Mindful Organic Farming

 

In the Wake of Covid19 Pandemic

We have witnessed the devastating milestones crossed in more than 18 months of a global Covid19 pandemic. Presently, extreme conditions and uncertainties caused by the speed of Covid-19 pandemic spread and mutating variants have stunned even those who have witnessed the disruptions of advancing state of technology-based and market driven trends. It has already severely impacted on the mental health of many human beings. Healthcare equipment and facilities such as hospital beds and oxygen supply are suddenly in critical shortage whilst once taken for granted crucial supply chains in the economy are breaking or have broken, leaving looming food shortages in the near future. 

The aftermath of Covid-19 will continue to wrought drastic socioeconomic changes and that will be made abundantly clear once the pandemic begins to settle. Human beings are increasingly awakened to the fact that their lives are too short and fragile to be thrown away on purposeless or fashionable pursuits. Overturning social norms upside down in the cultural environments of societies across the world, none have been left untouched as even the most remote tribespeople in the Amazon[1] have fallen victim to Covid-19 pandemic in their normally inaccessible forests. Faced with some catastrophic failures, human beings have begun to question the failings of the world and their hitherto indisputable beliefs, the pitfalls of their deluded worldviews and embedded value systems. They seek a way forward for the cessation of this entire mess and mass of stress and suffering. There may even be a resurgence in inward journeys leading some to a heuristic discovery of the less trodden path to wisdom in recent times.

One of the causal conditioning that may come to be recognised is that the world has forged too far ahead as a global, intertwined body of industrialised systems and in its relentless economic exploitation of nature to feed unsatiable desires and cravings. For the many, it is unlikely that the path forward will loop back to the recent past. Localisation may end the intensive drive towards increased integration of a globalized world; organic agro-production for self-sufficiency and food security may take precedence over mass production of consumer goods which follow luxury fashion; the grinding pace of industrialisation, exploitation of earth resources and eco-systems which cause environmental pollution and degradation may be restricted or modified; family and community life as well as traditional shared values may take precedence over Internet of Things perpetually connected work values and thereafter to nightspots merrymaking with no respite in human activities. 

Likewise, frequent travels and traffic snarls may subside in favour of home-based work and online commerce. All these may collectively contribute to new measurements of quality of life. The vision of a healthier future and economies driven by self-sufficiency versus market driven consumer trends may bring fresh hopes of new possibilities marked by equilibrium in consideration of nature and all sentient beings on earth. Hence, the Covid-19 pandemic may have abruptly ended present lifestyles and livelihoods for the masses but the future augurs well for those who use this period of enforced lull to reflect on what Buddhist socioeconomics has to offer in value reconstruction of new realities through a balanced lifestyle and right livelihood.

Indeed, the Covid19 pandemic has only served to redflag another looming disaster in our world history which is agriculture soil health. The doom scenario is that topsoil erosion and degradation as a result of extractive industrial farming methods will either leave topsoil stripped of organic matter and microorganisms or drenched in chemicals. This, in turn, impacts on Earth's most precious resource which now has a foreseable lifespan that limits its life-giving properties to plants, humans and all sentient beings. The extracted graph below (from Our World in Data) indicates that we are headed in this direction if intentional efforts are not made to reverse the alarming trends. 

The Buddhist Socioeconomic Offering

The Buddha has made it clear during his time that it would be wrong livelihood to be engaged in doing business involving weapons, living beings, meat, intoxicants and poison[2]. Since then, socioeconomics has changed to become much more complex yet the guiding philosophy remains constant. Underpinning the Buddhist Socioeconomic offering are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path with guiding wisdom that are just as relevant today as they were during Buddha’s time.

The closest example to a living Buddhist socioeconomic model implemented by the state is that of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) multi-dimentional development framework[3]. It takes into account both the inner aspirations of human beings as well as the state goals of socioeconomics to support citizens’ livelihood and daily needs. Incorporating the Buddhist causal interdependence concept, the GNH model of socioeconomics is based on nine major domains:

1.      Psychological wellbeing

2.      Balanced time use

3.      Community vitality

4.      Cultural diversity and resilience

5.      Ecological diversity and resilience

6.      Health

7.      Education

8.      Good governance, and lastly

9.      Living standards or material conditions

The wisdom of GNH holistically qualitative measurements lie in its resilience indicators of mental health and emotional wellness which include a diverse range of other interdependent social, psychological, economic and cultural factors that cannot be traded off with income alone. Its quantitative component measure spiritual and mental culture development as a manifestation of Buddhist values at the core. Additionally, any business with GNH perspectives would endeavor to promote socially and environmentally responsible practices, minimising suffering of all sentient beings, and promoting human happiness and welfare in the process.

In summing up Buddhist socioeconomic values, Thai Venerable Prabhavanaviriyakhun revealed[4] that they are derived from Dhamma scriptural sources such as the Dighajanu Sutta (AN 8:54).  Applying the Buddha’s wisdom on finding happiness in this lifetime to economic practices, the four guiding principles for the individual and businesses are:

i   Diligent acquisition of wealth and staying away from unwholesome livelihood

ii  Careful conservation and savings for self-protection

iii Having virtuous friends or kalyanamitta within one’s circle of contacts

iv Living within one’s means and not resorting to debt in overspend habits

The honourable Venerable further clarified that development is not only about material gains but also about growth in mental wellbeing and ultimately, it is about liberating the mind from all its latent defilements. In Buddhism, the means and process of the wealth creation should be scrupulous in terms of blamelessness, contentment and non-excessive desires which is as important as its end results. The accrued wealth is to be conserved and its disposable wealth component can be conservatively employed for moderate consumption or to do charity in support of higher spiritual values - and if an organisation  corporate social responsibility. Hence, wealth creation is cumulative material gain plus positve accumulated spiritual merits.

Another insider view of the Buddhist socioeconomic offerings was provided by Thai Venerable P.A. Payutto who sees the limitations of economic theories[5] hitherto in the Industrial age (for example, Keynesian and Monetarist economics which are still utilised in the Digital Age). These include the following criticisms:

a) Over-specialisation when it is actually part of the whole social/existential matrix

b) Ethics has not been a priority in profit maximisation

c) Presenting economics theories as a science when in reality it is not; production is not always beneficial and non-production can sometimes bring positive results.

d) Lack of depth in understanding human nature with regards to human wants, consumption, nature of work and workstyles, competition and collaboration, contentment and (limits to) consumerism.

Conversely, the Venerable believes that Buddhist socioeconomics model of industry and work activities assures a more sustainable alternative in:                                            

I.  realisation of fullest potential and wellbeing through work

II. peace by not harming oneself or others

Accordingly, the outlined middle way model by Venerable comprise key Buddhist principles[6] that support these assurances:

1.      Wise consumption

2.      Freedom from self-harm and from oppression of others

3.      Economy as a support

4.      Harmony with human nature

5.      Integration with the unity of nature

In keeping with these holistic Buddhist socioeconomics model, the Venerable further expounded on those elements aligned with the Buddhist Three Attha teachings relating to the initial, medium, and ultimate goals of human lives[7]:

“The initial or basic goal refers to ‘visible benefits,’ of which a reasonable economic

security is central; but the benefits of the first Attha have to be coordinated so as to assist with the attainment of the two further goals - the medium goal of mental virtues and quality of life, and the ultimate goal of complete inner freedom. In the effort to help achieve these three goals, economics must look upon itself as a contributing factor, one of many interrelated branches of knowledge that must support each other in the remedying of human problems. Consequently, an important task for economics is to find its points of contact with other disciplines and discover in which ways to best cooperate with them, how best to distribute the workload. Education for example could be used to teach people to recognize true and false values, what is and is not quality of life and so cooperate with economics in human development.”

Broadly agreeing with the above proponents on the main principles and concepts of Buddhist socioeconomics, Dr. Puntasen highlighted other aspects where it diverged from mainstream economics[8] as depicted in the table below:

Current Mainstream Economics	Buddhist Socioeconomics
Based on a set of beliefs	Based on insights into the nature of things
Emphasis on Self-interest	Stresses Non-self
Emphasis on Intelligence	Emphasis on Panna
Kamasukha (that is closely followed by dukkha) as the short-term goal	Sukha (that ultimately leads to Nibbana) is the long-term vision

In anticipation of sceptical doubts and to deflect arguments that Buddhist socioeconomics is easier to adopt only when it is closely related to human beings and specialised areas of their livelihoods, Dr. Puntasen recommended a closer study at the level of national economic policy management[9]. He proposed a trial of Development Economics introducing elements of Buddhist socioeconomics which adopt the following concepts:

1.    The emphasis on self-reliance

2.    The emphasis on mindful living through full awareness

3.    Refraining from creating conditions for violence

4.    Right livelihood, patience and diligence

5.    Not burdening oneself as well or others

6.    Honesty, moral shame and moral dread or fear)

Dr. Puntasen also gave the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy of King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand as a fine example of the above. 

One of the first non-Buddhist Westerner to delight in what ‘Buddhist Economics’ could offer modern societies versus the much touted market economy and industrialisation model of the West is UN economic consultant to Burma, Schumarcher. He writes of its ‘right livelihood’ approach[10] in placing people at the heart of economies, education as the greatest resource available and putting human face in the forefront of technology which has most recently evolved into the all-encompassing Artificial Intelligence (AI). He interpreted the ‘Buddhist point of view which takes the function of work to be at least threefold:

1.    to give a man a chance to utilise and to develop his faculties;

2.    to enable him to overcome his egocentredness by joining with other people in a common task; and

3.    to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence.’ 

As Shumarcher has rightly pointed out, “small IS beautiful” and the GNH working model in the small nation of Bhutan has proven that it is possible for Buddhist socioeconomics to be comprehensively applied by the state in practical ways. Likewise, adopting Buddhist socioeconomic principles may well work with the small and medium-sized companies and pockets of self-sufficiency agro-based farms which form the backbone of many developing economies. In the larger and more complex economies, it will take time to persuade the too-big-to-fail large conglomerates and global corporations to progressively deploy resources for the greater good beyond their corporate social responsibility type of public relations initiatives. This may entail incentives to apply Buddhist principles of socioeconomics at different levels in the more developed countries. 

Schumarcher had opined that economic activities that “indicate a greater concern with goods than with people” reveal a lack of compassion and debasement of human spirit to the lower levels of attachment to worldly existence. He left in no doubt that of his alignment with the Buddhist right views regarding mechanisation of the industrial (and now digital) world should be ‘that which enhances a human being’s skill and power’ rather than ‘that which turns human beings into mechanical slaves who need to service the machine’. Character, at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work.’[11] To him, the greatest resource available to socioeconomic development is education, followed closely by the proper use of land. Hence, his conclusion is that ‘Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modem materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character and mind.

---

[1] The Japan Times (11 April 2020) Boy from isolated Amazon tribe dies of Covid-19, raising fears of devastating outbreak https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/11/world/boy-amazon-tribe-dies-coronavirus/

[2] Thannisaro, Bikkhu (n.d., not dated) Vanijja Sutta AN 5:177 https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_6.html

[3]              H.E. Lyonchen Dasho Tshering Tobgay (2018) Buddhist Contribution for Human Development Keynote Speaker at The 15^th UN Day of Vesak Conference 2018 Ayutthaya: MCU

[4]              Prabhavanaviriyakhun, Phadet Datajeevo (not dated, n.d.) Buddhist Economics URL: https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html, pp 2-31

[5]              Phra Brahmagunabhorn, P. A. Payutto (2016) Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Marketplace translated for English edition by J.B. Dhammavijaya  Nakorn Pathom: Wat Nyanavesakavan, pp. 4-30

[6]              Phra Brahmagunabhorn, P. A. Payutto (2016) Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Marketplace translated for English edition by J.B. Dhammavijaya  Nakorn Pathom: Wat Nyanavesakavan, pp. 41-64

[7]              Phra Brahmagunabhorn, P. A. Payutto (2016) Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Marketplace translated for English edition by J.B. Dhammavijaya  Nakorn Pathom: Wat Nyanavesakavan, p39

[8]              Puntasen, Professor Apichai (2004) Buddhist Economics: Evolution, Theories and Its Application to Various Economic Subjects  Bangkok: Amarin Press p129

[9]              Puntasen, Professor Apichai (2004) Buddhist Economics: Evolution, Theories and Its Application to Various Economic Subjects Bangkok: Amarin Press p131

[10]              Schumarcher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered London: Blond & Briggs, p. 36

[11]            Schumarcher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered London: Blond & Briggs, p. 37

 

 

  

---