Issue

11th Issue (March, 2009)

The Nature and Causes of Poverty: the Dual Role of the Human Heart (a study based on some Pāli Suttas)

Rev. Upāli Sramon
revupalisramon@gmail.com

Introduction

Discussion of poverty is an important subject dominating almost every social science, being central in economics. The theories of ‘social exclusion’ and ‘social business’ have added new progressive dimensions to the discourse[1] , promising not mere explanation/analysis of the concept but enlarging it by moralisation of ‘economics’ and aspiring to total elimination of ‘poverty’ and establish harmonious world as the goal. Buddhism provides cogent insights regarding the subject that will unquestionably empower the literature for practical causes. It is surprising that some eminent scholars[2] who have discussed Buddhist economic theories and have produced great works in the field have not paid their attention to two discourses of the Buddha which have ‘poverty’ as their titles, beside other instances discussing the subject scattered in the Pāli tradition. Of these two discourses titled as Daliddasutta (discourse on a poor person) one (Ds-1) is found in Sakkasaṃyutta and the other (Ds-2) in Bojjhaṃgasaṃyutta of Saṃyuttanikāya.

In fact, Buddhist concerns relating to the subject is so profound that a ‘moral economist’[3] like Schumacher was amazed for their practical applicability in everyday life. In this paper, I focus on the definitions and nature of poverty, mainly depending on the two discourses mentioned above, and briefly note the causes of poverty listed in Aggañña sutta, and emphasize that ‘the dual role of the human heart’ determines our living and life styles.

Nature and Definition of ‘Poor’/ ‘Poverty’

In the Ds-1, we see three major concerns: first is on language defining a poor person, secondly, key factors responsible for being poor, thirdly uplifting intellectual purity as a noble force to upgrade one from miserable position and win respects in divine states. As we go through the description of this sutta through the commentarial tradition upto the ṭīkā (sub-commentary) it is interesting to remark the various aspects (definitions and nature) related to poverty afflicted person taken into consideration. Three expressions used therein are as: manussadalidda a poor person, manussakapaṇa[4] a miserable person, and manussavarāha literally a man-pig (indicating physical disabilities, see below).
Commentarial definitions of these terms appear respectively as follows-

1. Dalidda is one with no wealth (adhana) as opposed to a person with wealth (dhana).
2. A miserable person is one who is in a state of misfortune and needs compassion/mercy (kāruññataṃ patto). The person is financially lame. He is in such a position that unable even to beg; hence, in need of compassion/charity but, there are only a few (almost no one) who would give.
3. manussavarāha is one who survives in an inferior living condition as opposed to the standard social lifestyle. varāha is literally used for pigs. This metaphorical usage of the term for human beings indicates a person whose lifestyle is no better than the way pigs live. He may also be physically deformed. But this latter idea is discernible only in the illustrative story (connected to the original occurrence) elucidated in the commentary.  As such he is deviated by the respected society as inferior (lāmaka) and far away from opportunities to establish himself.

These definitions have been further developed in the sub-commentary to the same text. Here,

1. A poor/un-wealthy person is one who has undergone  (and has to undergo) immense difficulties (duggata) for survival. In fact, the suffering he undergoes is no lesser than the suffering in hell.
2. In the ‘state of misery’ he is in an ‘utterly disgustful state’ (paramanihīnataṃ). This also relates his behavioural peculiarity and vileness detested by many.
3. In such circumstances that person is in an utter woeful state, the most inferior among human beings. 

This development of language defining the socially excluded person due to poverty related causes – from Tipiṭaka language to fifth century commentary and sub-commentary – shows that Buddhist scholars were always concerned and felt the extreme need of lucidity of expression explaining and updating the Buddha’s discourses presenting them in the most intelligible manner.

The material deficiencies of ‘a poor person’ reflected in these definitions agree with other texts also. The lexicographical section of Saddanīti,[5] widens our vocabulary using more practical terms defining what constitutes a ‘poor’. Here, it is maintained that the term ‘dalidda’ in the sense of inferior destinations (duggati)[6] is used with those who are born in woeful and miserable conditions, in hells and such low states. But, in this instance, instead of that meaning, ‘how (someone) falls in inferior destination’, that is for the worldly application (lokikappayoga) of the term, has to be considered. As such, a poor is the person who undergoes much suffering and troubles not having the basic needs of foods and drinks fulfilled.[7] Distinction is also made in ‘begging’ (yācati) and ‘requesting’ (ayācati’) for one’s desired objects and needs[8] . Abhidhānappadīpika simplifies the definition as – a poor or destitute person is one who has no wealth at all.[9] Further it remarks that the person is reproached (ninditaṃ) by others for the very reason of his being poor.

Now, having these definitions demonstrating the nature of ‘poor’ and ‘poverty’ and before I proceed further along the daliddasutta, I seek to draw some evidences from the Pāli literature on – how Buddhism recognises wealth, what reasons are furnished to explain the scarcity of wealth, and to be precise, how does one become rich and other extremely poor?

Wealth and Scarcity

If we take into consideration the Buddhist spirituality that seeks ultimate salvation from saṃsāra we are informed that pursuing after possession of wealth (or anything) extreme egoistically is unwise. This idea is specified in the Dhammapada verse 62 that maintains – ‘considering I have son I have wealth thus a fool bewails/worries....’[10] It is a gallant declaration that according to Buddhism there is nothing we can truly possess – neither wealth nor relationship. Hence, the pride in our possession especially when it is used to demean others is worthless. This utterance, however, must not be considered as the Buddha’s total discouragement in earning. It is the ‘egoistic idea’ that has been disapproved in Buddhism.

The Aggaññasutta of Dīgha Nikāya is the most fitting evidence illustrating how egoistic ideas lead to deterioration of human morality. It explains that initially resources were abundant on earth. The early beings had utilised these resources only for necessities but did not seize them for storage. But, gradually the self-centric attitude arose in some and they started to set private ownership upon these resources. Thus, the natural resources – constituting lands and whatever was produced – became their wealth. There are some others who were inconsiderate at first and did not feel the need for the privatization of the resources had to regret but having nothing for them, had no other ‘choice’ but to seek tricky means to win their living. This resulted in stealing and followed all the sorts of immoral and unjust activities, the process of decadence still being continued. Thus, the sutta vividly explains the origin of the idea of ‘wealth’ and how resources came to be scarce.

At this point we are reminded of a modern definition of mainstream economics that maintains (economics is) – “the human science which studies the relationship between scarce resources and various uses which compete for these resources.”[11]. Taking this definition, it is obvious that, studies in economics, in the way modern professionals define, had an early beginning by the Buddha although not brought into wide recognition to enter into the discussions of mainstream economics.

From this sutta, we can also see the role of morality demarcating between the rich and poor. The wealthy who had economic power certainly dominated the poor; the situation, undeclared though, was sort of capitalistic which had an immoral beginning. Later, however, monarchical system of governance was introduced by electing a virtuous king in agreement of all. The election was for administering in social peace, but, the history shows that although monarchies ruled the world for long period, once the system had to fall due to injustices practised within.

The fact that even democracy and communism have not been successful to wipe out poverty and maintain social harmony, to say simply, make people truly happy, shows that there is something wrong in these political and economic ideologies, or at least in their practice, also. That is why as some parts of the world are seen wonderfully developed, in some other parts, we see human beings dying in hunger and all such pathetic causes related to poverty. Perhaps, the world suffers from poverty more than ever in the Past.[12] That is because when diverse theories of economic development have been introduced much destructive war and the rich-poor gap have been on the increase.[13] Therefore, the situation needs to improve, and at this juncture when many theories of great thinkers have not proved successful to wipe out poverty from the world Buddhism promises a better and practical explanation to the cause. Hence, we address the dual-role play of human heart and return to our line with the daliddasutta.

The Dual Role of the Human Heart

I mentioned the above expression in my first article that appeared in 7th issue of Bodhi journal[14] . By dual-role I referred the function of human heart loving oneself (and where, he thinks, he belongs) but hating others (where he thinks he does not belong). Ds-1 points yet another application of this expression. Here, it is used at the outset to demonstrate the respect one expects from others but (in turn) disrespecting them. In the deeper level ‘dual-role’ here refers the two contrasting roles of individuals in two different circumstances. The two roles are:

1. a king as the head of a state with all his power being supreme in material possession, but, inferior in spirituality;
2.  a poor person possessing spiritual or intellectual purity but material inferiority.

In the original occurrence we only know the second but the commentary explains that the extreme poor position of the person concerned is in consequence of intellectual impurity of a haughty king who disrespected a privately enlightened Buddha (paccekabuddha) in a previous birth.

The relation depicted here is concerning the theory of kamma, to be more precise human attitudes. Here, it is obvious that the king, in subsequent birth, was born as a destitute in consequence of the attitude in which he disrespected the paccekabuddha.

The practical implication here is that even though one is in a supreme position concerning wealth and political power he should by no means dishonour the moral institutions. In whatever stage of life we are promoted ‘genuineness’ and ‘self-governance’ should be maintained being modest as opposed to being arrogant.

Another important implication of the dual role is the two behavioural transformations of an individual determined by possession of wealth. When one is poor (or in extremely poor condition as defined above) then s/he is very simple, witnessing himself/herself all the sufferings s/he pleads for social, economic, political justice. If s/he is/becomes wealthy (or for that matter another wealthy person), on the other hand, hardly realizes the sorrows a destitute person undergoes. That is to say, a wealthy person realizes the sorrows of a poor person only if s/he himself/herself undergoes the similar situations, not otherwise.

Ds-1 recognises five such moral factors which a poor person generally undertakes. S/he realizes the extreme importance and exercise of faith (saddhā), virtue (sīla), learning (suta), generosity (cāga), and wisdom (paññā)[15] most probably because s/he is neglected in these aspects. Therefore, Buddhism urges the unification of two roles with these factors to be exercised by both – at any circumstance. Economic positive interpretation of the unification of the dual role is to serve the society while not harming our individual gains.

It is not only material possessions that are responsible for human happiness or distress, there are various other factors related. Upholding baseless pride and improper use of power, in this instance, is regarded as being devious to oneself which brings one’s down-fall from standard human living.  Therefore, standard human living, according to Buddhism, is essentially concerned with being genuine and sincere to oneself and treating others as such. This shall by no means create any bar to material progress; in fact, this will serve as special prerogative in acquisition of worldly success.

Spiritual Poverty

In Ds-2 poverty has been designated in terms of spiritual terms. In it a person is poor by non existence (abhāvittā) of seven factors of enlightenment. The seven are: mindfulness (sati), investigation of the dhamma/truth (dhammavicaya), effort (viriya), pleasure (pīti), serenity (passaddhi), one-pointed/focused/concentrated mind (samādhi), and equanimity (upekkhā).

Furthermore, the sutta-s following and preceding Ds-2 goes onto explain that one is rich, wise etc. only if s/he possesses these factors of enlightenment. And, if we endeavour to acquire this spiritual richness there is no doubt of social peace being established in consonance to economic developments. Now if we are questioned – Equality of What?[16] – we may rightly say that it is the inequality of these factors of enlightenment that is responsible for the inequality of all the other factors. Therefore, considerably equal development of these enlightenment factors should precede the idea of material (or any) acquisitions.

Conclusion

The two discourses on poverty, it may be observed, emphasize

1. clarity of language/expression to designate the characteristics and nature of a poor person,
2. the contrasting dual role of the human heart responsible for one’s own or others’ moral and intellectual impoverishment, and
3. intellectual purity as the best asset to claim nobility.

It is also clear from the two discourses that beside other causes every individual is responsible for his/her being rich or poor, in the sense that s/he should be regulated, or govern himself/herself, with proper principles of life that may not lead astray. It is, indeed, hopeful and satisfactory that Dr. Yunus’ theory of ‘Social Business’, the ‘Sarvodaya Movement’ of engaged Buddhism etc. organisations that prioritize social development while not harming individual goals are gaining popularity in the world and thus bringing to reality the progressive effect of the unification of the dual role of the human heart for sustainable development.

References

Primary Sources

1. Dīgha Nikāya, Walshe, Maurice, Wisdom Publication, Boston, 1995
2. Saṃyutta Nikāya, Vol. I-II, Bodhi, Bhikkhu, Wisdom Publication, Boston, 2000
3. The Book of Kindred Sayings – (Saṃyutta Nikāya) Vol-V,Woodward, F. L, PTS, London
4. Dhammapada, Thera, Buddharakkhita, BPS, Kandy, 1996

Secondary Sources

5. Alvey, L. James, An Introduction to Economics as a Moral Science, <http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/15_introduction.pdf>
6. Ariyaratne, A. T. Schumacher Lectures on Buddhist Economics, Vishva Lekha Publishers, 1999
7. Beardshaw, John, & others, Economics : A Student’s Guide (4th edition) Addison Wesley Longman Inc., New York, 1998
8. Payutto, P. A., Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place,
   < http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono1.html >
9. Premasiri, P. D., “Religious Values and Measurement of Poverty: A Buddhist Perspective”, in: Studies in Buddhist Philosophy and Religion, Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society, Singapore, 2006
10. Schumacher, E. F., Small is Beautiful, http://ebooks.du.ac.in/edu-resources/books/small.pdf
11. Sen, Amartya, Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny, Asian development Bank, Philippines, 2000
    <http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social_Exclusion/Social_exclusion.pdf
12. ______, Equality of What?  Stanford University, 1979
13. S. K. Nanayakkara, “Economics”, in: Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, vol. 5,
14. Yunus, Muhammed Dr. Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, Public Affairs,2007
    <see the link for more information on Yunus and his social business - http://muhammadyunus.org/>
15. Wickramasinghe, J. W., The End of Economic Science and the Beginning of People Friendly Economics  - Buddhist Theory of Economic Development, Buddhist Cultural Centre, 2002