11th Issue (March, 2009)

A Buddhist Emphasis on Sufficiency and Simplicity in Economic Lifestyle

Bhikkhu K Tanchangya
saddhananda@hotmail.com

'Sufficiency Economy' is in fact a modern economic theory coined and advocated by the present king of Thailand in 1997 when his country was caught up in the midst of the Asian economic crisis at the time. It has been acclaimed as a theory based on the Buddhist principle of 'middle way' explained in the modern economic context as maintaining a moderate economic livelihood at a local level but not denying economic progress and globalization. This theory calls for “a middle way to be observed, especially in pursuing economic development in keeping with the world of globalization...is a philosophy that guides the livelihood and behavior of people at all levels, from the family to the community to the country, on matters concerning national development and administration...Sufficiency means moderation and reasonableness...The development of a country must be by steps. It must start with basic sufficiency in food and adequate living, using techniques and instruments which are economical but technically sound. When this foundation is secured, then higher economic status and progress can be established”[1] . Compared with the so-called Gandhian Economy theory, based on family-level or village-level small-scale enterprises and traditional methods, the royal sufficiency economy theory proved to be widely successful. The Gandhian Economy theory was advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in the mid-20th century at the time when his country men were poor and technology was limited. However such an economy theory in the 21st century, in all practicality, is too restrictive to expect families to do everything by themselves using simple tools and machinery, such as traditional spinning wheels to make cloth, an aspect rejected by the Thai king. Nevertheless, the Gandhian Economy theory has the underlying message of simplicity, a life with less wants but sufficient to lead a reasonably comfortable life. This must have been the insight inspiration for Gandhi to state that the world has enough resources to satisfy man’s needs but not his greed.

It is to be noted that Schumacher, the author of 'Small is Beautiful' is to be credited for popularizing the modern interest in Buddhist economics when he discusses a 'Buddhist economic science' in the 4th chapter of his much acclaimed masterpiece[2] . His discussion on Buddhist economic science became so popular in the US that Gerry Brown, the then Governor of California is said to have drawn inspiration from these views when he planned his economic policy[3] . Prior to Schumacher, Buddhism with its fundamental doctrines of the noble truth of suffering, non-self, kamma, meditation and nibbāna had been portrayed as a religion being detrimental to socio-economic progress. Such a view was strongly advocated by scholars like Max Waber[4] , Melford E. Spiro[5] and Heinz Bechert[6] in the mid-twentieth century. Briefly, recognizing life as suffering is, in no way, to be considered pessimist because that recognition itself is not the end in Buddhism just like the diagnosis of a disease by a doctor does not at all determine that the patient will not survive. The doctrine of non-self, understood in its proper context, does not mean to be socially and economically passive. Contrarily, it is a doctrine that encourages man to work actively and selflessly for the greater benefits and development of others, oneself not excluded. Selfless work, not expecting name and fame, rewards and praise, is indeed a noble endeavor, which very few people are willing to do. 'The doctrine of anatta cuts across the barriers of selfishness, greed and avarice. Egoism is a factor that separates man from man and once this barrier is broken, healthy human relations are possible'[7] . Melford Spiro introduced the term 'kammatic Buddhism' by which he categorized some Buddhists who accept whatever their positions and situations are to be the results of their past kamma, which in turn does not generate renewed effort to change or transform one’s present situation. But this is not what we understand by kamma. Kamma, said Buddha, is volition[8] . It is the volition, the intention, the will exerted to transform and change our course of activities that counts. Kamma provides an opportunity, say, for the poor, to exercise their will and effort to change their lives because kamma is not predetermination and is not fate, as misunderstood by many a Buddhist. Obsessed with thousands of thoughts and activities, our mental efforts and energies are scattered. Buddhist 'meditation' is therefore the harmonization, integration and unification of these scattered mental efforts and energies into one mental force – what Buddhism terms as sati, mindfulness exercised into every activity we do and involve. Buddhist meditation, understood in this broader sense, is not shunning society and detrimental to economic struggle as labelled against it. The Mahacattarisakasutta[9] refers to three important factors related to the Buddhist 'Right Livelihood' (sammā ājīva), one of which is 'Right Mindfulness' (sammā sati), the other two being 'Right View' (sammā diṭṭhi) and 'Right Effort' (sammā vāyāma). Herein, by sammā diṭṭhi it is meant having a proper view or goal in life according to one’s own economic means and personal ability. This factor guides an individual to choose, say for example, a profession. To improve proper creative productivity, each individual should have the right view to choose a profession that suits him the most or should be employed in a position that suits his creativity and capacity. This further calls for the employer to pay or reward the employee deserving to his creativity and productivity, not trying to exploit and take personal advantage. Sammā vāyāma, the next factor, calls for the individual to exercise his/her utmost effort to do the assigned job to the best of his/her ability. Lastly, sammā sati or proper mindfulnessmust be present at every moment of our activity because even a slightest loss of mindfulness may cause immense disaster e.g. imagine a pilot being negligent aboard. When these three factors are combined and present then triumph is guaranteed in everything we do and that, in brief, is another way of understanding sammā ājīva.      

Very recently some Evangelical Christian groups from Korea made spotlight news when they were quoted preaching the Cambodian poverty stricken Buddhists as 'you Buddhists are poor because you have no God; we are rich because we have God'. Such a bold claim is very easy to draw seeing practically but physically that every traditional Buddhist country is stricken with widespread poverty. To this effect, Buddhism has failed to raise the economic standard of its followers. But an important question to be asked is whether traditional Buddhist countries are poor because of Buddhism or in spite of Buddhism. Another question is to ask whether Buddhist countries are poor because of Buddhism or such other causes as climatic conditions, scarcity of natural resources, exploitation of greedy colonial rulers for decades, foreign invasions that lay out the root of poverty in Buddhist countries[10] . The third most important issue is to look into what it meant by being poor and rich for a Buddhist. West and East, as it were, differ drastically on the question of 'wellbeing'. The backbone of modern economics is its GNP, an economic factor by which a country is measured as being rich or poor on the basis of consumption. This aspect has given rise to intense competition at the so-called World Market at the risk of exploitation, corruption and personal happiness and wellbeing. This economic mechanism has produced some of the highly industrially rich cities wherein, unfortunately, live some of the unhappiest people on earth. And this undermines the very notion of material development foregoing inner growth and happiness, aspects valued most in Buddhism. Bhutan, a traditionally Buddhist kingdom has coined and championed what is now popularly known as GNH[11] (Gross National Happiness) by which state policies are directed towards the genuine happiness of its citizens, not on the basis of west-orientated GNP but making sure everyone enjoys certain degree of mental happiness and wellbeing not necessarily excluding, as a matter of fact, physical happiness derived, for example, from economic security.

The fundamental of early Buddhism is all about understanding the nature of the mind. A serious Buddhist would agree to spend lots of time meditating on the nature of the mind and subsequently eradicating mental defilements rather than meditating on ways and means to fulfill his/her endless chain of physical 'wants'. In Buddhism, trying to fulfill the physical wants of a mind dictated by greed, craving and desire has been compared to 'a man drinking salty water when he is thirsty'. A Buddhist is also reminded of the fact that this life is not the only life. The theistic and materialist belief that we are here only for this life and after our death we would either be no more, or would be in eternal hell or heaven encourages the man to enjoy this only life in every way and by every means. 'Every conditioned factor is impermanent' said the Buddha. Hell and heaven, fame, wealth and health are all conditioned and doomed to change; and change, in its turn, produces suffering (vipariṇāma dukkha). Can fame and wealth ensure a peaceful death? Who shall be the greatest companion on our journey when we leave this world?  Accomplished Buddhist saints have proved that our mind is the only companion we can depend upon and hope for help. This very realization encourages a Buddhist to seek his/her inner health and wealth rather than external richness.

Having said this far, it is never correct to conclude that Buddhism denies economic security and worldly happiness derived from the senses. The first thing is Buddhism explicitly clarifies its position on its concept of the noble truth of suffering by categorically stating that 'it is the grasping to the five sense aggregates (pañcūpādānakkhandhā) that constitutes suffering'[12] . As a matter of fact, the Sukhavagga of the Aṅguttara Nikāya recognizes happiness in 26 modes, happiness ranging from senses upto happiness of jhānic attainments. The problem in these happiness is that none of them is permanent; hence, though desirable, they are not the final. That Buddhism recognizes 'poverty' (dālidda) as a social suffering indicates that Buddhist teachings are never meant to promote poverty. Society is defined as the mass collection of individual human beings. Individuals make up a family. Families make up the society. Therefore, Buddhism targets the transformation of a society from the individual. An ethical society, an economically secured society – all start from the individuals. The current economic crisis has produced some of the unprecedented impacts on a global scale closing down hundreds of factories, cutting thousands of jobs, affecting import and export sectors, and tourisms to name but a few. The global economic slowdown, I believe, is only a humble reminder for us to recheck and reshape our individual lifestyle and livelihood. When we talk of an economic science from a Buddhist perspective, the first thing that comes into our discussion is the 'Right Livelihood' (sammā ājīva), the fifth factor of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path (ariyaṭṭhaṅgika-magga) that leads to knowledge (ñāṇakaraṇī), calmness (upasamāya), wisdom (abhiññāya), enlightenment (sambodhāya) and nibbāna (nibbāna). It is worthy to note that Buddhism has never viewed material development as separate from spiritual/ethical development and vice versa. A person with no effort to strive for both is blind, someone who strives for one forgoing the other is a one-eyed person but someone who strives for both in a balanced way is a two-eyed person, a person praised by Buddhism[13] . The famous Vyagghapajjasutta outlines the ideal of an individual livelihood as uṭṭhānasampadā (bliss of vigor), ārakkhasampadā (bliss of protection), kalyāṇamittatā (creative friendship) and samajīvikatā (balanced lifestyle) as virtues conducive to a material wellbeing in this very life and saddhā (faith in the Triple Gems), sīla (morality), cāga (generosity), and paññā (wisdom) as virtues conducive to spiritual development for this life and the next. The Ananasutta of Aṅguttara Nikāya similarly talks about happiness of atthisukha (righteous earning), bhogasukha (righteous enjoyment), ananasukha (being debtless) and anavajjasukha (being free of corrupt practices). Herein, the first three are economic security and enjoyment and the fourth paves the way for spiritual concentration. These passages appearing in numerous suttas tell us that sammā ājīva is a balanced livelihood of material and spiritual development based on some specific moral and ethical values. Uṭṭhānasampadā and atthisukha are aspects that morally and ethically control an individual by stating that wealth should be accumulated by one’s own sweats and effort (uṭṭhāna) in a righteous manner (dhammena) avoiding trades that obstruct spiritual advancement and harm fellow beings and the environment such-as trades in human trafficking for exploitation and prostitution, weapons and poisons for destruction and production and sales of drugs and alcoholics for the loss of vigilance. Ārakkhasampadā and bhogasukha are aspects that encourage the individual to protect and equally enjoy the rightfully earned wealth, without miserliness, with family members, friends and relatives. Kalyāṇamittatā and ananasukha are the important aspects that call for a spiritual concentration devoting some of our time to grow spiritually. Samajīvikatā and anavajjasukha remind us to balance our lives in a way that contributes to physical and mental wellbeing. Buddha has made it clear that a sound and secured economic security is a must for the concentration and practice of higher virtues like saddhā, sīla, cāga/dāna, and paññā. Buddha has recognized four basic needs of a man namely food, clothing, shelter and medicine to which we can add, with all practicality, modern education. It is economic security that can afford to meet these basic needs. Buddha has asked to enjoy them without getting addicted, attached or baffled of them seeing their evil consequences[14] . This, further, calls for the practice of contentment (santuṭṭhi), detachment (virāga), renunciation (nekkhamma), simplicity (appicchatā) and honesty. Let’s not misunderstand these terms and say that it is against economic progress to detach, and renounce wealth. It is not the wealth that should be detached and renounced but the grasping to that very wealth is that what should be detached and renounced. Earning wealth righteously, as a matter of fact, like a bee collecting nectar from a flower without harming its beauty, is highly encouraged for a lay Buddhist. Idleness (ālasya), pointed out by the Buddha to a young householder, leaves many duties undone, new wealth un-acquired and acquired wealth being dwindled away because he does not work giving excuses of 'it is extremely cold, It is extremely hot, It is too late in the evening, It is too late in the morning, I am extremely hungry and/or I am too full'[15] . This very piece of advice is well enough to say that Buddhism is never against economic progress and acquiring of wealth. Buddhism recommends contentment (santuṭṭhi) in the economic context not in the sense of being contented with poverty but to exercise equilibrium of the mind which is neither carried away by economic gains nor is belittled by economic loss. But how much is enough? Would Buddhism allow acquiring wealth as much as possible so long as it’s acquired through righteous means? Theoretically yes and Buddhist moral teachings would not put a limit line in acquiring wealth but what it would say would be that human mind, so long as it’s not greed-, hatred- and delusion-free, has the tendency to crave for more and more. It is very rare to see a rich person who is humble and satisfied. Rich are prone to self-pride and arrogance, victims of name and fame. Hence, though acquiring wealth has no limit line, it should only be a means to a reasonable and considerate living incorporating into one’s life virtues like caring and sharing, simplicity, generosity, and humbleness.

The current economic crisis also calls for a proper management of our economic earning. Buddhist economic science urges an individual to divide his earning into four portions. The first portion is for meaningful, sufficient and reasonable consumption within which the basic needs are to be met, a simple but reasonably comfortable and happy life is to be led. The next two portions are to be invested into harmless but beneficial businesses and trades[16] . The last fourth portion is to be saved i.e. in modern context money deposited in a well secured Bank for future emergency use like in times of natural calamities, business setback, economic crisis and so on[17] . This is a theory, we must admit honestly, that people have failed to implement in their social and economic lives, as a result we often hear individuals, families and companies falling victims to bankruptcy and debts. Lavish consumption in hope of luxurious lifestyle, self-beautification with artificial make-ups, surgery and fashion clothes, spending lots of money for obtaining a competitive but stressful education, a trend found in industrialized cities, alone requires more than half of one’s monthly income. This gives little chance to invest and save, not to mention of putting aside a little even for one’s emergency. This lifestyle, when taken to extreme, may end up in bankruptcy or worse – financial debts. This mismanaged economic lifestyle, though understandably caused by modern demands, necessitates what we may call 'sufficiency and simplicity' philosophy of lifestyle. This philosophy of lifestyle can, in the words of the Thai king, 'build a reasonable immune system against shocks from the outside or from the inside[18] '. One of the reasons why so many people are shocked, unhappy and are suffering from losing their wealth as a result of the current economic crisis is because they have put their money in stock markets, rather than secured Banks, believing their luck in so-called 'high risk, high return', which only means greed. Such people, suffering from the loss of their wealth caused by economic depression and crashes of stock markets worldwide, have failed to realize that things change all the times which they aren't ready for, hence suffering is caused. For such people, money ends up using them, not them using it. The Buddhist philosophy of sufficiency and simplicity would consider money as a 'life facilitator' that assists one to live comfortably, rather than being obsessed with it. Commenting on the wise and enlightened enjoyment of sensual pleasures, the Buddha says, ' this manifold objects in the world, this in itself is not desire of sense, lustful intention is man’s sense-desire, the desire thereto the wise regulate[19] '. Assāda (enjoyment), ādīnava (disadvantage) and nissaraṇa (release) of/from sensual objects and pleasures are the threefold realization, keeping which in mind, a Buddhist is advised to go after material development. The Buddhist path of freedom and nibbāna are not attempts to escape from life but ways to make life meaningful following a middle way, a balanced lifestyle of economic sufficiency and simplicity allowing more energies in the pursuit of spiritual happiness and wellbeing. Bhutan, implementing such a philosophy of life among its citizens, ranked 8th out of 178 countries in 'Subjective Well-Being', a metric that has been used by many psychologists since 1997. In fact, according to the widely cited study carried out by the University of Liecester in 2007, it is the only country in the top 20 'happiest' countries that has a very low GDP[20] .

This then now brings us to the conclusion of our discussion and it comes from the greatest economist, Schumacher, “A modern economist is used to measuring the ‘standard of living’ by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is ‘better off’ that a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: 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…Buddhism is “The Middle Way” and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity and non-violence[21] ”. 

Editor’s Note

The Word of Gotama Buddha can not be  rightly comprehended unless the concepts of  detachment, renunciation, contentment and simplicity are accurately interpreted. Bhikkhu K.Tanchanya has managed to elaborate them lucidly. In fact, Gotama Buddha encourages lay Buddhists to earn wealth ethically so that one will not suffer from the disease  of poverty or impoverishment.   

Bibliography:

1. Apichai Puntasen, 'The King’s Sufficiency Economy and Its Interpretation by Economists', prepared for the 1999 Year-End Conference of the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), Pattaya, 18-19 December 1999
2. Schumacher, E. F., 'Small is Beautiful', ABACS edition, 1974
3. Capra, Fritjof, 'Uncommon Wisdom', Century Hutchinson Ltd., London, 1988 (first published 1987)
4. Max Waber, 'The Religion of India, The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism', The free Press Gilencoe, Illinois 1958
5. Max Waber, 'The Sociology of Religions', Lowe and Brydone (Printers Ltd.,), Lonodon, 1966
6. Melford E. Spiro, 'Buddhism and Society', George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1971
7. Heinz, Bechert, 'Religion and Development in Asian Societies', Marga Publication      
8. Padmasiri de Silva, 'Value Orientations and Nation Building', Colombo, 1976
9. Ratnapala, Nandasena, 'Buddhist Sociology', Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series No.117, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 1993
10. Hettiarachchi, Dharmasena, Dr., 'Buddhist Economic Philosophy as Reflected in Early Buddhism', (The Doctoral Thesis presented to the Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka), Educational Publications Department, 2001
11. The sutta references are that of the PTS edition unless stated otherwise