
it' another way, until now, Mother Earth has been able to tolerate our sloppy
house habits. However, the stage has now been reached where she can no longer
accept our behaviour in silence. The problems caused by environmental disasters
can be seen as her response to our irresponsible behaviour. She is warning us
that there are limits even to her tolerance.
Nowhere are the consequences of our failure to exercise discipline in the way
we relate to our environment more apparent than in the case of present-day
Tibet. It is no exaggeration to say that the Tibet I grew up in was a wildlife
paradise. Every traveller who visited Tibet before the middle of the twentieth
century remarked on this.
Animals were rarely hunted, except in the remotest areas where crops could not
be grown. Indeed, it was customary for government officials annually to issue a
proclamation protecting wildlife: Nobody, it read, however humble or noble,
shall harm or do violence to the creatures of the waters or the wild. The only
exceptions to this were rats and wolves.
As a young man, I recall seeing great numbers of different species whenever I
travelled outside Lhasa. My chief memory of the three-month journey across
Tibet from my birthplace at Takster in the East to Lhasa, where I was formally
proclaimed Dalai Lama as a four-year-old boy, is of the wildlife we encountered
along the way.
Immense herds of kiang (wild asses) and drong (wild yak) freely roamed the
great plains. Occasionally we would catch sight of shimmering herds of gowa,
the shy Tibetan gazelle, of wa, the white-lipped deer, or of tso, our majestic
antelope. I remember, too, my fascination for the little chibi, or pika, which
would congregate on grassy areas. They were so friendly. I loved to watch the
birds: the dignified gho (the bearded eagle) soaring high above monasteries and
perched up in the mountains; the flocks of geese (nangbar); and occasionally,
at night, to hear the call of the wookpa (the long-eared owl)
Even in Lhasa, one did not feel in any way cut off from the natural world. In
my rooms at the top of the Potala, the winter palace of the Dalai Lamas, I
spent countless hours as a child studying the behaviour of the red-beaked
khyungkar which nested in the crevices of its walls. And behind the
Norbulingka, the summer palace, I often saw pairs of trung trung Oapanes
blacknecked cranes), birds which for me are the epitome of elegance and grace,
that lived in the marshlands there. And all this is not to mention the crowning
glory of Tibetan fauna: the bears and mountain foxes, the chanku (wolves), and
sazik (the beautiful snow leopard), and thesik (lynx) which struck terror into
the hearts of the normal farmer - or the gentle-faced giant panda (thorn tra),
whi.ch is native to the border area between Tibet and China.
Sadly, this profusion of wildlife is no longer to be found. Partly due to
hunting but primarily due to loss of habitat, what remains half a century after
Tibet was occupied is only a small fraction of what there was. Without
exception, every Tibetan I have spoken with who has been back to visit Tibet
after thirty to forty years has reported on a striking absence of wildlife.
Whereas before wild animals would often come close to the house, today they are
hardly anywhere to be seen.
Equally troubling is the devastation of Tibet's forests. In the past, the
hills were all thickly wooded; today those who have been back report that they
are clean-shaven like a monk's head. The government in Beijing has admitted
that the tragic flooding of western China, and further afield, is in part due
to this. And yet I hear continuous reports of round-the-clock convoys oftrucks
carrying logs east out of Tibet. This is especially tragic given the country's
mountainous terrain and harsh climate. It means that replanting requites
sustained care and attention. Unfortunately there is little evidence of this.
None of this is to say that, historically, we Tibetans were deliberately
'conservationist'. We were not. The idea of something called 'pollution' simply
never occurred to us. There is no denying we were rather spoiled in this
respect. A small population inhabited a very large area with clean, dry air and
an abundance of pure mountain water. This innocent attitude toward cleanliness
meant that when we Tibetans went into exile, we were astonished to discover,
for example, the existence of streams whose water is not drinkable. Like an
only child, no matter what we did, Mother Earth tolerated our behaviour. The
result was that we had no proper understanding of cleanliness and hygiene.
People would spit or blow their nose in the street without giving it a second
thought. Indeed, saying this, I recall one elderly Khampa, a former bodyguard
who used to come each day to circumambulate my residence in Dharamsala (a
popular devotion). Unfortunately, he suffered greatly from
bronchitis. This was exacerbated by the incense he carried. At each corner,
therefore, he would pause to cough and expectorate so ferociously that I
sometimes wondered whether he had come to pray or just to spit!
Over the years, since our first arriving in exile, I have taken a close
interest in environmental issues. The Tibetan government in exile has paid
particular attention to introducing our children to their responsibilities as
residents of this fragile planet. And I never hesitate to speak out on the
subject whenever I am given the opportunity. In particular, I always stress the
need to consider how our actions, in affecting the environment, are likely to
affect others. I admit that this is very often difficult to judge. We cannot
say for sure what the ultimate effects of, for example, deforestation might be
on the soil and the local rainfall, let alone what the implications are for the
planet's weather systems. The only clear thing is that we humans are the only
species with the power to destroy the earth as we know it. The birds have no
such power, nor do the insects, nor does any mammal. Yet if we have the
capacity to destroy the earth, so, too, do we have the capacity to
protect it.
What is essential is that we find methods of manufacture that do not destroy
nature. We need to find ways of cutting down on our use of wood and other
limited natural resources. I am no expert in this field, and I cannot suggest
how this might be done. I know only that.it is possible, given the necessary
determination. For example, I recall hearing on a visit to Stockholm some years
ago that for the first time in many years fish were retUrning to the river that
runs through the city. Until recently, there were none due to industrial
pollution. Yet this improvement was by no means the result of all the local
factories closing down. Likewise, on a visit tei Germany, I was shown an
industrial development designed to produce no pollution. So, clearly, solutions
do exist to limit damage to the natural world without bringing industry to a
halt.
This does not mean that I believe that we can rely on technology to overcome
all our problems. Nor do I believe we can afford to continue destructive
practices in anticipation of technical fixes being developed. Besides, the
environment does not need fixing. It is our behaviour in relation to it that
needs to change. I question whether, in the case of such a massive looming
disaster as that caused by the greenhouse effect, a fix could ever exist, even
in theory. And supposing it could, we have to ask whether it would ever be
feasible to apply it on the scale that would be required. What of t_e expense
and what of the cost in terms' of our natural resources? I suspect that these
would be prohibitively high. There is also the fact that in many other
fields-such as in the humanitarian relief of hunger-there are already
insufficient funds to cover the work that could be undertaken. Therefore, even
if one were to argue that the necessary funds could be raised, morally speaking
this would be almost impossible to justify given such deficiencies. It would
not be right to deploy huge sums simply in order to enable the industrialized
nations to continue their harmful practices while people in other places cannot
even feed themselves.
All this points to the need to recognize the universal dimension of our
actions and, based on this, to exercise restraint. The necessity of this is
forcefully demonstrated when we come to consider the propagation of our
species. Although from 'the point of view of all the major religions, the more
humans the better, and although it may be true that some of the latest studies
suggest a population implosion a century from now, still I believe we cannot
ignore this issue. As a monk, it is perhaps inappropriate for me to comment on
these matters. I believe that family planning is important. Of course, I do pot
mean to suggest we should not have children. Human life is a precious resource
and married couples should have children unless there are compelling reasons
not to. The idea of not having children just because we want to enjoy a full
life without responsibility is quite mistaken I think. At the same time,
couples do have a duty to consider the impact our numbers have on
the natural environment. This is especially true given the impact of modern
'technology.
Fortunately, more and more people are coming to recognize the importance of
ethical discipline as a means to ensuring a healthy place to live. For this
reason I am optimistic that disaster can be averted. Until comparatively
recently, few people gave much thought to the effects of human activity on our
planet. Yet today there are even political parties whose main concern is this.
Moreover, the fact that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the forests and
oceans which sustain millions of different life forms, and the Climatic
patterns which govern out weather systems all transcend national boundaries is
a source of hope. It means that no country, Be matter _either how rich and
powerful or how poor and weak it may be, can afford not to take action in
respect of this issue.
As far as the individual is concerned, the problems resulting from our neglect
of our natural environment are a powerful reminder that we all have a
contribution to make. And while one person's actions may not have a significant
impact, the combined effect of millions of individuals' actions certainly does.
This means that it is time for all those living in the industrially developed
nations to give serious thought to changing their lifestyle. Again this is not
so much a question of ethics. The fact that the population of the rest of the
world has an equal right to improve their standard of living is in some ways
more important than the affluent being able to continue their lifestyle. If
this is to be fulfilled without causing irredeemable violence to the natural
world-with all the negative consequences for happiness that this would
entail-the richer countries must set an example. The cost to the planet, and
thus the cost to humanity, of ever-increasing standards of
living, is simply too great.
Excerpt from Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New Millennium by
Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. Published by Little, Brown and
Company, United Kingdom J 999. (pp 2 J 3 -220)
Sumber : www.dalailama.com
__________________________________________________
Be aware of the contact between your feet and the Earth. Walk as if you are
kissing the Earth with your feet. We have caused a lot of damage to the Earth.
Now it is time for us to take good care of her. We bring our peace and calm to
the surface of the Earth and share the lesson of love. We walk in that spirit.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh ~
---------------------------------
Lelah menerima spam? Surat Yahoo! mempunyai perlindungan terbaik terhadap spam.
http://id.mail.yahoo.com/
