Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist? Buddhism teaches us to practice harmlessness. Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature? Can consciousness, particularly the pure awareness aspect, reside in such parts of nature (e.g. non-animals), or why not?
Maybe yes, or, &quot;yes in some (or most) forms of Buddhism&quot;. Look at this answer for example:

A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.

I'm not sure whether that meets your definition: I think that there the deva is sentient (and has an immaterial body), the tree not considered &quot;sentient&quot; (iirc perhaps it's called three-factored), and the tree is somehow the deva's home.
I think this type of belief is known to the West as Animism ... and some people posit that Buddhist doctrine was admixed into indigenous (non-Buddhist) beliefs, such that forms (e.g. national forms, like Thai) include elements of both.
I think devas and so on are a feature of all traditional forms of Buddhism -- I'm only unsure of whether they're associated with &quot;nature&quot;.
As for &quot;Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?&quot;, you might like to read this (or other writings related to such a topic):
“Thou shall not cut these trees” --
They are ordained now --
The story of Tree ordination in Sri Lanka
That's written by someone associated with &quot;the Friends of the Earth&quot; (which I think is an international organization of environmental activists, who are not necessarily Buddhist, so maybe biased somewhat and not a reliable editor of Buddhist doctrine).
As for what's &quot;harmless&quot; it would be an idea to check the Vinaya. I think that breaking (or killing) a living plant is not &quot;allowable&quot; to a monk, is a fault requiring confession -- &quot;taking what's not given&quot; might be an issue too.

I found that what I quoted above is a paraphrase of the story associated with Dhp 222 -- which may also be the origin story for the Vinaya rule against Bhikkhus cutting plants:

Once, a bhikkhu from Alavi wanted to build a monastery for himself and so he began to cut down a tree. The deva dwelling in that tree (rukkha devata) tried to stop him, saying that she and her infant son had nowhere to go. Failing to stop the bhikkhu she put her son on a branch, hoping that it would stop him from felling the tree. By then, the bhikkhu was already swinging his axe and he could not stop it in time and unintentionally cut off an arm of the child. Seeing her child being harmed in this way, the mother flew in a rage and was about to kill the bhikkhu. As she raised her hands to strike the bhikkhu, she suddenly checked herself and thought, &quot;If I were to kill a bhikkhu, I would be killing one who observes the moral precepts (sila); in that case, I would surely suffer in niraya. Other guardian devas of the trees would be following my example and other bhikkhus would also be killed. But this bhikkhu has a master; I must go and see his master.&quot; So she went weeping to the Buddha and related all that had happened.
To her the Buddha said,

&quot;O rukkha devata! You have done well to control yourself.&quot;

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 222: He who restrains his rising anger as a skilful charioteer checks a speeding chariot, — him I call a true charioteer; other charioteers only hold the reins.

At the end of the discourse the deva attained Sotapatti Fruition, and for her dwelling place she was offered a tree near the Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha. After this incident, the Buddha forbade bhikkhus to cut vegetation, such as grass, plants, shrubs and trees.