Buddha Dhyana Dana Review Online Volume 12 No. 1

Capitalism, with its logic of minimizing cost and maximizing profit for the accumulation of private property, has caused economic, social, cultural and ecological crises not only in the Third World, but also in the First. There is an attempt among Buddhists both in the East and the West to establish a Buddhist economic model in response to the exploitative and destructive nature of capitalist economic structures. In this paper I present Buddhism as an economic ethical theory, a theory which stands in stark contrast to modern transnational capitalism, in an attempt to establish sustainable world peace. Buddhist economic ethics emphasizes the normative or the ethical elements found in Buddhist sources and scriptures. Contemporary Eastern Buddhist thinkers like Venerable Prayudh Payutto (Dhammapitaka) and Western Buddhist economists like E. F. Schumacher and Glen and Barbara Alexandrin will be discussed to facilitate the construction of a critical perspective on and a systematic analysis of a modern Buddhist theory of economic ethics.

In the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha mentioned, from time to time, on the economic aspect of life, such as: 'Poverty is suffering in this world. '(Anguttara Nikaya III.351) ';Hunger is the most severe of all illnesses.'(Payutto, 1994, 89) The Buddha explained that when people are overwhelmed and in pain through suffering, they are incapable of understanding religious teaching. Although the Buddha never specifically taught about the subject of economics, teachings about the four requisites food, clothing, shelter and medicine occur throughout the scriptures. In essence, all of the teachings concerning the four requisites are teachings on economic ethics. According to Payutto, when talking about a Buddhist economics, we might find ourselves in fact discussing Buddhism with the language and concepts of Western economics. (Payutto, 1994, 15)

Like other sciences in the age of specialization, economics has become a narrow and rarefied discipline; an isolated, almost stunted, body of knowledge, having little to do with other disciplines or human activities. Economics strives for objectivity. In the process, subjective values, such as ethics, are excluded. Modern economics has been said to be the most scientific of all the social sciences. Some even asset that economics is purely a science of numbers, a matter of mathematical equations. In its effort to be scientific, economics ignores all non-quantifiable, abstract values. Payutto comments: It may be asked how it is possible for economics to be free of values when, in fact, it is rooted in the human mind. The economic process begins with want, continues with choice, and ends with satisfaction, all of which are functions of mind. Abstract values are thus the beginning, the middle and the end of economics, and so it is impossible for economics to be value-free.(Payutto, 1994, 27)

According to Payutto, the study of economics has up till now avoided the questions of moral values and considerations of ethics, which are abstract qualities. However, it is becoming obvious that in order to solve the problems that confront us in the world today it will be necessary to take into consideration both concrete and abstract factors, and as such it is impossible to avoid the subject of moral values. If the study of economics is to play any part in the solution of our problems, it can no longer evade the subject of ethics. (Payutto, 1994 ix) 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. Buddhism would say that it is not the end which justifies the means, but rather the means which condition the end. Payutto sees that: '…while they are subjective, we should not forget that our ethical choices inevitably play themselves out in the world according to the objective principle of causes and conditions. Our ethics and the behavior that naturally flows from our ethics contribute to the causes and conditions that determine who we are, the kind of society we live in and the condition of our environment'. Unfortunately, most people are only vaguely aware of how their internal values condition external reality. (Payutto, 1994, 23)

Buddhist economists would not only consider the ethical values of economic activity, but also strive to understand reality and direct economic activity to be in harmony with the way things are. While modern economics confines its regard to events within its specialized sphere, Buddhist economics would investigate how a given economic activity affects the three interconnected spheres of human existence: the individual, society, and nature or the environment. Economics cannot be separated from other branches of knowledge. It is rather one component of an effort to remedy the problems of humanity. Buddhist economics is therefore not so much a self-contained science, but one of a number of interdependent disciplines working in concert toward the common goal of social, individual and environmental well-being.

In modern economics, well-being is usually measured in terms of per capita income and consumption, such as the amount of money expended on medical care and education. A growing number of people are dissatisfied with material growth models and have been searching for alternative measures of well-being with less materialistic and more qualitative goals. Buddhist economics arises out of the demand for new economic objectives. As Glen and Alexandrin put it, A Buddhist Economics would take traditional Economics, econometrics, and planning techniques, and inject into them a so-called buddha-element which contains, among other things, the buddhist person, the Buddhist concepts of dharma and sangha, etc.(Alexandrin, 1992, 129)

'Right Livelihood' is one of the ethical requirements found in the Buddhas Noble Eightfold Path. Right livelihood calls for modes of production beneficial to the mutual well-being of all. An important Buddhistic element of right livelihood is the way or manner in which one works, produces, or acquires wealth. Schumacher (1992, 57) argues that it is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth, not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but th craving for them. From the teachings of the Buddha concerning economics and related ethics, some basic principles of a Buddhist economics can be posited within the context of a contemporary interpretation. These principles deal with the nature of work and employment, consumption and human well-being, and the use of natural resources.

The Alexandrins have constructed a model of Buddhist economics by adding what they call 'b-elements' (buddha-elements) to conventional economics. They define the adjective buddhist (with a small 'b') as embodying ethical and moral motivating forces which may guide individuals in their behavior, including their economic behavior. Although they address economic behavior, their approach to solving economic problems tends to be individually rather than structurally oriented. They use the 'six paramitas' from the Buddhist scriptures as b-elements. (Alexandrin, 1992, 134-136) The six paramita are generosity (dana), moral practice (sila), patience (ksanti), zeal (virya), mindfulness (dhyana), and perspective (prajna wisdom).

Production or work is an aspect of the individuals behavior that should show the effect of the b-elements. The Alexandrins (1992, 137) point out that the b-elements most relevant for the production aspect of an economy are mindfulness, zeal, patience and moral practice. Work, they maintain, is the realization of the principle of helping other individuals and oneself at the same time. It should not be seen as a necessary evil, inimical to the attainment of leisure or pleasure. Work is part of the unit of daily life and spiritual practice. They argue that The buddhist individual would mindfully choose an occupation where work is conspicuously productive and helpful to other people meditation in action which would bring him great psychic income. He would avoid, for example, becoming a butcher, a procurer, a soviet-style expediter, a socially unproductive researcher or a Madison-A venue type executive. He would attempt to work for non-exploitative companies producing useful goods, industries offering important services. He would, at the very least, do his work, whatever it might be, in the most mindful and least destructive way. (Alexandrin, 1992, 138)

From a Buddhist economic perspective, work is regarded as not only the means of achieving an adequate standard of living, but also the medium in which human beings develop their skills and talents to the best of their ability. Work, in this view, also becomes the medium through which people contribute to building the community to which they belong. Working conditions, therefore, should provide for the health, creativity and social commitment of everyone. The nature of work and the nature of employment are closely related. Employment should be regarded primarily as serving the purposes of human beings in the pursuit of excellence in their work, rather than merely being for the production of profit. John C. Raines develops the concept of work and the related notion of tools in a more profound way: Work is fundamentally social and historical. Each worker in taking up his or her work inherits the whole legacy of human tools, and the skill to use those tools developed and passed on from a thousand generations of previous tool-users. This inheritance is a gift, unmerited and unearned, a common grace which belongs to us simply because we are human in the long journey of all who have worked in society and time. (Raines, 1990, 315) As John Raines points out, human work and tools are closely associated. Tools are seen as the way human beings play with nature, involving he capabilities of receptivity and reciprocity in the creative process of tool development, and not just control and mastery. The whole vast legacy of tools developed through thousands of generations of human work can be regarded as a generosity inherited by us, rather than simply as instruments with which to make a living. In short, work, employment, and even tools involve much more than mere economic livelihood.

From a Buddhist micro-economic perspective, human beings should be skilled, efficient, earnest and energetic in their work (utthana-sampada). (Rahula, 1974, 82) They should learn and cultivate their skills and abilities from work to a level of excellence. Work reflects individuals capacities and talents and provides them with a chance to develop themselves and their relationship to the community. From work or a profession, individuals develop friendships with others (kalyana-mitta) who give mutual support along the path of self-development, a mutual enabling to overcome 'ego-centeredness' by working with other people. (Rahula, 1974, 82) However, this insight, crucial to a Buddhist view of economics, is not the case for most work today.

From a modern economic point of view, the employer usually assumes that employment is simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it cannot be replaced by machinery. The worker, on the other hand, regards work as a disutility. To work is to make a sacrifice of ones leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice. In modern economics, the ideal from the point of view of the employer is to have output without employees, and the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income without employment. Schumacher criticizes these concepts of work and leisure in modern economics, writing: 'To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.' (Schumacher, 1975, 55)

While Buddhism accepts the fact that it is natural for people to have cravings for things (tanha), it also recognizes the human desire for quality of life or well-being, the desire for self improvement and goodness (chanda). Problems arise when life is lived from ignorance and at the direction of craving. Problems can be solved by acquiring knowledge. Human development thus hinges on the development of knowledge. When ignorance is replaced with wisdom, it is possible to distinguish between what is of true benefit and what is not. With wisdom, desires will naturally be for that which is truly beneficial. As Payutto puts it, 'Modern Western economic theory is based on the view that work is something that we are compelled to do in order to obtain money for consumption. It is during the time when we are not working, or 'leisure time', that we may experience happiness and satisfaction. Work and satisfaction are considered to be separate and generally opposing principles.

'Buddhism, however, recognizes that work can either be satisfying or not satisfying, depending on which of the two kinds of desire is motivating it. When work stems from the desire for true well-being, there is satisfaction in the direct and immediate results of the work itself.' (Payutto, 1994, 46-47)

Modern economics is based on the assumption that it is human nature to compete. Buddhism, on the other hand, recognizes that human beings are capable of both competition and cooperation. According to Payutto, when people are striving to satisfy the desire for pleasure (tanha), they will compete fiercely. This competitive instinct can be redirected to induce cooperation. True cooperation arises with the desire for well-being (chanda). Human development demands that we understand how tanha and chanda motivate us and that we shift our energies from competition towards cooperative efforts to solve the problems facing the world and to realize a nobler goal. (Payutto, 1994, 53-54).

Buddhist economics regards human work in terms of human fulfillment and community rather than as a strictly economic activity of cost, income, and production. When work is conducted under the proper conditions, it enhances human dignity and freedom as well as producing useful products. J. C. Kumarappa, an Indian philosopher and economist maintains that 'If the nature of the work is properly appreciated and applied, it will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent background for man to display his scale of values and develop his personality.' (Schumacher, 1975, 56)

According to a Buddhist economics, people should protect their income, which they have earned righteously with the 'sweat of their brow' (arakkha-sampada). (Rahula, 1974, 82) They should be well informed and conscious of their work and income situation so that they are in a position to protect their real income. They should be able to protect their wages or righteous earnings from expropriation by corporations or the workings of the economic system. The BuddhaÕs advocacy of protecting one's own income implies that Buddhism should support labor unions to protect the workers' wages and to improve working conditions in a complex society like today's. From a Buddhist economic perspective, a government needs to actively support labor unions and to have humanistic labor and investment policies.

Buddhist economics as a system, as summarized by Schumacher, assumes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give people a chance to utilize and develop their faculties; to enable them to overcome their 'ego-centeredness' by joining with other people in common tasks; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for human existence (samajivikata). (Schumacher, 1975, 51) But in the final analysis, the nature of human work, not just the labor of individual Buddhist workers, is what Buddhist economics must address.

In the Sigalovada Sutta the Buddha states that an employer should assign his employees or workers to work according to their ability. He should put proven moral men or women in responsible positions. The employer should create a sense of brotherly communion among himself and his workers, provide healthy work conditions, and treat his workers as qual human beings. The employer should provide for the welfare of the workers by supplying them with food and sufficient wages, tending them in sickness, sharing any profits with them, and granting them leave and special allowances. (Saddhatissa, 1971, 105-107) It should be emphasized here that, in a Buddhist economic system, the workers are not only to receive adequate wages and safe working conditions, but are also to share with their employers the profits from their work.

As noted above, Glen and Barbara Alexandrin develop their Buddhist economic model by emphasizing the b-elements which they consider relevant to economic activity: mindfulness, generosity, zeal, perspective, and patience. (Alexandrin, 1992, 140) They set up several examples for the b-entrepreneur (buddhist-enterpreneur) in his or her economic operation. One examples is the following: 'The b-entrepreneur runs a small non-unionized foundry producing brass door knobs. The demand for them falls and, following the rule of traditional economics, he should lay off elderly Sam, the least productive man. We hypothesize that he would keep Sam, perhaps cutting Sam's wage or the wages of all the workers involved as well as his own rewards. He would attempt to stimulate demand, perhaps by coming up with another useful product. He would thus absorb the social cost of unemployment. (Alexandrin, 1992, 141) Although the b-entrepreneur does not disregard profitability or other economic criteria, he or she brings the 'buddhist elements' into play in choosing and running the business. The Alexandrins' proposal may be realistic in small-scale economic contexts but it does not seem adequate to address systemic economic problems such as, for example, the case of a government's policy to ensure full employment.

According to Payutto, all actions have results that arise as a natural consequence. For example, the natural result of sweeping the street is a clean street. In the contract between employer and employee, however, a stipulation is added to this natural result, so that sweeping the street also brings about a payment of money. This is a man-made, or artificial, law. Oftentimes workers and employers are trapped in a game of one-upmanship, with each side trying to get as much for themselves as they can for the least possible expense. This tendency can be seen in the modern work place. It is a result of he unchecked growth of tanha (the desire for pleasure objects) and the lack of any viable alternative. Payutto argues that: 'In rare cases, however, we hear of employers and employees who do work together with chanda (the desire for well-being). This happens when the employer is responsible, capable and considerate, thus commanding the confidence and affection of employees, who in return are harmonious, diligent, and committed to their work. There have even been cases of employers who were so caring with their employees that when their businesses failed and cam close to bankruptcy, th employees sympathetically made sacrifices and worked as hard as possible to make the company profitable again. Rather than making demands for compensation, they were willing to take a cut in wages. (Payutto, 1994, 51-52)

From a Buddhist perspective, the trading of human beings, in any kind or form of slavery, is condemned as an evil against human rights. Obviously, to require employees to work extremely long hours in poor working conditions as if they were slaves runs contrary to Buddhist principles. Workers should be treated as equal human beings, not as 'things' counted as another economic unit. Schumacher maintains that there are two types of mechanization: one that enhances a human being's skills and power, and one that turns the work of a human being into that of a mechanical slave. (Schumacher, 1975, 55) In global factories ordinary specialization is taken to the extreme by dividing the process of production into minute parts, so that the final product can be produced at great spped without anyone contribution more than a completely insignificant and, in most cases, unskilled movement of his or her limbs. Schumacher contends that, 'From a Buddhist point of view, this is standing the truth on its head by considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the worker to the product of work, that is, from the human to the subhuman, a surrender to the forces of evil.' (Schumacher, 1975, 57)

Whether it is the slavery of earlier times or the neo-slavery of today's global factories, from a Buddhist point of view, each is in violation of the basic principles of human nature and human rights.

Buddhist economics views unemployment as the lack of opportunity not only to make one's living, but also to develop one's own skills and talents. Unemployment, underemployment, poverty and any other form of economic exploitation are regarded as 'economic violence', which in turn creates crimes and other forms of physical violence. Full employment, with healthy working conditions an adequate wages, is therefore basic to a Buddhist economic policy. When people are fully employed they have a chance to nourish and develop their faculties to a level of excellence. They have a sense of belonging to a community and can create happiness for themselves and their families. If people have no chance of obtaining work they are in a desperate position, not simply because they lack an income but because they lack this nourishing and enlivening factor of disciplined work, which nothing else can replace. Only by having meaningful work and by adequately meeting basic material needs can people live peacefully and turn their interests to more refined activities like the practice of the Buddhist principles of loving-kindness, compassion, and non-violence.

A Buddhist economics regards poverty as a structural crime. Poverty (daliddiya) is nowhere praised or encouraged in Buddhism. The Buddha said, 'Poverty is a suffering in the world for a layman.' He also said, 'Woeful in the world is poverty and debt.' (Anguttara Nikaya III.350, 352) Though monks should be content with little and have few wishes, poverty is never encouraged even for monks. (Rajavaramuni, 1990, 40) Because of poverty, people may be too preoccupied wit the struggle for survival to do anything for their inner development. But when basic living needs are satisfied, there is no reason why one cannot cultivate inner maturity. For laity, there is no instance in which poverty is encourages. On the contrary, many passages in the scriptures exhort lay people to seek and amass wealth in rightful ways. Payutto contends that: 'The main theme in the Scriptures is that it is not wealth as such that is praised or blamed but the way it is acquired and used. For monks, a mentioned above, it is not acquisition as such that is blamed, nor poverty that is praised. Blameworthy qualities are greed for gain, stinginess, grasping attachment to fain and hoarding of wealth. Acquisition is acceptable if it is helpful in the practice of the Noble Path or if it benefits fellow members of the Order.' (Payutto, 1994, 61)

The Cakkavattisihanada Sutta states that poverty is the cause of immoral behavior, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred and cruelty, behavior which often results in crime. Walpola Rahula argues that the attempt to suppress crime by punishment is futile and can never be successful. He refers to the Buddha's Teaching that: 'In order to eradicate crime, the economic condition of the people should be improved; grain and other facilities for agriculture should be provided for farmers and cultivators' capital should be provided for small traders and those engaged in small business; adequate wages should be paid to those who are employed. When people are thus provided with opportunities for earning a sufficient income, they will be content, will have no fear and anxiety, and consequently the country will be peaceful and free from crime.' (Rahula, 1974, 81-82) From this perspective we can say that Buddhist economics regards it as important that structural poverty be overcome and an equitable economic system be worked out. Buddhism's middle way philosophy does not advocate poverty, but rather a simple and non-violent way of life which adequately meets our material needs.

Modern economics and Buddhism both agree that natural resources are limited but mankind has unlimited want. The Buddha said, 'There is no river like craving.' (Payutto, 1994, 31) Rivers can sometimes fill their banks, but the wants of human beings can never be filled. Modern economics defines consumption as simply the use of goods and services to satisfy demand. Buddhism, however, distinguishes between 'right' consumption and 'wrong' consumption. Right consumption is the use of goods and services to satisfy the desire for true well-being. Wrong consumption is the use of goods and services to satisfy the desire for pleasing sensation or ego-gratification. For example, in the basic need for food, the biological purpose of eating is to nourish the body, to provide it with strength and well-being. Supplanted over this biological need is the desire for enjoyment, for delicious tastes. Payutto comments: 'At times, the desire of tanha may be at odds with well-being, and may even be detrimental to the quality of life. If we are overwhelmed by tanha when we eat, rather than eating for the purpose of nourishing the body and providing it with well-being, we eat for the experience of the pleasant taste. This kind of eating knows no end and can lead to problems n both body and mind. The food may be delicious, but we may end up suffering from indigestion or obesity. On a wider scale, the social costs of overconsumption, such as depletion of natural resources and costs incurred by health care, not to mention crime, corruption and wars, are enormous. (Payutto, 1994, 30)

With meditation, Payutto argues, we gain perspective on our motivations; we sharpen our awareness and strengthen free will. Thus, when it comes to making economic decisions, or decisions about our livelihood and consumption, we can better resist compulsions driven by fear, craving, and pride and choose instead a moral course that aims at true well-being. In this way, we begin to see how mental factors form the basis of all economic matters, and we realize that the development of this kind of mental discernment leads the way to true economic and human development. Payutto criticizes that 'For the most part, advertising promotes this artificial value. Advertisers stimulate desires by projecting pleasurable images onto the products they sell. They induce us to believe, for example, that whoever can afford a luxury car will stand out from the crowd and be a member of high society, or that by drinking a certain brand of soft drink we will have lots of friends and be happy.

'The true value of an object is typically overshadowed by its artificial value. Craving and conceit, and the desire for the fashionable and sensually appealing, cloud any reckoning of the true value of things. How many people, for instance, reflect on the true value of reasons for eating food or wearing clothes?' (Payutto, 1994, 40)

Many modern economists assume that people who consume more are 'better off' than those who consume less. They measure the 'standard of living' by the amount of annual consumption. Buddhist economists would consider this approach quite irrational. Schumacher argues that since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. The ownership and the consumption of goods are only a means to an end. Schumacher maintains that an economic philosophy which minimizes consumption and competition, and maximizes human well-being an non-violence is most appropriate to self-sufficient local community. 'Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related É As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other's throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade. (Schumacher, 1975, 58-59)

The Alexandrins' understanding of b-elements also correlates with such an understanding of consumption and human thriving. (Alexandrin, 1992, 137) They suggest that individuals practicing compassion might cease eating meat, for example, out of regard for all beings. Minimally, their demand for meat will decline while their demand for substitute goods such as various grains will increase.

While Schumacher believes that his 'small is beautiful' economic model is most appropriate in small scale communities, the Alexandrins contend that Buddhist economics can be incorporated into current economic policy in the West. Buddhist economics makes each individual more of a decision maker than do many contemporary economic models, and less subject to external pressures like advertising. Still, in a manner not unlike Buddhadasa's individualistic approach, the Alexandrins hold that a Buddhist economic system depends on individuals implementing their so-called 'b-element' into their economic systems. Thus, while both Schumacher and the Alexandrins contribute useful insights regarding the nature of Buddhist economics, the emphasis still falls on the individual in small scale communities.

Buddhist economics maintains that production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life. Dependence on imports from afar, and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant people, is uneconomic, and is justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale. Schumacher argues that Òthe Buddhist economist would hold that to satisfy human wants from faraway sources rather than from sources nearby signifies failure rather than success. The former (modern economist) tends to take statistics showing an increase in the number of ton/miles per head of the population carried by a countryÕs transport system as proof of economic progress, while to the latter the Buddhist economist the same statistics would indicate a highly undesirable deterioration in the pattern of consumption. (Schumacher, 1975, 59)

The use of natural resources is another difference between most modern economic theories and Buddhist economics. Modern economics has tended to focus on human economic activities in relative isolation from the broader ecosystem. Buddhist economics, on the other hand, takes a more holistic approach and a non-violent attitude not only toward all sentient beings but also toward the natural environment.^¹ From a Buddhist perspective, economic principles are related to the three interconnected aspects of human existence: human beings, society and the natural environment. Payutto says: 'To be ethically sound, economic activity must take place in a way that is not harmful to the individual, society or the natural environment. In other words, economic activity should not cause problems for oneself, agitation in society or degeneration of the ecosystem, but rather enhance well-being in these three spheres. (Payutto, 1994, 26)

In this regard, long run and short run goals are essentially linked, therefore taking care of our environment for our great grandchildren is in fact taking care of the same environment for ourselves. Schumacher makes the distinction between renewable and non-renewable materials. Renewable materials are materials such as wood and water-power, while non-renewable materials include coal, oil and the like. He argues that modern economics equalizes and quantifies everything in terms of a price; the major difference between things in the calculus of modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The most profitable is the one to be preferred as rational and economic, with little attention to such issues as renewable and non-renewable materials.

In Buddhist economics, non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence. Buddhist economics would regard a population basing its economic life on non-renewable fuels as living parasitically. In other words, they live on capital instead of income. Schumacher contends that, 'As the world's resources of non-renewable fuelsÑcoal, oil and natural gasÑare exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men. (Schumacher, 1975, 61)

According to Payutto, the word 'production' is misleading. We tend to think that through production new things are crated, when in fact it is merely changes of state which are affeted. One substance or form of energy is converted into another. These conversions entail the creation of a new state by the destruction of an old one. Thus production is always accompanied by destruction. He sees that: 'Production is only truly justified when the value of the thing produced outweighs the value of that which is destroyed. In some cases it may be better to refrain from production. This is invariably true for those industries whose products are for the purpose of destruction. In weapons factories, for example, non-production is always the better choice. In industries where production entails the destruction of natural resources and environmental degradation, non-production is sometimes the better choice É In this light, non-production can be a useful economic activity.' (Payutto, 1994, 52)

The results of modern economic development appear to be disastrous: a collapse of rural economies, structural unemployment in town and country, and the growth of an urban lower class and an underclass, two socio-economic groups structurally denied nourishment for either the body or the mind. Pursuing Buddhist economics is not a question of choosing between 'modern growth' and 'traditional stagnation', but rather a question of finding the right path for development the middle way between materialistic heedlessness and traditionalist immobility in an attempt to establish sustainable world peace.

Alexandrin, Glen and Barbara. 1992. 'Toward A Buddhist Economics.' In Glen Alexandrin, Buddhist Economics. Villanova: Department of Economics, Villanova University.

Kumarappa, J. C. 1958. Economy of Permanence. Rajghat, Kashi: Sarva-Seva Sangh Publication, 4^th edition.

Rahula, Walpola Sri. 1974. What the Buddha Taught. Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada. Foreword by Paul Demieville. New York: Grove Press, Inc.

Raines, John C. 1990. Tools and Common Grace. In William Birmingham et al (editors), Cross Currents: Religion and Intellectural Life, Vol. 40, No. 3. New Rochelle, New York: The Association for Religion and Intellectual Life, College of New Rochelle.

Rajavaramuni, Phra. 1990. 'Foundations of Buddhist Socieal Ethics.' In Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer (editors), Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.

Schumacher, E.F. 1975. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Sizemore, Russell F. and Donald K. Swearer (editors). 1990. Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.

1 Ironically, in so-called Buddhist countries like Thailand, most of the rainforests have been shamefully destroyed by the ignorance of the poor local villagers, and the greed of some privileged groups who care more for profit than for the environment. The destruction of rainforests in Thailand as well as in other Southeast Asian countries is a violation of the basic Buddhist teachings. However, some Thai Buddhist monks, Phra Khamkhian Suvanno and the former Phra Prachak Khuttacitto, for example, have been struggling to protect the rainforest and the environment in Thailand.

Home