On the Alleged Dilution of Buddhist Teachings

In a recent post, I suggested that secularists and scientists like Rachel Carson and John Muir intuitively grasped the principle of Dependent Origination (DO), despite not being exposed to Buddhism. My argument was that one can come to understand DO through the study of science and the observation of nature.

A Buddhist friend offered the following critique: “DO in Buddhism is taught to sentient beings to escape samsara. With insentient objects like nature, mountains, and trees, there is no DO to speak of. You can talk about interconnectedness or interdependence in nature, but not using DO. To do so confuses and dilutes the Buddha’s teachings.”

This debate is part of a larger dialogue between traditionalists and modernizers within Buddhism. I believe this critique reflects a misunderstanding of the scope of DO and its relevance beyond human experience. Below, I address these misconceptions and clarify the true depth and applicability of DO.

Misconception 1: The Audience and Purpose of Dependent Origination

It is true that the Buddha taught DO to help sentient beings alleviate their suffering. However, the essence of DO is the recognition of interdependence, not just as a tool for spiritual liberation but as a fundamental insight into the nature of…