V

Valuing Nature

In a provocative 1997 article for the journal Nature, Rob-ert Costanza and 12 colleagues calculated that the Earth’secological systems and natural resources contributed “eco-logical services” valued at an average of U.S. $33 trillionper year. The calculations included all renewable eco-system services but excluded non-renewable resources,such as fuels and minerals. In their valuing of nature, Cos-tanza et al. attempted to be comprehensive, estimating andincluding values for ecological services that are excludedby market processes but nonetheless provide importantbenefits. Their estimations of value even included “aes-thetic” and “spiritual” services provided by nature. In theirarticle, the Costanza group admitted “there are many con-ceptual and empirical problems inherent in producingsuch an estimate” (253). However, they also noted thatwhenever humans make decisions about ecosystems, weare inevitably making decisions about the value of nature,even if only implicitly. Thus, for Costanza et al., it isimportant to determine explicitly the monetary value ofnature for public policy making, despite the difficultieswith such financial calculations.

Most contemporary religions also affirm the import-ance of valuing nature. Such perspectives from religionscould also validate the work of Costanza et al. to ascertainfinancial values for public policy making. Yet, from theperspective of contemporary religions, the assignment offinancial worth cannot adequately capture the full valueof nature. For example, how is it possible to assign afinancial value for spiritual ecoservices provided bynature? Rather, financial valuing of nature would besubsumed under a broader, overarching valuation.

In the creation story of Genesis 1 – which is shared assacred scripture by the three Abrahamic traditions of Juda-ism, Christianity, and Islam – God follows a pattern ofcreating, then seeing and judging that what has been cre-ated is good. The chapter concludes with God’s finalevaluation: “God saw everything that he had made, andindeed, it was very good. And there was evening and therewas morning, the sixth day” (Gen. 1:31, NRSV) Thus, fromthe perspective of the Abrahamic traditions, creation isvalued because God has judged it good.

Despite this scriptural warrant that nature is to bevalued, Christianity – especially the Western Christianityof Roman Catholicism and Protestantism – has beenharshly criticized for devaluing nature. Representative ofthis critical view is the essay, “The Historical Roots of Our

Ecologic Crisis,” by Lynn White, Jr. In this 1967 essay,White acknowledges that, historically, humans havealways modified their environment for their own benefit.While this power was limited in the past, White argues thattwentieth-century humans now have the scientific andtechnological power radically to transform ecological sys-tems. This profound power appears to be out of control,and “Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt” for theecological damage incurred, since it has been the domi-nant cultural paradigm where science and technology haveexperienced rapid advances.

White bases his contention on the foundationalassumption that humans’ attitudes toward nature derivefrom their religious beliefs and perspective. He observes:“What people do about their ecology depends on whatthey think about themselves in relation to things aroundthem . . . that is, by religion” (19). As we have seen, thecreation story in Genesis 1 appears to value nature highly.Yet, White observes that this creation story also elevateshumans above the rest of creation in a monarchical role,when it claims that humans are created in the image ofGod.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in ourimage, according to our likeness; and let them havedominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birdsof the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wildanimals of the Earth, and over every creeping thingthat creeps upon the Earth” (Gen. 1:26, NRSV).

White claims that this elevation of humanity serves todevalue the rest of creation, thus giving humans animplicit permission to degrade the environment as theyplease. As White observes, “Christianity . . . not only estab-lished a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that itis God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends”(18).

There are some obvious flaws in the harsh critique ofChristianity represented by White. For instance, if WesternChristianity is the principal factor creating attitudes thatdevalue nature and lead to its degradation, then logicallywe would not expect ecological crises to occur in areasinformed by other cultural paradigms. Unfortunately, thisis not the case and other areas that are not predominantlyChristian have also had ecological crises. Despite suchflaws in the position represented by White, many Christianthinkers have taken the broad criticism seriously.

In his book, The Travail of Nature, Paul Santmire

provides one of the most thoughtful treatments of White’sthesis. Santmire argues that there are two competing theo-logical motifs present throughout the historical develop-ment of Christian thought. On the one hand, Santmirefinds an ecological motif that grounds a strong steward-ship ethic calling upon Christians to care for God’s crea-tion. Yet, on the other hand, Santmire also finds evidencefor a spiritual motif that emphasizes a spiritual salvationin such a manner that the physical environment becomessignificantly less important. If not properly balanced bythe ecological motif, the spiritual motif could indeed jus-tify a boundless exploitation and degradation of theenvironment as White claims for Western Christianity.Santmire argues that both of these theological motifs arepresent throughout the historical development of Christi-anity, and that they may even be simultaneously presentin the same theologian or theological concept.

Our rather close examination of Western Christianitysuggests that there is a diversity of perspectives on thevalue of nature. Whereas most religions would affirm theimportance of the ecological services provided by nature,many religions would assert that the value of natureextends beyond – and subsumes – a mere financialaccounting. For Christianity, the value of nature occursbecause God created and saw that it was good. Yet withinWestern Christianity, there can be profound disagreementas to what the implications of valuing nature mean forfaith and life.

Richard O. Randolph

Further ReadingCostanza, Robert, et al. “The Value of the World’s

Ecosystem Service and Natural Capital.” Nature 387(15 May 1997), 253–60.

Santmire, Paul. The Travail of Nature, The Ambiguous Eco-logical Promise of Christian Theology. Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1985.

White, Jr., Lynn, “The Historical Roots of Our EcologicCrisis.” Science 155 (1967), 1203–7. Reprinted in LouisP. Pojman, ed., Environmental Ethics, Readings in The-ory and Application (2nd edn). Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998.

See also: Christianity (various); Economics; EnvironmentalEthics; White, Lynn – Thesis of.

van der Post, Laurens (1906–1996)

Sir Laurens Jan van der Post was born in the Orange FreeState of South Africa on 13 December 1906 and he diedshortly after his 90th birthday in London. His was a life oftravel to the far reaches of the Earth, an Earth he loved andfought hard to preserve: his long and creative life as asoldier, journalist, author, explorer and conservationist

earned him a knighthood and the honor of Commander ofthe British Empire.

Sir Laurens spent the 1930s writing and farming inEngland and his first book, In a Province, was pioneeringin its dealing with the tragedy of apartheid. After the out-break of World War II, he enlisted in the British Army andserved until 1942 in Abyssinia, Syria and Southeast Asia,where he was then captured by the Japanese Army on theisland of Java. During the ensuing three and a half years ina prisoner-of-war camp, he was instrumental in organ-izing extensive educational efforts among his fellowprisoners. The experiences of this camp were described inhis two books, The Seed and the Sower (later made into thefilm, “Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence”) and The Night ofthe New Moon.

All told, Sir Laurens wrote more than two dozen novels,along with countless short stories, memoirs and essaysdealing with psychology, the nature of prejudice and goodand evil, the environment and the importance of story inour lives. One of his many talents was the ability to weavethese themes together into one and the same character orwork, for example in his telling of the Bushmen stories inways that illustrate basic human psychology and inspire alove for nature. The best known of his books are The LostWorld of the Kalahari and The Heart of the Hunter. He alsomade numerous films for the BBC, including All AfricaWithin Us and Jung and the Story of our Time.

His encounter and ensuing friendship with the Swisspsychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung shortly after his return fromthe war was decisive and marked the beginning of hisstriving to understand outer and inner nature, macrocosmand microcosm. He combined Jung’s philosophy with hisown that had been formed from his African and Asianjungle experiences, and shared it widely with readers,viewers and friends for the rest of his life.

As a result of talking to Jung about the Africa I hadwithin myself, I was re-confirmed into a new area ofthe human spirit which had been singularly mineintuitively ever since I was born. Nothing seemed tome more wonderful than the prophetic observationby Sir Thomas Browne, the intuitive alchemist figureof Norwich in the Elizabethan age: “We seek thewonders without that we carry within – we have allAfrica and its wonders within us” (van der Post1998: 311).

Sir Laurens lived his life with passion, and one of hisgreatest passions was the preservation of the Earth, ourenvironment. Gifted storyteller that he was, he spent muchof his time and energy in the last years of his life tellingstories about the creatures of the Earth and pleading thatmore attention be given to our environment. He freelyshared his views with gatherings of people large and small,in interviews and in his books and other writings. In an

1690 van der Post, Laurens

interview conducted for Earth Day in 1990, he respondedto a question about why it is more important today thanever for people to experience nature and wildlife first-hand, a primary goal of an organization he championed,The Wilderness Foundation:

We are trying to conserve the spirit of the conser-vationist in people . . . If you keep the Earth as closeto the initial blueprint of creation as you can, andyou bring a person into contact with it, a personwho is not whole, from a lopsided society, poof, thatperson changes. I’ve never known it to fail. Problemchildren, all sorts of people who have lost their wayin life, once they’ve had this experience, they’re dif-ferent (van der Post 1998: 311).

In his 1985 essay entitled, “Wilderness – A Way ofTruth,” he wrote:

Some of our scientists talk about “managing wilder-ness” and this worries me a bit. It is like saying theywant to control revelation. But the moment you tryto control it, there is no revelation . . . We try to giveit elaborate definitions, but we all know what wil-derness really is, because we have it inside our-selves. We know it is a world in which every bit ofnature counts and is important to us, and we knowwhen it is not there (van der Post 1985: 47).

Sir Laurens spent the final decades of his life not onlycontinuing to write both fiction and historical pieces, butalso speaking widely throughout the world promoting theimportance of nature and our environment.

Robert Hinshaw

Further Readingvan der Post, Laurens. “Introduction: A Word from

Laurens van der Post.” In Robert Hinshaw, ed. The RockRabbit and the Rainbow: Laurens van der Post AmongFriends. Einsiedeln: Daimon, 1998.

van der Post, Laurens. “Wilderness – A Way of Truth.” InRobert Hinshaw, ed. A Testament to the Wilderness.Zurich: Daimon, 1985, 47.

See also: Prince Charles; Wilderness Religion; World WideFund for Nature (WWF).

Vegetarianism and Buddhism

Buddhist outlooks toward the eating of meat vary by his-torical periods and traditions, and they often reflect theinfluence of local cultural practices and social ethoses.Generally speaking, Buddhist attitudes toward animals areshaped by the ethical principle of non-injury to others

(ahimsa), and by the virtues of compassion, respect, andlove that extend toward all beings. The principle of non-injury was shared by Buddhism and other religious tradi-tions in ancient India, and is a core ethical virtue of Indianreligions. Its importance in Buddhism can be seen from thefact that the first of the Five Precepts – which define theethical foundation of Buddhist life and serve as the basisfor other forms of spiritual cultivation – is the injunctionnot to kill any living creatures. While Buddhist texts andleaders often try to discourage the killing of animals, inactual practice there is a wide range of attitudes towardthe practice of vegetarianism among different Buddhistgroups and traditions, ranging from strict adherence tovegetarian diets to conspicuous consumption of meat bythe clergy.

The texts of the monastic code of discipline, the Vinaya,indicate that the early monastic order did not adopt astrictly vegetarian diet. According to these sources Bud-dhist monks were allowed to eat meat provided it was“pure” by fulfilling three requirements: that a monk who isgiven a meat dish has not heard, seen, or become suspi-cious that the animal was specifically killed for him.Monks were of course prohibited from killing animals, oreven small creatures that might reside in water used bythem. Because for their food they relied on alms receivedfrom the faithful, monks were supposed to eat whateverthey were offered while practicing detachment from thesensual pleasures associated with eating. In the Vinayathere is also the story of the Buddha’s refusal to makevegetarianism compulsory for all monks, when that wasproposed by his evil cousin Devadatta as part of a requestto institute a range of new rules initiated by him in orderto create schism within the monastic community.

While monks were absolved from any transgression ifthey consumed meat that fulfilled the three requirements,in early Buddhism, killing of animals was regarded as anunwholesome act and was proscribed by Buddhist moralvalues. It was believed that for lay people the killing ofanimals brought about negative karmic consequences,while the sparing of animal lives became a cherished Bud-dhist ideal. The positive regard of animals was reinforcedby Jataka stories, which depict previous lives of the Bud-dha. In a number of these stories the Buddha is depicted asbeing reborn in a previous lifetime as an animal, and noblefeelings and actions are attributed to wild animals such aselephants. A similar point of view was adopted by thefamous Buddhist monarch Asoka (r. ca. 265–238 B.C.E.),who recognized the sanctity of animal lives and institutedofficial days when animals were not to be killed. In one ofhis inscriptions the Emperor states that he has conferredmany boons to animals, birds, and fish, including the sav-ing of their lives. Asoka himself abandoned hunting andeventually prohibited the killing of animals in order tosupply food for the court and the imperial household.Asoka’s example was followed by a number of Buddhist

Vegetarianism and Buddhism 1691

monarchs, such as Sri Lankan kings who prohibited theslaughter of animals, and Emperor Wu of the Liang dyn-asty (r. 502–549) in China, who practiced vegetarianismand issued decrees that restricted the killing of animals.

Adoption of vegetarianism became more prevalent withthe emergence of the Mahayana tradition. That waslargely motivated by an increased emphasis on compas-sion as a prime Buddhist virtue, although external criti-cisms of Buddhist meat eating might have also playedsome part. Mahayana promoted universalistic ethics thatwas predicated on the notion that the pursuit of thebodhisattva path is to be undertaken for the sake of bene-fiting all beings. Since animals, like all other creatures,were objects of the bodhisattvas’ compassionate regardand selfless salvific acts, it was deemed improper forMahayana practitioners to consume their flesh. Explicitcritiques of meat eating appear in a number of Mahayanascriptures and other texts composed by leading figures ofthe movement. Arguably the most trenchant critiques canbe found in the Lankavatara Scripture, which presents aseries of arguments that highlight the evils of meat eatingand includes a call to disallow the practice. According tothe scripture, eating of animal flesh is disgusting, createshindrances to spiritual progress, contributes to bad health,and leads to unpleasant rebirth. Conversely, in addition tobeing healthy, the adoption of a vegetarian diet accordswith Buddhist values and ideals, aids spiritual cultivation,and helps one to avoid the negative karmic consequencesof meat eating. The scripture also takes to task the per-missive attitudes of earlier Buddhist texts and traditions,proclaiming that arguments made in support of meateating, including the notion that meat is pure if it fulfillsthe three requirements, are spurious. The text also statesthat the Buddha never permitted the eating of meat, andfor good measure it also explicitly prohibits the eatingof meat by all disciples of the Buddha under allcircumstances.

With the transmission of Mahayana forms of Buddhismto China, vegetarianism became a characteristic feature ofChinese Buddhism. From the medieval period onwardmeat eating was prohibited in Buddhist monasteries, andChinese monks and nuns adopted a strict vegetarian dietthat also precluded the consumption of eggs, diary prod-ucts, and certain types of leeks (which more or lessamounted to veganism). Vegetarianism was given addi-tional canonical legitimacy by the Brahma Net Scripture,an apocryphal text composed in China, which contains aseries of bodhisattva precepts that became accepted asnormative by Chinese Buddhists. Since this text prohibitsthe eating of meat, abstinence became binding for allmonks and nuns who received bodhisattva ordinations aspart of their entry into the monastic order. Vegetarianismwas, and still is, practiced by lay Buddhists as well. Vege-tarian feasts are a common feature of Chinese Buddhistfestivals, and lay devotees who have not adopted a vege-

tarian diet often abstain from meat eating on certainobservance days, such as festivals dedicated to popularbodhisattvas. Vegetarianism also had a broad effect ontraditional Chinese society. Under Buddhist influence, dur-ing the medieval period the imperial government issueddecrees that restricted or prohibited the slaughter of ani-mals on certain dates, and vegetarianism was also adoptedby Daoist monastic orders. Vegetarianism continues to bea basic feature of Chinese Buddhism, which remains dis-tinct among the Buddhist traditions by its stress on theinjunction against the eating of meat.

The practice of vegetarianism was also transmitted toother areas of Asia that adopted Chinese forms of Bud-dhism, viz. Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. In Japan thatinfluence extended until the onset of the modern period,as by and large in traditional Japanese society most peoplelived on a largely vegetarian diet (although they con-sumed fish). Meat eating became more prevalent from thelate nineteenth century onward with the greater emphasison modernization and the acceptance of Western mores.With the increased secularization of the Buddhist clergy,the various Buddhist sects abandoned the age-old prohibi-tions against meat eating, although training monasteries,especially ones belonging to the Zen sects, formally retainvegetarian diets for priests undergoing formal training.Among other Mahayana traditions, vegetarianism is notwidely practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. Although compas-sion and love for all beings are regarded as cardinal vir-tues by the Tibetans, the widespread meat eating by theclergy is largely explained by the difficulty of practicing avegetarian diet in Tibet’s harsh climate.

Although the prohibition against killing and the call toadopt attitudes of kindness toward animals are accepted asnormative by the contemporary Theravada traditions, thepractice of vegetarianism is a rare occurrence in all Thera-vadin countries. In Sri Lanka most Buddhists avoid killinganimals (which often does not extend to fish), and mostbutchers are Muslims. The Buddhist concern with killing isalso reflected in the relatively low consumption of meatand the rarity of making offerings of red meat to themonks, although few Buddhists identify themselves asvegetarians. Meat eating is much more prevalent in otherTheravada countries such as Thailand, where the vastmajority of monks engage in conspicuous consumption oflarge quantities of meat. There vegetarianism is oftenfrowned upon, although there are a few monks who aretrying to promote the idea of vegetarianism. Vegetarian-ism is much more widespread among Western Buddhists.That seems to be influenced by a number of disparate fac-tors, including increased interest in vegetarianism by thegeneral society, adoption of specific views about Buddhistvalues and lifestyles, and adherence of ethical principlesinformed by ecological concerns.

Mario Poceski

1692 Vegetarianism and Buddhism

Further ReadingHarvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 156–70.Walters, Kerry S. and Lisa Portmess, eds. Religious

Vegetarianism: From Hesiod to the Dalai Lama.Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000, 61–91.

See also: Animals; Buddha; Islam, Animals, andVegetarianism; Jataka Tales; Vegetarianism and Judaism.

SP Vegetarianism and JudaismIn traditional Jewish thinking, not only are normativelaws regarded as binding solely upon the authority of di-vine revelation, but ethical principles as well are regardedas endowed with validity and commended as goals ofhuman aspiration only if they, too, are divinely revealed.Accordingly, the value of vegetarianism as a moral desid-eratum can be acknowledged only if support is foundwithin the corpus of the Written or Oral Law.

A proof-text often cited in support of vegetarianism asan ideal to which humans should aspire is a statementrecorded in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 59b):

Rav Judah stated in the name of Rav, “Adam was notpermitted meat for purposes of eating as it is written,‘for you shall it be for food and to all beasts of theEarth’ (Gen. 1:29), but not beasts of the Earth foryou. But when the sons of Noah came [He] permittedthem [the beasts of the Earth] as it is said, ‘as thegreen grass I have given you everything’ ” (Gen.9:3).

Some writers have regarded this statement as reflectingthe notion that primeval humanity was denied the flesh ofanimals because of its enhanced moral status. Permissionto eat the flesh of animals was granted only to Noahbecause, subsequent to Adam’s sin, mankind could nolonger be held to such lofty moral standards. Nevertheless,they argue, people ought to aspire to the highest levels ofmoral conduct and eschew the flesh of animals.

In point of fact, this talmudic dictum is simply a tersestatement of the relevant law prior to the time of Noah, butis silent with regard to any validating rationale. The clas-sic biblical commentators found entirely divergentexplanations for the change that occurred with regard todietary regulations.

An examination of the writings of rabbinic scholarsreveals three distinct attitudes with regard tovegetarianism:

1) The Gemara (BT Pesachim 49b) declares that anignoramus ought not to partake of meat:

“This is the law of the animal . . . and the fowl” (Lev.11:46): whoever engages in [the study of] the Law is

permitted to eat the flesh of animals and fowl, butwhoever does not engage in [the study of] the Lawmay not eat the flesh of animals and fowl.

This text should certainly not be construed as declaringthat meat is permitted only to the scholar as a reward forhis erudition or diligence. Maharsha (Rav Shmuel EliezerHalevi Eidels, fifteenth century) indicates that this textsimply reflects a concern for scrupulous observance of theminutiae of the dietary code. The ignoramus is not pro-ficient in the myriad rules and regulations governing theeating of meat, including the differentiation betweenkosher and non-kosher species, the purging of forbiddenfat and veins, the soaking and salting of meat, etc.

2) A number of medieval scholars, including R. IsaacAbravanel (also spelled “Abarbanel,” 1437–1508) in hiscommentary to Genesis 9:3 and Isaiah 11:7, and R. JosephAlbo (c.1380–1444) in Sefer ha’Ikarim, Book III, chapter15, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of aconcern for the welfare of animals, but because of the factthat slaughter of animals might cause the individual whoperforms such acts to develop negative character traits,viz., meanness and cruelty. Their concern was with regardto possible untoward effect upon human character ratherthan with animal welfare.

Indeed, R. Joseph Albo maintains that renunciation ofthe consumption of meat for reasons of concern for animalwelfare is not only morally erroneous but even repugnant.Albo asserts that this was the intellectual error committedby Cain and that it was this error that was the root cause ofCain’s act of fratricide. Albo opines that Cain did not offeran animal sacrifice because he regarded humans and ani-mals as equals and, accordingly, felt that he had no rightto take the life of an animal, even as an act of divineworship. Abel maintained that humans were superior toanimals in that they possessed reason as demonstrated byhis ability to use intellect in cultivating fields and in shep-herding flocks. This, Abel believed, gave human beingslimited rights over animals, including the right to useanimals in the service of God, but it did not confer uponhim the right to kill animals for his own needs. Abel’s errorwas not as profound as that of Cain, but it was an errornonetheless. And, declares Albo, because Abel shared theerror of his brother, he was punished by being permitted todie at the hands of Cain. Cain’s error was egregious in theextreme. Hence he was so lacking in favor in the eyes ofGod that his sacrifice was rejected. Although he was alsoguilty of error, Abel’s sacrifice was accepted by Godbecause his error was not as serious as that of his brother.

According to Albo, Cain failed to understand the reasonfor the rejection of his sacrifice and assumed that, in theeyes of God, animal sacrifice was intrinsically superior tothe offering of produce. Since Cain remained confirmed inhis opinion that humans and animals are inherently equal,he was led to the even more grievous conclusion that just

Vegetarianism and Judaism 1693

Vegetarianism and KabbalahAbstinence from the flesh of animals is also the subjectof scattered comments in kabbalistic writings. R. MosesCordovero, Shi’ur Komah (Warsaw 1883: 84b), advisesthat a person seeking spiritual perfection should “dis-tance” himself from eating meat. Accepting the principleof transmigration of souls, R. Moses Cordoveroexpresses the concern that the soul of a wicked humanbeing may be present in a slaughtered animal and exerta deleterious influence over the person who consumesits flesh. In a footnote appended to that text, the editorremarks that, according to this thesis, one who isimbued with the Divine Spirit, and hence capable ofdetermining that no such soul is incarnated in the ani-mal he is about to eat, has no reason to refrain fromeating meat.

A similar position is attributed to R. Eliyahu de Vidas’Reishit Chokhmah (sixteenth century) in S’dei Chemed(an encyclopedia of Jewish Law by R. Chayyim Chizki-yahu Medini, nineteenth century), “Ma’arekhet Akhilah”sec. 1. Reishit Chokhmah is cited as stating that oneshould not eat the flesh of any living creature. The refer-ence appears to be to the Amsterdam, 1908 edition ofReishit Chokhmah. However, an examination of pp.129b–30a of that edition reveals that, rather than advis-ing total abstinence from the flesh of living creatures,Reishit Chokhmah offers counsel with regard to the timeof day most suitable for the partaking of meat.

Opposition to the consumption of meat appears to bea narrowly held view even within the kabbalistic tradi-tion. A number of kabbalistic sources indicate that,quite to the contrary, the doctrine of transmigrationyields a positive view regarding the eating of meat.According to these sources, transmigrated souls presentin the flesh of animals may secure their release only

when the meat of the animal has been consumed by aman. The mitzvot performed in preparation and partak-ing of the meat and the blessings pronounced upon itsconsumption serve to “perfect” the transmigrated soulso that it may be released to enjoy eternal reward. See,for example, Shevet Musar (by R. Eliyahu Hakohen ofIzmir, d. 1729), ch. 36 and R. Tzvi Elimelekh of Dinov(1783–1841, also spelled “Elimelech”), B’nei Yissaskhar,Ma’amarei haShabbatot, Ma’amar 10 sec. 4, and Sivan,Ma’amar 5, sec. 18. Scripture speaks of fish as “gath-ered” rather than as slaughtered and similarly speaks ofthe righteous as being “gathered” to their forebearsrather than experiencing the throes of death. Righteousindividuals who must undergo transmigration in expi-ation of minor infractions are incarnated in fish in orderto spare them the pain of slaughter. See also R. MosheTeitelbaum (1759–1841), Yismach Mosheh, ParshatVayeira, s.v. vayikach chem’ah v’chalav [Gen. 18:8]. R.Yechiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein (1829–1908), KitzurSh’lah (Jerusalem, 1960: 161) advises that particulareffort be made to eat fish on Shabbat so that the souls ofthe righteous which may be incarnated in the fishbe “perfected” through consumption of the fish by arighteous and observant Jew.

R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (the Lubavitcherrebbe, 1902–1994) is quoted as having expressed oppos-ition to vegetarianism, at least tentatively, on kabbalisticgrounds. He is reported by R. Shear-Yashuv Cohen (chiefrabbi of Haifa and lifelong vegetarian) to have voicedthe concern that refraining from consumption of meatwill prevent the “elevation of sparks,” a goal that is cen-tral to the kabbalists’ view of the human purpose in life(Slae, Min hattai, Jerusalem, 1988).

J. David Bleich

as one is entitled to take the life of an animal so also hewas entitled to take the life of a fellow human being. Thisposition, Albo asserts, was adopted by succeeding genera-tions as well. It was precisely the notion that humans andanimals are equal that led, not to the renunciation of caus-ing harm to animals and to concern for their welfare, butrather to the notion that violence against one’s fellowswas equally acceptable. The inevitable result was a totalbreakdown of the social order, which ultimately culmi-nated in punishment by means of the Flood. Subsequent tothe Flood, meat was permitted to Noah, Albo asserts, inorder to impress upon humankind the superiority ofhuman beings over members of the animal kingdom.

Albo does not explain why the generations after theFlood drew the correct conclusion and were not proneagain to commit the error of Cain. There is, however, arabbinic text that effectively resolves the issue. Genesis7:23 declares that during the period of the Flood God des-

troyed not only humans but also every living creature. TheGemara, BT Sanhedrin 108a, queries,

If man sinned, what was the sin of the animals?Rabbi Joshua the son of Korchah answered the ques-tion with a parable: A man made a nuptial canopyfor his son and prepared elaborate foods for thewedding feast. In the interim his son died. The fatherarose and took apart the nuptial canopy declaring, “Idid nothing other than on behalf of my son. Nowthat he has died for what purpose do I need the nup-tial canopy?” Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He,said, “I did not create animals and beasts other thanfor man. Now that man has sinned for what purposedo I need animals and beasts?”

Those comments serve to indicate that the extermina-tion of innocent animals in the course of the Deluge must

1694 Vegetarianism and Judaism

be regarded as proof positive of the superiority of humanbeings over members of the animal kingdom. Animalscould be destroyed by a righteous God only because thesole purpose of those creatures was to serve humanity.Hence, if humankind is to be destroyed, the continuedexistence of animal species is purposeless. Thus the basicprinciple (i.e., the superiority of humans over members ofthe animal kingdom) was amply demonstrated by thedestruction of animals during the course of the flood.

3) One modern-day scholar who is often cited as look-ing upon vegetarianism with extreme favor is the lateRabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. It is indeed the case that in hiswritings Rabbi Kook speaks of vegetarianism as an idealand points out that Adam did not partake of the flesh ofanimals. In context, however, Rabbi Kook makes thosecomments in his portrayal of the eschatological era. Heregards man’s moral state in that period as being akin tothat of Adam before his sin and does indeed view renunci-ation of enjoyment of animal flesh as part of the height-ened moral awareness which will be manifest at that time.But Rabbi Kook is emphatic, nay, vehement, in admonish-ing that vegetarianism dare not be adopted as a norm ofhuman conduct prior to the advent of the eschatologicalera. Rabbi Kook advances what are, in effect, four distinctarguments in renunciation of vegetarianism as a goaltoward which contemporary man ought to aspire:

i) Rabbi Kook remarks almost facetiously that one mightsurmise that all problems of human welfare have beenresolved and the sole remaining area of concern isanimal welfare. In effect, his argument is that thereought to be a proper order of priorities. Rabbi Kook isquite explicit in stating that enmity between nationsand racial discrimination should be of greater moralconcern to humankind than the well-being of animalsand that only when such matters have been rectifiedshould attention be turned to questions of animalwelfare.

ii) Given the present nature of the human condition,maintains Rabbi Kook, it is impossible for humans tosublimate their desire for meat. The inevitable resultof promoting vegetarianism as a normative standardof human conduct, argues Rabbi Kook, will be thathumans will violate this norm in seeking self-gratification. Once taking the life of animals isregarded as being equal in abhorrence to taking thelife of human beings, it will transpire, contends RabbiKook, that in pursuit of meat, people will regard can-nibalism as no more heinous that the consumption ofthe flesh of animals. The result will be, not enhancedrespect for the life of animals, but rather debasementof human life.

iii) Human beings were granted dominion over animals,including the right to take animal lives for their ownbenefit, in order to impress upon human beings their

spiritual superiority and heightened moral obliga-tions. Were they to accord animals the same rights ashuman beings they would rapidly degenerate to thelevel of animals in assuming that humans are boundby standards of morality no different from those actedout by brute animals.

iv) In an insightful psychological observation, RabbiKook remarks that even individuals who are morallydegenerate seek to channel their natural moralinstincts in some direction. Frequently, they seek togive expression to moral drives by becoming particu-larly scrupulous with regard to some specific aspect ofmoral behavior. With almost prescient knowledge offuture events, Rabbi Kook argues that, were vege-tarianism to become the norm, people might becomequite callous with regard to human welfare and humanlife and express their instinctive moral feelings in anexaggerated concern for animal welfare. These com-ments summon to mind the spectacle of Germanswatching with equanimity while their Jewish neigh-bors were dispatched to crematoria and immediatelythereafter turning their attention to the welfare of thehousehold pets that had been left behind.

Despite the foregoing, vegetarianism is not rejected byJudaism as a valid lifestyle for at least some individuals.There are, to be sure, individuals who are repulsed by theprospect of consuming the flesh of a living creature. It isnot the case that an individual who declines to partake ofmeat is ipso facto guilty of violation of the moral code. Onthe contrary, Scripture states, “and you will say: ‘I will eatmeat,’ because your soul desires to eat meat; with all thedesire of your soul may you eat meat” (Deut. 12:20). Theimplication is that meat may be consumed when there isdesire and appetite for it as food, but may be eschewedwhen there is no desire and, a fortiori, when it is found tobe repugnant. The question is one of perspective. Concernarises only when such conduct is elevated to the level of amoral norm.

J. David Bleich

Further ReadingBleich, J. David. Contemporary Halachic Problems, v. 3.

New York: Ktav Publishing/Yeshiva University Press,1989.

Cohen, Alfred S. “Vegetarianism from a Jewish Perspec-tive.” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society1:2 (1981), 38–63.

Rosner, Fred. Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law. Hoboken,NJ: Keav Publishing House, 2001.

See also: Animal Rights in the Jewish Tradition; Judaism;Kabbalah and Eco-theology; Vegetarianism and RabbiAbraham Isaac Kook; Vegetarianism, Judaism, and God’sIntention.

Vegetarianism and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook 1695

Vegetarianism and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook(1865–1935)

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, often referred to by theHebrew title Rav Kook, was the leading Orthodox Jewishthinker of the Zionist movement. Born in Griva, Latvia,Kook was a leading Talmudic scholar and expert in Jewishlaw, while also deeply influenced by Jewish mysticism andHasidism. After serving as rabbi to two Eastern Europeantowns, in 1904 Kook immigrated to Palestine to serve asrabbi of Jaffa. While attending a convention in Europe in1914, Kook found his return route to Palestine cut off bythe outbreak of World War I. He spent the duration of thewar in a temporary rabbinical position in London, andafterwards returned to Palestine to serve as Chief Rabbiof Jerusalem. In 1921 he was elected first Ashkenazi(European) Chief Rabbi of Palestine.

Kook’s prolific writings meld traditional Jewish philo-sophical and mystical ideas with elements of modernEuropean philosophy to create a comprehensive Jewishworldview. He viewed history as the dialectical unfoldingof a cosmic drama of redemption, encompassing processesranging from biological evolution to the spiritualadvancement of humanity. At the center of this dramastands the Jewish people, whose own historical develop-ment serves as a catalyst for, and harbinger of, the perfec-tion of humanity as a whole, bringing about, ultimately,the perfection of the entire universe both in its materialand spiritual aspects.

In this context, the return of the Jewish People to Pales-tine may be seen as aimed at achieving its rapprochementwith physical nature. Kook taught that an unbalancedattachment to nature invites the dangers of idolatry andpantheism. The Jewish people had been exiled from theirland in order to distance Judaism from nature and purifyJewish monotheism of idolatrous and pantheistic tenden-cies. Now that those dangers had been dealt with, the timehad come for the Jewish People to return to its land.Immunized against idolatry and reestablished in its homesoil, Judaism can safely engage with the physical world inorder to perfect and bring to light the holiness implicit inall of reality, including inorganic matter. Building uponearlier traditions, Kook claimed that the Land of Israel(Palestine) is peculiarly endowed with a unique spiritualquality whose influence is necessary for the Jewish Peopleto fulfill their spiritual quest.

Reflecting his belief that every part of the Jewish peopleplays an essential role in the redemptive process, Kooksought ties with people from all sections of the Jewishpopulation, from the radically anti-religious socialist-Zionists, to the Ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist pietists ofJerusalem. He was something of a controversial figure,antagonizing modernists with his insistence on the abso-lute centrality of religion in Jewish life, and scandalizingtraditionalists by embracing Zionism. True to his belief in

the inherent goodness within all phenomena, he viewedsecular atheism as a spiritually profound and ultimatelybeneficial challenge to traditional religiosity. Modernistatheism would catalyze monotheism’s final purification.Similarly, Kook found in the theory of evolution anexpression of the cosmic drive toward perfection thatinforms all created beings.

Kook’s writings on vegetarianism, collected in apamphlet entitled Hazon HaTzimchonut v’haShalommiV’khinah Toranit (The Vision of Vegetarianism andPeace from a Torah Perspective), have been the subject ofgreat interest and misunderstanding. On the one hand,Kook addressed the morality of human/animal relations inremarkably radical terms. Judaism has traditionallyobjected to unnecessary animal suffering and to the wan-ton destruction of nonhuman life. However, these areoften regarded within Judaism as spiritually damaging tothe human perpetrator, rather than genuinely evil in them-selves. Kook went beyond such considerations to speak ofhuman injustice toward animals. Not only is the slaughterof animals for food wrong, but also even the nonviolentexploitation of animal products such as wool and milkconstitutes a form of theft!

Kook was careful to explain that full moral considera-tion for animals should only be implemented whenhumanity achieves its highest spiritual development in themessianic era. His view is rooted in the ancient Jewishnotion that while God originally forbade humans to eatmeat (“Behold I have given you every seed-bearing plantupon all the Earth, and every tree that has seed-bearingfruit; they shall be yours for food” [Gen. 1:29]), after theDeluge God permitted it as a concession to human weak-ness (“Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; aswith the green grasses, I give you all these” [Gen. 9:3]).Kook claimed that while the earlier ban on meat would bereinstated in messianic times, a premature demand forvegetarianism and full justice toward animals would bespiritually destructive. In their present fallen state, peoplewould understand such a demand as implying the essen-tial equality of humans and animals. They would forgethumanity’s unique spiritual vocation and lapse into a bru-tish and purely corporeal existence. Tyrannical govern-ments would use radical campaigns for animal protectionas tools for the oppression of humans, and as a propagand-istic distraction from the injustices they perpetrate againstpeople. Kook argued that absolute justice for animalsshould be demanded only after inter-human relations arefree of violence, oppression and injustice.

For the time being, Kook taught, many biblical com-mandments serve to remind us of the present imperfectstate of human attitudes toward animals. Jewish lawsincluding careful ritual guidelines for humane slaughter,and the prohibition against eating blood (Deut. 13:23)serve to prepare us for the day when vegetarianism will berequired of humans. The law stating, “You shall not boil a

1696 Vegetarianism and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook

kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex. 23:19) reminds us that byright the milk belongs to the kid. The prohibition againstwearing “cloth combining wool and linen” (Deut. 22:11)reminds us that, in terms of absolute justice, each sheep isthe genuinely legitimate owner of its own wool.

Berel Dov Lerner

Further ReadingAgus, Jacob B. Banner of Jerusalem. New York: Bloch Pub-

lishers, 1949. Reprinted in 1972 under the title HighPriest of Rebirth.

Ben Shlomo, Yosef. Poetry of Being: Lectures on the Phi-losophy of Rabbi Kook. Shmuel Himelstein, tr. Tel-Aviv:MOD Books, 1990.

Ish-Shalom, Benjamin. Rav Avraham Itzhak HaCohenKook: Between Rationalism and Mysticism. OraWiskind-Elper, tr. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.

Kook, Abraham Isaac. Rav A.Y. Kook: Selected Letters.Tzvi Feldman, tr., ed. Ma’aleh Adumim, Israel: Ma’aliotPublications of Yeshivat Birkat Moshe, 1986.

Kook, Abraham Isaac. Hazon HaTzimhonut v’HaShalommiVekhina Toranit (The Vision of Vegetarianism andPeace from a Torah Perspective, Hebrew). Rabbi DavidCohen, ed. Jerusalem: Nezer David Publications, 1983.

Kook, Abraham Isaac. Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights ofPenitence, The Moral Principle, Lights of Holiness,Essay, Letters, and Poems. Ben Zion Bokser, tr. NewYork: Paulist Press, 1978. This book includes the essay“Fragments of Light,” which constitutes the final sec-tion of Hazon HaTzimhonut, and which summarizesmuch of its content.

See also: Animal Rights in the Jewish Tradition; Judaism;Kabbalah and Eco-theology; Paganism and Judaism;Paganism – A Jewish Perspective; Vegetarianism andJudaism (and adjacent, Vegetarianism and Kabbalah);Vegetarianism, Judaism, and God’s Intention.

SP Vegetarianism, Judaism, and God’sIntention

And God said: “Behold, I have given you every herbyielding seed which is upon the face of all the Earth,and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit – to you itshall be for food” (Gen. 1:29).

God’s initial intention was that people be vegetarians. Theforemost Jewish Torah commentator Rashi states the fol-lowing about God’s first dietary regime: “God did notpermit Adam and his wife to kill a creature to eat its flesh.Only every green herb were they to all eat together”(Rashi’s commentary on Gen. 1:29). Most Torah commen-tators, including Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maimonides,Nachmanides, and Rabbi Joseph Albo, agree with Rashi.

The Talmud also asserts that people were initially vege-tarians: “Adam was not permitted meat for purposes ofeating” (BT Sanhedrin 59b).

The great thirteenth-century Jewish commentatorNachmanides indicates that one reason behind this initialhuman diet is the kinship between all sentient beings:

Living creatures possess a soul and a certain spir-itual superiority [to non-human creation] which inthis respect make them similar to the possessors ofintellect [human beings] and they have the power ofaffecting their own welfare and their food, and theyflee from pain and death (commentary on Gen.1:29).

God’s original dietary plan represents a unique state-ment in humanity’s spiritual history. It is a divine blue-print for a vegetarian world order. Yet millions of peoplehave read this Torah verse and passed it by without con-sidering its meaning.

After indicating that people should consume onlyplant-based foods, God saw everything that he had madeand “behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Everything inthe universe was as God wanted it, in complete harmony,with nothing superfluous or lacking. The vegetarian dietwas a central part of God’s initial plan.

The strongest support for vegetarianism as a positiveideal in Torah literature is in the writing of Rabbi AbrahamIsaac HaKohen Kook (1865–1935). Rav Kook was the firstAshkenazic Chief Rabbi (Rav) of pre-state Israel and ahighly respected and beloved Jewish spiritual leader andthinker. He was a writer on Jewish mysticism and an out-standing scholar of Jewish law. In the early twentieth cen-tury he spoke powerfully for vegetarianism, as eventuallyrecorded in A Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace (1961).

Rav Kook believed that the permission to eat meat wasonly a temporary concession to the practices of the times,because a God who is merciful to his creatures would notinstitute an everlasting law permitting the killing of ani-mals for food.

People are not always ready to live up to God’s will. Bythe time of Noah, humanity had morally degenerated.“And God saw the Earth, and behold it was corrupt, for allflesh had corrupted their way upon the Earth” (Gen. 6:12).People had degenerated to such an extent that they wouldeat a limb torn from a living animal. So, as a concession topeople’s weakness, God granted permission for people toeat meat: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food foryou; as the green herb have I given you all” (Gen. 9:3).

According to Rav Kook, because people had descendedto such an extremely low spiritual level, it was necessarythat they be taught to value human life above that of ani-mals, and that they concentrate their efforts on first work-ing to improve relations between people. He writes that ifpeople had been denied the right to eat meat some might

Vegetarianism, Judaism, and God’s Intention 1697

eat the flesh of human beings instead, due to their inabilityto control their lust for flesh. Rav Kook regards the permis-sion to slaughter animals for food as a “transitional tax,”or temporary dispensation, until a “brighter era” can bereached, when people will return to vegetarian diets. Justprior to granting Noah and his family permission to eatmeat, God states:

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall beupon every beast of the Earth, and upon every fowlof the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teems,and upon all the fish of the sea; into your hands arethey delivered (Gen. 9:2).

Now that there is permission to eat animals, the previ-ous harmony between people and animals no longerexists. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch argues that theattachment between people and animals was broken afterthe flood, which led to a change in the relationship ofpeople to the world.

The permission given to Noah to eat meat is notunconditional. There is an immediate prohibition againsteating blood: “Only flesh with the life thereof, which is theblood thereof, shall you not eat” (Gen. 9:4). Similar com-mands are given in Leviticus 19:26, 17:10 and 12, andDeuteronomy 12:16, 23 and 25, and 15:23. The Torahidentifies blood with life: “for the blood is the life” (Deut.12:23). Life must be removed from the animal before it canbe eaten, and the Talmud details an elaborate process fordoing so.

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, animalscould only be slaughtered and eaten as part of the sacri-ficial service in the sanctuary (Lev. 17:3–5). The eating of“unconsecrated meat,” meat from animals slaughtered forprivate consumption, was not permitted. All meat whichwas permitted to be eaten had to be an integral part of asacrificial rite. Maimonides states that the biblical sacri-fices were a concession to the primitive practices of thenations at that time: people (including the Israelites) werenot then ready for forms of divine service which did notinclude sacrifice and death (as did those of all the hea-thens); at least the Torah, as a major advance, prohibitedhuman sacrifice. God later permitted people to eat meateven if it was not part of a sacrificial offering:

When the Lord your God shall enlarge your borderas He has promised you, and you shall say: “I willeat flesh,” because your soul desires to eat flesh; youmay eat flesh, after all the desire of your soul (Deut.12:20).

This newly permitted meat was called basar ta’avah, “meatof lust,” so named because rabbinic teachings indicate thatmeat is not considered a necessity for life.

The above verse does not command people to eat meat.

Rabbinic tradition understands the Torah as acknowledg-ing people’s desire to eat flesh and permitting it underproper circumstances, but not as requiring the consump-tion of meat. Even while arguing against vegetarianism asa moral cause, Rabbi Elijah Judah Schochet, author ofAnimal Life in Jewish Tradition, concedes that “Scripturedoes not command the Israelite to eat meat, but ratherpermits this diet as a concession to lust” (1984: 300). Simi-larly, another critic of vegetarian activism, Rabbi J. DavidBleich, a noted contemporary Torah scholar and professorat Yeshiva University, states, “The implication is that meatmay be consumed when there is desire and appetite for itas food, but it may be eschewed when there is not desireand, a fortiori, when it is found to be repugnant” (1987:245). According to Bleich, “Jewish tradition does notcommand carnivorous behavior . . .” (1987: 245).

The Talmud expresses this negative connotationassociated with the consumption of meat:

The Torah teaches a lesson in moral conduct, thatman shall not eat meat unless he has a special crav-ing for it . . . and shall eat it only occasionally andsparingly. The sages also felt that eating meat wasnot for everyone: Only a scholar of Torah may eatmeat, but one who is ignorant of Torah is forbiddento eat meat (BT Pesachim 49b).

Some authorities explain this restriction in practicalterms: only a Torah scholar can properly observe all thelaws of animal slaughter and meat preparation. Whilethere are few conditions on the consumption of vegetarianfoods, only a diligent Torah scholar can fully comprehendthe many regulations governing the preparation and con-sumption of meat. However, master kabbalist Rabbi IsaacLuria explains it in spiritual terms: only a Torah scholarcan elevate the “holy sparks” trapped in the animal.

How many Jews today can consider themselves soscholarly and spiritually advanced to be able to eat meat?Those who do diligently study the Torah and are aware ofconditions related to the production and slaughter of meatwould, I believe, reject meat eating.

Rav Kook writes that the permission to eat meat “afterall the desire of your soul” contains a concealed reproachand an implied reprimand. He states that a day will come(the Messianic Period) when people will detest the eatingof the flesh of animals because of a moral loathing, andthen people will not eat meat because their soul will nothave the urge to eat it.

In contrast to the lust associated with flesh foods, theTorah looks favorably on plant foods. In the Song ofSongs, the divine bounty is poetically described in refer-ences to fruits, vegetables, nuts, and vines. There is nospecial b’rakhah (blessing) recited before eating meat orfish, as there is for other foods such as bread, cake, wine,fruits, and vegetables. The blessing for meat is a general

1698 Vegetarianism, Judaism, and God’s Intention

one, the same as that over water or any other undifferenti-ated food.

Typical of the Torah’s positive depiction of many non-flesh foods is the following evocation of the produce of theLand of Israel:

For the Lord your God brings you into a good land, aland of brooks of water, of fountains and depths,springing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheatand barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates;a land of olive oil and date honey; a land whereinyou shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall notlack anything in it. . . . And you shall eat and besatisfied, and bless the Lord your God for the goodland that He has given you (Deut. 8: 7–10).

Rav Kook believes that there is a reprimand implicit inthe many laws and restrictions over the preparing, com-bining, and eating of animal products (the laws ofkashrut), because they are meant to provide an elaborateapparatus designed to keep alive a sense of reverence forlife, with the aim of eventually leading people awayfrom meat eating. He also believes that the high morallevel involved in the vegetarianism of the generationsbefore Noah was a virtue of such great value that itcannot be lost forever. In the future ideal time (theMessianic age), people and animals will again not eat eachother’s flesh. People’s lives will not be supported at theexpense of animals’ lives. Rav Kook based these views onthe prophecy of Isaiah:

And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,And the leopard shall lie down with the kid;And the calf and the young lion and the fatling

together;And a little child shall lead themAnd the cow and the bear shall feed;Their young ones shall lie down together,And the lion shall eat straw like the ox . . .They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy

mountain . . . (Isaiah 11:6–9).

In a booklet which summarizes many of Rav Kook’steachings, Joseph Green, a twentieth-century South Afri-can Jewish vegetarian writer, concluded that Jewishreligious ethical vegetarians are pioneers of the Messianicera; they are leading lives that prepare for and potentiallyhasten the coming of the Messiah.

Although most Jews eat meat today, God’s high ideal –the initial vegetarian dietary law – stands supreme in theTorah for Jews and the whole world to see.

Based on the above Torah teachings, and becauseanimal-centered diets violate and contradict importantJewish mandates to preserve human health, attend to thewelfare of animals, protect the environment, conserve

resources, help feed hungry people, and pursue peace,Jewish vegetarians believe that Jews (and others) shouldsharply reduce or eliminate their consumption of animalproducts.

Richard Schwartz

Further ReadingBerman, Louis. Vegetarianism and the Jewish Tradition.

New York: K’tav, 1982.Bleich, Rabbi J. David. “Vegetarianism and Judaism.” Con-

temporary Halakhic Problems. Volume III. Ktav/Yeshiva University: New York 1987, 237–50.

Cohen, Alfred S. “Vegetarianism from a Jewish Per-spective.” In Alfred S. Cohen, ed. Halacha andContemporary Society. New York: Ktav, 1984, 292–317.

Cohen, Noah J. Tsa’ar Ba’alei Chayim – The Prevention ofCruelty to Animals, Its Bases, Development, and Legis-lation in Hebrew Literature. New York: Feldheim,1979.

Kalechofsky, Roberta. Vegetarian Judaism. Marblehead,Massachusetts: Micah Publications, 1998.

Kalechofsky, Roberta, ed. Rabbis and Vegetarianism: AnEvolving Tradition. Marblehead, Massachusetts: MicahPublications, 1995.

Kook, Abraham Isaac HaKohen. “A Vision of Vegetarian-ism and Peace.” In David Cohen, ed. Lachai Ro’i.Jerusalem: Merkaz HaRav, 1961.

Robbins, John. Diet for a New America. Walpole, NewHampshire: Stillpoint, 1987.

Schochet, Elijah J. Animal Life in Jewish Tradition. NewYork: K’tav, 1984.

Schwartz, Richard H. Judaism and Vegetarianism. NewYork: Lantern Books, 2001.

Sears, Dovid. The Vision of Eden: Animal Welfare andVegetarianism in Jewish Law and Mysticism. SpringValley, NY: Orot, Inc., 2003.

See also: Animal Rights in the Jewish Tradition; Animalsin the Bible and Qur’an; Judaism; Kabbalah and Eco-theology; Jewish Environmentalism in North America;Maimonides; Vegetarianism and Judaism; Vegetarianismand Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook.

Venda Religion and the Land (SouthernAfrica)

By the combined use of oral traditions and archeology, theoldest Venda clans (mitupo) of the Soutpansberg Moun-tains area between South Africa and Zimbabwe can betraced back roughly 600 years. More recent clans fromZimbabwe settled in the Soutpansberg area roughly 500years ago and again some 250 years ago. As settled agri-culturists and specialized long-distance traders ruled by

Venda Religion and the Land 1699

powerful chiefs, the various Venda clans were intimatelytied to the land and its features. Chiefs enjoyed bothpolitical control over decision making and access to highstatus ancestral spirits. These dual powers of a chief weremetaphorically expressed by reference to prominentfeatures on the landscape. The Venda likened a chief’spolitical power to a mountain, whereas they likened hisspiritual abilities, such as being responsible for soilfertility and rain, as a pool.

The organization of royal Venda living space alsoexpressed this dichotomy between politics and religion.Stone-walled royal settlements were divided between alow-lying assembly area, or “pool,” and a higher royalliving area, or “mountain.” The assembly area was thevenue for various fertility rituals, including rainmaking,renewal of the Earth, and pre-marital rites. Various Vendaclans recall that they originally came from a fertile pool ina mountain, so the rituals within the assembly areaactually reenact the creation stories.

The royal living area inhabited by the chief, his coun-cilors, and wives, was the arena of political decision mak-ing and maneuvering. Reference to this area as a mountainis metaphorically expressed in oral traditions as a con-quering chief stepping from mountain to mountain. In thesame vein, when a chief dies, it is said, “The Mountain hasfallen.”

Medicines buried at the entrance to the assembly area,or “pool,” were intended to protect the royal settlementfrom invaders. Venda people believed that if invaderscrossed this protective threshold, then the assembly areaturned into an actual pool. This pool returns to normalonce the enemy has been frightened away or drowned.However, if the invaders’ medicines proved too strong,then the assembly area permanently turned into a pool,inundating the royal mountain portion of the settlement.As mentioned above, this is a metaphorical expression ofthe demise of the chief’s political power.

It is abundantly clear from various oral traditions,however, that a new chief respected or even feared a sub-jugated chief’s intricate spiritual link to the land and itsassociated ancestors. Accordingly, the new chief almostinvariably recognized the spiritual potency, or pool status,of his predecessor. Even though the subjugated chief losthis political power, or mountain status, he normallyretained his spiritual potency to make rain and influencesoil fertility, or pool status. In some instances the subju-gated chief actually became a ritual specialist to theincoming chief and so increased his prestige as ritualrainmaker. But shifting political fortunes did not end hereas subsequent chiefs in turn established their hegemony. Anew chief became the mountain, his immediate predeces-sor became the pool, and the original chief became a so-called “dry-one” (i.e., his pool status has “dried up”). The“dry-one” label applies to those chiefs who came from aline that formerly had great powers, but due to repeated

political misfortunes were eventually ostracized from therecognized political system. Those in power viewedthe formerly influential chiefs on the periphery of thestatus quo as a threat and conveniently branded them aswitches.

Yet, since the most current chiefs and their ritual func-tionaries respected the intimate and long-lasting spiritualconnection of the first chiefly dynasty to the land, they didnot kill their descendants. It was believed that eliminationof these ancient people might upset the original spirits ofthe land. Instead of elimination, the most recent rulingdynasty normally avoided contact with descendants of theoriginal rulers. This process explains the historic distinc-tion between the Singo rulers with their mountain status,the Mbedzi with their pool status, and the Dzhivhani“dry-ones.”

According to oral traditions and radiocarbon datesfrom associated settlements, we know that the Dzhivhanilived in the Soutpansberg at least 600 years ago when theyenjoyed mountain status, but possibly also enjoyed pres-tige as being responsible for fertility and rain. Mbedziimmigrants from southern Zimbabwe subjugated theDzhivhani chiefs some 500 years ago. The Mbedzi immi-grants stripped the Dzhivhani of their political powers, butrespected their abilities as pool people, particularly asrainmakers. Approximately 250 years ago the Singo fromcentral Zimbabwe in turn conquered the Soutpansberg.Since that time, the Mbedzi became the official rain-makers, while the Dzhivhani lost their pool status.

The different status categories are expressed by the dis-tinctive burial practices of the various clans. Typically,Singo chiefs are buried in mountains, Mbedzi chiefs inpools, whereas Dzhivhani chiefs have no particular burialmode any more. But the importance of the original rulers,such as the Dzhivhani, still resonates in the Soutpans-berg Mountains. Various noticeable locations on thelandscape, in particular old stone-walled ruins of royalsettlements, pools, mountains, caves, and boulders, areeither avoided or treated with respect. These are the loca-tions believed to be portals to the underworld whereancestral spirits reside. Venda people believe that ances-tors send messengers, in the form of dangerous animalsand/or distorted mountain and water creatures, to scaredisrespectful trespassers. At certain unusual locations,including San rock-art sites, Venda still leave trinkets toappease the original spirits of the land. Another reasonfor leaving gifts at sacred spots is to obtain fertility fromthe very old spirits.

Although the political clout of the ancient Venda dyn-asties is long gone, their religious legacy lives on inunusual landscape features and in the old ruins. This leg-acy prohibits Venda people from altering the landscapetoo much. Very old rock art, for instance, is not to betampered with. Unlike their Sotho-speaking neighbors tothe south, Venda people tend not to repaint or scratch the

1700 Venda Religion and the Land

rock paintings of their San predecessors, to cite oneexample. Also, “traditional” Venda farm laborers discour-age their European masters from installing mechanicalpumps at sacred pools in fear that such alterations mightanger the spirits and make them “hot.” Sheet metal roofsand fences are similarly believed to cause spirits to become“hot” and vengeful. In other words, there is a deeply feltand widely shared belief among Venda people that anyalterations or modifications at sacred locales would upsetthe spirits of the land and result in misfortune.

Supernatural sanction against killing animals residingin old ruins or in sacred pools can also be linked torespect for the original occupants of the land. In thissense then, the Venda-speaking people from the Sout-pansberg can be considered to be conserving the land,irrespective of the fact that their intensive farming andovergrazing practices have resulted in damaging soil ero-sion. Even those Venda clans that were specialist copperminers or elephant hunters did not exploit the availablecopper ore deposits or elephant herds to their fullest.Whereas technological inability to exhaust such resourcesno doubt was a contributing factor, supernatural sanctionagainst overexploitation might have been another. Forexample, abandoned copper mine shafts in the LimpopoRiver valley were supposedly haunted by spirits of theMusina clan and considered off-limits to trespassers.Whereas conservation among the Venda was almost cer-tainly not an end in itself, their worldview contributed tothe preservation of unusual cultural and natural featuresof the Soutpansberg.

Johannes Loubser

Further ReadingBeach, D.N. The Shona and Zimbabwe 1900–1850. Gwelo:

Mambo Press, 1980.Blacking, J. “Songs, Dances, Mimes and Symbolism of

Venda Girls’ Initiation Schools: Part 1, Vhushsa; Part2, Milayo; Part 3, Domba; Part 4, The Great DombaSong.” African Studies 28 (1969), 28–35, 69–118,149–99, 215–66.

Loubser, J.H.N. “Oral Traditions, Archaeology and theHistory of the Venda Mitupo.” African Studies (1990),13–42.

Ralushai, V.N.M.N. and J.R. Gray. “Ruins and Traditions ofthe Ngona and Mbedzi among the Venda of the North-ern Transvaal.” Rhodesian History 9 (1977), 1–12.

Stayt, H. The Bavenda. London: Oxford University Press,1931.

Van Warmelo, N.J. The Copper Miners of Musina and theEarly History of the Soutpansberg. EthnologicalPublication 8. Pretoria: Government Printer, 1940.

See also: San (Bushmen) Apocalpytic Rock Art; San(Bushmen) Religion (and adjacent, San (Bushmen) Rain-making); Venda Witch Beliefs (Southern Africa).

Venda Witch Beliefs (Southern Africa)

The Venda people inhabit the far northern area of theRepublic of South Africa as well as the extreme south ofZimbabwe, bordering on either side of the Limpopo River.In South Africa, they occupy the fertile Soutpansbergmountain range where they were traditionally horti-culturalists and pastoral cattle-keepers, until the discoveryof diamonds and gold in the nineteenth century intro-duced migrant labor as a way of life for the menfolk.

The Soutpansberg mountain range is a richly forestedarea whose trees provide wood for ritual, ceremonial, andutilitarian purposes, as well as fruits that are an importantsource of food. The rivers of Vendaland and especially thesacred lake Fundudzi have a religious and mystical signifi-cance for the Venda people. Rivers flowing throughforested areas, such as the famous Phiphidi falls, areassociated with the spirits of the VhaNgona, the originalinhabitants of Venda at the time of the early Iron Age, ca.200. To propitiate these spirits, everyone crossing the fallsmust contribute an offering: a bracelet or piece of brokenpot for a woman, a tuft of hair for a man. Cattle are notexcluded and some cow hairs must be offered if the animalis not to incur misfortune.

The Venda people are made up of various tribal clusterswho migrated to the area at different times; some camefrom Zimbabwe to the north and others from the Sotho-speaking areas to the south and east. The Venda languageis unique among South African languages in having linksto the early Iron Age (200–800) inhabitants of SouthernAfrica. Among the important migrations from the Karangaarea of southern Zimbabwe were the Vhathavhatsindepeople, so called because many families in this group weregreat medicine men (diviners) who supplied a powerfulantidote to evil from the mutavhatsinde tree. The name issaid to derive from the word muta, referring to the smallenclosure surrounding women’s huts and tsinde, meaningthe stem or trunk of a tree. Medicine men or diviners fromthe Vhathavatsinde still erect poles in the yards of theirhomesteads to indicate their avocation. I was able tophotograph the pole erected by well-known diviner andherbalist, Mr. Nelson Shonisani, at his home in Kubvhi,central Venda in 1988.

Much of the work of herbalists (nanga) and diviners(maine, pl. mingoma) among the Venda has to do withprotecting people from the machinations of witches (sg.muloi, pl. vhaloi) who seek to kill or harm their fellows, aswell as providing charms to protect people against mis-fortune. A simple charm might be a piece of wood takenfrom a branch of a tree overhanging a well-used pathway.The charm is believed to contain strength given to it bytravelers who trod that path without coming to any harm.

Most medicine people among the Venda are herbalistswho specialize in curing diseases and who are consultedoften about ordinary ailments. The mungoma or diviner is

Venda Witch Beliefs 1701

believed to have occult powers and is always consultedafter someone has died so that the family of the deceasedcan discover who the evil person was who caused thedeath. Like many other African peoples, the Venda believethat death (except in the case of the very old) is not anatural occurrence. Most diviners are maine vha lufhali,diviners who discover the identity of witches who areresponsible for most misfortunes and deaths, which areoften believed due to the use of sorcery in the form of poi-sons obtained from plants and added to the victim’s food.

Among the Venda, a diviner or herbalist may be male orfemale. A man inherits his knowledge from his father anda woman from her mother. Witches (vhaloi) are believed tobe of either gender but are more generally women. Theyoperate at night, sometimes traveling long distances onthe back of a hyena or other animal, and they may sendsnakes, owls or, particularly, a turi (stoat) into the victim’shome to bite him or her and cause disease or death. Wildanimals such as snakes, owls, hyenas, and stoats are crea-tures of dark places or the night, like witches, and areknown to cause harm either by biting humans and animalsas snakes do, or by attacking small stock, like hyenas, orsucking the udders of cows, as stoats are believed to do.Stayt comments that the turi is especially feared, as it isbelieved the animal can become invisible and in that wayenter the body of its human victim and cause a mortalillness (Stayt 1931: 278).

There are two distinct types of witch in Venda that cor-respond to the famous distinction made by E.E. Evans-Pritchard for the Azande of Central Africa. The first typeare witches who act unconsciously. They are unaware oftheir evil-doing. The second type corresponds to the sor-cerer among the Azande. This witch uses material meanssuch as spells made from powdered roots and bark ormagic, to cause harm. The first type of witch is believed toact during sleep. It is at this time that the witch spiritleaves the body of its innocent human victim and goes outon its evil mission. Other persons sleeping with the muloiare believed to be put into a deep sleep so the witch isnever seen, except by the herbalist or diviner. Apart fromkilling people, the witch also is believed to be very fond ofmilk and may force a cattle owner, while asleep, to go intohis cattle enclosure, milk his animals, and give the milk tothe witch. Alternatively, the muloi may send a turi (stoat),well known as a witch familiar, a creature that carries outthe bidding of a witch and operates usually at night, tosuck the milk from the cows. Protection against witchescomes from the mother’s ancestors, and if these spirits areangry with the victim, they may withdraw their protectionand allow the witches evil work to proceed.

Remedies against the work of witches consist ofcharms, made, for instance, from the powdered root of themukundulela tree (Niebuhria triphylla) which translates as“the way of force,” mixed with the powdered bones of asnake, owl, bat’s wing, and stoat. As this mixture is made

up of parts of all the witch’s familiars, it is consideredespecially powerful in making the wearer invulnerable toattack by witches.

The second type of witch, the sorcerer, uses black magicto kill her or his enemies. This magic is known as mad-ambi. Herbalists (nanga) are sometimes suspected of assist-ing a muloi to work harm in this way. Madambi usuallyworks by the witch getting hold of an object belonging toher/his enemy and using it to destroy the person. Thus,nail and hair clippings are carefully hidden. Stayt notesthat the most popular madambi is made of sand from anenemy’s footprint, which is mixed with poisonous herbsand through sympathetic magic the owner of the footprintdies from poisoning. Sometimes the evil powder will beblown on, or toward, a hare. The animal will run to theintended victim and look him or her in the eyes and thenvanish. The victim is believed to die soon after while thehare vanishes.

The herbalist can provide a protective charm againstthis sorcery, a magic powder mixed with fat, which, whenrubbed over the body, envelopes the wearer in a kind ofmagic coat. Herbalists provide many other charms madefrom powdered roots or bark that act as antidotes to evil,as spells, or as protective amulets. For instance, the pow-dered roots of the mpeta (Royena pallens) protect againstordinary diseases and keep the ancestral spirits fromworrying the wearer.

Witch beliefs in Venda are similar to those in otherBantu-speaking societies in Africa, especially those oftheir neighbors, the Lovedu, who live in a deeply forestedarea to the southeast of the Venda, and who are famous fortheir rain-queen, Modjadji. These witch beliefs tend toreflect social strains in predominantly kin-based cultures.That is, those most likely to be accused of being witches areoften neighbors or co-wives, in polygamous homesteads.

Nowadays, a successful business entrepreneur may findhimself the target of malicious accusations, as happenedto Isaac Ramakulukusha, a Zionist bishop who ownednumerous business enterprises, including butcheries andfilling stations in Venda. In 1975, he sued the Commanderof the Venda National Force for wrongful arrest and defa-mation. He was accused of being a ritual murderer (maviavhatu – slaughterer of human beings) after the body of afour year-old girl was found in the Nzehele River in Venda.Forensic science came to the aid of the bishop when thechild was found to have drowned and crabs had eaten partof her body.

Accusations of witchcraft also have increased in recentyears with the change to a democratic majority rule inSouth Africa. With the power of chiefs and headmen wan-ing, some have resorted to devices like the murder ofyoung children (so-called “muti” [medicine] murders) toprop up their waning influence.

Gina Buijs

1702 Venda Witch Beliefs

Further ReadingEvans-Pritchard, Edward. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic

among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937.Krige, Eileen Jensen and J.D Krige. The Realm of a Rain

Queen. Cape Town: Juta & Co., 1980.Stayt, Hugh. The BaVenda. London: Oxford University

Press, 1931.See also: Muti and African Healing; Muti Killings; VendaReligion and the Land (Southern Africa).

Virgin of Guadalupe

On 8 December 1531, the legend goes, the apparition ofthe Virgin of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego on thehill of Tepeyac north of Mexico City. In 1999, Pope JohnPaul II proclaimed Our Lady of Guadalupe the Patron Saintof the Americas. Devotion to the tradition of Guadalupehas been sustained for nearly 500 years and has played asignificant role in Mexican history, whether as a symbolfor independence, the Church’s resistance to politicalintervention, the rights of native populations, or for socialconservatism and control. Although contentious debatesover the historical credibility of the apparition-narrativemark the Guadalupan tradition, the image and legend ofthe Virgin of Guadalupe has provided a powerful symbolfor Mexican nationalism, and by the twentieth century, asymbol of freedom for oppressed native peoples and agrar-ian reform. As a symbol fusing religion and politics, nativeand Christian images, the Virgin of Guadalupe, patronsaint of the Americas, remains a complicated symbolembodying conquest, pre-Colombian Earth goddesses,nature, the modern nation, and various, complicatedsocial relations.

The first account of the appearance of the Virgin ofGuadalupe was not published until the mid-seventeenthcentury. This account tells the story of Guadalupe’sappearance in December 1531 to Juan Diego, a poor Chris-tianized native. Speaking to him in the Aztec language ofNahuatl, she asks Juan Diego to tell the bishop of Mexico,Juan de Zumárraga, to build a chapel in her honor atTepeyac. After two unsuccessful visits, Zumárragainstructs Juan Diego to return with signs from the appari-tion. Disconsolate, Juan Diego meets the apparition of theVirgin of Guadalupe for the third time. Guadalupe tellsJuan Diego to climb the hill of Tepeyac and gather rosesand flowers as signs for the bishop. When Juan Diegoopens his cloak in front of the bishop, the roses tumbleout, revealing a life-size image of Guadalupe foundmiraculously imprinted on the cactus-fiber cloth of hiscloak. Realizing that a miracle had taken place, the bishopplaces the image in the cathedral for public devotion andlater brings it to Tepeyac. The painted icon on what isalleged to be Juan Diego’s cloak remains the heart of thecult and tradition of the Virgin of Guadalupe, on display

today in the twentieth-century basilica in Mexico City thatserves as the central locus for Guadalupan devotion.

Scholars find it significant that the Guadalupan tradi-tion was introduced 35 years after the conquest. Nativepeoples understandably resisted domination, sometimesovertly through resistance, but more commonly throughongoing practice of traditional religious beliefs and life-ways. Syncretic practices that merged Christian imagesand ideas with local beliefs and rituals were employed asmethods of proselytizing native peoples. In the case ofGuadalupe, cults of Mary imported by the Spaniardsmerged with pre-Colombian Earth deities. Tepeyac hadlong served as a pilgrimage site for various Earth god-desses referred to collectively as Tonantzin, our “reveredmother.” Early veneration of Guadalupe and pilgrimagesto Tepeyac, some sixteenth-century priests complained,only continued pre-Christian practices since native wor-shipers still associated her with sacred space and powercoming from the Earth.

Although Guadalupe may have had an early followingamong native peoples and been used as a means of evan-gelization by the Catholic Church, by the seventeenth cen-tury Guadalupe became associated with the interests ofMexican-born Spaniards or Creoles. Guadalupe becamechampioned as the American Mary, thus serving Mexicanpatriotism and nationalism, but also justifying the con-quest. After Mexico City and Puebla were devastated bythe plague in 1737, Mexico City claimed the Virgin ofGuadalupe as its patron saint, and by 1754 the Popenamed her patroness of Mexico. In 1895 the Virgin ofGuadalupe was crowned Queen of the Americas. Duringthese centuries of merging religion and patriotism, itshould be noted that the image of Guadalupe was notexplicitly employed to champion native peoples. The Vir-gin of Guadalupe was important for the Catholic Churchand its position in Mexican society, as well as for patriotswho employed it to champion Mexican identity. In rela-tion to policies and practices concerning native peoplesand their lands however, the cult of Guadalupe was usedprimarily as a conservative, paternalistic, and exclusion-ary mechanism.

It was not until the twentieth century that the imageand tradition of the Virgin of Guadalupe became explicitlyassociated with the rights of native peoples, dis-enfranchised populations, and the land. Pancho Villa andEmiliano Zapata both used the symbol of Guadalupe dur-ing their revolutionary struggles, thus associating Guada-lupe with social and agrarian reform. Peasant followers ofEmiliano Zapata carried banners of Guadalupe throughMexico City following the defeat of General VictorianoHuerta in 1914. These indigenous peasants also visitedTepeyac to venerate Guadalupe who, as both Earth god-dess and patron saint, came to symbolize the protector ofdamaged land and oppressed peoples. Banners of Guada-lupe regularly appeared in marches organized by Cesar

Virgin of Guadalupe 1703

Chavez and the United Farm Workers beginning in the1960s. Numerous contemporary Chicana artists nowdepict Guadalupe in ways that link her to pre-ColombianEarth goddesses, thus championing both native peoplesand the land. Contemporary Latina/o theologians claimthat both images and fiestas demonstrate Guadalupe’sclear connection to nature. In popular religious images,the sun, stars, moon, and nature surround Guadalupe.Daybreak on December 12, “the time of new beginningsand the rebirth of the sun” is the time of Guadalupe’s feastand celebration and a dawn song, Las Mañanitas is sungto her (Rodriguez 1994: 147).

Our Lady of Guadalupe remains a contested symbol –standing at different points in history for conquest as wellas indigenous rights; for Earth goddesses and nature aswell as the power of the nation-state.

Lois Ann Lorentzen

Further ReadingBrading, D.A. Mexican Phoenix: Our Lady of Guadalupe:

Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Poole, Stafford. Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins andSources of a Mexican National Symbol, 1531–1797.Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1995.

Rodriguez, Jeanette. Our Lady of Guadalupe: Faith andEmpowerment among Mexican-American Women.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1994.

See also: Ecofeminism (various); Goddesses – History of;Mary in Latin America; Maya Religion (Central America);Mayan Catholicism; Mayan Protestantism; MesoamericanDeities.

Virtues and Ecology in World Religions

Virtues (commonly understood as excellences of characteracquired through self-cultivation) play a role in all majorworld religions – even as ideals of personal cultivationdiffer significantly from tradition to tradition. Recentadaptations in religious attitudes toward nature to a largedegree involve changes in the perception and cultivationof virtues as well. Across the board, religious environ-mentalists highlight the ecological import of traditionaltraits of character, such as moderation, humility, and com-passion. However, to speak of a uniform “green” religiousvirtue ethic would be to deny the varied contexts ofreligious belief and practice that continue to give thesevirtues their full meaning. By examining relation-ships between the virtues and ecological awareness inChristianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, andConfucianism we can see the various types of green virtueethics.

FrugalityUnder a number of names, frugality has been a promi-nent moral norm and practice in all the great religioustraditions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Confucian-ism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Daoism. These tradi-tions often have interpreted frugality as an expression oflove or its equivalent – that is, seeking the good of othersin response to their needs.

Frugality is the virtue of economic constraint – astandard of excellence for both character formation andsocial transformation in necessary interaction. It con-notes moderation, thrift, sufficiency, and temperance.It demands careful conservation, comprehensiverecycling, minimal harm, material efficiency, and prod-uct durability. Frugality is a middle way that strugglesagainst both overconsumption by the affluent andunderconsumption by the poor.

Frugality, according to its advocates, is an antidote toa cardinal vice of the age, prodigality – or excess in thegoods humans take from the Earth, and excess in thewastes and contaminants we return to it. These excessesare unfair and unsustainable. The profligate take morethan their due, and thereby deprive others – poor people,other species, and future generations – of their due. Inthis setting, frugality is a necessary condition of justiceand sustainability, seeking a greater thriving of all lifetogether by sparing and sharing global goods.

Contrary to some stereotypes, frugality is not gener-ally a world-denying asceticism. On the contrary, theword’s Latin root, frux, defines its essential character:fruitfulness and joyfulness. Frugality is an Earth-affirming and enriching norm that delights in the less-consumptive joys of the mind and flesh, especially theenhanced lives for human communities and other crea-tures that only constrained production and consumptioncan make possible on a finite planet.

Frugality is regularly defended as a universal norm,not bound to particular religious confessions. Interpret-ers argue that it can be ethically justified, apart fromappeals to privileged revelations, as a rational responseto economic maldistribution and ecological degradation.For its fans, frugality is the subversive virtue, in rebel-lion against the ethos of excess.

James A. Nash

Further ReadingNash, James. A. “Toward the Revival and Reform of the

Subversive Virtue: Frugality.” The Annual of theSociety of Christian Ethics (1995).

Westra, Laura and Patricia H. Werhan, eds. The Businessof Consumption: Environmental Ethics and theGlobal Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Lit-tlefield, 1998.

See also: Dirt.

1704 Virtues and Ecology in World Religions

Virtue and Ecology in ChristianityIn 1976, historian Lynn White charged that the environ-mental crisis will only be reverted if Christians exchangetheir arrogant attitudes toward nature for St. Francis’model of humility. Since then, virtues have played a majorrole in the greening of Christianity. From qualities of char-acter marking a person’s journey to an other-worldly sal-vation, they changed into qualities of character fitting theflourishing of persons-within-ecocommunities in whichthe immanent Spirit of God is made manifest. As a result, athoroughly reinterpreted and reshuffled catalogue ofdesirable traits is emerging.

Changes range from simple extensions to radicalinnovations of meaning. Rather than hope for the salva-tion of human souls only, Christians may now hope (evenagainst all odds) for the liberation of all creation. Ratherthan humbly consider themselves at the bottom of anontological ladder, they may humbly accept their place inthe web of earthly relations. Rather than practice vigilantcontrol of emotions, they may try to relearn spontaneity.And rather than divert their attention away from the physi-cal details of this world (contemptus mundi), they maypractice sensuousness in order to attend properly to thisworld – following a recast model of Jesus as a teacher withan eye for illustrations drawn from animal and plant life.

Some observers doubt whether such attitudinalchanges go far enough in addressing ecological problems.They stress the need for complementary social analysisand organized efforts to transform institutions (e.g., DieterHessel). Others question whether personal transformationcan be thorough enough as long as Christians continue tosee themselves as managers of creation (e.g., ElizabethDodson Gray). The most radical critics suggest that Chris-tians look outside their tradition toward Eastern andindigenous religions for alternative models of ecologicalself-cultivation (e.g., Joanna Macy). Christian scholarstypically respond to this last charge with a warningagainst the vice of romanticism.

Virtue and Ecology in JudaismFrom the rich array of Jewish scripture, legal traditions,stories, rituals, and cultural practices, virtues emerge asthose personal character traits that renew and sustain thechosen people’s covenant relationship with God. The Jew-ish community has received many blessings from the tran-scendent Creator of the universe; in return, it must lookafter creation, following the commandments of the Torah.This covenant bond is especially served by gratitude,responsibility, and repentance for failure. Today, thosewho interpret the environmental crisis as a sign of coven-antal breakdown find new significance in these traditionalvirtues (e.g., Eric Katz).

Ancient blessings for food, natural beauty, and sea-sonal renewal continue to express appropriate gratitudefor the gifts of creation. Entrusted with those gifts, respon-

sible stewards will be caring and compassionate, keepingin mind the suffering of all living beings (tza’ar ba’aleichayim). They will also be in the habit of exercising per-sonal restraint, demonstrated every Sabbath by refrainingfrom nature-altering activities. Following the command-ment not to destroy (bal tashchit), they will be averse tovandalism (including specifically the wanton destructionof fruit trees), cruelty (including animal abuse), andwastefulness. Conflicts of interest they will approach withprudence, new environmental challenges with love oflearning. Even responsible stewards may fail, however.They must be able to admit mistakes and repent for theirshortcomings.

Like Christianity, Judaism has been charged with pro-moting arrogance by putting humans in charge of theEarth. Critics also say that Jewish anti-paganism preventsappropriate reverence for nature. Jewish scholars typicallyrespond that a covenantal life actually inspires humilityand awe before God’s marvelous works. Some go furtherand draw on Jewish mystical traditions (Kabbalah) that doallow full-blown reverence for the Divine Presence increation (e.g., Arthur Green).

Virtue and Ecology in IslamAlthough Islamic ethics is especially known for its tradi-tion of law (Shari ‘ah), the life of a Muslim should in allaspects be marked by the cultivation of one main virtue:surrender (islam) to God (Allah). Each other virtue (fadi-lah), either leads up to, belongs to, follows from, or isperfected by the Muslim’s singular commitment to thetranscendent Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Whilelargely remaining within this traditional framework,which is based on scripture (Qur’an), the example andteachings of the Prophet Mohammed (Hadith), and thework of great thinkers such as Al-Ghazali (1058–1111),modern scholars of Islam have begun to identify ecologi-cally relevant virtues.

Muslims look upon creation as the extended family ofGod, in which each species forms a community designedto live harmoniously with all other communities. Thus,beneficence toward any creature takes on meaning as anact of devotion by which the believer treats God’s familywell. Planting and sowing, insofar as they benefit humanand nonhuman communities, are concrete instances ofsuch charity. Respect for the basic needs of others requiresvigilant control (jihad) over destructive “lower” desires,especially greed, aggression, and jealousy. The willingnessto make such personal sacrifices for the common good,strengthened annually during the fasting month of Rama-dan, again ultimately underscores the believer’s respectfor God.

Ecofeminists and those who follow Lynn White’s line ofreasoning have leveled the same criticism against Islam asagainst Christianity and Judaism: its belief in a transcend-ent God and its elevation of humans as the viceregents of

Virtues and Ecology in World Religions 1705

creation are likely to engender exploitative attitudestoward nature. Two types of Islamic responses are emer-ging. Most scholars stress that a viceregent (khalifa)should be responsible. They also qualify the implicationsof divine transcendence (e.g., Al-Hafiz Masri). Forexample, they highlight scriptural texts that depict crea-tion as a mosque, or as bearing many signs (ayat) ofdivine grace, and argue that such a sacramental worlddemands human respect. Some scholars, however, contendthat an other-worldly focus on a transcendent and all-powerful God should in fact benefit the environment,insofar as it encourages frugality and deep humility (e.g.,Seyyed Nasr).

Virtue and Ecology in HinduismWithin the multifaceted spectrum of Hindu traditions, theideal of living in mental and bodily harmony with allbeings, seen as a divine unity (Vasudeva/Brahman), standsin creative tension with the ideal of self-transcendence.Both ideals require self-cultivation through various formsof meditation and discipline (yoga). However, Hindus seek-ing self-transcendence must ultimately renounce allaspects of the natural world as illusory (maya) to attain anentirely other-wordly liberation (moksha) from the cycleof life and death. Because of these distinct (though com-plexly intertwined) foci, Hindu traditions offer both richresources and significant challenges for a this-worldly,ecological virtue ethic.

Ancient Hindu texts, such as the Gautama Dharmas-utra, already stress the importance of compassion for allcreatures. Today, against the backdrop of India’s seriousenvironmental problems, other traditional virtues arereinterpreted within an expanded doctrine of dharma asthe duty to act for the entire ecological community (e.g.,Christopher Chapple). Those who practice universalveneration (mindful of the interconnectedness and divin-ity of all things, as well as the transmigration of souls) willtend to cultivate an attitude of non-injury (ahimsa) towardother living beings, indeed toward all species, ecosystems,and elements that adorn the divine Mother Earth (DeviVasundhara). Living a life of nonviolence in turn requiressimplicity (restraint of greed), tranquility (restraint ofanger and envy), and truthfulness (satyagraha). Throughsuch personal sacrifice (yajna) the environment can bepurified – just as, conversely, the vices of selfishness andwillful ignorance cause (karma) environmental ravage(e.g., Seshagiri Rao).

Despite Lynn White’s doubt whether Eastern traditionscould change Western attitudes toward nature, Hinduteachings have helped to shape ecological consciousnessin the first industrialized nations. Virtues such as universalrespect and ahimsa, as well as the ideal of self-realization(atman moksha) within the context of the oneness of allbeings, now also guide many Western people of non-Indian descent.

Virtue and Ecology in BuddhismBuddhist virtue ethics takes its shape from the earliestteachings of the Buddhist monastic community: the uni-versality and inevitability of suffering (dukkha), theimpermanence of everything (anitya), the dependence ofeverything on everything else (pratitya-samutpada), andthe absence of an enduring self or soul (anatman). Insofaras Buddhists deny the existence of a self, their efforts atbeing virtuous cannot be understood in any strict sense asself-cultivation. Yet Buddhist practitioners do cultivatetheir minds and seek emotional equanimity. TheravadaBuddhists tend to do so primarily in expectation of per-sonal release from the suffering inherent in the cycle oflife and death (nirvana). Mahayana Buddhists may alsofocus on relieving the suffering of others, an aim perfectedin the life of the bodhisattva. In either case, however, mindand emotions are channeled to enable adaptability tochange (impermanence) and awareness of mutual depend-ence (dependent arising). Many observers have noted theremarkable fit between these basic Buddhist attitudes andan ecological worldview (e.g., Stephanie Kaza).

Buddhists have long held that those who are mindful ofthe suffering around them will see the appropriateness ofshowing compassion to human and nonhuman alike. TheIndian emperor Asoka (270–232 B.C.E.), for example, isfamous for constructing hospitals for both people andanimals. In addition to seeking relief of suffering, Bud-dhists also teach the need for prevention through an atti-tude of non-injury (pranatipata-virmana). The effects(karma) of a nonviolent lifestyle again extend beyond thehuman community. For example, one will as far as pos-sible avoid slaughtering animals and cutting trees. More-over, by overcoming one’s greed, anger, and delusionsthrough understanding their source in self-clinging, onecan avoid the ecologically harmful effects of these vices.

Both external and internal critics find a relative neglectof social ethics in some or all Buddhist traditions. How-ever, Buddhism does offer an explicit and scientificallycompatible theory of how the personal practice of virtuesaffects social and indeed ecological systems. According tothe doctrine of dependent arising, each person’s way ofbeing and acting in the world affects every other aspect ofthe world. Thus, the cumulative effects of human virtuousagency should be understood not as a matter of simpleaddition, but rather as following the mathematics of com-plexity (cf. Stuart Kauffman). Beyond a certain thresholdof virtuous people, a web of new social and ecologicalconnections will emerge.

Virtue and Ecology in ConfucianismVirtue (de), understood as self-cultivation following thedao (the Way), is the main pillar of Confucian ethics. Fromthe days of classical Confucianism, character formationhas been understood in relation to the natural world as anattempt to live in harmony with the ever-changing

1706 Virtues and Ecology in World Religions

dynamism (qi) of Heaven and Earth. Mountains, plantsand animals provide helpful analogies for self-cultivation,and the four main human virtues of humaneness (ren),righteousness (yi), propriety (li), and wisdom (zhi) all havecosmological components. Accordingly, various modernscholars (e.g., Tu Weiming, Mary Evelyn Tucker) haveidentified Confucian tradition as a rich resource forenvironmental ethics.

While the four main virtues and their derivatives arefirst and foremost understood to guide five spheres ofhuman relationships (parent–child, husband–wife, older–younger siblings, friend–friend, ruler–minister), theirimplications reach into the nonhuman world as well. Neo-Confucian thinkers of the Song and Ming dynastiesalready suggested that humaneness (ren) includes con-sideration (shu) for animals, plants and even stones, as allare one body sharing the vitality of qi. And insofar aspeople are children of Heaven and Earth, it is fitting forthem to show filiality and self-restraint toward nature. Allin all, the exercise of proper reciprocal relations with “themyriad things” is central to the Confucian conception ofthe exemplary person (junzi), who seeks to live in accord-ance with the Mandate of Heaven (tian-ming).

Critical observers have wondered whether Confucianvirtue ethics (like any other religious virtue ethics) may begreener on paper than in practice – a question complicatedby the current absence of recognizable institutions tofacilitate and represent such practice. Some note the manyuneasy compromises within Confucianism between gen-eral teachings and specific (often pre-Confucian ritual)cultural practices (e.g., Donald Blakeley). Confucianhierarchalism may also conflict with ecologically attunedself-cultivation. However, many observers agree that, con-sidering the tradition’s deep-seated holism, the dynamismof yin-yang cosmology, and the appreciation for spontan-eity, deference, and adeptness in living, it contains signifi-cant potential for guiding people toward more ecologicalways of being.

Concluding ObservationsThe following general patterns characterize the relation-ship between the cultivation of virtue and ecologicalawareness in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,Buddhism, and Confucianism. 1) Across the spectrum, theecological import of traditional virtues is assessed andhighlighted. 2) Adjustments often involve extending thereach of virtuous acts to nonhuman entities. 3) Radicalchanges (e.g., a traditional vice, such as sensuousness,being reassessed as a virtue, and vice versa) are rare andmost likely to occur in Christian circles. 4) Certain virtuesemerge so frequently and universally that they may beconsidered part of a crosscultural catalogue of ecologicalvirtues, namely: gratitude, respect, humility, caring, com-passion, generosity, gentleness, frugality, and wisdom. 5)Across the world religions, these virtues are more similar

in their outward effects on the environment than in theirbroader significance, which depends heavily on specificcontexts of belief.

Louke van Wensveen

Further ReadingBlakeley, Donald N. “Neo-Confucian Cosmology, Virtue

Ethics, and Environmental Philosophy.” Philosophyin the Contemporary World 8:2 (Fall–Winter 2001),37–49.

Bretzke, James T. Bibliography on East Asian Religionand Philosophy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,2001.

Nash, James A. Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity andChristian Responsibility. Nashville, TN: AbingdonPress, 1991.

Pedersen, Kusumita P. “Environmental Ethics in Inter-religious Perspective.” In Sumner B. Twiss and BruceGrelle, eds. Explorations in Global Ethics: ComparativeReligious Ethics and Interreligious Dialogue. Boulder,CO: Westview Press, 1998.

Swearer, Donald K. “Buddhist Virtue, Voluntary Poverty,and Extensive Benevolence.” Journal of Religious Eth-ics 26:1 (1998), 71–103.

Tucker, Mary Evelyn and John Grim, eds. Religions of theWorld and Ecology [Series]. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1997–2004.

World Wide Fund for Nature. World Religions and EcologySeries. Cassell Publishers, 1992.

See also: Environmental Ethics; Religious Environmental-ist Paradigm; Religious Studies and EnvironmentalConcern; White, Lynn – Thesis of.

Vodou – See Drumming; Indigenous Religious andCultural Borrowing; Trees in Haitian Vodou; Umbanda.

Volcanoes

One aspect of the cultural appropriation of nature is thereligious appropriation of volcanoes. As part of nature,volcanoes provide various metaphors for religion. Thecolossal threats and blessings emerging from volcanicactivities are made meaningful through cognition andactive processes of practical engagement, often by ritualmeans and sacrifices. Ideas that attribute sacred qualitiesto mountains, and especially to the peaks of volcanoes, arefamiliar to many cultures worldwide. This is illustrated intextual and visual imagery; it can be traced in myths andoral traditions and can be observed in ritual practices. Fre-quently the (cosmic, mythological) mountain is the chosenimage of analogy between the macro and the micro per-

Vodou 1707

spective. Volcanoes are believed to be the foci of magicalpower and supernatural forces. They are considered spir-itually endowed as they are seen as sites where gods andancestor spirits dwell. These gods and spirits take activepart in human affairs. Either they give blessing and fertil-ity or they destroy by volcanic eruptions. This expressesambivalent experiences as people feel life-giving qualitiesin volcanoes as well as powerful, awe-inspiring anddestructive forces.

In most studies of contemporary natural disasters,research includes neither the interpretations of theaffected people nor the symbolic and religious meaningsin the context of their lives and worldviews. But disasterslike volcanic eruptions must also be seen in terms of howthey are perceived and estimated by those affected, includ-ing the symbolic basis of human perceptions of nature andnatural disasters.

Although it is important to note that volcanic eruptionsare conceptualized, structured and negotiated in multiple,changeable contexts, there are certain similarities in theways in which nature is constructed as parallel to humansociety. Frequently volcanoes are anthropomorphized, andthere are close associations between cosmos, morality andsocial conduct. Due to such analogies of nature and soci-eties, seen as mutually constitutive, in Africa, Asia andLatin America, natural disasters often are not explained bynatural causes alone but are traced back to incorrect con-duct of human beings. Thus, in many regions of the worldvolcanoes are seen, among other things, as natural seis-mographs for social harmony or disharmony. They aresometimes considered as a sign of dissent or conflictbetween the native people or particular clans that provokethe tempers of the ancestors or of the gods. Based on theidea that the structure of the cosmos is mirrored in thereligio-political realm, rulers of ancient Southeast Asiankingdoms constructed their legitimization through mys-tical connections with volcanoes. The mandate for politi-cal authority was connected with the role of the ruler asdivine mediator with the whole living universe. But oncethere were calamities, these were seen as signs for socialinjustice and connected to political revolts and upheavals,and as a consequence the ruler lost his power. In this con-text it is important to note that supernatural explanationsof natural events do not only legitimize but can also de-legitimize political power.

In the Vesuv region, the Roman people celebrated everyyear on 23 August a festival called Volcania, where theythrew living fish caught in the river Tiber in the fire tocalm down Vulcanus, the god of the fire, who was latertreated as equivalent to Hephaistos, the god of the smiths.Fish sacrifices are still today a usual practice at the vol-cano Lewotobi perempuan on the Island Flores in Indone-sia. In general, the more active and dangerous a volcanois, the more elaborate are the sacrificial ceremonies. Theofferings sacrificed vary from region to region and are

often accompanied by local dances, prayers and all kindsof ritual activities. In some regions human sacrifice waspracticed, such as in Nigeria or Indonesia where someclans sacrificed boys or girls aged around 15 to the moun-tain spirits. Their blood was poured into the volcanoes,whilst their corpses were buried normally. In Tanzania theMaasai at Oldonyo Lengai worship the god Engai (the lastelaborate ceremony with about 100 participants tookplace during an eruption in 1983) in offering him sheepand goats. At the volcano Lewotobi laki-laki (the lastextensive ceremony took place during the eruption in1992), a small goat is ripped apart with bare hands. TheChagga in Tanzania used to hold great ceremonies on thetop of the mountain Kifunika, close to Kilimanjaro, duringwhich they offered some pieces of meat and the blood of acow, goat or sheep, mixed with mbege (local beer) and sale(holy yukka plant leaf ) for the mizimu (spirits). Like inmany other regions, the practice of sacrifice did not disap-pear completely after Christianization, but occurs rarelyand only in secret.

Beyond that, volcanoes are, in almost all regions, con-sidered in gender categories. Sometimes they are deter-mined, either male or female, according to the kinship andpolitical organization of the local population. Occasion-ally women or witches are treated as equivalent to vol-canoes and are seen as responsible for an eruption. Thereare many stories in the large collection of Icelandic folk-tales concerning volcanoes. One story in the IcelandicEyrbyggja Saga tells of Katla, a volcano located in South-ern Iceland, and a wicked female cook in the monastery ofþykkvabæjarklaustur. After killing a shepherd who hadstolen some of her magic trousers, she flung herself into adark crevasse in the ice cap. Ever since, according to tales,she avenges her fate by pouring fire and water onto thenearby regions.

If there are two or more volcanoes located next to eachother, the mythology of their origin is often connectedwith love or war stories, such as the myth about Popocate-petl and Iztaccihuatl in Mexico. Popocatepetl was an Aztecwarrior who was in love with Iztaccihuatl, the emperor’sdaughter. While Popocatepetl was at war, Iztaccihuatl wasmistakenly informed that Popocatepetl had been killed. Indespair she killed herself. When Popocatepetl returned andfound Itzaccihuatl dead, he was overcome with grief. Hebuilt a mound and laid her body on it and vowed that hewould never leave her again. Examining the two vol-canoes one will notice in Iztaccihuatl the shape of awoman, lying on her back, covered with a white sheet ofsnow. At her feet stands Popocatepetl, eternally watchingover her. Today the people of Pueblo worship the saint SanGregoria Chino by bringing their offerings such as flowersand fruits to the slopes of Popocatepetl.

At times, there are almost exactly the same stories toldby people in different parts of the globe that create parallelworlds. This is the case for reports about giants or ghosts,

1708 Volcanoes

sitting inside the volcano and cooking meals for theneighbor mountains, their lovers or husbands, as in Indo-nesia on the Island Flores at the volcano Inerie, and inIceland on the Island Heimaey at the volcano Hekla.

There are numerous stories about Pele who has long beenthe fire-goddess of the Hawaiians. Her home was in the greatfire-pit of the volcano of Kilauea on the island of Hawai’i.The word “Pele” has been used with three distinct defini-tions by the old Hawaiians: Pele, the fire goddess; Pele, avolcano or fire-pit in any land; Pele, an eruption of lava.

The Kelimutu in East Indonesia is a complex volcanowith three crater lakes of different colors. The frequentcolor changes of the crater lakes are caused by mineralreactions, primarily by iron oxidization. Schoolingthroughout Indonesia – including the outer islands – hasdisseminated a knowledge of volcanoes that is indeedlimited, yet comparable in part to the European standard.Old Indonesian religious concepts remain nonethelessextremely significant. For inhabitants of the volcano’svicinity, the Kelimutu is the home of the ebu nusi (ances-tral spirits) and nitu (natural spirits). The ruler of the Keli-mutu is the volcanic spirit Konde, who is the grandchild ofRongge and Ranggo the ancient ancestors of the villageMoni. This explanation of their descent – from “spirits ofthe volcano” – is common to inhabitants of many regionsin the world. Konde lives on Kelimutu in a village thatlooks like Moni. He regularly holds big parties there andtries to take human women as prisoners. The first lake ofKelimutu is called tiwu ata polo (lake of the evil demon)and is the lake in which the “souls” of thieves, murderersand practitioners of “black magic” land after their death,also sometimes called api nereka (fires of damnation). Thesecond lake tiwu koö fai (lake in perpetual motion) is thelake in which the “souls” of deceased children land, andthe third lake tiwu ata bupu (lake of very old men) is thelake in which the “souls” of elderly people land after theirdeath. The “reactions” of the volcanoes – be these erup-tions or color changes – are interpreted by the Florinese asemotional gestures – as expressions of sadness or angerabout social events – and as a coded symbolism which isof social interest.

Occasions of political and social conflict in Indonesiaare often accompanied by debates about volcanic activity.This religio-political meaning is well known for the veryactive “high risk volcano” Mount Merapi in Central Java.Every year a ceremony is conducted by the members of theSultan’s palace in order to pacify the destructive power ofthe spirits residing in the crater. The ceremony acts as areminder about a mythological promise that the countrywill always be protected against Merapi’s eruptionsbecause the ruler of the volcano realm will never send thelava toward the Sultan’s palace in the nearby city ofYogyakarta. But in 1994 for the first time an eruptionturned to the south, in the direction of Yogyakarta. Manypeople saw this as a sign that the spirits disapproved of thebehavior of Indonesia’s ruling elite. Thus, the symbolicdiscourse on the Merapi can be instrumentalized not onlyby the rulers to justify themselves, but also by theoppressed.

Judith SchleheUrte Undine Frömming

Further ReadingForth, Gregory L. Beneath the Volcano: Religion, Cosmol-

ogy and Spirit Classification Among the Nage ofEastern Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV Press 1998.

Frömming, Urte Undine. “Volcanoes: Symbolic Places ofResistance. Political Appropriation of Nature in Flores,Indonesia.” In Ingrid Wessel and Georgia Wimhöfer,eds. Violence in Indonesia. Hamburg: Abera, 2001,270–81.

Schlehe, Judith. “Reinterpretations of Mystical Traditions:Explanations of a Volcanic Eruption in Java.” Anthro-pos 91 (1996), 391–409.

Trausti, Ari. Volcanoes in Iceland. Reykjavik: Vaka-Helgafell, 1996.

Westervelt, William D. Hawaiian Legends of Volcanoes.Rutland, VT: C.E. Tuttle, 1963.

See also: Aztec Religion – pre-Colombian; Delphic Oracle;Hawai’i; Maasai (Tanzania); Mayan Spirituality andConservation; Sacred Mountains.

Volcanoes 1709