This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature

1
This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:
A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature
By James King
Completed June 2016
Central Washington University
Advisors: Dr. Mark Auslander, Anthropology & Museum Studies
Dr. Jeffery Dippmann, Philosophy & Religious Studies
ABSTRACT:
Noted environmental author, speaker, and activist Naomi Klein, in her 2014 book This
Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, formulates a cogent criticism of the reigning
consumer capitalism and neoliberal ideology which is understood as a dominant force in modern
globalizing society. A large part of this argument is founded on the idea that change, including
social and economic change, is inevitable and that the modern capitalist system fails to
acknowledge this fact. Klein also emphasizes the importance of large-scale social movements in
demanding and implementing paradigmatic and structural change. In this thesis, I employ a
critical Buddhistic perspective to argue that certain philosophical and ethical concepts found in
Buddhism are well-suited to guiding and shaping economic and social reform in a way that can
benefit climate change response, human well-being, and socioeconomic justice.

2
CONTENTS:
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Capitalism vs. the Climate? ............................................................................................................5
This Changes Everything, and Everything Changes………………………………………………9
- Impermanence: Anitya……………………………………………………………...…..10
- Interdependence: Pratitya-samutpada…………………………....…………………….13
- Enlightened Economics: Buddhism on Wealth……………………………………...…18
- Generosity and Giving: Dana…………………………………………………………..31
- Loving-Kindness and Goodwill: Metta…………………………………………..…….35
- Compassion: Karuna…………………………………………………………………...39
- Buddhism and Society: Engagement or Exclusion?........................................................43
Naturalizing Capitalism………………………………………………………………………….49
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………55
References………………………………………………………………………………………..58

3
INTRODUCTION:
In the book This Changes Everything (2014), author Naomi Klein assembles a wealth of
historical and contemporary evidence to put forth a number of arguments regarding the modern
capitalist system and the human-nature relationship. The focus of the book centers on the
premise that there is an increasingly prevalent conflict between neoliberal, capitalist systems and
a natural reality which is finite, interdependent, and constantly changing. Specifically, Klein
attributes much of our present circumstances in regards to climate change and environmental
degradation to unrestrained capitalism, writing that “we have not done the things that are
necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated
capitalism, the reigning ideology.” (2014:18). Building on these points, Klein argues that only a
large-scale and cooperative social movement can force the massive restructuring of capitalism
and other systems, and allow for a more humane and rational socioeconomic landscape.
In this thesis, I support Klein’s argument that there is a conflict between modern
capitalist systems and the preservation and valuing of environmental and social health. As with
Klein, I draw on the second contradiction of capitalism, as outlined by James O’Conner (1988),
arguing that capitalist systems encourage over-extraction of resources as well as over-pollution
of natural environments which corrodes the systems abilities to perpetuate and support itself. As
O’Connor writes, this contradiction is “the process whereby capital is its own barrier or limit
because of its self-destructive forms of proletarianization of human nature and appropriation of
labor and capitalization of external nature.” (1988:13).
Critiques of the conflict between nature and capitalism are numerous, and many remedies
and potential reforms have been put forth. Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, in their 2000 book
Natural Capitalism, agree that modern capitalism raises serious issues regarding the preservation

4
of the environment, social justice, and human global well-being. However, the authors posit that
this is the result of a particular application of capitalism, commonly dubbed ‘crony capitalism’.
In its modern form, the application of capitalism has resulted in a failure to properly value
‘natural capital’. Natural capital, according to the authors, “includes all the familiar resources
used by humankind: water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, soil, air, etcetera. But it also encompasses
living systems, which include grasslands, savannahs, wetlands, estuaries, oceans, coral reefs,
riparian corridors, tundra, and rainforests.” (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 2000:2). In summation,
the authors argue that a drastic reform of capitalism is necessary which incorporates the natural
capital on which all human economies ultimately rely, resulting in a “human capitalism” which
respects and promotes the well-being of people, as well as the environment.
By incorporating these ideas and others, I argue that modern capitalist systems do indeed
require the level of structural reformation called by Klein, and that emphasizing the importance
of natural capital is a promising, arguably essential means of instituting this reform. Beyond this,
I utilize a Buddhistic critical perspective to argue that certain ethical and philosophical
components found in Buddhism both support and strengthen these critiques of capitalism, as well
as provide valuable insights into specific ethical and philosophical areas of the capitalist system
which can be reformed in order to produce a more humane, equitable, and just market mentality.
Specifically, I focus on the Buddhist philosophical concepts of anitya [impermanence],
pratityasamutpada [‘dependent origination’], and understandings of wealth and economics; the
Buddhist ethical concepts of karuna [compassion], dana [generosity] and metta [‘loving-
kindness’], as well as the modern movement of engaged, social, or applied Buddhism which has
provided immense motivation and methodology to generating large-scale social movements
around the world.

5
CAPITALISM VS. THE CLIMATE?
Much of Klein’s arguments and worldviews stem from the understanding that there is an
inherent and seemingly unavoidable conflict between capitalism and the preservation of the
environment and natural resources. In her book, she supports this claim with a number of
evidence-based criticisms: (a) a tendency to contribute to [and even profit from] social,
environmental, and financial crisis (2014:8), (b) an idolization of deregulation combined with a
dogmatic faith in free market forces (2014:41) such as the profit motive (2014:252), (c) an
emphasis on consumption levels, as well as corresponding social trends encouraging individuals
to define themselves through consumer purchases (2014:90, 212), (d) an underlying expectation
of infinite and indiscriminate economic growth (2014:86), (e) a socioeconomic and political
hierarchy which places immense power in the hands of corporate entities (2014:151), (f) a
dependence and propagation of ‘extractivist’ ideologies and methods (2014:169), (g) a
questioning of the adequacy of the profit motive as an effective catalyst for social and structural
change (2014:252), and more.
Klein refers to the “three policy pillars of the neoliberal age”: privatization of the public
sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes
which are supported through cuts in public spending (2014:72). Tied in with this is her
understanding of modern capitalism as a corporate-dominated enterprise:
“Attempts to fix glaring and fundamental flaws in the system have failed because large
corporations wield far too much political power—a power exerted through corporate
campaign contributions, many of them secret; through almost unfettered access to
regulators via their lobbyists; through the notorious revolving door between business and
government; as well as through the 'free speech' rights these corporations have been
granted by the U.S. Supreme Court.” (2014:151).
Furthermore, Klein points out that corporate power and influence is expanding beyond the realm
of traditional economics. A relevant example of this can be found in the trend of large

6
environmental groups to be swayed by the corporate interests and practices they supposedly
reject. As Klein notes, “Far from using climate change as a tool to alter the American way of life,
many of the large environmental organizations spend their days doing everything in their power
to furiously protect that way of life, at the direct expense of demanding the levels of change
required by science.” (2014:210).
Throughout the book, Klein seems to be consistently arguing that necessary change will
require a sharp decrease in lifestyle-related consumption patterns, for example when she says,
“The truth is, if we want to live within ecological limits, we would need to return to a lifestyle
similar to the one we had in the 1970s, before consumption levels went crazy in the 1980s.”
(2014:91). While adapting to climate change, globalization, and other aspects of modernity will
certainly result in major lifestyle changes around the world, it seems unlikely that the solutions
will be found in the past [not in the 70’s or any other time]. Rather the solutions we develop,
though based on past inspiration, will be wholly new in their application and will likely integrate
a combination of past techniques, future technologies, and current determinations.
Another of Klein’s main arguments centers around the mass social movement,
specifically arguing that, in order for the current neoliberal regime to begin undergoing reform, a
large number of people from around the world must come together and demand a reworking of
these systems. On page 121 she writes, “Imagine… a powerful social movement—a robust
coalition of trade unions, immigrants, students, environmentalists, and everyone else whose
dreams were getting crushed by the crashing economic model.” (Klein 2014). This argument
seems reasonable, but upon inspection contains two assumptions which may reduce its efficacy:
(1) she seems to assume an underlying trust in democracy where the masses can reach the best
solutions when left to a non-obstructive socioeconomic and political system [somewhat similar

7
to the Coase Theorem, though applied to whole citizenries], and (2) assumes a trust in the
unifying power of a common enemy [in this case exploitative neoliberal capitalism, as well as
the umbrella-threat of climate change].
Throughout the book, climate change is referenced by Klein as a potentially unifying
threat; a common enemy which can bring people from all cultural, economic, and social
backgrounds together: “And this is where the power of climate change—and its potential for
building the largest possible political tent—comes into play… a rallying cry could bring together
all of the various constituencies that would benefit from reducing corporate power over
politics—from health care workers to parents worried about their children's safety at school.”
(2014:152). In addition to the potential to bring people together, Klein also argues that climate
action provides an excellent opportunity for people to improve their own quality of life: “For a
great many people, climate action is their best hope for a better present, and a future far more
exciting than anything else currently on offer.” (2014:156).
Extractivism and the modern relationship between capitalistic human society and the
natural world is a strong source of support for Klein. She takes a direct and unsympathetic stance
on this process, as expressed in her provided definition: “Extractivism is a nonreciprocal,
dominance-based relationship with the earth, one purely of taking. It is the opposite of
stewardship, which involves taking but also taking care that regeneration and future life
continue.” (2014:169). As such, reformulating the nature of this relationship, and the way we
view the natural world will be essential to reaching solutions and implementing changes: “the
deeper message carried by the ecological crisis—that humanity has to go a whole lot easier on
the living systems that sustain us, acting regeneratively rather than extractively—is a profound
challenge to large parts of the left as well as the right.” (2014:178). She references the spread of

8
extractive enterprises, and the communities, entities, and inevitable conflicts which follow them
as ‘Blockadia’: “Blockadia is not a specific location on a map but rather a roving transnational
conflict zone that is cropping up with increasing frequency and intensity wherever extractive
projects are attempting to dig and drill”.
Extractivism is, according to Klein, primarily a result of increasing local resistance to
neoliberal processes, especially with regard to fossil fuel projects which have been exploring
more and more distant regions for decades. Klein uses this local sense of place as the primary
source of inspiration and motivation to resist neoliberal exploitation: “when the extractive
industry's culture of structural transience bumps up against a group of deeply rooted people with
an intense love of their homeplace and a determination to protect it, the effect can be explosive.”
(2014:344). This increasing social resistance to corporate influence is resulting in more
aggressive tactics on the part of industry and government, “After failing to persuade
communities that these projects are in their genuine best interest, governments are teaming up
with corporate players to roll over the opposition, using a combination of physical violence and
draconian legal tools reclassifying peaceful activists as terrorists.” (362).
Finally, Klein ends by arguing that the many factors of ecological crisis, neoliberal
capitalism, sociopolitical conflict, inequitable development and distribution of resources, and so
on all converge in the sphere of climate change, and that a structural change in economic and
social systems can allow problem-solving to take place in all these areas simultaneously: “And
that means a fundamentally new relationship, in which those communities have full control over
resource projects, so that they become opportunities for skills training, jobs, and steady revenues
(rather than one-off payments).” (2014:399). This understanding is built on the belief that “there

9
are alternatives—models of development that do not require massive wealth stratification, tragic
cultural losses, or ecological devastation.” (2014:413).
In summation, “Protecting and valuing the earth's ingenious systems of reproducing life
and the fertility of all of its inhabitants, may lie at the center of the shift in worldview that must
take place if we are to move beyond extractivism. A worldview based on regeneration and
renewal rather than domination and depletion.” (2014:424). Building on this point, I argue that
Buddhism supports and strengthens many of Klein’s arguments, and may contribute valuable
concepts and practical applications which can aid in achieving these goals and more.
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING, AND EVERYTHING CHANGES:
“These, monks, are the seven treasures.
The treasure of conviction,
the treasure of virtue,
the treasure of conscience and concern,
the treasure of listening, generosity,
and discernment as the seventh treasure.
Whoever, man or woman, has these treasures
is said not to be poor, has not lived in vain.
So conviction and virtue, faith and Dhamma-vision
should be cultivated by the wise,
remembering the Buddhas' instruction.” – Dhana Sutta
With an overview of Klein’s arguments provided, I now turn to what Buddhism says
regarding capitalism and the modern lifestyle in order to argue for a Buddhist justification for the
criticisms brought up in This Changes Everything. With philosophical concepts such as
impermanence [anitya], interconnection between phenomena [‘dependent origination’:
pratityasamutpada], and concepts of wealth and economics, as well as ethical virtues including
dana [generosity], metta [‘loving-kindness’, good-will] and karuna [compassion], Buddhism
may contain a host of resources which question and/or condemn many aspects of modern

10
capitalist systems and neoliberal ideologies as a whole, as well as contribute to the formation and
function of alternatives and large-scale social movements.
Impermanence (S. anitya; P. anicca):
“Throughout all the world there is nothing that's permanent.
Even the Earth has the nature of transience.
Bodies are centers of sorrow and emptiness.
All of my parts are devoid of self,
Are dependent on causes and therefore impermanent,
Changing, decaying and out of control.
Expectations of permanence cause disappointment,
Forming attachments that lead to wrongdoing.
Observing the world in this light, may I daily
progress toward freedom from birth and from death.” (Enlightenment Sutta).
Anitya, the rejection of any unchanging or eternal phenomena, is a foundational concept
within most, if not all Buddhist schools. It is regarded as one of the ‘three characteristics of
reality’, one of the ‘four primary defilements’ (Vipallasa Sutta), and one of the ‘five
contemplations’ to developing a right view of reality (Upajjhatthana Sutta). In the Mara-
Upasatha Sutta the Buddha proclaims that “Whether Buddhas arise, O priests, or whether
Buddhas do not arise, it remains a fact and the fixed and necessary constitution of being that all
conformations are transitory. This fact a Buddha discovers and masters, and when he has
discovered and mastered it, he announces, publishes, proclaims, discloses, minutely explains and
makes it clear that all conformations are transitory.” The Cunda Sutta recounts the Buddha’s
teaching after learning of the death of a venerable monk, Shariputra, where the Buddha remarks
“What else is there to expect? It's impossible that one could forbid anything born, existent,
fabricated, and subject to disintegration from disintegrating.” Anitya is, according to Buddhism, a
universal quality found in all things including objects, feelings, energy, and anything else which
may possibly come into existence. The Lalitavistara Sutta eloquently summarizes this as follows:
“All things conditioned are impermanent, unstable,

11
As fragile in essence as an unfired pot;
Like a borrowed object, like a city on sand,
They endure only for a little time.
Without exception they are destroyed
Like plaster washed away by rain;
Like the river’s sandy bank,
They are conditioned, their nature frail. (Iyer 1983:45)
The philosophy of anitya is commonly expressed in negative terms, demonstrated by the
many references to inevitable destruction, such as in the Rahogata Sutta when the Buddha
describes the relationship between anitya and suffering:
“While three feelings have been taught by me, the pleasant, the painful and the neutral,
yet I have also said that whatever is felt is within suffering. This, however, was stated by
me with reference to the impermanence of (all) conditioned phenomena (sankhárá). I
have said it because conditioned phenomena are liable to destruction, to evanescence, to
fading away, to cessation and to change. It is with reference to this that I have stated:
'Whatever is felt is within suffering.'.”
The relationship between suffering and anitya is addressed in many other texts including the
Lokavipatti Sutta and verses 210 and 211 of the Dhammapada (Mascaro 1973). Often this results
from attachment to things as if they are permanent. Attachment to impermanent things inevitably
leads to dukkha [stress, suffering, dissatisfaction], as the Gelañña Sutta states: “If he [the Monk]
experiences a pleasant feeling, he knows it as impermanent; he knows, it is not clung to; he
knows, it is not relished. If he experiences a painful feeling... a neutral feeling, he knows it as
impermanent; he knows, it is not clung to; he knows, it is not relished.” The Vedana Sutta
applies this to feelings, the Phassa Sutta to contact, the Rupa Sutta to physical form, the Viññana
Sutta to consciousness, and the Dhattu Sutta and Nakhasikha Sutta to all components of the
Earth. The Sermon of the Seven Suns cites anitya as the primary source of unhappiness for
human beings: “Impermanent, O monks, are the constituents of existence, unstable, non-eternal:

12
so much so, that this alone is enough to weary and disgust one with all constituent things, and
emancipate therefrom.”
Anitya from a Buddhist perspective is neither good nor bad, but rather a necessary and
unavoidable aspect of existence; a natural law. Some things last longer than others, such as
human life compared with insects [though many texts, such as the Jara Sutta, reflects on the
shortness of human life], but eventually all things end. Anitya is associated with annihilation, but
may be more accurately understood as the inevitability of change. An individual human is
impermanent in the obvious sense that one day we cease to exist. Furthermore, an individual is
impermanent because we are constantly in flux. From an intellectual standpoint, we are exposed
to new ideas, experiences, and so on each day which mold and shape who we are. Physically, our
cells regenerate, our chemistry and physiology fluctuates, and our neural pathways are shifting
and rewiring. As such, anitya forms one of the main arguments for the Buddhist rejection of the
eternal self [atman] and is detailed in the Gaddula Sutta, the Nadi Sutta, the Vipallasa Sutta, and
many others.
It is from this perspective that Buddhists understand anitya, and thus change. Klein’s
argument that change is inevitable, and that even seemingly firm and entrenched ideologies and
systems such as capitalism and consumerism are unable to escape the marks of impermanence is
thus well supported in Buddhism. While on one hand assuring that change will occur, anitya may
also provide inspiration. Since all things are subject to change, this means that all phenomena are
impressionable. In the human mind, this means that we constantly have the ability to shape,
mold, and develop ourselves and the world around us. As the Gavi Sutta states, "When a monk
enters and emerges from that very attainment, his mind is pliant and malleable. With his pliant,
malleable mind, limitless concentration is well developed.” Society, as an extension of

13
individuals, is similarly malleable and may be influenced by humanity and other factors. As
such, the assumptions made by Klein, which are foundational to the rest of her arguments, seem
to be well supported by Buddhist doctrine, and provide a groundwork for engagement with
society and the outside world.
Interdependence: ‘Dependent Origination’ [S. Pratityasamutpada, P. Paticca
Samupadda]:
“A disciple of the Buddha, mindful,
clearly comprehending, with his mind collected,
he knows the feelings and their origin,
knows whereby they cease and knows the path
that to the ending of feelings lead.
And when the end of feelings he has reached,
such a monk, his thirsting quenched, attains Nibbána.” (Samádhi Sutta 4)
Another foundational philosophy of Buddhism is that of interdependence, known in
Buddhism as ‘dependent origination’. As with anitya, this philosophy runs deep through many
other Buddhist concepts and doctrines. In terms of capitalism, pratityasamutpada presents its
relevance in terms of interrelations between phenomena and in terms of cause and effect. The
latter understanding, of the causes and conditions of existent phenomena, led to the development
of the philosophy known as sunnata [emptiness] which states that everything is inherently
‘empty of essence’ because it cannot exist without other phenomena.
On the first level, that of interconnection and interdependence, Buddhism seems to take a
panarchic approach. It often rejects hierarchy, systems where some things are considered more
important than others, and instead emphasizes that all pieces are equally important since without
any one piece the end result would be noticeably different. In the Nalakalapiyo Sutta, the Buddha
uses the example of two sheaves of reeds leaning on each other. If one or the other were to be
removed, neither of the sheaves would be able to stand. Ecologically, a panarchic approach

14
views all components of an ecosystem as valuable [since all contribute to the organization and
function of the ecosystem as a whole] and change can be initiated from any level [as opposed to
hierarchical models where change traditionally occurs at one or only a few levels; i.e. top-down,
bottom-up, etc.].
Cause and effect, in terms of pratityasamutpada, can be understood as an unending chain
of events [causes] which, through their influence [effects] become causes for other events. This
philosophy is inseparable from, though not identical to the doctrine of karma, or the philosophy
that all actions act as caused for other phenomena. The immeasurable extent of this chain is
described in the Mata Sutta which discusses the rebirth of beings: “From an in-construable
beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.” Throughout the
scriptures, this is expressed in a wide range of terms. On a basic level, there are many references
to phenomena being dependent on other things. The Cula Sunnata Sutta states that sense
perceptions are “dependent on this very body with life as its condition.” One of the most
important deductions of this philosophy relates to dukkha, and leads to the formation of the
Buddha’s primary teaching given in The First Sermon: the Four Noble Truths. This states that (1)
dukkha is a part of life, (2) dukkha has a cause, (3) the causes of dukkha can be stopped, and thus
(4) there is an end to dukkha. As dukkha has a cause, so too do many other negative aspects of
human existence; those parts of life understood in Buddhism as a source of dukkha. An example
of this is found in the Mahanidana Sutta:
“Now, craving is dependent on feeling,
seeking is dependent on craving,
acquisition is dependent on seeking,
ascertainment is dependent on acquisition,
desire and passion is dependent on ascertainment,
attachment is dependent on desire and passion,

15
possessiveness is dependent on attachment,
stinginess is dependent on attachment,
defensiveness is dependent on stinginess,
and because of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful
phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and
disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies.”
Emptiness [P. Śūnyatā; S. Suññatā] is intricately related to pratityasamutpada and cause
and effect. The Heart Sutta [or Prajnaparamita Sutta] is the defining text on emptiness within the
Mahayana Buddhist canon, and proclaims the fundamental emptiness of the self, body, feelings,
consciousness, and all else while emphasizing the non-separaton of dualistic concepts:
“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing.
“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.” (Hanh 2014).
The Indian philosopher Nagarjuna, in his seminal commentary, ‘Mulamadhyamakakarika’
[‘fundamental verses on the Middle Way’], delves into the meaning of suññatā in the Mahayana
worldview. In the third verse, Nagarjuna states that “In these relational conditions the self-nature
of the entities cannot exist. From the non-existence of self-nature, other-nature too cannot exist.”
(Inada 1970:40). Here ‘relational conditions’ is the translation of pratityasamutpada, in which he
refutes the existence of a self-nature [S. svabhava] independent of other entities. The concept of
suññatā is again visited in the Suñña Sutta where the monk Ananda asks the Buddha in what way
the world is void and empty. The Buddha responds that, “Insofar as it is empty of a self or of
anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ánanda, that the world is empty.”

16
Cause and effect is also expounded psychologically in order to explain both the
appearance and absence of sensation. As such, as detailed in the Lankavatara Sutta, “There are
two factors of causation by reason of which all things come into seeming existence: external and
internal factors.” External factors refer to the physical: “The external factors are a lump of clay, a
stick, a wheel, a thread, water, a worker, his labor, and the combination of these produces a jar.”
(Lankavatara Sutta). Internal factors include perception, desire, and so on which contribute to an
individual creating such a jar. In order to see a sight, for example, there must be (1) an eye organ,
(2) an object to be seen, (3) a brain to process the sight, (4) consciousness to perceive the sight-
process, etc. The Maha Hatthipadopama Sutta states this as follows:
“Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is
there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type
of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but
there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding
type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come
into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the
corresponding type of consciousness.”
As such, all senses are the effects of both internal and external causes. And in the Paccaya Sutta,
the Buddha states that birth is a “requisite condition” for aging and death, while birth itself is
“dependently co-arisen” as a result of many causes and conditions, notably the birth and eventual
coming together of parents. This discourse is further elaborated on in the Mahanidana Sutta, the
Paccaya Sutta, and the Paticca Samuppada Vibhanga Sutta.
In regards to individuals, dependent origination takes the form of a highly developed
sense of personal responsibility. Since all conditioned things have a series of causes, any
conditioned thing which happens to us must also have causes. Buddhism makes a strict
argument, utilizing the concept of karma [‘fruit’, the result of one’s actions] and rebirth, that
individuals alone are responsible for the things which happen to them. Experiencing negative

17
fruits in the present can be considered the result of negative actions in the past [in both the
current or previous lives]. As the Buddha states in the Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta, “Student,
beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions, born of their actions, related through
their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Action is what differentiates beings in
terms of baseness and excellence.” The Upajjhatthana Sutta expands on this, noting that
“Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.” While this may seem damning, it is
more commonly understood in a soteriological sense, where the means to one’s personal
salvation are within the grasp of the individual. If one wants to improve their condition,
Buddhism states that one simply must improve their actions, and encourage the fruiting of
pleasant karmas. This is espoused in eloquent prose in the Nidana Sutta, where greed, aversion,
and delusion are named as the dominant motivators of actions:
“A person unknowing:
the actions performed by him,
born of greed, born of aversion,
and born of delusion,
whether many or few,
are experienced right here:
no other ground is found.
So a monk, knowing,
sheds
greed, aversion, and delusion;
giving rise to clear knowledge, he
sheds
all bad destinations.”
In the Yoga Sutta, the Buddha outlines four ‘yokes’ which lead to the origination of dukkha: the
yokes of sensuality, becoming, views, and ignorance. As such, a monk wishing to improve his
circumstances should simply strive to give up greed, aversion, delusion, and the four yokes.
In regards to the arguments put forth in This Changes Everything, the philosophy of
pratityasamutpada creates an interesting series of predicaments. On one hand, this philosophy

18
seems to support Klein’s arguments in that the modern socioeconomic situation in which we find
ourselves is the result of past historical occurrences and actions, and whose future will be
determined by the actions of individuals in the present and near future. From this perspective,
pratityasamutpada can provide a motivational framework for reform: by changing the ways we
behave and act economically and socially [i.e. ‘planting new seeds’] we can systematically
develop a friendlier and more equitable world [i.e. ‘harvest new fruits’]. On the other hand, some
aspects of pratityasamutpada may be interpreted as world-negating, especially in regards to
suññatā. However, I argue this is an incorrect interpretation, and that the true nature of suññatā
is world-affirming, insisting that no phenomenon, be it a human being or socioeconomic system,
exists in isolation.
Capitalism, it has been argued, depends on a maintained separation from external
circumstances. From an underlying expectation of infinite growth [while subsisting on finite
resources] to a consistent effort to externalize factors and conditions from economic processes
[i.e. pollution, social consequences, etc.], capitalist and neoliberal systems consistently
encourage the removal of many factors and influences from the equation. As such, the
philosophy of pratityasamutpada can contribute to a more restrained and externally-connected
capitalism on multiple different [yet connected] levels.
Enlightened Economics- Buddhism on Wealth: On the subject of wealth, Klein tends
to hold a middle of the road perspective. While she doesn’t outright criticize having wealth or
living a comfortable lifestyle, she does seem to consider a drastic redistribution of wealth
necessary to more equitable levels as crucial to addressing problems of overconsumption and
wealth accumulation in the modern capitalist system. Klein also seems to consider the lack of
moral principles such as restraint and moderation as one of the primary downfalls of the

19
neoliberal agenda [rather than emphasizing frugality, a system built on infinite growth may
instead encourage waste and greed]. It is from this perspective that I argue that Buddhism
generally supports Klein’s position, and has much to contribute to the spheres of modern
economics, primarily through the injection of pertinent ethical principles such as moderation,
generosity, and compassion.
Buddhism, along with the predominately Eastern worldviews associated with Daoism,
Hinduism, and so on, is often considered to be against the accumulation of wealth. The image of
a wealthy yet devout Buddhist seems counterintuitive, and not without a logical basis. While
Buddhism certainly has much to say regarding wealth and how to interact with it, and
admonishes qualities such as greed, it is not correct to argue that Buddhism is ‘anti-wealth’. In
fact, many texts contain guidelines on the proper way to accumulate and use wealth. As will be
visited under the section on dana [generosity], having wealth can be a morally respectable way
to accumulate karmic merit and spread joy to others. Buddhist conceptions on wealth are also
significant, for they demonstrate that good Buddhists are commonly expected, and even
encouraged to participate in economic, and therefore social spheres. For now, I adhere to the
scriptural sources pertaining to the accumulation of wealth, and what to do with wealth and
personal property already in one’s possession.
First it is necessary to gain an understanding of how the Buddha viewed wealth and
personal accumulation. In the First Sermon, the first argument of the Buddha is that one should
pursue ‘The Middle Way’: a lifestyle lying in between lavish wealth and extreme poverty. As
such, a healthy management of wealth lies at the foundation of Buddhist doctrine. Next, the
Buddha was primarily concerned with the cessation of dukkha. As such, the Buddha considers
wealth in the context of how it pertains to this goal. The Culadukkhakkhandha Sutta relates

20
sensual pleasures, with which wealth is connected, to the root of dukkha, and the Mettagu
Manava Puccha seconds this claim. The Ina Sutta provides an outline of the harms of poverty
and debt, and holds them responsible as a primary contributor to dukkha in the world:
“Thus, monks, poverty is suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality.
Getting into debt is suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Interest
payment is suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Being served notice
is suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Being hounded is suffering in
the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Bondage is suffering in the world for one
who partakes of sensuality.”
The Adiya Sutta praises earning wealth through honest and right effort, and outlines five
benefits this can provide: (1) pleasure which is rightly earned and allows one to support their
family; (2) wealth can be used to share rightly earned pleasure with others, (3) security against
misfortune [i.e. namely natural disasters, famine, etc.]; (4) allows one to worship in the proper
fashion and provide necessary offerings; and (5) allows one to provide support to others
engaging in spiritual pursuit [those in the monkhood, dependent on lay-society]:
“'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
and performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.”
I find the last line especially striking, as it says that a righteous Buddhist householder should
strive to avoid using one’s wealth to “lead to future distress”. From a modern perspective, this
could be used to argue against a wide range of economic activities; from purchasing and using
products manufactured through exploitative labor practices to engaging in activities which

21
contribute to climate change. In a similar fashion, the Anana Sutta outlines ‘four kinds of bliss’
to be obtained by a righteous householder: the bliss of (1) having wealth, (2) making use of
wealth, (3) being debtless, and (4) being blameless.
Wealth and acquisition, while not inherently negative, pose a risk to individuals,
especially those committed to the monkhood. The Dhaniya Sutta, organized as a conversation
between the Buddha and a cattleman named Dhaniya, describes both the benefits of living a
moderate life as well as the increased risk of attachment and craving which accompanies having
such possessions. Dhaniya and the Buddha share stanzas which outline a modest lifestyle. At the
end of this sutta, Mara [a ‘deity’ in Buddhism who seeks to confuse, distract, and otherwise sway
practitioners from the path] appears and seeks to make the argument that Dhaniya’s satisfaction
is only existent because of his possessions:
“Those with children
delight
because of their children.
Those with cattle
delight
because of their cows.
A person's delight
comes from acquisitions,
since a person with no acquisitions
doesn't delight.”
At this the Buddha refutes Mara’s claims, instead making the argument that worldly acquisitions
lead to dukkha rather than delight:
“Those with children
grieve
because of their children.
Those with cattle
grieve
because of their cows.
A person's grief
comes from acquisitions,
since a person with no acquisitions

22
doesn't grieve.”
These two verses are repeated in nearly identical form in the Nandana Sutta.
Attachment [S. tṛṣṇā; P. taṇhā: thirst, desire] to worldly possessions is a highly
prominent theme throughout the text, and penetrates almost every aspect of Buddhism, including
the end goal of Nirvana [liberation, enlightenment, ‘detachment’]: “With the arrow withdrawn,
unattached, he would attain to peace of mind; and when all sorrow has been transcended he is
sorrow-free and has realized Nibbána.” (Salla Sutta). The Upaya Sutta states, “One attached is
unreleased; one unattached is released.” Tṛṣṇā is seen as negative in almost every circumstance,
many of which are discussed in the Lankavatara Sutta: “there are the deep-seated attachments to
signs of individuality, to causation, to the notion of being and non-being, to the discrimination of
birth and death, of doing and of not-doing, to the habit of discrimination itself upon which
philosophers are so dependent.” Tṛṣṇā is described as one of the five obstacles (One Way In
Sutta), one of the minor defilements (Upakilesa Sutta), one of the four perversions (Vipallasa
Sutta), and a contributor to the decline of humans (Parabhava Sutta). The Lankavatara sutta
identifies attachment to greed, anger, and infatuation, these being “based on lust, fear and pride.”
The Lokavipatti Sutta expands this to status, gain, praise, loss, disgrace, and censure; and the Na
Tumhaka Sutta relates tṛṣṇā to incorrect concepts regarding the existence of a self. Clinging to
friends and loved ones is also seen as a negative worldly phenomenon, as the Piyajaatika Sutta
notes, “Dear ones bring grief, lament, unpleasantness and distress and the pleasure gained from
them is insignificant.”
Tṛṣṇā is described as a dangerous trap in the Tanha Sutta, and the Mettagu Manava
Puccha identifies attachment as one of the primary sources of dukkha:
“You have asked me the source of suffering. Mettagu, I will tell it to you as it has been
discerned by me. These many sufferings evident in the world have arisen from worldly

23
attachments. Whoever ignorantly creates an attachment that stupid person comes upon
suffering again and again. Therefore a man of understanding should not create
attachment, seeing it is the source of suffering.”
The clinging-aggregates are results of attachment to the five aggregates [the self: form, feeling,
perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness], and are discussed in the Khandha Sutta, the
Parivatta Sutta, and the Silavant Sutta. Essentially, feelings and pleasures can cause us to cling as
we seek out or avoid them, as the Sallatha Sutta says:
“For a learned person
who has fathomed the Dhamma,
clearly seeing this world and the next,
desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.”
Attachment to views in the Paramatthaka Sutta is used to engender a sense of tolerance in
adherents and warn Buddhists against clinging to beliefs, even Buddhist ones: “A person who
associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the
world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from
contention with others. In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he
sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as
worthless.”
In the Buddhist way, outlined in the Datthabba Sutta, tṛṣṇā often extends in multiple
directions; one is easily attached to pleasant feelings, and attached to the absence of negative
feelings. In both circumstances, one becomes attached to present circumstances which, due to
anitya, are guaranteed to change. The Buddha identifies four types of clinging in the Shorter
Discourse on the Lion's Roar, and the Gelañña Sutta outlines the causes and conditions of
attachment, making clear that attachment can be eliminated through practice, determination, and
action. The Guhatthaka Sutta, comparing the body to a cave, states that:

24
“Staying attached to the cave,
covered heavily over,
a person plunged into confusion
is far from seclusion --
for sensual pleasures
are not lightly let go.”
The Buddha expands on the relationship between tṛṣṇā and mistaken views of the self in the
Sermon At Rajagaha. In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha makes the claim that the world is
largely succumbing to tṛṣṇā: “By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to
these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions.” This raises the
question of what the Buddha might make of the present economic and materialistic situation. In
the Snake Simile, the Buddha compares tṛṣṇā to a person trying to grab a snake: the fool grabs
the snake by the tail and gets bit, while the wise man grabs the snake behind the head. This
passage again suggests that ‘good grasping’ is a matter of wisdom and self-control. A large
number of other suttas discuss tṛṣṇā, including the Nagaravindeyya Sutta, the Nava Sutta, the
Pahana Sutta, the Sammaditthi Sutta, the Upadana Sutta
Building on the threat of greed, tṛṣṇā, and so on which accompanies the accumulation of
wealth, the Buddha decries in the Parabhava Sutta that: “To have much wealth and ample gold
and food, but to enjoy one's luxuries alone - this is a cause of one's downfall.” Indeed, warnings
against avarice form a bulk of the discourses and teachings attributed to the Buddha. In the
Pilahaka Sutta, the Buddha uses the humorous yet accurate analogy of a dung beetle to represent
a greedy, and thus delusional monk:
“Monks, gains, offerings, and fame are a cruel thing, a harsh, bitter obstacle to the
attainment of the unexcelled rest from bondage. Suppose there were a beetle, a dung-
eater, full of dung, gorged with dung, with a huge pile of dung in front of him. He,
because of that, would look down on other beetles: 'Yes, sirree! I am a dung-eater, full of
dung, gorged with dung, with a huge pile of dung in front of me!' In the same way, there

25
is the case where a certain monk - conquered by gains, offerings, and fame, his mind
consumed - puts on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe, goes into a village or
town for alms. Having eaten there as much as he likes - full of alms-food and invited
again for the next day - he goes to the monastery and, in the midst of a group of monks,
boasts, 'I have eaten as much as I like, I am full of alms-food and have been invited again
for tomorrow. . . Conquered by gains, offerings, and fame, his mind consumed, he looks
down on other well-behaved monks.”
In a similar fashion, the Sigala Sutta compares a person bent on acquiring wealth to a hungry,
mange-afflicted jackal: “He finds no pleasure whether he goes to a bluff, to the foot of a tree, or
to the open air. Wherever he goes, wherever he stands, wherever he sits, wherever he lies down,
he is sunk in misery.” Thus people who make their prime goal the attainment of wealth are
destined to a life of searching, but finding nothing but discomfort; misery; dukkha. In a similar
way, the Katuviya Sutta refers to greed as “putrefaction”, contributing to the decay of spiritual
and moral development, and the Parabhava Sutta lists greed and attachment as one of the causes
of the decline of humanity.
Throughout the texts, the Buddha consistently references the importance of morality and
wisdom in the proper acquisition and use of wealth. The Andha Sutta makes the analogy of three
types of people, possessing no eyes, one eye, or both eyes. One eye represents the ability to
acquire wealth and make it grow, and the second eye represents the moral compass; “the eye to
see states that are good and bad, to see states that are blameworthy and praiseworthy, states mean
and exalted, states resembling light and darkness.” As this passage shows, wealth in Buddhism is
understood in a similar fashion as many other concepts [including anitya], that is neither good
nor bad. Rather it is up to the individual to make efficient, intelligent, and ethical use of wealth.
This position is further emphasized in the Kula Sutta where, speaking on the family, the
Buddha proscribes four actions for maintaining wealth: “Which four? They look for things that
are lost. They repair things that have gotten old. They are moderate in consuming food and drink.

26
They place a virtuous, principled woman or man in the position of authority. In every case where
a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons.”
This passage contains valuable insight. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining one’s
possessions [since all things are subject to anitya], as well as touches on the moral and ethical
principles of moderation, restraint, and ethical decision-making.
Overall, restraint and moderation seem to be the prime emphasis of the Buddha’s
teachings on wealth. The Udumbarika Sihanada Sutta provides a description of ‘four-faceted
restraint’: “restraining from doing harm, causing others to do harm, as well as not approving of
harm done; refraining from stealing, not having others steal and disapproving of theft; the
squelching of craving, not making others crave and the disapproving of craving; refraining from
lying, not causing others to lie and disapproving of lying.” The Uraga Sutta describes spiritual
training as a snake-like transformation, in which restraint assists in shedding the ‘snakeskin’ of
greed and other defilements. Like other tools, wealth can be used efficiently, and for good
purposes, or it can be used inefficiently, and result in harm. The Discourse of the Teaching
Bestowed by the Buddha outlines the importance of restraint in regards to mind and body,
touching on the control of the senses, moderate consumption of food, and more. This is seconded
in the Sunakkhatta Sutta: “Now, when a monk - maintaining restraint over the six spheres of
contact, knowing that 'Acquisition is the root of stress' - is free from acquisition, released in the
total ending of acquisition, it's not possible that, with regard to acquisition, he would stir his
body or arouse his mind.” The Enlightenment Sutta outlines the relation between a lack of
restraint with regards to worldly possessions and the defilements of craving, greed, and
attachment which all contribute to dukkha. The Guhatthaka Sutta makes a similar observation:
“Those chained by desire,
bound by becoming's allure,

27
aren't freed by others,
and find no easy release on their own.
Intent, in front or behind,
on hunger for sensual pleasures
here or before –
greedy
for sensual pleasures,
busy, deluded, ungenerous,
having entered the out-of-tune way,
they -- impelled into pain -- lament:
“What will we be
when we pass on from here?”
Forming such an integral part of Buddhist moral philosophy, the topics of restraint and greed are
major themes in a host of other suttas including the Kama Sutta, the Kimsila Sutta, the
Samaññaphala Sutta, the Yavakalapi Sutta, and the Yoga Sutta.
The suttas provide an ideal example of what healthy accumulation and use of wealth
looks like in the form of the monk Anathapindika [whose name means ‘supporter of, and friend
to the poor and orphans’]. In the Mara-Upasatha Sutta, he is described as a “man of unmeasured
wealth” who, on hearing the teachings of the Buddha, finds himself in a moral dilemma:
“Having listened to my words advise me what I shall do. My life is full of work, and
having acquired great wealth, I am surrounded with cares. Yet I enjoy my work, and
apply myself to it with all diligence. Many people are in my employ and depend upon the
success of my enterprises. . . My heart yearns to do what is right and to be a blessing unto
my fellows. Let me then ask thee, Must I give up my wealth, my home, and my business
enterprises, and, like thyself, go into homelessness in order to attain the bliss of a
religious life?”
The Buddha then makes a highly cogent response, telling Anathapindika that “The bliss of a
religious life is attainable by every one who walks in the noble eightfold path. He that cleaves to
wealth had better cast it away than allow his heart to be poisoned by it; but he who does not
cleave to wealth, and possessing riches, uses them rightly, will be a blessing unto his fellows.”
Anathapindika then commits to supporting and spreading the Dharma [the teachings of the

28
Buddha] and purchases a large plot of forested land where he established the monastery known
as Jeta’s Grove, referenced many times in later suttas.
“Rouse yourself! Sit up! What good is there in sleeping? For those afflicted by disease
(suffering), struck by the arrow (craving), what sleep is there?” (Utthana Sutta)
I now discuss briefly the role of effort, diligence, and striving as understood in the
Buddhist context. As with greed, tṛṣṇā, and so on, ‘right effort’ is seen as the antidote to sloth
and laziness, which is described as one of the five obstacles (Avarana Sutta) and contributing to
the decline of humanity (Parabhava Sutta). Persistence is named as one of the five strengths in
the Vitthara Sutta, and the Threefold Lotus Sutra contains many passages guiding in the
abandonment of sloth (Kato, Tamura and Miyasaka 1975). The Buddha advocates for a middle
path of effort, not trying too hard or too little: “When I pushed forward, I was whirled about.
When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without
staying in place.” (Ogha-tarana Sutta). The Buddha consistently taught that anything worth doing
should be done with vigor and determination, especially in regards to monastic training:
“So you should train yourselves: 'Strong will be our desire for undertaking the training in
heightened virtue; strong will be our desire for undertaking the training in heightened
mind (concentration); strong will be our desire for undertaking the training in heightened
discernment.' That is how you should train yourselves.” (Gadrabha Sutta).
Building on this in the Kusita Arambhavatthu Sutta, the Buddha outlines eight expressions of
laziness followed by eight examples of developing energy to counteract that laziness. A host of
other texts refer to the virtue of right effort and the vice of sloth including the Lohicca Sutta, the
Maha-Parinibbána Sutta, the Mahaakammavibhangasuttam, and the Sabbasava Sutta.
Related to determination and persistence is the Buddhist concept of self-sufficiency.
Many scriptures describe the importance of not relying on others, and to depend only on oneself
in regard to development. The Khaggavisana Sutta states that one should live “like a rhinoceros”,

29
avoiding negativity in people and situations, and seeking out things that will assist one in
development:
“Avoid the evil companion
disregarding the goal,
intent on the out-of-tune way.
Don't take as a friend
someone heedless and hankering.
Wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Consort with one who is learned,
who maintains the Dhamma,
a great and quick-witted friend.
Knowing the meanings,
subdue your perplexity,
[then] wander alone
like a rhinoceros”
These points will be revisited when discussing the social nature of Buddhism and Buddhist
teachings on how to engage oneself with the outside world, but other suttas with reference to
self-sufficiency include the Maha Mangala Sutta and the Maha-Parinibbána Sutta.
Anathapindika has, and continues to shine as a Buddhist example of the proper response
to wealth. His wealth was earned through honest effort, he was able to resist craving and
attachment to his fortune, gave generously and intelligently, and utilized wisdom and morality in
his business dealings as well as other aspects of life. As the Mahali Sutta states, “A disciple goes
forth and practices the moralities. On account of his morality, he sees no danger anywhere. He
experiences in himself the blameless bliss that comes from maintaining this Aryan morality.”
Anathapindika exemplifies the fusion between right effort, sila [morality] and prajna [wisdom],
and further demonstrates that a contradiction between wealth and Buddhism is a surface-level
phenomenon; scripturally and doctrinally unfounded. On the contrary, Buddhism provides
practical and relatively simple proscriptions for the appropriate relationship with wealth, and by

30
extension, economies. The Vyagghapajja Sutta provides a prime example of this economic
insight. The layperson Vyagghapajja approaches the Buddha and asks him how best a layperson
should behave in order to develop a life of both wealth and happiness, as well as spiritual and
moral righteousness. The Buddha gives the following advice, arguably as relevant today as when
the words were first spoken:
“Four conditions, Vyagghapajja, conduce to a householder's wealth and happiness in this
very life. Which four? The accomplishment of persistent effort (utthana-sampada), the
accomplishment of watchfulness (arakkha-sampada), good friendship (kalyanamittata)
and balanced livelihood (sama-jivikata).”
Again we find mentioned here the importance of diligent effort, moderation, and healthy and
friendly interactions with other people [again suggesting an assumption of social engagement].
The scriptural discourses regarding wealth in Buddhism are fascinating and relevant for a
number of reasons. First, though Buddhism has been argued as world-negating, the Buddha
regularly comments on economic participation and the benefits which can be obtained from it.
Rather than arguing for abstinence from worldly involvement, specifically in the marketplace,
the Buddha provides a series of warnings and guidelines on how one should properly behave and
relate with economies and other social spheres. Though modern capitalism certainly wasn’t
present, there was a well-established mercantile system in India which certainly included the
incredibly wealthy and the severely impoverished. As such, advice on how to orient oneself in
these spheres form an integral part of the Buddha’s teachings. This fact will be revisited later to
argue that Buddhism inherently contains doctrines which dictate social engagement.
In the context of Klein’s arguments, Buddhism provides a number of supporting
premises. Much of the discourse found in the scriptures views the market as man-made. There is
never reference to any outside forces which control the functioning of economics. Some of this
likely stems from significant differences between modern capitalism and the economy of ancient

31
India, and it is likely that some of this emerges from the Buddhist philosophical system. Since
humans are ultimately responsible for their actions, and the market is created and controlled by
humans, it follows that humans are ultimately responsible for the functioning of the market.
There seems to be a large body of evidence to suggest that the Buddha would respond to a
broken economic system in much the same way he approaches ‘broken’ beings: find the roots of
the problem, and change them. Essentially, Buddhism tells us that problems emerging from
capitalism have a cause. If we identify these causes, and remove them, the problems will also
cease. As such, Buddhist views of wealth seem to support and strengthen the criticisms of
capitalism made by Klein.
In the three sections to follow, I shift from an analysis of Buddhist philosophies to an
analysis of particular Buddhist ethical concepts relevant to a critique of capitalism. From a
Buddhist perspective, capitalism is a creation of humans with identifiable problems, but what are
these problems and can Buddhism contribute to finding solutions? Though many applicable
ethical principles may be found, I focus on those which I argue are most relevant in the context
of Klein’s arguments discussed in This Changes Everything. The three which will be discussed
in detail are dana [generosity], metta [loving-kindness or goodwill], and karuna [compassion].
Generosity and Giving [S. Dana; P. Dhani]: Giving and generosity are consistently
referenced by the Buddha and subsequent Buddhist teachers, and form an integral part of
Buddhist moral thought. As noted, greed is a prime contributor to dukkha. The Buddhist system
often presents vices in combination with virtues, said to muffle and eventually conquer their
negative counterparts. Dana, then, is taught as the prescribed antidote to greed and avarice. The
Dhana Sutta provides the following outline, describing dana as one of the ‘seven treasures’:
“And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones,
his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, freely generous,

32
openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the
distribution of alms. This is called the treasure of generosity”
Similarly, the Hita Sutta proclaims that one of the primary goals of a monk is to be of benefit to
others; developing qualities in themselves partially to assist in encouraging these qualities in
others. Dana is also closely linked with selflessness, which itself is dependent on the philosophy
of anatman [no-self], as described in the Sermon at Rajagaha: “Those who know the nature of
self and understand how the senses act, find no room for selfishness, and therefore they will
attain peace unending.”
The fostering of dana is said to provide a host of benefits, as described in the Siha Sutta.
While many of the benefits of virtues found in Buddhist texts invoke the benefits of merit and
benefitting from favorable conditions in future lives, this sutta refers specifically to fruits of dana
which are visible in one’s present existence: (1) one is liked and respected by people at large, (2)
one is admired and emulated by others, (3) one develops a positive reputation, and (4) one may
approach others with confidence, and without shame. The sutta ends as follows:
“One who gives is dear.
People at large admire him.
He gains honor. His status grows.
He enters an assembly unembarrassed.
He is confident -- the man un-miserly.
Therefore the wise give gifts.
Seeking bliss, they would subdue the stain of miserliness.
Established in the three-fold heavenly world,
they enjoy themselves long
in fellowship with devas.”
Dana is described as having a dual benefit, to both the giver and recipient. I again
reference Anathapindika, held as an example of dana and charity within the Buddhist scriptures.
When Anathapindika donated the plot of land to form a monastery, the following account is
recorded in the Mara-Upasatha Sutta:

33
“The Buddha saw into the heart of the supporter of orphans; and knowing that unselfish
charity was the moving cause of his offer, in acceptance of the gift, the Blessed One said:
The charitable man is loved by all; his friendship is prized highly; in death his heart is at
rest and full of joy, for he suffers not from repentance; he receives the opening flower of
his reward and the fruit that ripens from it. Hard it is to understand: By giving away our
food, we get more strength, by bestowing clothing on others, we gain more beauty; by
donating abodes of purity and truth, we acquire great treasures.”
The Bhojana Sutta uses the example of giving food, and describes five things which are given
[along with the physical food]: (1) life, (2) beauty, (3) happiness, (4) strength, and (5) quick-
wittedness. This concept draws on pratityasamutpada, considering the indirect results of
consuming food to sustain oneself. A well-fed person is healthy, happy, and in a prime state to
practice the Dharma. The Kindada Sutta provides a similar account, with minor deviations:
“A deva:
A giver of what is a giver of strength?
A giver of what, a giver of beauty?
A giver of what, a giver of ease?
A giver of what, a giver of vision?
And who is a giver of everything?
Being asked, please explain this to me.
The Buddha:
A giver of food is a giver of strength.
A giver of clothes, a giver of beauty.
A giver of a vehicle, a giver of ease.
A giver of a lamp, a giver of vision.
And the one who gives a residence,
is the one who is a giver of everything.
But the one who teaches the Dhamma
is a giver of the Deathless.”
Essentially, one should have enough but not strive for too much, as the Enlightenment
Sutta says:
“Excessive desire only brings me to suffering.
Birth and death, sorrow and weariness all are from
Greedy attachment to things of this world.
But controlling desire cuts the root of unhappiness,
Leaving the body and mind to relax.”

34
In addition, the Kaladana Sutta refers to seasonal gifts, or gifts which are given at certain
occasions or under specific circumstances [i.e. birthday or Christmas presents]. These are gifts
(1) to a newcomer, (2) to one moving away, (3) to one who is sick, (4) given in times of famine,
and (5) setting the first fruits of harvest in front of the virtuous. Specifically relevant is the
mention of times of famine, since this seems to demand dana in the face of adverse
circumstances. In addition, the sutta further expands on the benefit to both the giver and the
recipient, specifically in terms of merit [karma]:
“In the proper season they give -
those with discernment,
responsive, free from stinginess.
Having been given in proper season,
with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
- straightened, such -
their offering bears an abundance.
Those who rejoice in that gift
or give assistance,
they, too, have a share of the merit,
and the offering isn't depleted by that.
So, with an unhesitant mind,
one should give where the gift bears great fruit.
Merit is what establishes
living beings in the next life.”
The scriptures also provide numerous accounts of the consequences of lacking dana. The
Cakkavattisihananda Sutta provides an interesting example in the sense that it seems to promote
dana while simultaneously warning against excessive or indiscriminate dana. It details a
kingdom in which the king and his citizens failed to properly consider and care for the poor.
People begin stealing, and initially the king responds by giving those caught some property,
hoping this will remove their need to steal. More and more thieves come expecting property, so
the king realizes something else must be done. He begins using capital punishment for thieves,

35
and the citizens respond by acquiring swords and using violence to steal. The sutta summarizes
the results as follows:
“Thus, from not giving of property to the needy, poverty became rife, from the growth of
poverty, the taking of what was not given increased, from the increase of theft, the use of
weapons increased, from the increased use of weapons, the taking of life increased – and
from the increase in the taking of life, people’s life span decreased, their beauty
decreased, and as a result of this decrease of life-span and beauty, the children of those
whose life span had been eighty thousand years lived only forty thousand.”
In the context of capitalism, dana becomes an almost revolutionary concept. In the
American application of the system, citizens are consistently encouraged to work harder in order
to achieve more. If one is lacking significant resources under a capitalist philosophy, the
response tends to be to question the work ethic, intelligence, or other personal qualities of
individuals. Since the system seems to encourage holding individuals responsible for their
socioeconomic situation, generosity is difficult to justify. If person A is in poverty but ‘deserves’
their position, and person B is wealthy and ‘deserves’ their position, there is little reason for
person B to contribute to or support person A. This logic-driven system does not take into
account external circumstances which may contribute to a person’s status, as well as ignores
ethical concepts such as dana. I argue that capitalism has always inherently contained concepts
of generosity and social support, though these have been minimized and stifled in recent years as
a result of economic deregulation and growth-obsessed neoliberalism. As such, by
reemphasizing the importance and contributions of generosity to capitalism and societies as a
whole, dana can play a significant role in ‘reigning in’ capitalism and to bring the human-made
economy back under human and humane control.
‘Loving-Kindness’ and Goodwill [P. / S. Metta]:
“Gifts are great, the founding of viharas is meritorious, meditations and religious
exercises pacify the heart, comprehension of the truth leads to Nirvana, but greater then
all is loving kindness. As the light of the moon is sixteen times stronger than the light of

36
all the stars, so loving-kindness is sixteen times more efficacious in liberating the heart
than all other religious accomplishments taken together.” (Sermon at Rajagaha)
The second ethical concept which may contribute a wealth of insight to capitalism is that
of metta, commonly translated as ‘loving-kindness’ or goodwill. As with generosity, metta is
considered an antidote to one of the main defilements of human beings: that of ill-will. The
Lekha Sutta described the importance of generating metta in order to counter passions such as
anger and resentment, and responding to harsh words or treatment with congeniality and
courteousness. The Lokapala Sutta outlines the importance of conscience and concern, making
the claim that these two qualities “guard the world”.
One of the most striking exaltations of metta found in the texts is the ‘Hymn of Universal
Love’, from the Karaniya Mettá Sutta [with a similar passage found in the Kuddaka Pátha].
Though the proses touch on a wide range of ethical notions including compassion, moderation,
and love, the primary theme is of metta; a genuine longing for the happiness and well-being of
others, as shown in the following excerpt:
“Whatever living creatures there be,
Without exception, weak or strong,
Long, huge or middle-sized,
Or short, minute or bulky,
Whether visible or invisible,
And those living far or near,
The born and those seeking birth,
May all beings be happy!
Let none deceive or decry
His fellow anywhere;
Let none wish others harm
In resentment or in hate.
The Kucchivikara-vatthu provides an interesting account of a monk suffering from
dysentery. The Buddha, on seeing him suffering in his own waste, asks why no one is caring for

37
him. The monk answers that he did nothing for the monks, and that is why they don’t tend to
him. The Buddha then asks the monks why no one is caring for him, to which they respond that
he had done nothing for them. The Buddha, condemning the entire monastery responds, “Monks,
you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another,
who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.” This passage not
only instruct good Buddhists to care for the sick, it also calls into question the monks reasoning.
The fact that the sick monk had done nothing for the others was not a sufficient excuse for
inaction. It then seems reasonable to extend this to the sick, and potentially any person in any
sort of need. Perhaps this line of Buddhist logic is relevant in the context of climate change, and
the Buddha would tell each nation [or community, or individual] to ‘be their own lamp’ and care
for those less fortunate regardless of whether those nations have ‘earned’ such support.
As with all of the virtues and vices outlined by the Buddha, he provides a clear list of the
benefits one can expect from generating metta. The Metta Sutta makes the following claim:
“Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release (deliverance) of heart by
familiarizing oneself with thoughts of loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of
loving-kindness, by constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured. . .
1. He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear
to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire,
poison, and sword cannot touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His
countenance is serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
attain Arahantship (the highest sanctity here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-
world.”
Not only does this signify the benefits of generating loving-kindness, but it also outlines the
importance metta holds within the Buddhist ethical system. Generating metta is only part of the
Buddha’s instructions: one is also expected to express it in the outside world, respect it as a
principle, and so on. In a similar, though more cryptic fashion, the Sankhitta Sutta says:

38
“Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my release of awareness, will be
developed, pursued, given a means of transport, given a grounding, steadied,
consolidated, and well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have
developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with
directed thought and evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought and a
modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought and no
evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by
rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with
equanimity”
This passage seems to be instructing practitioners to generate metta in a wide range of contexts.
As with other concepts including kindness and generosity, humans often fall into habits of
preferential treatment. It is much easier for one to generate metta for friends than for adversaries.
Likewise, the bond between a mother and her child is considered highly preferential. According
to the Buddha however, ethical concepts such as metta must be applied uniformly and without
preference or bias, since the existence of a preference indicates an attachment to one thing over
another. As such, we must generate metta in a wide range of circumstances, and aimed at a large
number of people including friends, strangers, and adversaries [though removing the concept of
adversary is also an important and enviable Buddhist endeavor].
Metta can provide a valuable ethical contribution to the modern capitalist system,
primarily by expanding the focus of concern and beyond one’s personal sphere. The profit
motive, which has a tendency to keep one’s focus and concern on individual benefit and well-
being, is likely responsible for at least some of the selfishness, greed, and apathy which has
accompanied many of the applications of capitalism around the world including the U.S. From a
Buddhist perspective, individuals are inherently connected with, and at least partially dependent
on their surroundings, including their socioeconomic environment. Under a capitalist system,
wealth is often used as a blanket to shelter or separate one from external influence, especially
those perceived as negative [i.e. hunger, stress, etc.]. Buddhism, through the concept of metta

39
and others, tells us that such a separation is inaccurate and leads to dukkha. Instead, we are better
off acknowledging these connections, and seeking to improve the quality of the people and world
around us, a concept that will be revisited under the section on social engagement.
Compassion [S./P. Karuna]: Karuna, or compassion, is another ethical principle which
forms a foundational core of Buddhist morality. Karuna is deeply entrenched with ethical virtues
including dana, metta, and others, and is connected with philosophical concepts such as
pratityasamutpada, anitya, and bodhicitta [Buddha-mind]. In the Buddhist perspective, the
source of compassion stems from self-concern, and since pratityasamutpada connects all
individuals and beings, the fact that all beings have concern for themselves means that we should
necessarily have concern for all beings, as stated in the Raja Sutta:
“Searching all directions
with one's awareness,
one finds no one dearer
than oneself.
In the same way, others
are fiercely dear to themselves.
So one should not hurt others
if one loves oneself.”
It is interesting to note the similarity between the last two lines of this passage and the ‘golden
rule’ of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Following the Buddhist
worldview, the main outcome of karuna is the reduction and/or cessation of dukkha. The
Sabbasava Sutta gives an explanation of how karuna prevents the sowing of negative karma, and
thus prevents many negative fruits from coming into being. Outside of Buddhist cosmology, this
still holds true. Being compassionate tends to reduce many stresses in life by improving the
quality of our interactions with the world and others [though it may certainly increase other
stresses, such as concern for money or spreading oneself too thin]. The Buddha seems to view
karuna and concern from a practical perspective, arguing that worldly and external concern is an

40
essential part of being mindful and aware of one’s actions. As the Vitthara Sutta states, concern
is one of the five strengths: “And what is the strength of concern? There is the case where a
disciple of the noble ones feels concern for the suffering that results from bodily misconduct,
verbal misconduct, mental misconduct. This is called the strength of concern.”
Karuna is also intimately tied with Buddhist concepts of social engagement, as will be
visited in the next section on Buddhism and society, and ties in personalized spiritual
development with outward concern and care. A prime example of this is found in the Jinna Sutta,
where the monk Kassapa describes how concern for others is integral to his motivation to
commit to monastic training. Wholly developed karuna resembles the care a mother has for her
child, as the Karaniya Mettá Sutta beautifully states:
“As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.”
The Lokapala Sutta names conscience and concern as two bright qualities which guard the
world, and the Sankhitta Sutta names karuna as an essential component of monastic training.
Compassion, being intimately connected with many other virtues, is also important in the
realm of forgiveness and remorse. One of the most striking parables found in the suttas is The
Penitent Thief, which describes a murderer called Angulimala [‘finger-garland’], who received
his name from a necklace he wore made of the fingers of his victims. The Buddha, staying near
the area where Angulimala had been active, was warned to stay away from the high road. The
Buddha insisted on travelling that particular way, and encounters Angulimala. The murderer,
upon seeing the Buddha, begins chasing him but no matter how fast he runs is unable to catch up.
Exhausted, he shouts at the Buddha to stop walking. The Buddha replies, “I have stopped,
Angulimala; it is you who should stop.” This confuses Angulimala, and the Buddha explains that

41
he has renounced attachment, delusion, and ignorance and thus is stopped, while Angulimala is
still a slave to sensual desire, fear, and so on. Upon hearing this, Angulimala gives up his
murderous ways, and is ordained by the Buddha. This story provides an extreme example of evil
and negative actions [killing is considered an utmost offense in Buddhism], yet the Buddha
shows karuna and wisdom, which seems to shock Angulimala out of his delusions.
While many texts refer to the significance of karuna, the largest and most developed is
likely the Jataka [birth] Tales. These stories, composing some of the oldest texts in the Buddhist
canon, tell tales of the Buddha’s past lives leading up to his birth as Shakyamuni Buddha
[Siddhartha Gotama; the life in which he discovered and taught the Dharma]. These stories
describe the Buddha as a prince, a fisherman, a rabbit, a tigress, and countless other forms, all
demonstrating the Buddha’s highly developed virtues such as karuna, self-sacrifice, dana, metta,
and so on. The Mahakapi Jataka, ‘The Great Monkey King’, tells of the Buddha living as a king
of a tribe of monkeys. They guarded and enjoyed the fruits of an especially succulent mango
tree, and one day a fruit fell into the river and washed downstream. A human king living
downstream found the fruit, and, amazed by its flavor, was determined to find the tree which
grew it. He and a group of archers travel upstream and find the group of monkeys. The archers
block their means of escape, and on realizing this, the monkeys rush to their leader and ask him
what may be done. The monkey king, filled with great compassion, used his body to form a
bridge to the other side of the river. The monkeys cross, but their leader is left behind. The
human king witnessed the act of self-sacrifice and spares the monkey kings life and asks him
why he acted in such a way. The monkey king responds:
“Great king, I guard the herd. I am their lord and chief. When they were filled with fear
of your archers, I leapt a great distance to save them. After I had tied a vine around my
waist, I returned to this mango tree. My strength was almost gone, but I managed to hold
the branch so that my monkeys could pass over my back and reach safety. Because I

42
could save them, I have no fear of death. Like a righteous king, I could guarantee the
happiness of those over whom I used to reign. Sire, understand this truth! If you wish to
be a righteous ruler, the happiness of your kingdom, your cities, and your people must be
dear to you. It must be dearer than life itself.” (Kawasaki and Kawasaki 1995)
As this example makes clear, the Jatakas provide idealistic examples of noble and virtuous
behavior, providing a template for the moral development of Buddhists.
The Jataka Tales and the Buddhist emphasis on karuna lead into the conception of the
Bodhisattva Path. A bodhisattva [‘enlightened being’] is one who commits themselves to
intensive personal training and adherence to moral principles, while simultaneously vowing to
forego enlightenment until all beings have been ‘brought to the other shore’. In Mahayana
Buddhism, attaining bodhisattva-hood is viewed as the ultimate goal, as demonstrated in the
Mahayana Sutra of the Three Superior Heaps. This philosophy draws heavily on other concepts,
notably pratityasamutpada, by utilizing the following argument: (a) as a conscious being, I
suffer; (b) others are conscious beings, and also suffer; (c) since self and separation are a
delusion, there is no significant difference between my own dukkha and the dukkha of others. As
such a bodhisattva holds the view that as long as any dukkha exists and any beings remain
trapped in delusion, personal enlightenment or salvation has no meaning, again pointing to the
fascinating complexity of Mahayana Buddhist soteriology. The bodhisattva path is said to be
organized into a series of ten stages, provided in detail in the Lankavatara Sutta, which
correspond to the developing wisdom and clarity of the adherent.
By adhering to the bodhisattva ideal, practitioners are held to a high level of ethical
behavior, as expanded on in the Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (Hurvitz
1976). The Brahma Net Sutta outlines the 10 major bodhisattva precepts as follows: (1) abstain
from killing, (2) abstain from stealing, (3) abstain from sexual misconduct [for lay-people this
means wise and responsible behavior; monks vow to be celibate], (4) abstain from lying and

43
false speech, (5) abstain from selling alcohol [and other intoxicants], (6) abstain from spreading
the faults of others [instead assisting them through compassion and discretion], (7) abstain from
praising oneself and disparaging others, (8) abstain from stinginess and abuse, (9) abstain from
anger and resentment, and (10) abstain from slandering the ‘Triple Jewel’ [the Buddha, the
Dharma, and the Sangha (monastic community)]. The Vagrakkhedika [Diamond Sutra] provides
the longest and most detailed investigation into the bodhisattva path, and contains instructions
and teachings on a wide range of philosophical and ethical concepts relating to this ideal.
Karuna, as with other concepts found in Buddhism, assumes and mandates an active
stance. One who has empathy for one who is suffering but fails to act is not demonstrating
karuna. Also wrapped up in this concept is the notion of facing the problems of the world head
on. Rather than hide oneself away from dukkha, karuna compels us to acknowledge, understand,
and seek to reduce the dukkha we encounter in the world. Again, this principle seems to assume
and demand a certain level of social engagement. In regards to capitalism and the arguments of
Klein, compassion serves a similar function as dana and metta; that is, serving to restrain and
moderate capitalism and bring this economic system back under human control. Karuna
encourages us to be open and aware of the misfortunes of others, and compels us to do what we
can to reduce their struggles. In an ideal system, other people are showing karuna for you while
you show karuna for others. As such, a compassionate capitalism would entail acknowledging
financial crises, injustice, and so on [‘dukkha’ capital] and instituting regulations, alteration of
methods, and other practices in order to reduce the presence of dukkha.
Buddhism and Society: Engagement or Exclusion?
“Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be a refuge unto yourselves with no other refuge.
And how does a monk dwell on an island unto himself, as a refuge unto himself with no
other refuge, with Dhamma as his island, with the Dhamma as his refuge, with no other

44
refuge? Here, a monk abides. . . clearly aware and mindful, having put aside hankering
and fretting for the world.” (Cakkavattisihananda Sutta)
As discussed in previous sections, the question of what level of worldly engagement is
allowed or recommended in Buddhism has been a subject of much debate. Some claim
Buddhism renounces worldly participation, while others argue that Buddhism mandates it. The
above quotation from the Cakkavattisihananda Sutta seems to support the prior claim, as do
passages such as that found in the Khaggavisana Sutta, advocating us to “wander alone like a
rhinoceros”:
“One whose mind
is enmeshed in sympathy
for friends and companions,
neglects the true goal.
Seeing this danger in intimacy,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.”
It is from passages such as these that Buddhism is often associated with solitude and
renouncement of worldly concerns, and for good reason. One could certainly interpret this as
contradicting the ideal of karuna. But how accurate are these associations, and are they indeed
founded in scriptural and doctrinal evidence? After all, many texts [such as the Kucchivikara-
vatthu] instruct Buddhists to care for the sick, be generous to the poor, and so on. Is this a
contradiction, or a failure to fully understand the nature of engagement in the proper context?
The Sangha, or community of Buddhists, is an essential part of Buddhist doctrine and
philosophy, which also signifies that some form of engagement is expected. As the Mara
Upasatha Sutta states, one of the primary functions of the Sangha is to support and encourage
spiritual and moral development as well as propagate Buddhist teachings:
“A man that stands alone, having decided to obey the truth, may be weak and slip back
into his old ways. Therefore, stand ye together, assist one another, and strengthen one
anothers efforts. Be like unto brothers; one in love, one in holiness, and one in your zeal

45
for the truth. Spread the truth and preach the doctrine in all quarters of the world, so that
in the end all living creatures will be citizens of the kingdom of righteousness. This is the
holy brotherhood; this is the church, the congregation of the saints of the Buddha; this is
the Sangha that establishes a communion among all those who have taken their refuge in
the Buddha.”
This passage sets the defining purpose and context of the Sangha and provides a guiding
mandate as to how the Sangha is to conduct itself. In the Sangaha Sutta, the Buddha outlines the
benefits of fellowship, and identifies four grounds for the development of social bonds: (1)
Dana, (2) kind words, (3) beneficial help, and (4) consistency. The Thana Sutta teaches that
living and interacting with others is a prime way to develop oneself:
“It is through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a
long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by
one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.”
The extreme importance of the Buddhist community is reflected in the fact that it is considered,
along with the Buddha and the Dharma, to be one of the ‘three refuges’ or ‘jewels’ (S. Triratna).
In addition, The Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva (Ching 1974) teaches that
offenses against the Sangha are viewed as more harmful and negative than offense against
others.
To provide a foundational context, the Niramisa Sutta provides an account of the Buddha
organizing joy, happiness, equanimity, and freedom into the worldly, unworldly, and “greater
unworldly”, suggesting a philosophical distinction between these three levels. The Rahogata
Sutta, describing that all phenomena lead to dukkha, gives the impression that Buddhists hold a
negative or pessimistic understanding of the world. While this may be true, it is more accurate to
state that Buddhism holds a realistic view of the world. It seeks to accept what is unavoidable in
the world: namely dukkha, anitya, and so on, and find happiness working in this context. As
such, if something is found to disagree with the workings of reality, a good Buddhist would

46
abandon that belief or practice. The mandate to be islands unto ourselves seems to be hinged on
the avoidance of “hankering and fretting for the world” (Cakkavattisihananda Sutta). In my
opinion, it seems reasonable that the Buddha is referring to allowing the outside world to hamper
our own development. Engaging with the world, it seems, is assumed and even expected by the
Buddha since human beings are inevitably connected with their environments
[pratityasamutpada]. As the Hita Sutta notes, by developing ourselves, we contribute to the
betterment of our surroundings. The Saddha Sutta states, in a similar fashion, that “Just as a large
banyan tree, on level ground where four roads meet, is a haven for the birds all around, even so a
lay person of conviction is a haven for many people: monks, nuns, male lay followers, and
female lay followers.” In the Jinna Sutta, we see that concern for the health and well-being of
others and the external world is a prime motivator for one to enter the stream of self-
development. This sutta even mentions concern for future generations specifically, making it
especially relevant to issues of climate change and capitalism, whose effects will reverberate
well into the future. While concern for the world is important and inspiring, the Maha Sunnata
Sutta warns against taking delight in company and society:
“Indeed, Ánanda, it is not possible that a Bhikkhu who delights in company, takes delight
in company, and devotes himself to delight in company, who delights in society, takes
delight in society, and rejoices in society, will ever enter upon and abide in either the
deliverance of mind that is temporary and delectable or in the deliverance of mind that is
perpetual and unshakeable.”
And the Piyajaatika Sutta warns against attachment to loved ones, family members, and so on.
The Raja Sutta, however, teaches that being concerned for ourselves inevitably means we must
be concerned for others. Again it seems that the Buddhist way lies in the middle, by engaging
with society, but not too much or too deeply. The key is to engage with the world in a way that

47
allows us to grow; to engage with a virtuous disposition conducive to the spiritual development
of ourselves and others.
Throughout the Buddhist scriptures, there is reference to the importance of self-control
and wisdom in decision making. As demonstrated by Buddhist conceptions of wealth, most
things are considered inherently neutral. Humans may make of them what we choose, though
some things may be harder to control and use for positive ends. As such, if a general rule on
social engagement may be found, it is likely found in the Akhama Sutta, where the Buddha
instructs monks that, in order to properly interact with the world around them, must remain
resilient to (1) sights, (2) sounds, (3) smells, (4) flavors, and (5) tactile sensations. The
Samaññaphala Sutta similarly guides monks to guard themselves against grasping in regards to
the external world. The Makkata Sutta provides an apt description of the properly-engaging
monk:
“There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself - ardent,
alert, and mindful - putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He
remains focused on feelings in and of themselves... mind in and of itself... mental
qualities in and of themselves -- ardent, alert, and mindful -- putting aside greed and
distress with reference to the world.”
The Sakunagghi Sutta seconds this goal. Additionally, the Karaniya Metta Sutta instructs
devotees to “Cultivate an all-embracing mind of love for all throughout the universe.”
The Katuviya Sutta tells the story of a monk who becomes enamored with and takes
delight in “what is empty.”, and is warned by the Buddha to guard himself at all times against
defilement, or attachment to worldly things. In the Vasala Sutta, the Buddha outlines what
classifies a person as an ‘outcast’, or one who should not be associated with by a person on the
Buddhist path. The list includes murderers, liars, thieves, the prideful, and so on, and emphasizes
that those considered outcasts are such as a result of their own negative actions and “not by

48
birth.” Essentially, the Buddha’s advice is the same that he gives regarding interactions and
experiences with other phenomena: use restraint and wisdom, be wary of attachment and
clinging, and avoid those who slow progress and development.
The last point to be mentioned regarding Buddhist involvement with the outside world
combines many of the principles discusses previously [as well as others] to argue that one of the
fundamental roles of properly engaged Buddhists is to create a social and physical environment
which is conducive and beneficial toward the Dharma. The Buddha advises monks to seek out
environments which promote their spiritual practice, often recommending forests and other quiet
and secluded areas as mentioned in the sutta known as A Little Spell of Emptiness:
“In the same way, Ánanda, as this Palace of Migara’s Mother is empty of the
disturbances of the city: empty of elephants, cows, horses, asses; empty of dealings with
gold and silver; empty of groups of men and women, and there is only this that remains to
disturb the emptiness: that is, the vibration emanating off the beggars here; in the same
way, a beggar, paying no attention to the disturbances of the city, paying no attention to
human beings, pays attention only to the vibration emanating off the forest.”
As noted, the primary concern of the Buddha involved the reduction and elimination of dukkha,
and this remains the case in regards to worldly engagement. In the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutta, the
Buddha describes what are known as a ‘Buddha-field’:
“A bodhisattva embraces a Buddha-field to the same extent that he causes the
development of living beings. He embraces a Buddha-field to the same extent that living
beings become disciplined. He embraces a Buddha-field to the same extent that, through
entrance into a Buddha-field, living beings are introduced to the Buddha-gnosis. He
embraces a Buddha-field to the same extent that, through entrance into that Buddha-field,
living beings increase their holy spiritual faculties.”
A Buddha-field, then, can be visualized as a sphere of influence around a bodhisattva which aids
and supports surrounding beings in their pursuit of the Dharma. Building on this point, it thus
becomes the goal of Buddhists to remove as many obstacles to the Dharma as possible.
Obstacles specifically referred to by the Buddha include poverty, ill-health, malnutrition, hunger,

49
loneliness, ill-will, greed, and so on. One who is forced to work long hours to support
themselves, or is occupied with finding enough food to survive is hardly in a position to
prioritize Dharma practice. We are thus advised to organize a society in which these obstacles
are lessened and minimized as much as possible to support the development of the Dharma.
In summary, there is a strong doctrinal case for social engagement and other forms of
participation in the external world. While some passages seem to contradict this, it seems likely
that this stems from a failure to consider these suttas in the full context of Buddhism. From the
perspective of pratityasamutpada and other philosophical concepts, as well as ethical principles
such as karuna, there is a consistent underlying assumption of engagement found throughout the
teachings. It is likely that the Buddha considered social involvement as intimately and
inextricably connected with human existence, and thus failed to see the relevance of addressing
this concept specifically. Rather, much of his discourse on the subject seeks to guide one in how
best to undertake this engagement [i.e. using moderation, dana, etc.]. From this perspective, it
seems the texts both assume and expect participation in economics, politics, social groups, and
so on. A good Buddhist is expected to interact in a moral, wise, and considerate way. Klein
seems to make a similarly case, arguing that the solutions we need will require interest and
participation from a wide range of sources, particularly the involvement of individuals and social
movements. Buddhism provides a context and outline for how one should go about involving
and organizing oneself within society. It not only supports social movements, but it also provides
an ethical and philosophical justification for enacting and participating in such activities.
NATURALIZING CAPITALISM:
Paul Hawken and Amory and L. Hunter Lovins, in their 2000 book Natural Capitalism,
make a significant critique of capitalism, taking a different though similar approach from that

This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature

This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature

Ähnlich wie This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

This Changes Everything, And Everything Changes:A Buddhist Perspective on Capitalism and Nature