[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
As a discipline of mental hygiene, the rule of suf-
ficiency rests on the insight that human needs are hier-
archical as I will shortly explain and that there is a
point of satiation in meeting material needs beyond which
continued gratification becomes deleterious. This does not
imply that we must all adopt ascetic lifestyles and deny
ourselves even the innocent pleasures of life. But it does
mean that when people seek to acquire possessions and
enjoy sensual pleasures beyond their natural capacities,
they do so at the expense of ether needs, social and spir-
itual, which are equally crucial to their fulfilment. There-
by they violate a law of human nature and bring harm to
themselves and to those victimized by their avarice.
As a policy of ecological wisdom, the rule of suf-
ficiency teaches us that there are inherent limits to eco-
49
nomic growth dictated by the unsurmountable finitude
of the ecosystem. Pursued beyond these limits, economic
expansion becomes parasitic both on human health,
physical and mental, and on the regenerative capacities
of nature. When applied to our present-day situation, this
principle teaches us that economic development, in the
sense of continuously expanding production and obses-
sive technological innovation, is precisely what we don t
need. Our economy is big enough already, far too big, and
our technologies too smart, too powerful, and too much
fraught with moral risk for beings as fallible as ourselves.
What we need most of all is streamlining and downsizing:
cutting down on weapons production, on industries dedi-
cated to wasteful luxuries, on conspicuous consumption
as the engine that drives the economy. Instead we need
qualitative improvements to make our technologies more
humble and humane, more benign towards the total bio-
sphere. And above all we need greater stress on economic
justice and social equity, so that no one need be deprived
of a fair standard of living.
The principle that should guide social activity is the
rule if cooperation and harmony. But cooperation must be
infused and animated by ethical motivation. The coopera-
tion between super-powers to dominate the global politi-
cal order in their own selfish interests is not the kind of
cooperation we require; the mergers, corporate takeovers,
and business cartels formed to control the world economy
50
is not the kind of cooperation that accords with the
Dhamma. Our current social order promotes competition
rather than cooperation; the key word bandied about today
is competitiveness. Such an emphasis is bound to generate
conflict and resentment, splintering the social system into
a multitude of hostile factions. A society founded upon
the Dhamma recognizes that each person should aim to
promote the good of the greater unit to which he or she
belongs, and as a minimum should never seek private
fulfilment in ways that inflict harm on others. The ideal is
beautifully summed up in the six principles of harmony
and respect taught by the Buddha to the Sangha: loving
kindness in thought, word, and deed; sharing righteous
gains; observing a common code of morality; and holding
in common liberating views.
In a Buddhist approach to social and economic de-
velopment, the primary criterion that would govern policy
formulation should be the well-being of a society s mem-
bers, and this well-being should be viewed holistically,
taking account of a wide range of factors. The economy
would be assigned to the place where it belongs, as a sub-
ordinate domain nested within the wider social system; in
turn the social system would be viewed as an integral part
of the total ecosystem, the indispensable foundation for all
life. Thus economic development would be guided along
lines that promote the health and well-being of the social
order without harming the natural systems within which
51
human society is lodged. To the contrary, a Buddhist social
policy would recognize the importance of preserving the
natural environment, not simply to provide a continued
supply of resources for the human economy, but as a posi-
tive good both intrinsically and in relation to the aesthetic
enrichment and psychological wholeness of its members.
Society in turn must be recognized as an abstraction
from the individual human beings who make up the social
order. Thus, when we speak of improving the well-being
of society, this ultimately means that social policy must
seek to promote the welfare of individual people. How we
set about promoting the welfare of people is contingent
on our view of human nature. If we hold a materialistic
view of human nature, then our efforts will be directed
primarily to ensuring that their material needs are met,
and we will see no reason to give attention to other factors.
If, however, we hold a more spiritual conception of human
nature, then we will recognize that other needs beyond
material prosperity also call out for fulfilment.
The Buddha s teachings offer a wide-ranging con-
ception of the human person as a complex entity having a
diversity of needs which all must be met to ensure happi-
ness and well-being. These needs fall into a well-defined
hierarchy of importance, which we might here consider
as threefold. At the base of the hierarchy is the physical
need for the basic requisites of existence: clothing, food,
a comfortable dwelling, medical care, transportation, en-
52
ergy, tools, and so forth. At the next level are social needs:
for education, family, friendship and personal intimacy,
participation in a community, and meaningful work. At
the highest level are spiritual needs: for moral rectitude,
mental development, and wise understanding of the true
nature of life.
A social order guided by Buddhist principles would
create opportunities for all these needs to be satisfied and
would see that no one is frustrated in their aspirations to
lead a contented life. A Buddhist social order would begin
by ensuring that all members of society are able to satisfy
their material needs. But because the Buddhist teaching
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]