Buddhist Economics: Relating Skillfully to Wealth

Reading more of Ven. P. A. Payutto's book on Buddhist Economics, someone pointed out to me the following which seems particularly important:

In the Suttas, the Buddha stresses four areas in which householders may relate skillfully to wealth [D.III.188; A.V.176-182]:

Acquisition -- Wealth should not be acquired by exploitation, but through effort and intelligent action; it should be acquired in a morally sound way.

Safekeeping -- Wealth should be saved and protected as an investment for the further development of livelihood and as an insurance against future adversity. When accumulated wealth exceeds these two needs, it may be used for creating social benefit by supporting community works.

Use -- Wealth should be put to the following uses: (1) to support oneself and one's family; (2) to support the interests of fellowship and social harmony, such as in receiving guests, or in activities of one's friends or relatives; (3) to support good works, such as community welfare projects.

Mental attitude -- Wealth should not become an obsession, a cause for worry and anxiety. It should rather be related to with an understanding of its true benefits and limitations, and dealt with in a way that leads to personal development.

The teachings from a monk in Thailand are particularly interesting since Thailand was not subjected to the western colonialism that modified some of the thinking about Buddhism and economics in other Southeast Asian countries. Ven. Payutto's book is also refreshing because he doesn't try to advocate for a specific economic system (such as Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism/Manorialism, etc.) but instead talks about the ethical issues surrounding economic decisions.

I would highly recommend his book, especially to American Buddhists who probably haven't heard of any of the suttas that he mentions or quotes.

Buddhist Economics by Ven. P. A. Payutto

In a previous post I mentioned that I was not impressed with E. F. Schumaker, the guy who originally coined the term "Buddhist Economics." Mr. Schumaker seemed to be trying to use Buddhism as a tool to support his own ideas, rather than necessarily basing his ideas on Buddhism, and his tendency to quote western thinkers while not citing references to actual Buddhist sources was extremely disappointing to me. As it turns out, E. F. Schumaker's ideas probably have more to do with American Transcendentalism (see Professor Mark Blum's talk) than actual Buddhism.

Venerable P. A. Payutto is an actual Thai Buddhist monk though, so not surprisingly his book on Buddhist Economics is much more sound. He actually uses terms like chanda (intention) and tanha (craving) and otherwise seems to know what he's talking about.

He does seem to advocate an approach of integrating economics and ethics:

Ultimately, economics cannot be separated from Dhamma, because all the activities we associate with economics emerge from the Dhamma. Economics is just one part of a vast interconnected whole, subject to the same natural laws by which all things function. Dhamma describes the workings of this whole, the basic truth of all things, including economics. If economics is ignorant of the Dhamma -- of the complex and dynamic process of causes-and-effects that constitutes reality -- then it will be hard pressed to solve problems, much less produce the benefits to which it aims.

Yet this is precisely the trouble with modern economic thinking. Lacking any holistic, comprehensive insight and limited by the narrowness of their specialized view, economists single out one isolated portion of the stream of conditions and fail to consider results beyond that point. An example: there exists a demand for a commodity, such as whiskey. The demand is supplied by production -- growing grain and distilling it into liquor. The whiskey is then put on the market and then purchased and consumed. When it is consumed, demand is satisfied. Modern economic thinking stops here, at the satisfaction of the demand. There is no investigation of what happens after the demand is satisfied.

This probably makes more sense in Thailand where most people are Buddhist, but in the US for example we have people of different religions and it seems like it makes more sense to try to make economics a more neutral study and leave ethical decisions to the political process used to enact various economic policies.

For example, should a society maximize wealth or well-being? An economist might tell you that a policy will retard the economy but he can't be expected to tell you if it will increase people's well being because well being is difficult to measure. He may be able to measure it if observable metrics can be determined. As absurd as it may sound to some people, a monetary value might need to be placed on the well being (perhaps based on survey data of people in society, i.e. how much money are you willing to give up in order to be this much happier?) in order to determine if people will think they're getting they're money's worth for the well being.

Again, this may sound crazy to some people who think that well being is "priceless" but to many people it isn't priceless, and failure to try to estimate some value can cause the value to essentially get treated as zero. Regulators already place a value on human life in certain contexts, such as prevention of a statistical death. Believe it or not, survey data within a society will reveal the amount of money a person is willing to spend to prevent a random unknown person from dying.

So in some of these economic models, I think the place of Dhamma and Buddhist teaching in general is to help set the values on how much happiness and saving peoples' lives is worth.

We can't really force these values on people, especially in a democratic country, because people are going to set their own values regardless. If the politicians spend too much money, in the opinion of the public, to save statistical lives or increase well being in some way they are going to get voted out of office.

So I don't believe the Buddhist way is to try to force people to be happy because that doesn't work. They have to be taught what things are really worth something and which ones aren't. When you try to force stuff on them they just rebel and problems happen.

More from Ven. Payutto's book:

Given its dynamic view of the world, Buddhism does not put forth absolute rules for ethical behavior. The ethical value of behavior is judged partly by the results it brings and partly by the qualities which lead to it. Virtuous actions are good because they lead to benefit; evil actions are evil because they lead to harm. There is a belief that any method used to attain a worthy end is justified by the worthiness of that end. This idea is summed up in the expression "the end justifies the means." Communist revolutionaries, for instance, believed that since the objective is to create an ideal society in which all people are treated fairly, then destroying anybody and anything which stands in the way of that ideal society is justified. The end (the ideal society) justifies the means (hatred and bloodshed).

The idea that "the end justifies the means" is a good example of a human belief which simply does not accord with natural truth. This concept is a human invention, an expedient rationalization which contradicts natural law and "the way things are." Beliefs are not evil in themselves, but when they are in contradiction with reality, they are bound to cause problems. Throughout the ages, people with extreme political and religious ideologies have committed the most brutal acts under the slogan "the end justifies the means." No matter how noble their cause, they ended up destroying that which they were trying to create, which is some kind of happiness or social order.

I haven't finished reading this yet but so far it seems like what I would call the only truly Buddhist economic work I've seen so far. Most western stuff I've encountered, claiming to be Buddhist, has essentially been materialistic and based on ideas like "if everyone just has equal amounts of wealth then everyone will be happier" or something. Not only that, but in these peoples' minds "the end justifies the means" in that force is perfectly justified if that's what it takes to bring about these objectives based on material-based theories happiness. This is not Dhamma in the least.

I would highly recommend reading Buddhist Economics by Ven. P. A. Payutto.

The Ideal Person

From A Constitution for Living by P. A. Payutto is the chapter on The Ideal Person:

The ideal person, or perfect human being, who can be counted as a truly valuable member of the human race, and who can be called a complete person, able to lead his community and society to peace and well-being, is one who possesses the following seven qualities:

1. Dhammannuta: knowing principles, knowing causes; he knows the underlying principles and laws governing the things with which he must deal in the process of everyday life, in performing his duties and carrying out his tasks; he knows and understands according to reason what he must do. For example, he understands what duties and responsibilities are involved in his post, his status, his occupation and his work. He knows the principles involved therein and he knows how to apply them so that they become factors for the successful completion of those duties and responsibilities. At the highest level, dhammannuta means knowing fully the natural laws or truths of nature so that one can deal correctly with life and the world, with a mind that is free and not enslaved by them.

2. Atthannuta: knowing objectives, knowing results; he knows the meaning and objectives of the principles he abides by; he understands the objectives of the task he is doing; he knows the reason behind his actions and his way of life and the objective to be expected from them. [He knows] the aim behind a duty, position or occupation. He knows what may be expected in the future from the actions he is doing in the present; whether, for example, they will lead to a good or a bad result. At the highest level, atthannuta means understanding the implications of the natural course of things and the benefit that is the real purpose of life.

3. Attannuta: knowing oneself; he [or she] knows as they are the current extent and nature of his [or her] status, condition, sex, strength, knowledge, aptitude, ability, virtue, etc., and then acts accordingly, does what is needed to produce results, and rectifies and improves himself or herself so as to grow to greater maturity.

4. Mattannuta: knowing moderation; he knows the right amount in such areas as consumption and spending; he knows moderation in speech, work and action, in rest and in all manner of recreation. He does all things with an understanding of their objectives and for the real benefits to be expected, by acting not merely for his own satisfaction or to accomplish his own ends, but rather to achieve a proper balance of supporting factors that will produce the beneficial result as revealed to him by wisdom.

5. Kalannuta: knowing occasion; he knows the proper occasion and the proper amount of time for actions, duties and dealings with other people; he knows, for example, when what should be done and how, and he does it punctually, regularly, in time, for the right amount of time and at the right time. Kalannuta includes knowing how to plan one's time and organize it effectively.

6. Parisannuta: knowing company; he knows the locale, he knows the gathering and he knows the community. He knows what should be done in a given locale or community, thus: "This community should be approached in this way and spoken to thus; the people here have these rules and regulations; they have this culture or tradition; they have these needs; they should thus be dealt with, helped, served and benefited in this way."

7. Puggalannuta: knowing persons; he knows and understands individual differences; he knows people's greater or lesser temperaments, abilities and virtues and knows how to relate to them effectively; he knows, for example, whether they should be associated with, what can be learned from them, and how they should be related to, employed, praised, criticized, advised or taught.

These seven qualities are known as the sappurisa-dhamma, the qualities of a good or genuine person, one who has the qualities of a complete human being.(A.IV.113 )

The emphasis there is mine. This one particularly sticks out at me: "He knows and understands according to reason what he must do."

Unfortunately many people don't seem to understand the "according to reason" part. They think they can just bumble around with a mind of compassion and that will somehow, by itself, magically lead them to do the right thing.

Well, that's nonsense. Among the 10 paramis (perfections) it's worth noting that pañña (Discernment; insight; wisdom) is the highest. The Buddha also said "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern." (SN 45.1)

Even though the Buddha was talking about clear knowing with respect to the ignorance that causes suffering, it would seem to apply to everything. It's also worth noting that pañña means discernment, knowing exactly what is going on, it doesn't just mean some abstract feel-good stuff that just sounds good. You can't simply bumble around like a compassionate idiot and expect to have beneficial effects.

Similarly though, even if you know a situation well your actions can't be beneficial if you're guided by greed and hate.

Mark Blum: Environmentalism, Buddhism & Transcendentalism

One of the things that really bothers me, and that I feel motivated to write about, is people trying to hijack Buddhism for their own purposes. So recently my attention was grabbed when I came across a talk by Mark Blum Associate Professor of Japanese Studies at the East Asian Studies department of SUNY Albany. Description:

"Environmentalism, Buddhism and Transcendentalism;" on April 3rd, 2008 as part of the Buddhist Studies Seminar at Columbia University. He explores how views of ecology among modern Eco-Buddhists might be grounded more in the philosophies of Transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau than in Buddhist traditions.

The talk is 1 hour and 15 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing and attempted to take some notes. Some notable quotes and points from my notes are recounted below.

Blum: "In the process of two years of research, we discovered that there was no notion of 'nature' in Indian Buddhism."

Blum also says: "...what I discovered in trying to read through a lot of ecological Buddhist writings in the west, based in Buddhist thought...at least the American version of this...shares more with Transcendentalist thinkers like Emerson and Thoreau than it does with anything Buddhist."

The religious form of ecology, known as deep ecology or "ecological activism as spiritual path", originated in Europe. The term was coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973.

One example that professor Blum gives of this becoming intermixed with Buddhism is "ecology monks" in Thailand ordaining trees.

What does it mean to ordain trees? Blum states, "The baptizing of trees by by monks in Thailand in the 20th century could have only happened because of the 20th century... because of the spread of the rhetoric of Transcendentalism from America to Thailand."

He mentions that bringing attention to ecological problems is good, but ordaining trees is just inconceivable within Buddhism. (In fact he can't help but snicker at the idea which is apparent in the audio.)

In Thailand, for exmaple, even though spirits who live in trees are revered, if something happens to a spirit's tree then the spirit simply moves to another tree. Even in this case, sacredness is not in tree but in the spirit itself.

Blum mentions parts of DN 27: The Agganna Sutta about how man affects environment and environment effects man. The interaction is moral, not about mutual dependence of man and nature. The main theme is that of attachment, the goal being to remove attachment to nature, not attach sacredness to it and embrace it or identify with it as some Eco-Buddhists have advocated.

Buddhist cosmology is hierarchical; animals are inferior to humans. Trees aren't sentient and don't even rate as part of a "realm". Animals are presumed to be unhappy and morally flawed; a more ideal world would have fewer animals in it. The Eco-Buddhist concept of humans and animals being part of the same realm (humans simply being more clever animals) is at odds with Buddhist tradition.

Blum relates the idea of the sacredness of nature in East Asian Buddhist writings to Taoist escapism and the animism popular in medieval Japan.

The second half of the talk focuses on American Transcendentalism and the idea of self in nature, the divine in nature, and transcending the self by getting back to "savage" nature, etc. Clearly these ideas are not Buddhist.

Henry David Thoreau advocated the idea of "self-transcendence in nature", transcendence of "who one is" by losing his consciousness of self "in nature." Thoreau held reverence for the wild and salvage, and faith in the salvation of self-discipline.

Thoreau: "It would imply the regeneration of mankind if they were to become elevated enough to truely worship sticks and stones." (Source) Not a very Buddhist idea.

Blum mentions that Thoreau and Emmerson were influenced by Asian philosophy, including Buddhism, which is perhaps why some transcendentalist philosophy does have some things in common with Buddhism, but it is not equivalent to Buddhism. Overall though, Transcendentalism comes from Unitarianism which was a Christian reaction against Puritanism.

Blum further mentions that there is nothing in Buddhism about agency in nature; earth is not a deity. This idea seems to have more to do with Unitarian or Transcendentalist ideas such as the presence of the divine in nature; nature IS God. (Similarly some have stated ideas such as nature IS Buddha but I can't remember at which point this came up in the talk.)

He at one point makes a comment about how National Socialism (Nazi Party) was very ecologically friendly and had many green policies, which he associated with rejection of Christian policies and beliefs. (A recent book that talks about this is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.) He doesn't really get into it but I think the lesson here is that it's important not to reject or embrace things for negative reasons (hatred of Christianity for example) as it often leads one to embrace other forms of hatred.

My Comments

Overall, though I do a poor job of taking notes and editing them, he makes a good case that religious environmentalism doesn't really have much to do with Buddhism.

The main legitimate ties I see with Buddhism and environmentalism are that of compassion and refraining from harmful behavior. Nature is not sacred, animals are not noble, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to harm them and that one should not seek to protect them from environmental hazards.

So I think that the main point is that any Buddhist environmental focus should be on non-harm and compassion rather than some sense of "sacredness" in nature, or out of some reaction to Christian ideas about nature belonging to humans. Ultimately what matters is reducing the suffering of beings and this can be done to some extent by protecting the environment, but it's not Buddhist to take action out of some abstract sense of "sacredness" of nature. Any action must be directed at reducing the suffering of humans and other beings, and working for their welfare.

Of course, in order do this it is important that one is doing it for the right reasons and not out of hatred as the Nazis possibly did. Hatred will lead to more hatred, and actions out of hatred, even if they seem good at first, may not continue to remain good if the real goal is to harm those you hate.

This is why the elimination of hatred through personal practice is so important, and unfortunately this is probably neglected by most people, especially those overly focused on the behavior of others.

Armies of the Enlightened?

From an interesting article in Newsweek:

In recent years, massive groups of fervent believers have taken to the streets of Asia with angry political demands. They've railed against government corruption, condemned the onslaught of Western values and decried the erosion of traditional morals. Having built an extensive network of grass-roots aid groups, their numbers are exploding. Some have even picked up arms to defend their beliefs. Sound familiar? It should—only the faithful in question aren't Islamic fundamentalists or conservative Christians. They're Buddhists: members of what used to be Asia's quietest religion, one usually associated with pacifism and contemplation.

I really wish people would try to keep Buddhism out of politics, but it looks like that won't happen any more than it does with anything else.