Although the ethics of Buddhism is widely discussed today, its treatment is frequently misconceived or lopsided, even when offered by Buddhist scholars. In order to gain a more accurate picture of Buddhist ethics, it would be helpful to avoid certain mistakes from the start.
First, Buddhism has been characterized by some people as an ascetic religion. In reality, asceticism was experimented with by the Buddha and later rejected by him before he attained enlightenment. As far as Buddhism is concerned, the term is ambiguous and should not be used without qualification. Also, since the western term monasticism has been applied to the way of life and practice of the Buddhist bhikkhus, or monks, they have been misunderstood by many as living apart from society in isolation from the world. In principle, at least, a Buddhist monk cannot live even a single day without contact with lay people.
The way of life and practice of Buddhist monks, furthermore, have been mistaken by some interpreters as the whole content or the standard of Buddhist ethics, whereas in fact monks are only one part of the Buddhist community and their ethics are only one component of Buddhist ethical reflection. Buddhism is the religion or way of life not only of the monks, but of the laity as well.
A different sort of problem results from the history of Buddhist studies in the West. It seems that most of the books on the doctrinal aspect of Buddhism written by western scholars deal mainly, if not exclusively, with metaphysical and spiritual teachings, with the mind and meditation. Very few treat the daily-life ethics of the common people. It might be that Buddhist metaphysical and spiritual teachings are what make Buddhism unique or different from other religions and philosophical systems, or it might simply be that these writers are especially interested in such subjects. Whatever the case, this slant has lured many into thinking that Buddhism is merely an ethics of the mind and that it lacks concern for social and material welfare. Although Buddhism does emphasize the cultivation of certain mental states, it teaches that human consists of both mind and body, and it states flatly that a necessary degree of material and social well-being is a prerequisite for any spiritual progress.
It is common, furthermore, for scholars of Buddhism to confine themselves to the dhamma, or the doctrinal portions of Buddhism, whereas Buddhism in its entirety consists of the dhamma and the vinaya. In other words, the dhamma, or the doctrine, and the vinaya, or the discipline, make the whole of Buddhist ethics. The dhamma deals with ideals and principles, whereas the vinaya deals with rules and circumstances in which these ideals and principles are practiced and realized. The vinaya here denotes not only the monks’ or nuns’ discipline, but also the spirit of these rules and regulations. Without taking into consideration both of these components, the dhamma and the vinaya, no adequate idea of Buddhist ethics can be reached.
Some scholars tend to regard the traditional exposition of the teachings in the Visuddhimagga (the Path of Purification), authored by Buddhaghosa in the fifth century C.E., as the standard summary of Theravāda Buddhist ethics. The Visuddhimagga, however, is a standard text only for the yogis, or the monks, who are engaged in concentrated spiritual endeavor. Used exclusively, it provides an incomplete and misleading picture of Buddhist ethics. To avoid such misunderstandings, it is best to begin by remembering that the whole of Buddhist ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Middle Way and its prerequisites. This doctrine of the Middle Way teaches that both the extreme of asceticism and the extreme of sensual indulgence are to be avoided. It emphasizes that even the lives and practices of monks who live austerely should not be excessively ascetic, and the life of even the most lax Buddhist lay person should not be so pleasure-oriented as to become an object of attachment. These two extremes can be seen as the most individualistic and selfish ways of life, with their pursuers being overly concerned with either self-mortification or sense-gratification.1 In avoiding these two extremes, the extent of the Middle Way is vast, wide, and very flexible, depending on such circumstances as one’s point on the path and stage of maturity.
The extent of justifiable latitude in the Buddhist Middle Way applies also to the matter of the individual’s responsibility for himself or herself and for the sharing of social relationships. There are some things that no other person or any external power can do for the individual, both in his or her everyday life, such as walking, eating, listening, and sleeping, and toward his or her spiritual perfection, such as the application of the mind to good or bad thoughts and the development of wisdom and insight. At the same time, there are many things for which one has to depend on others, one can do for others, and which others can do for someone else. Even with regard to individual perfection, there are many things that a good friend can do to help in the development of mental qualities, in meditation practice, and in the cultivation of wisdom by teaching, inducement, advice, and other skillful means.
The most basic point to be made about Buddhist social ethics is that in keeping with the Buddhist doctrine of dependent co-arising, individual betterment and perfection on the one hand and the social good on the other are fundamentally interrelated and interdependent. For example, a society in which all individual members are self-sufficient or self-sustaining can be called happy and secure to a large extent. Also, a secure and peaceful society is favorable to individual intellectual and spiritual pursuits. The Buddhist standpoint here is that a minimal amount of responsibility to oneself for betterment and perfection is required of all individuals, and at the same time they must maintain an appropriate degree of social responsibility. Beyond this minimal requirement, the range of variation in an individual’s specific responsibilities is very wide, depending on his or her place in society, relationship to others, aptitude, and mental inclinations. Buddhist monks may be regarded as the most aloof from society of all Buddhists. They may be recruited from those people who love a peaceful and solitary life. The style of monastic life differs greatly, however, ranging from town monks who are in a close day-to-day relationship with all sorts of people, to forest monks who spend almost their whole lives in seclusion. Yet even the most solitary forest monks have to be in regular contact with and are responsible for the well-being of a community of monks. Moreover, the monks must also meet with villagers on their daily food rounds when they receive physical nourishment and in turn share their spiritual attainments by teaching the dhamma.
It is a natural impossibility that at any given time all people can be found at the same level of maturity or stage of development. But it is also a natural truth that people are educable. Accordingly, all people should have the opportunity to be trained and educated and they should be allowed to develop according to their training or education and their individual effort toward attainment and perfection. Thus the Buddhist community or society consists not merely of the monks alone but of the Four Assemblies of monks, nuns, lay male devotees, and lay female devotees. Monks and nuns on the one hand and lay people on the other lead different daily lives with different responsibilities and duties and enjoying different kinds of satisfactions. There is some variation in development among the monks and great variation among the lay people. This Buddhist principle of the Four Assemblies shows clearly that the monks and laity are intended to be seen as complementary sides of a single moral community (see, e.g., A.II.132; D.III.125). In sum, a moral community is diversity in unity. Harmonious diversities or variety make a complete whole. Hence monastic and lay groupings, not to speak of many minor ones, are intended to continue in harmony as necessary components of a society, and it is with their continuity that a good society is maintained.
In comparison with society as a whole the sangha, or monastic fellowship, is a very small community. It is intended to be the completing segment of society. Relatively speaking, it is an independent community that points toward a transcendent aspect of life. Its essential task is to maintain the dhamma for the society. As mentioned above, Buddhist monks cannot live an absolutely solitary life because they are required by the discipline to maintain good relationships both among themselves and with the lay society. The lives of the monks bound to the sangha are regulated by the disciplinary rules so that they will live in concord and harmony, pay respect according to seniority in the sangha, divide all gains and acquisitions equally among the members, and decide all legal cases justly. The supreme authority remains in the hands of the sangha itself, or the meeting of the community. Even the most solitary monk has to attend the fortnightly meeting of the sangha and any meeting of the sangha convened for the performance of a formal act.2 The spirit of the vinaya that is most stressed is the supremacy of the sangha as a whole and harmony within the order (see, e.g., A.III.330; A.V.74ff.). Causing schism in the order is viewed as one of the most heinous crimes (A.III.146). Historically, as the sangha grew larger, the Buddha himself held its voice in high regard (A.II.21). The ordination ceremonies today still represent this passing on of the authority of the Buddha through the order (Vin.I.27).
This emphasis on the sangha as a whole and its cooperative parts can be illustrated by the six virtues of fraternal living:
The seven conditions of welfare are another good illustration:
Although these virtues were originally intended for the monks, they have been recommended in the Thai Buddhist tradition for adaptation by the laity as well.
According to the vinaya, a monk is dependent on the lay people for food and other material necessities. The monks get their food for daily meals during the morning alms round, but they are sometimes invited to the houses of donors, or the latter may also present food to them at the monastery (e.g., Vin.I.58). This practice binds the monks’ life to that of the lay society and keeps them in daily contact with lay people. As the Buddha himself says, “my livelihood is bound up with others” (A.V.87).
Monks are exhorted to contemplate this fact again and again, so that they will be earnest both in their exertion for their individual perfection and in working for the good of the laity. The daily alms round reflects the reciprocal nature of the relationship between monks and laity (e.g., S.II.270), a reciprocity emphasized by the Buddha in these words:
Monks, brahmins and householders are most helpful to you, since they support you with robe and bowl, with lodging and seat, medicines and necessaries for sickness. Ye, also, monks, are most helpful to brahmins and householders, since ye teach them the dhamma that is lovely.... Thus, monks, this holy life is lived in mutual dependence, for ferrying across the flood, for the utter cessation of suffering. (It.111)
Monks perform this task for the good of lay society not only as an act of returning favors, but out of their own virtue of compassion for the people. Such compassion was stressed by the Buddha when he sent out his first group of disciples to teach the dhamma in the first year after his enlightenment: “Go, monks, on your journey, for the profit of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the profit, the happiness of gods and men” (Vin.I.20). The monks’ task of working for the good of the people both as an act of compassion and in terms of the necessarily reciprocal nature of their relationship is also brought out in the Buddha’s admonitions to the young layman Sigāla as reported in the Sigālovāda-Sutta:
In five ways a clansman should minister to monks and priests as the upper quarter:
In six ways the monks and priests, thus ministered to as the upper quarter, show their love for him:
Whereas practical instructions for the regulation of the orders of monks and nuns are contained in a specific part of the Pali Canon called the Vinaya Piṭaka, for lay society there is no special collection of instructions as such. The Five Precepts of abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and taking intoxicants are accepted as the basic moral rules for lay people, but they do not form a part of a collection or code. Although the Buddha’s admonitions in the Sigālovāda-Suttta are rendered by the Great Commentator, Buddhaghosa, as the Layman’s Code of Discipline, they have been preserved as a sutta delivered to a specific person on only one occasion and are not framed as a general code of discipline for the laity. Similar moral instructions can be found scattered in other parts of the Sutta-Piṭaka. The ethical admonitions in the suttas were thus given not as disciplinary rules enforced with authority as is the case with the vinaya of the monks. These facts support the conclusion that the wider lay society was so open to the changing circumstances of space and time that the monks did not consider it as a subject appropriate for fixed rules. Consequently, only some basic rules and general principles were stipulated. Beyond that, it should rest on the people subject to different circumstances to formulate detailed moral codes, based on those basic Buddhist rules and principles, and to suit them to their own society.
In the search for general principles the Jātakas are a good source of Buddhist social ethics for lay people, but the teachings therein are scattered and unsystematic. Among other sources, the Sigālovāda-Sutta, attributed to the Buddha himself, can serve as a typical example of the Buddhist code of social ethics. The teachings in this sutta consist of:
What is worthy of special notice is the frequent mention the Buddha made of friendship and association. In the above sutta alone friendship and association can be found at least five times: association with bad companions as a way of squandering wealth, how to distinguish between false and true friends, the friend–friend relationship, the ways the monks and priests show their love for lay people, and the four bases of social harmony. Advice on friendship and stories illustrating the dynamics of good and bad social relationships can also be found in many parts of the Jātakas. Given this guidance and the oft-stressed advice on the importance of good friends in the development of the Noble Eightfold Path, we see that the theme of association with good friends and of a good social environment generally occupies a very important place in Buddhist ethics, both at the mundane social level and at the level of spiritual endeavor for individual perfection.3
On the one hand there is a close correspondence between the ways monks are to treat the laity and the image of a “friend of good counsel.” And on the other hand there is a correlation between the four bases of social harmony and the ways lay people are to treat their friends. Friendship is thus the model for social harmony in the mundane sphere and the model for spiritual encouragement of the laity by the monks in the transmundane sphere. We might conclude that in Buddhist ethics everyone is a friend, meaning that everyone should be treated as a friend.
As mentioned earlier, individual perfection and the social good are interdependent. The society that is made up of people who can depend on themselves and are freed from attachment can be peaceful, stable, and secure to a large extent. Also, a peaceful, stable, and secure society is ideally favorable to the individual growth, development, and perfection of every person. If society is in turmoil, suffering from instability and insecurity, even the monks who are engaged in the task of individual perfection, not to speak of other more materialistic people, may have to stop or suspend their efforts. As the Pāli Canon notes:
Monks, there are these five unfavorable times for (spiritual) striving. What five? Herein a monk is old.... A monk is ill.... There is a famine.... Fear is about, perils of robbers, and the country folk mount their carts and drive away.... Again, monks, the Order is rent; then there is reviling ... accusation.... Monks, there are these five favorable times for (spiritual) striving. What five? Herein a monk is young.... A monk has health and well-being.... There is no famine and crops are good, food is easy to get.... Men dwell in friendly fellowship together.... Again, monks, the Order dwells in friendly fellowship together.... (A.III.65f.; cf. A.III.103)
There are some things which no one else can do for the individual and for which one has to be responsible to oneself. Every individual, however, also acts directly or indirectly for the benefit of other people. Each person should take some responsibility for the good of his or her society, for maintaining the society in a condition favorable to the common well-being, development, and perfection. The practice of responsibility varies among different individuals according to the extent, degree, and character of the actions, depending on various factors including the mental inclinations and free choices of the individuals themselves. However, every person is at least responsible to the society for his or her own well-being and perfection in order to become a good member of society. It is at this point that the Buddhist principles of being a refuge to oneself (attanātha) and of training, taming, or educating (dama) are required.
One should be a refuge to oneself. In order to be a refuge to oneself, one must make oneself dependable. To make oneself dependable, one has to train oneself in virtue, learning, energy, mindfulness, in the development of wisdom, and so on. One should also associate with good people, should be amenable to correction, and should readily give a helping hand in the affairs of one’s fellows in the community.4 At this point individual responsibility to oneself and good social relationships are closely related or interdependent. To be able to help others, furthermore, one must be dependable and have an inner strength and stability. Again we turn to the Pāli texts:
How, monks, guarding oneself, does one guard others? By practice, by development, by continuous exercise; in this way, monks, one guarding oneself also guards others. And how, monks, guarding others, does one guard oneself? By tolerance, by nonviolence, by having a mind full of loving-kindness, by care; in this way, monks, one guarding others also guards oneself. (S.V.169)
When the monks of the most seclusion-loving type go out on their daily alms rounds, they come into contact with the lay society. When they teach the dhamma to the villagers, every stage of their progress in individual perfection benefits society. In other words, effort toward individual perfection and acting for the social good proceed together. Moreover, the donated food generally benefits not only the monks, but also a number of people who come to seek shelter in the monasteries. This tradition is said to have originated at the time of the Buddha, and in the course of time monasteries have become places where the destitute, orphans, and students live, obtain sufficient food, and receive moral and educational training from the monks.5 It may be desirable to improve or modify this tradition to suit the current circumstances, but in any case it affords an example of the monks’ contribution to the well-being of society.
For the monks, responsibility for the social good is mainly exercised through teaching the common people how to live good lives and how to conduct themselves as good members of the society, through the counseling of rulers and administrators to help them conform to virtue and to act for the benefit of the people, and through their own rightful conduct and practice toward individual perfection. On a practical level much of this responsibility for social welfare is mediated through political leaders, who traditionally carry a special burden for connecting the principles of the dhamma to the requirements of everyday life. Rulers and administrators are obligated to put the virtues and duties expected of them, into actual practice for the benefit of the people and to make a good society favorable to the individual development and perfection of every member.
In the Thai Buddhist tradition, the king is to observe and possess four sets of Buddhist virtues and qualities. The first set is called the Dasa Rājadhamma (“Ten Virtues of the King”): namely, charity, high moral character, self-sacrifice, integrity, gentleness, austerity (or non-indulgence), non-anger, non-oppression, tolerance, and non-deviation from the norm (J.V.378). These virtues are the best known and the most emphasized of the four sets of royal virtues.
The second set is called the Twelvefold Cakkavattivatta and consists of the twelve duties of the Universal Ruler as enumerated in the Cakkavatti-Sutta: the provision of right watch, ward, and protection for one’s own folk and the armed forces, for the nobles, for the royal dependents, for brahmins and householders, for townspeople and villagers, for monks and priests, for beasts and birds, prevention and suppression of unrighteous deeds, distribution of wealth to the poor, frequenting and seeking counsels from monks and the religious, abstention from unlawful sexual desire, and abstention from unrighteously coveting others’ property.6
The third set, the Fourfold Rājasaṅgahavatthu (four royal acts making for social integration), consists of shrewdness in agricultural promotion (sassamedha), shrewdness in the encouragement of government officials (purisamedha), binding the people’s hearts by vocational promotion (sammāpāsa), and kindly beneficial words (vājapeyya).7
The fourth set, the Fivefold Khattiyabala (five strengths of a monarch), requires strength of arms, of wealth, of ministers, of royal ancestry, and of wisdom. Of these five the last, strength of wisdom, is regarded as the most important quality (JA.V.120).
What is especially noteworthy about these virtues and duties is the emphasis on the absence of poverty. Poverty is regarded as the main source of crime and disorder as well as greed (D.III.65; D.III.92). This absence of poverty, the accumulation of wealth or economic sufficiency, is a prerequisite for a happy, secure, and stable society, favorable to individual development and perfection. It is required of the ruler to see to it that this desirable state of affairs prevails in his country.
Individuals as members of society are responsible both for their individual perfection and for the good of society through individual development and well-being and through helpful social relationships. People should first strive to be economically, intellectually, and morally dependable in order to be good members of society. To achieve this, many among the following selected virtues may be observed:
The Four Virtues Leading to Temporal Welfare
The Four Virtues Leading to Prosperity
The Four Virtues for a Good Lay Life
The Fourfold Deserved Bliss of a Layman
The Four Virtues Leading to Spiritual Welfare
On the social side, the individual should maintain good social relationships with other people and make his or her contribution to the maintenance and encouragement of a happy and favorable society by practicing such virtues as the Four Bases of Social Harmony or the Four Principles of Social Integration (saṅgahavatthu): giving, distribution, and charity; kindly and beneficial words; rendering of services; and equality, impartiality, and participation.8
The term poverty may sometimes be misleading. The familiar Buddhist concepts are rather contentment (santuṭṭhi) or limited desires (appicchatā). Poverty (daliddiya) is in no place praised or encouraged in Buddhism. The Buddha says, “Poverty is a suffering in the world for a layman.” He also says, “Woeful in the world is poverty and debt” (A.III.350, 352). Though monks should be contented and have few wishes, poverty is never encouraged even for the monks.
The possession of wealth by a king or even an average layman is often praised and encouraged in the Pāli Canon. In other words, wealth is something to be amassed or sought after. Among the Buddha’s lay disciples, the better known, the most helpful, and the often praised were mostly wealthy persons such as Anāthapiṇḍika. For the monks, though they are not expected to seek wealth, to be a frequent recipient of offerings can be regarded as a good qualification. Two monks may be equal in other qualifications and virtues, but the one who receives more offerings is praised. Even the Buddha praised a monk who was foremost in receiving offerings: “Chief among my disciples who are obtainers of offerings is Sivali” (A.I.24). However, these remarks must be qualified and further clarified.
The main theme in these texts is that it is not wealth that is praised or blamed, but the way one acquires and uses it. For the monks, as mentioned above, it is not acquisition as such that is blamed, nor poverty that is praised. The things that are blamed are greed for gain, stinginess, attachment to gain, and hoarding of wealth. Acquisition is acceptable if it is helpful in the practice of the Noble Path or if it benefits one’s fellow members of the order. This does not mean that monks are encouraged to own possessions. Insofar as it is allowable by the vinaya, or monastic code, gain is justifiable if the possessions belong to the sangha or the community. But if a monk is rich in personal possessions, it is evidence of his greed and attachment and therefore he cannot be said to conform to Buddhist principles. The right practice is to own nothing except the basic requisites of life. Here the question is not one of being rich or poor, but of having few personal cares, easy mobility, contentment, and few wishes. In particular, as the monk’s life depends on other people for material sustenance, he is supposed to make himself easy to support. With high mobility and almost no personal cares, monks can devote most of their time and energy to their work, whether for their individual perfection or for the social good. Thus, it is contentment and paucity of wishes accompanied by commitment to the development of good and the abandonment of evil that is praised. Even contentment and paucity of wishes are to be qualified, that is, they must be accompanied by effort and diligence, and not by passivity and idleness. In other words, for a monk it can be good to gain many possessions, but not to own or hoard them. It is good rather to gain much and to give it away.
The above conclusions have been drawn from such sayings in the Pāli Canon as:
Monks, possessed of five qualities the way of an elder monk is to the advantage of many folk, for the happiness of many folk, for the good of many folk; it is to the advantage and happiness of devas and men. Of what five?
There is the elder, time-honored and long gone forth; well-known, renowned, with a great following of householders and those gone forth; a receiver of the requisites: the robe, alms, lodging, and medicaments for sickness; who is learned, has a retentive and well-stored mind, and those Dhammas, lovely ... are by him fully understood in theory; and he is a right viewer with an unperverted vision. He turns away many folk from what is not the true Dhamma and sets them in the true Dhamma.... (A.III.115)
Four Ariyan lineages; herein, brethren, a monk is content with whatever robes (he may have), commends contentment of this kind, and does not try to gain robes in improper, unsuitable ways. And he is not dismayed if he gains no robe, but when he has gained one, he is not greedy, nor infatuated, nor overwhelmed. Seeing the danger therein and understanding its object he makes use of it. Yet does he not exalt himself because of his contentment with any robes, nor does he disparage others. Whoso, brethren, is skilled herein, not slothful, but mindful and helpful, this monk is one who stands firm in the primeval, ancient Ariyan lineage. Then, again, the monk is content with whatever almsfood ... with whatever lodging.... Lastly, brethren, the monk delights in abandoning (evil) and delights in developing (good).... (D.III.224; A.II.27)
Furthermore, brethren, he is content with whatever necessaries, whether it be robes, alms, lodging, medicines, and provision against sickness. Furthermore, brethren, he is continually stirring up effort to eliminate bad qualities, making dogged and vigorous progress in good things, never throwing off the burden. (D.III.266, 290; A.V.23)
The monk is content with a robe sufficient to protect the body, with almsfood enough for his belly’s need. Wherever he may go he just takes these with him. Just as, for instance, a bird upon the wing, wherever he may fly, just flies with the load of his wings. (E.g., A.II.209)
Monks, this holy life is not lived to cheat or cajole people. It is not for getting gain, profit, or notoriety. It is not concerned with a flood of gossip nor with the idea of “let folk know me as so-and-so.” Nay, monks, this holy life is lived for the sake of self-restraint, of abandoning (evil), of dispassionateness, of the cessation of suffering. (A.II.24)
Monks, these four qualities are according to the true Dhamma. What four? Regard for the true Dhamma, not for wrath; regard for the true Dhamma, not for hypocrisy; regard for the true Dhamma, not for gain; regard for the true Dhamma, not for honors. (A.II.47, 84)
Harsh, monks, is gain, honor, and fame, severe and rough, being a stumbling block to the attainment of the supreme safety (of Nibbāna). Therefore, monks, let you train yourselves: we shall let go the arisen gain, honor, and fame, and the arisen gain, honor, and fame will not stand overwhelming our minds....
For one whether being honored or not whose collected mind does not waver, him the wise call a worthy man. (S.II.232)
One is the road that leads to wealth, another the road that leads to Nibbāna. If the Bhikkhu, the disciple of the Buddha, has learnt this, he will not yearn for honor, he will foster solitude. (Dh.75)
Wealth destroys the foolish, though not those who search for the Goal. (Dh. 355)
For the laity, as mentioned earlier, there is no instance in which poverty is encouraged. On the contrary, many Pāli passages exhort lay people to seek and amass wealth in a rightful way. Among the advantages or good results of good karma, one is to be wealthy.9 What is blamed as evil in connection with wealth is to earn it in a dishonest and unlawful way. Worthy of blame also is the one who, having earned wealth, becomes enslaved through clinging and attachment to it and incurs suffering because of it. No less evil and blameworthy than the unlawful earning of wealth is to accumulate riches and, out of stinginess, not to spend them for the benefit and well-being of oneself, one’s dependents, and other people. Again, it is also evil if one squanders wealth foolishly or indulgently or uses it to cause suffering to other people:
And what, Ujjaya, is achievement of diligence? Herein, by whatsoever activity a clansman make his living, whether by the plough, by trading or by cattle-herding, by archery or in royal service, or by any of the crafts—he is deft and tireless; gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, he is able to arrange and carry out his job. This is called achievement of diligence. (A.IV.285)
And what is the bliss of wealth? Herein, housefather, a clansman by means of wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by strength of arm, won by sweat, lawful and lawfully gotten, both enjoys his wealth and does good deeds therewith. (A.II.68)
Herein, housefather, with the wealth acquired by energetic striving ... and lawfully gotten, the Ariyan disciple makes himself happy and cheerful, he rightly contrives happiness, and makes his mother and father, his children and wife, his servants and workmen, his friends and comrades cheerful and happy, he rightly contrives happiness. This, housefather, is the first opportunity seized by him, turned to merit and fittingly made use of. (A.II.67; cf. A.III.45)
Monks, if people knew, as I know, the ripening of sharing gifts, they would not enjoy their use without sharing them, nor would the taint of stinginess stand obsessing the heart. Even if it were their last bit, their last morsel of food, they would not enjoy its use without sharing it, if there were anyone to receive it. (It.18)
Like waters fresh lying in savage region
Where none can drink, running to waste and barren,
Such is the wealth gained by a man of base mind.
On self he spends nothing, nor aught he gives.
The wise, the strong-minded, who has won riches,
He useth them, thereby fulfills his duties.His troop of kin fostering, noble-hearted, blameless, at death faring to heav’nly mansion. (S.1.90)
The misers do not go to heaven; fools do not praise liberality. (Dh.177)
Thus, good and praiseworthy wealthy people are those who seek wealth in a rightful way and use it for the good and happiness of both themselves and others. Accordingly, the Buddha’s lay disciples, being wealthy, liberally devoted much or most of their wealth to the support of the sangha and to the alleviation of the suffering and poverty of others.
For example, the millionaire Anāthapiṇḍika is said in the Commentary on the Dhammapada to have spent a large amount of money every day to feed hundreds of monks as well as hundreds of the poor.10 Of course, in an ideal society under an able and righteous ruler or under a righteous and effective administration, there will be no poor people, as all people will be at least self-sufficient, and monks will be the only community set apart by intention to be sustained with the material surplus of the lay society.
A true Buddhist lay person not only seeks wealth lawfully and spends it for the good, but also enjoys spiritual freedom, not being attached to it, infatuated with or enslaved by that wealth. At this point the mundane and the transmundane intersect. The Buddha classifies lay people or the enjoyers of sense-pleasure into various classes according to lawful and unlawful means of seeking wealth, the spending or not spending of wealth for the good and happiness of oneself or others and for the performing of good deeds, and the attitude of greed and attachment or wisdom and spiritual freedom in dealing with wealth. The last, which the Buddha calls the best, the greatest, and the noblest, is praiseworthy in four respects. Such a person enjoys life on both the mundane and the transmundane planes as follows:
Mundane
1. Seeking wealth lawfully and unarbitrarily,
2. Making oneself happy and cheerful,
3. Sharing with others and doing meritorious deeds.
Transmundane
4. Making use of one’s wealth without greed and longing, without infatuation, heedful of danger and possessed of the insight that sustains spiritual freedom.11
This person is indeed an Ariyan or Noble Disciple, that is, one who has made great progress toward individual perfection. Of much significance, moreover, is the compatibility between the mundane and the transmundane spheres of life which combine to form the integral whole of Buddhist ethics in which the transmundane acts as the completing part.
In spite of its great ethical utility, however, too much importance should not be given to wealth. The limitation of its utility in relation to the realization of the goal of nibbāna, furthermore, should also be recognized. Though on the mundane level poverty is something to be avoided, a poor person is not deprived of all means to act for the good of himself or herself and for the good of society. The ten ways of doing good or making merit begin with giving, but they also include moral conduct, the development of mental qualities and wisdom, the rendering of services, and the teaching of the dhamma. Because of poverty, people may be too preoccupied with the mere struggle for survival and thus cannot do anything for their own perfection. They may even cause trouble to society and difficulty for other people in their effort toward their own perfection. But when basic living needs are satisfied, if one is mentally qualified and makes the effort, nothing can hinder one from realizing one’s individual perfection. Wealth as a resource for achieving the social good can help create favorable circumstances for realizing individual perfection, but ultimately it is mental maturity and wisdom, not wealth, that bring about the realization of this perfection. Wealth mistreated and misused not only obstructs individual development, but can also be detrimental to the social good. A wealthy man can do much more either for the better or for the worse of the social good than a poor man. The wealth of a good man is also the wealth of the society. It is, therefore, conducive to the social good and thus becomes a resource for all the members of that society. In other words, acquiring wealth is acceptable if, at the same time, it promotes the well-being of a community or society. But if one’s wealth grows at the expense of the well-being of the community, that wealth is harmful and becomes a problem to be overcome. If personal wealth is not the wealth of society and is not conducive to the social good, the society may have to seek other means of ownership and distribution of wealth to ensure the social good and the resourcefulness of wealth for both individual development and perfection of all members of the society.
In short, the Buddhist attitude toward wealth is the same as that toward power, fame, and honor. This is clearly expressed in the words of the great Buddhist king, Asoka, in his Edict X, “King Piyadassi, the beloved of the gods, does not consider prestige and glory as of any great meaning unless he desires prestige and glory for this purpose, that people may attend to the teaching of the dhamma and that they may abide by the practices of the dhamma.”
Buddhist social ethics will be understood more adequately if we understand its place in the whole system of Buddhist ethics. As mentioned earlier, the whole of Buddhist ethics is based in the Noble Eightfold Path and its prerequisites. The Noble Eightfold Path is well known, but what are its prerequisites? In the Buddha’s own words: “Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. What two? These are inducement by others and systematic attention” (A.I.87; cf. M.I.294).
The first condition, or factor, is generally represented by association with good people or having good friends (kalyāṇamittatā) and is regarded as the external or environmental factor, whereas the second is the internal or personal one. The importance of these two factors as prerequisites of the Eightfold Path is often stressed:
Just as, monks, the dawn is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the sun, so friendship with good people is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the Ariyan eightfold way. (S.V.28, 30)
Just as, monks, the dawn is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the sun, so systematic attention is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the Ariyan eightfold way. (S.V.29,31)
As the Noble Eightfold Path, or the Ariyan Eightfold Way, is known as the magga, we may term these two prerequisites of the Path the pre-magga factors. The system may then be outlined as follows:
1. Association with good people (kalyāṇamittatā)
2. Systematic attention or reflection (yonisomanasikāra)
| Paññā (wisdom) |
1. Right View (sammā-diṭṭhi) 2. Right Thought (sammā-saṅkappa) |
| Sīla (morality) |
3. Right Speech (sammā-vācā) 4. Right Action (sammā-kammanta) 5. Right Livelihood (sammā-ājīva) |
| Samādhi (mental discipline) |
6. Right Effort (sammā-vāyāma) 7. Right Mindfulness (sammā-sati) 8. Right Concentration (sammā-samādhi) |
The eight magga factors are segments of the individual’s path toward perfection, and the two pre-magga factors are the means by which the individual deals with the world and environment. The magga factors are classified into the three categories of paññā (wisdom), sīla (morality), and samādhi (mental discipline). The category of paññā includes especially an enlightened world view based on insight into the impermanent, conflicting, and not-self nature of things, and the dependent origination of all phenomena, that is, that all changes are subject to causes and conditions. Buddhist ethics is rooted in knowledge and effort based on this knowledge, not accidentalism or fatalism. This paññā or wisdom, serves as the keystone. The category of samādhi consists in the development of mental qualities and is responsible for the earnestness, resolution, and steady progress in treading the ethical path. The third category of sīla, or morality, is an expression of social responsibility on the part of the individual. The two pre-magga factors indicate the conditions for the arising and the support for the development of all the magga factors. Though the sīla factors of Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood are directly concerned with society, they are of the character of social responsibility of the individual toward society rather than vice versa. The two pre-magga factors, by contrast, deal with the influence and effect the world and society can have on the individual. They stress what one can get from one’s environment, natural and social, through one’s dealings and relations with it. Of these two pre-magga factors, emphasis is here placed on the first, that is, association with good people.
As mentioned earlier, the importance of friendship with the good is stressed in Buddhism both at the level of individual perfection and at the level of the daily life of the common people:
It is the whole, not the half, of the holy life—this friendship, this association, this intimacy with the good. Of a monk who is a friend, an associate, an intimate of the good we may expect this that he will develop the Ariyan eightfold way, that he will make much of the Ariyan eightfold way.
Owing to me who is a good friend, beings who are subject to birth ... to old age ... to death ... to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair, become free from (these things). (S.V.2)
Some friends are bottle-comrades; some are they
Who (to your face) dear friend! dear friend! will say.
Who proves a comrade in your hour of need,
Him may ye rightly call a friend indeed. (D.III.184)Not to follow fools, to associate with the wise, to honor those who are worthy of honor, this is the highest blessing. To live in a place of favorable environment ..., this is the highest blessing. (Kh.V.3: 5n.259)
Thus, association with the good embodied in good people is a prerequisite of the good life not only in Buddhist social ethics, but in Buddhist thought and practice more generally. We can say that in Buddhist social ethics a good society is a society of good friends, or a society in which people are good friends to one another.12
Training (sikkhā) for further progress in morality, mental discipline, and wisdom is especially prescribed for the monks and is usually known as the Threefold Training, namely, adhisīla-sikkhā (training in higher morality), adhicitta-sikkhā (training in higher mentality), and adhipaññā-sikkhā (training in higher wisdom) (e.g., A.I.229).
To the laity, however, the triad of giving, liberality, or charity (dāna), morality (sīla), and mental development (bhāvanā) is more widely taught in Theravāda countries such as Thailand as the popular Buddhist practices, or ways of making merit. In the Pāli Canon it is also stated in synonymous terms as the triad of giving, self-control regarding other beings, and taming, refinement, improvement, or development.
These are collectively called the three bases of meritorious action (puññakiriyāvatthu), or the threefold training in the good (puñña-sikkhā) (It.15, 51). They may be called the lay version of the Threefold Training, as they are merely a restatement or rearrangement of the first monastic triad to suit the laity.
The difference between the two versions of the Buddhist training lies in the points of emphasis. In the monks’ version the emphasis is placed on individual perfection, whereas in the laymen’s the social aspects of life are given a more important place, as lay people are expected to be more concerned with good social relationships and more concrete actions for social good. Thus, moral conduct (sīla), the single factor of the monks’ general social responsibility, is in the lay version split into the explicit and more tangible social acts of giving (dāna), and virtuous conduct (sīla). The two inner and more individual factors of training in higher mentality (samādhi) and that in higher wisdom (paññā) are, for the laity, broadly stated in the single more generalized factor of mental development (bhāvanā). Again, mental development on the part of the laity, with its focus on the cultivation of loving-kindness, together with giving and virtuous conduct, is mainly intended for bringing about happiness in the realization of a world free from malice (It.15, 51). Moreover, as the monks’ triad lacks an explicit factor of giving or charity, it is a corruption for a monk to accumulate wealth, whereas the layman’s industrious amassing of wealth is to be justified and glorified by the factor of giving, benevolence, or charity.
Another way to summarize Buddhist ethics as a system is to speak of Buddhism as dhamma-vinaya, or the doctrine and the discipline. The dhamma consists in the domain of ideas, ideals, truths, and principles, while the vinaya covers the domain of legislation, regulation, and social organization. As far as social ethics is concerned, the vinaya is of great importance, as it deals especially with social life and the putting of ideas, ideals, and principles into practice. The dhamma is a natural law and as such enters directly into the developmental process of the individual. The vinaya, by contrast, is human law, being laid down for the good of society. The vinaya is consistent with the dhamma as the social good is compatible with individual perfection; the rightful vinaya has to be based on the dhamma just as what is good for society is favorable also to individual development and perfection.
The vinaya for the monkhood has been fixed and rather closed, but that for lay society is, to a large extent, left open for temporal regulation to suit the specific time and place. The vinaya for the community of monks has been laid down by the Buddha. The vinaya for the laity is left open for able and righteous people like enlightened monarchs to formulate based on the general ideas and principles enunciated by the Buddha. In principle, this lay vinaya should enjoin the kind of social organization that maintains a society of “good friends” in which people live together for their mutual benefit, where all environmental conditions are favorable also to individual development and perfection.
Four aspects of Buddhist thought and practice of special relevance to a consideration of Theravāda ethics should, furthermore, be emphasized:
I. General standards and criteria
a. The criteria of means can be represented by the three fundamental admonitions of the Buddha, viz.,
1. Not to do any evil
2. To cultivate good
3. To purify the mind
b. The criteria of goals can be represented by two sets of three goals, or benefits, that people should realize as fully as possible taking into account differing personal circumstances. The first set of goals comprises:
1. The goals or benefits for the here and now, or temporal welfare (diṭṭhadhammikattha), e.g., wealth, health, honor, position, good name, good friends, and happy family life
2. The goals or benefits for the beyond, or spiritual welfare (samparāyikattha), i.e., peace and happiness of mind, a blameless life, and confidence regarding future lives
3. The highest good, or the final goal (paramattha), i.e., the supreme peace, bliss, and freedom of nibbāna13
And the second comprises:
1. One’s own welfare (attattha)
2. Others’ welfare (parattha)
3. Welfare of both oneself and others (ubhayattha)14
II. The relationship between mental and character virtues or virtuous acts. (Ignorance of this interconnection can lead to confusion and inappropriate action. This can be illustrated by two sets of virtues which occupy a central place in Buddhist social ethics.15)
a. The first of these sets is that of the Four Sublime States of Mind (brahma-vihāra):
1. Loving-kindness (mettā)
2. Compassion (karuṇā)
3. Sympathetic joy (muditā)
4. Equanimity (upekkhā) (D.II.196; D.III.220)
b. And the second set, the Four Bases of Social Harmony, or the Four Principles of Social Integration (saṅgaha-vatthu), consists of:
1. Giving, distribution, and charity (dāna)
2. Kindly and beneficial words (piyavācā)
3. Acts of help or service (atthacariyā)
4. Equality, impartiality, and participation (samānattatā) (D.1I1.152, 232: A.II.32, 248; A.IV.218, 363)
III. The centrality of the virtue of mindfulness. A virtue that plays a focal role in Buddhist ethics is appamāda, rendered as heedfulness, diligence, and earnestness. It is found among the last words attributed to the Buddha: “All component things are subject to decay, work out (the goal or one’s own and others’ benefits) with earnestness” (D.II.120). It is also regarded as the basis or common ground of all virtues (S.V.44). Traditionally, it is defined as the presence of mindfulness (sati) (e.g., D.A.I.104). In fact, it can be seen as a combination of mindfulness and effort, energy, or exertion (viriya). In a sermon to the king of Kosala the Buddha enjoined this virtue of mindful exertion as part of the practice of having good friends for the good and security of his country (S.I.86–87). This virtue may be defined as responsibility for the good. It should be brought into a more prominent place in considering the nature of Buddhist social ethics.
IV. The issue of motivation. There are, in short, two kinds of desire or motivation (chanda). One is wholesome and the other is unwholesome. The former is called the desire for the good or the desire to do good (kusala-chanda, dhamma-chanda, or kusaladhamma-chanda) (A.III.440). The latter is the better-known taṇhā or akusala-chanda, which can be defined as the desire for indulgence or the desire to gratify the self, often rendered as craving. Kusala-chanda, or wholesome desire, is encouraged in Buddhist ethics (as in the Four Bases of Success, D.1I1. 221). The two kinds of desire should be clearly distinguished from each other, and the wholesome one should be studied more closely, brought into prominence, and encouraged.
The foundations of Buddhist social ethics can be schematized in the following diagram, which outlines the whole system of Buddhist ethics:
| magga | paññā | Enlightened world view (based on insight into anicca, dukkha, anattā, and paṭicca-samuppāda—the keystone of the system) |
| samādhi | Development of mental qualities (basis for virtues of outward expression) | |
| sīla | Moral responsibility toward others and society (virtues of outward expression or action) | |
| pre-magga | yonisomanasikāra | Mental attitude toward environment |
| kalyāṇamittatā | Influence from a good social environment and good social relationships |
| dhamma | With stress on mind and the individual, bridging the transmundane, and involving personal maturity. |
| vinaya | With stress on the environment, physical circumstances, society, and the surrounding system.
Centered on the mundane world and involving the social order. |
Within this picture of Buddhist social ethics, the following three points deserve special emphasis:
1. The Buddhist ethical system is composed of the magga and pre-magga factors, and it is in the latter, especially in the first factor of good external influences or good association, that the principal theme of Buddhist social ethics can be found. The concept of kalyāṇamittatā (having good friends) should, thus, be more fully studied. In combination with the category of morality in the magga, it is the heart of Buddhist social ethics.
2. There is an essential relationship between the virtues that are qualities of the mind and the virtues for outward action. The former are the source and basis of the latter. In Buddhist terminology both kinds of virtues belong to the threefold training (sikkhā) or the three categories of the magga factors, the former being the category of mental discipline (adhicitta) and the latter the category of morality (adhisīla). The category of mental discipline is related in turn to the category of wisdom (adhipaññā), which is the mainstay and keystone of Buddhist ethics.
3. The dhamma as natural law and the vinaya as human law are complementary parts of the Buddhist ethical system. In the dhamma the individual has responsibility for his or her own development, whereas through the vinaya the community or society offers sanctions and rules to regulate the actions of individuals. With the vinaya the Buddha puts people into reciprocal or interdependent relationships, and with the dhamma the individual’s internal independence and freedom are to be attained and retained in the world of mutual dependence.
In Buddhist ethics individual perfection and social good are interdependent and inseparable. Even the monks, who are the most devoted to individual perfection, depend on the lay people for material necessities. These, in turn, can be readily and adequately supplied only by a secure and peaceful society, which the monks must help to maintain. At the highest level only the Buddha and the pacceka-Buddha (a self-enlightened Buddha) can be self-enlightened through their own wise, systematic reflection. Other people have to depend on the inducement, instigation, and instruction of good friends. Therefore, every average person has to maintain good relationships with others and has some responsibility to maintain the community or society in a favorable state. Conversely, the closer to perfection men and women are, the better they know what is really good for society and the better they can act for the good of society.
In Buddhist ethics wealth is only a means, not an end. It is a question not of the polarities of wealth and poverty, but of how to deal with wealth and when to be independent or freed from wealth. As long and as far as wealth is necessary as a resource, it should be used for achieving social well-being and, thus, for providing favorable circumstances for the individual development of all members of the society. As long as wealth is used in this way, it does not matter to whom it belongs, whether the individual, community, or society. Wealth can rightfully be personal as long as the wealthy person acts as a provider or resource of wealth for society or as a field where wealth grows for the benefit of one’s fellows. Without such a value, wealth is useless, the wealthy man is worthless, and the accumulation of wealth becomes evil. Wealth remains of merely instrumental value. In the community of monks, those who are disseminators of individual perfection for the good of all and whose material necessities are supplied by the lay society, life is to be lived independently of wealth. This shows that training for the realization of the goal (nibbāna) may depend directly or indirectly on wealth, but its realization proper is independent of it. Here also we can see a relationship between individual perfection and social good: by being used without attachment and for the benefit of oneself and others, wealth improves social welfare, thus contributing to individual perfection, which in turn leads to a greater social good.
1. See the two kinds of extremes, the ten kinds of lay people or enjoyers of sense-pleasure, and the three kinds of ascetics in the Rāsiya Sutta S.IV.330ff. Buddhist thought is characterized by several polarities that are often similarly misunderstood: for example, the mundane (lokiya) and the transmundane (lokuttara), the laity (gahaṭṭha) and the monks (pabbajita). Some might think of these so-called polarities as conflicting or incompatible, but in reality they are complementary parts making a complete whole. Some are natural necessities, and others are human designs intended to maintain consistency with the natural ones.
2. This is the meeting for a fortnightly recitation of the pātimokkha that is prescribed by a disciplinary rule: “I allow you, monks, to assemble together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month.” And “I allow you, monks, having assembled together ... to speak the dhamma.” And “I allow you, monks, to recite a pātimokkha” (Vin.I.l02). For some extraordinary cases see Vism.608f.
3. For example, S.V.2–30; A.I.l4–18; It.10. (The matter will be discussed more fully at a later point.)
4. Cf. the Nāthakaraṇadhamma (D.IlI.266, 290; A.V.23).
5. According to the Commentary on the Dhammapada, hundreds of people lived on the leftovers from the monks in the monastery in the Jeta’s Grove, where the Buddha most often stayed.
6. Two points should be noted here. First, this Thai traditional twelvefold set of the Cakkavattivatta is a later version found in the Commentary on the Dīghanikāya (D.A.III.46). Items 1 to 10 are simply reenumerations of the original teaching in the Cakkavatti-Sutta (see D.IlI.61), and items 11 and 12 are accretions based on other parts of the teaching in the same Sutta. Second, the original emphasis in the Sutta on the righteousness of the ruler seems to be slighted here. In the original version of the Sutta the ruler as dhammādhipateyya (one who holds the dhamma supreme or one relying on the supremacy of righteousness) is of great importance.
7. S.I.76; discussion of this set of virtues can be found in the Kūṭadanta-Sutta (D.I.l35). It is explained in some commentaries (S.A.I.l45; SnA.321).
8. D.III.152, 232; A.II.32, 248; A.IV.218, 363.
9. E.g., A.II.204; cf. the Cūḷakammavibhaṅga Sutta in M.III.
10. The personal name of this millionaire was Sudatta. He received his honorary name (Anāthapiṇḍika), which means “the provider of food to the destitute,” through his acts of charity. The Commentary on the Dhammapada and that on the Jātaka contain several stories on the taming of stingy millionaires.
11. S.IV.331; A.V.176. The distinction between the mundane and the transmundane is made here on the basis of the Buddhist principles of the Noble Disciples.
12. A large number of teachings and sayings stressing the importance of association and environment can be found scattered in the Pāli Canon. Many stories illustrating the same prescription can be found in the Jātaka.
13. Nd2 26. In older texts of the Pāli Canon only the first two of these three goals are usually mentioned, the third being included in the second one, e.g., S.I.82, 87; A.III.49; It.17; and the Brahmāyusutta in M.II.
14. Nd2 26; A.I.158, 216; A.III.63; A.IV.134.
15. The difference between the two sets is that the first four are mental qualities to be developed in the mind as part of individual perfection. Hence they belong to the category of samādhi or adhicitta-sikkhā (the training in the development of mental qualities). (The Visuddhimagga devotes twenty-six pages to the development of these four mental qualities [pp. 244–70], but there seems to be no traditional text dealing with the four counterpart virtues of social action.) They are virtues or qualities of the mind or character, not of outward or social action. We can act out of mettā, but we cannot perform or do mettā. The second four virtues, by contrast, are acts intended for outward or social expression. They belong to the category of sīla, or morality. The interrelationship or interdependence between the two sets is that the virtues for social action can be sincere, genuine, pure, resolute, and lasting only when they are based on the firm foundation of the four mental virtues. Loving-kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy may lead to charity, kindly speech, and acts of service on various appropriate occasions, and equanimity (or neutrality) is essential for equality and impartiality.
AAṅguttara Nikāya
DDīgha Nikāya
DhDhammapada
DhACommentary on the Dhammapada
ItItivuttaka
KhKhuddakapāṭha
JJātaka
JAJātaka Commentary
MMajjhima Nikāya
Nd2Cullaniddessa
SSaṁyutta Nikāya
SnSutta Nipāta
SnASutta Nipāta Commentary
VinVinaya Piṭaka
VismVisuddhimagga
Phra Rājavaramuni’s essay represents an interpretation of Theravada Buddhist ethics by a noted Thai monk-scholar. Although Rājavaramuni (recently elevated in monastic rank to Thepwethi) has held administrative positions within the monastic order, he is regarded in Thailand primarily as a scholar of text and doctrine. His highly esteemed dictionary of Buddhist terms and interpretation of Buddhist thought (Buddhadhamma) place him in a rank with Vajirañāõavarorosa, the greatest of the Thai monastic reformers in the modern period.
We begin with Rājavaramuni for several reasons. His exposition of the tradition serves as a point of reference for several of the other chapters. Rājavaramuni’s perspective in this volume is unique in that he writes from within the tradition, from the standpoint of his own view as a Buddhist monk thoroughly grounded in the texts of Theravāda Buddhism.
The essay, therefore, provides both a unique normative view and a very useful collection of canonical references for those interested in exploring the topic of Buddhist ethics within the Theravāda texts themselves.
Finally, the author sets the two foci of the volume—wealth and poverty, and individual perfection and the social good—within the broad context of Buddhist ethics as a whole. Rājavaramuni, then, begins this study by addressing a general problem in the field of religious ethics: the relationship between the soteriological (individual perfection) and moral (social good) dimensions of a religious tradition, but he does so as a Buddhist monk interpreting a particular problem within the social–ethical dimensions of the tradition.
Rejecting the stereotypical view of Buddhism as a world-denying monasticism, Rājavaramuni argues that the tradition has consistently affirmed a balanced, middle-way view of interdependence between individual perfection and the social good, monk and laity. He stresses the importance of the categories of reciprocity and friendship within the Buddhist community as a whole and contends that the classical admonition of “taking oneself for a refuge” necessarily means “becoming dependable” within society. In the context of the monastic life the monk does not simply work toward his own salvation (nibbāna), but function as teacher and moral exemplar within the broader community.
Accordingly, Rājavaramuni argues that the roles of monk and laity are distinct but interrelated. Both live and act in terms of a single, unified “system of Buddhist ethics,” which Rājavaramuni describes in terms of principles or ideals (dhamma) and rules (vinaya). Both draw on aspects of the moral life (pre-magga) coupled with specific categories or stages in a developmental path (magga). Rājavaramuni’s discussion of pre-magga and magga aspects of the moral life reflects his concern for the polarity of individual perfection and the social good. Thus, in general terms Rājavaramuni analyzes the moral life around social interaction (“association with good people”) on the one hand and the development of mental awareness (“systematic attention and reflection”) on the other.
Likewise, the path of moral and spiritual development includes training rules (sikkhā), which build character and stipulate appropriate reactions, but which also promote mental awareness and insight. The distinction between lay and monastic ethics is as much a matter of context as it is of specific content. Thus, lay ethics emphasizes generosity (dāna)—the laity have material goods to give—whereas the monk has a responsibility to gain the wisdom (adhipaññā) associated with mental training (adhicitta) in order to fulfill his responsibilities as teacher and moral exemplar.
Consistent with this view of Buddhist ethics, Rājavaramuni argues that Buddhism takes a middle-way stance toward wealth. That one accumulates wealth is less of a moral problem than how one acquires and uses it. Furthermore, given the principle of mutual reciprocity at the heart of Buddhism’s Middle Way, the person of wealth has the natural responsibility to be generous or to redistribute it. On the practical level generosity means lay support of the monastery; spiritually it expresses an attitude of non-grasping or unselfishness which leads to compassionate, generous, other-regarding attitudes and actions.
The system of Buddhist ethics, in short, integrates the highest good of the individual with the welfare of society, connects the mental development and exemplary character of the individual devotee with virtuous and harmonious social existence. Put in Buddhist terms, Rājavaramuni integrates the Four Sublime States of Mind (loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity) and the Four Bases of Social Harmony (charity, beneficial speech, acts of service, and impartiality).