Ekonomi Buddhis

EKONOMI BUDDHIS
“Berpikirlah baik-baik sebelum melakukan segala suatu pekerjaan”​

Di dalam tradisi buddhis, kita mengenal 4 (empat) hari uposatha. Hari uposatha berarti suatu hari besar didalam agama Buddha yang biasanya dilaksanakan 4 (empat) kali setiap bulan, yaitu uposatha ketika bulan gelap yang istilahnya dikenal sebagai tanggal 1 menurut penanggalan bulan, uposatha bulan purnama sidhi pada tanggal 15 menurut penanggalan bulan, uposatha ditengah tanggal 1 dan 15 yaitu uposatha tanggal 8, dan uposatha tanggal 23 menurut penanggalan bulan.

Di Negara-negara Buddhis, pada setiap hari uposatha, umat Buddha datang berduyun-duyun ke Vihara sejak tadi pagi. Mereka memohon tuntunan sila kepada para Bhikkhu. Para peminta sila yang juga dikenal dengan sebutan upasaka/upasika ini memurnikan sila pada hari itu dengan satu pengertian bahwa selama sekian hari yang mereka lewatkan telah banyak sila yang dilanggar. Oleh karena itu mereka memperbaharui sila, bahkan selain Pancasila,juga ada umat yang berusaha untuk menjalankan 8 (delapan) sila/athasila.

Setelah itu mereka mempersembahkan dana kepada para bhikkhu yang melakukan pindapata yakni berusaha berbuat kebaikan dengan cara berdana makanan dan kebutuhan-kebutuhan vihara seperti Buddha rupang, buku-buku untuk perpustakaan atau keperluan-keperluan lain para bhikkhu. Setelah selesai makan, mereka mencari para bhikku, terutama bhikkhu-bhikkhu senior atau yang mempunyai pengetahuan cukup luas untuk berdiskusi Dhamma dan bermeditasi. Sampai kira-kira tengah hari, mereka kemudian beristirahat. Kira kira pukul 15.00, para umat bersama-sama untuk membersihkan vihara dan lain lain untuk pertemuan selanjutnya.

Pada malam hari mereka kembali mengadakan pertemuan berupa kebaktian bersama, pembabaran Dhamma dan latihan meditasi sampai tengah malam. Bahkan ada bhikkhu-bhikkhu yang mempunyai satu tradisi untuk melatih diri agar tidak tidur semalam suntuk pada hari uposatha. Jadi di Negara-negara Buddhist, hari uposatha betul-betul menjadi hari untuk mendengarkan Dhamma dan berbuat kebajikan.

Mereka mempunyai tradisi untuk menghormati hari uposatha dan melewatkan satu hari penuh di vihara. Hari uposatha yang dihormati sebagai hari untuk mendengar Dhamma ini dikelompokan lagi di beberapa Negara Buddhist menjadi dua kelompok yaitu:

¨ Uposatha tanggal 1 dan 15
Adalah hari mendengar Dhamma yang khusus ditujukan untuk para bhikkhu. Pada saat ini Dhamma yang diturunkan adalah Dhamma yang cukup tinggi dan membutuhkan perenungan yang dalam untuk mencapai penembusan dan menyelesaikan lingkaran kelahiran kembali.

¨ Uposatha tanggal 8 dan 23
Adalah hari mendengarkan Dhamma yang ditujukan untuk para perumah-tangga, upasaka / upasika. Dhamma yang diturunkan pada saat ini pun adalah Dhamma yang sesuai untuk kehidupan sehari-hari para perumah-tangga, upasaka/upasika.

Kalau kita mengacu pada Tripitaka yaitu ajaran-ajaran Sang Buddha yang telah dibukukan maka akan banyak ditemukan ajaran-ajaran Sang Buddha yang berkenaan dengan urusan perumah tangga/umat biasa. Vinaya pitaka yang berisikan tentang vinaya, semuanya memang ditujukan untuk para bhikkhu. Tetapi tidak demikian halnya dengan Sutta Pitaka dan dan Abhidhamma Pitaka,karena sesungguhnya Sutta Pitaka dan Abhidhamma Pitaka ini dapat diterapkan oleh umat biasa dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.

Salah satu ajaran pokok Sang Buddha yang sangat penting untuk bekal hidup kita sehari-hari sebagai upasaka/upasika adalah “berpikirlah dahulu, renungkanlah dahulu baik baik, sebelum melaksanakan satu kegiatan/ pekerjaan.” Ini satu kata yang cukup bermakna karena menunjukan bahwa ajaran Sang Buddha bukan hanya ditujukan untuk para bhikkhu, para samanera dan para umat yang tinggal di vihara saja tetapi juga bisa diterapkan dalam kehidupan sebagai perumahtangga.

Dalam kegiatan sehari-hari sering kita menemukan satu pandangan yang tidak benar. Orang sering menyatakan bahwa umat Buddha itu harus selalu menjadi bhikkhu atau samanera. Gambaran yang demikian dapat menyebabkan para orang tua takut apabila anaknya pergi ke vihara. Mereka bahkan melarang anak-anaknya untuk datang ke vihara karena merasa khawatir apabila sang anak mempunyai keinginan untuk menjadi bhikkhu atau samanera. Padahal ini adalah suatu pandangan yang keliru! Umat Buddha bukanlah seorang bhikkhu atau samanera. Dengan mengajak para generasi muda datang ke vihara berarti kita memberi kesempatan pada mereka untuk mendengarkan ajaran yang benar yang bisa membawa mereka menuju kebebasan dan bahkan hal tersebut merupakan berkah utama.

Sebagai perumah-tangga, kita tidak pernah terlepas dari usaha-usaha untuk mencari nafkah. Seorang perumah-tangga yang tidak mau mencari nafkah bukanlah perumah tangga yang baik, bukanlah manusia yang bertanggungjawab! Ini adalah manusia malas yang tidak mau menggunakan kemampuannya sebagai seorang manusia. Seorang bapak mempunyai kewajiban untuk mencari nafkah dan menghidupi keluarga. Sebaliknya, seorang ibu pun mempunyai kewajiban untuk mengurus rumah tangga. Bahkan didalam kehidupan modern seperti sekarang ini, para ibu juga bekerja di masyarakat. Demikian pula halnya dengan para generasi muda. Mereka juga mempunyai kewajiban untuk belajar atau membantu orang tuanya.

Sering timbul satu anggapan bahwa Buddha-dhamma adalah ajaran orang yang melarat, ajaran orang yang tidak mempunyai semangat. Bagaimana tidak? Sang Buddha yang dulunya adalah seorang putra mahkota kerajaan yang hidup bergelimangan harta dan kekuasaan serta mempunyai istri yang cantik dan setia, ternyata rela melepaskan semuanya dan hidup dengan keadaan yang sebaliknya, menjadi seorang bhikkhu. Orang tentu akan menanggapi ini adalah ajaran yang salah dan tidak tepat.Tetapi sesungguhnya anggapan ini tidak benar. Pandangan ini adalah pandangan yang salah! Mengapa demikian? Karena menurut Sang Buddha, umat Buddha dikelompokkan dalam 4 golongan.Memang ada bhikkhu dan bhikkhuni yang tidak berurusan dengan urusan keduniawian. Mereka tinggal di vihara-vihara dan menjalankan sila. Tetapi ada juga umat yang tinggal di masyarakat sebagai upasaka dan upasika. Mereka mengelola keluarga dan bekerja mencari nafkah untuk kehidupan sehari-hari.

Jadi anggapan yang menyatakan bahwa Buddha-Dhamma itu tidak berhubungan dengan urusan keduniawian dan hanya mementingkan urusan rohani saja tidaklah benar. Kehidupan yang tidak pernah terlepas dari usaha untuk mencari nafkah, menghidupi keluarga dan berjuang dalam kegiatan sehari-hari ini tentu membutuhkan satu pedoman. Apakah yang menjadikan pedoman dalam hidup kita? Pedomannya adalah “berpikirlah dahulu baik-baik… sebelum mengerjakan sesuatu”. Sebetulnya ini sudah bisa dijadikan pegangan hidup sehari-hari. Pedoman yang diberikan oleh Sang Buddha tersebut sebetulnya sudah cukup akrab ditelinga kita. Kita tentu pernah mendengar satu pepatah yang menyatakan berpikirlah dahulu… sesal kemudian tidak ada gunanya. Kita pun sering dikatakan sebagai mahluk yang hebat/tinggi karena mempunyai pikiran.

Sebagai manusia yang bisa berpikir tentu kita harus merenungkan dahulu setiap langkah dan ucapan kita. Ini berarti kita harus menggunakan pikiran dan daya perenungan untuk hal-hal yang bermanfaat.Mungkin hal ini masih menimbulkan keraguan dan mengundang banyak pertanyaan, mengingat pesan Sang Buddha tersebut masih terlalu umum. Untuk itu mari kita liat lebih dalam lagi apakah sesungguhnya ajaran Sang Buddha yang bisa diterapkan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari? Bagaimanakah Buddha-Dhamma memberikan petunjuk untuk kegiatan kita di dalam masyarakat?Di dalam usaha/pekerjaan kita sehari-hari, sesungguhnya Sang Buddha telah memberikan bekal untuk kita manfaatkan. Pekerjaan apapun yang kita lakukan, hendaknya dibekali dengan:

1) Semangat
Semangat dalam melakukan pekerjaan. Kalau kita malas bekerja dan tidak mempunyai semangat, tentu pekerjaan yang kita lakukan tidak akan pernah berhasil secara memuaskan. Untuk memunculkan semangat yang dapat mendorong kita agar dapat bekerja dengan baik itu bukanlah suatu hal yang mudah.
Semangat ini harus didukung dengan mengerti apa tujuan kita mengerjakan suatu hal. Kalau tidak ada tujuan maka semangat tidak akan muncul. Sebaliknya kalau semangat tidak ada juga tidak bisa mengerjakan sesuatu dengan sebaik-baiknya. Oleh karena itu semangat untuk mengerjakan sesuatu itu penting sekali, bahkan sangat penting!

2) Hendaknya kita bisa menjaga hasil usaha kita
Misalnya kita ingin mempunyai sebuah kendaraan. Ada tujuan ingin membeli sebuah kendaraan, kemudian muncul semagat untuk bekerja keras dan menabung, setelah mempunyai kendaraan, hendaknya kita merawatnya dengan baik kendaraan yang telah kita dapatkan itu misalkan dengan dibersihkan tiap hari, oli-nya diganti, diservis, dll.Kalau kita sudah mendapatkan apa yang kita inginkan dengan usaha yang keras maka hendaknya kita juga bisa merawatnya dengan sebaik-baiknya. Jadi perawatan adalah penting!

3) Hendaknya kita bisa mempunyai teman atau lingkungan yang mendukung, yang bisa membantu supaya pemeliharaan tersebut berjalan terus. Kalau kita sudah mempunyai semangat, mengerti tujuan dan menjaga hasil usaha kita maka hendaknya kita juga jangan melupakan faktor teman. Karena teman bisa membuat kita baik dan ada juga teman yang justru ingin menghancurkan kita. Bagaimanakah teman yang baik dan tidak baik itu?

Teman yang baik akan mendorong supaya kita bertambah maju, tetapi teman yang jahat justru menarik kita untuk selalu ke bawah/mundur. Misalnya ada teman yang mengatakan : “ayo kamukan sudah kaya, ayo sekarang kita mabuk2an saja. Untuk apa kekayaan itu kalau tidak dihabiskan? Kalau meninggal uangnya toh tidak kamu bawa! Ayo habiskan supaya uangnya tidak jamuran!” atau bahkan ada yang lebih hebat lagi: “ayo kitakan sekarang sudah kaya! Daripada uangnya jamuran, ayo kita mencari istri baru!” teman yang seperti ini harus kita waspadai karena teman karena teman yang menganjurkan hal-hal seperti itu pasti bukanlah teman yang baik. Teman yang tidak baik, hanya akan memerosotkan moral dan menghancurkan hasil usaha kita. Tetapi teman yang baik justru akan menganjurkan hal-hal yang baik. Misalnya: “nah…kamu’kan sekarang sudah kaya, lebih uang mu didepositokan saja atau kamu membuka usaha lagi!” ini adalah teman yang baik. Jadi teman yang baik adalah teman yang bisa membantu menjaga semua yang kita peroleh dengan susah payah. Kalau teman mau mendukung, hendaknya kita dengarkan. Tetapi kalau teman mau memerosotkan kita, sebaiknya jangan dituruti.

Tetapi ini tidak berarti kita tidak mau mempunyai teman yang pemabuk, beristri lebih dari satu, atau seorang penjudi. Kita hanya tidak menjadikan mereka sebagai tempat untuk menggantungkan semua nasehat. Oleh karena memperoleh teman/lingkungan yang baik itu sulit maka kita perlu berhati-hati.

4) Hendaknya kita bisa mempergunakan hasil tersebut secara bijaksana. Kalau kita sudah mempunyai, sudah memperoleh hasil yang sepantasnya, dan sudah bisa memilih teman / lingkungan yang baik supaya bisa mendukung kita untuk menjaga hasil yang telah kita peroleh, maka tindakan yang terakhir adalah kita harus bisa mempergunakannya secara bijaksana: tidak terlalu pelit tetapi juga tidak terlalu boros. Misalnya kita sudah bisa mempunyai rumah yang bagus dan mewah dengan susah payah. Kita boleh saja menjaga rumah kita dengan sebaik-baiknya, tetapi harus bijaksana. Tidak berarti lalu kalau menerima tamu di kebun atau di garasi mobil saja karena merasa khawatir kalau rumah kita rusak, lantainya kotor, dsb. Ini adalah penggunaan yang tidak bijaksana. Atau kalau sekarang kita sudah kaya-raya lalu kemudian uangnya kita boros-boroskan saja. Semua yang kita inginkan, kita turuti. Apa pun yang kita inginkan harus kita beli. Ini juga bukanlah suatu tindakan yang bijaksana.

Dengan demikian kita ketahui bahwa ajaran Sang Buddha itu tidak semuanya ditujukan untuk para bhikkhu dan mereka yang tinggal di vihara saja,tetapi untuk para perumah-tangga. Salah satu contohnya adalah seperti tersebut di atas, karena semuanya berkaitan dengan kehidupan kita sebagai anggota masyarakat. Ke 4 hal tersebut hendaknya bisa saudara renungkan baik-baik didalam hati.

Hendaknya betul-betul bisa saudara hayati di dalam batin sehingga sebagai umat Buddha, saudara bisa memetik manfaat yang sebesar-besarnya dari ajaran Sang Buddha.

@Singthung.
Saya.... saya... saya sangat kecewa ketika membuka thread ini.
saya demikian berharap akan menemukan terjemahan essai "the buddhist economics dari Schumacher.
Hu...hu..huu.. kecewa berat.

Tapi kecewanya bukan kepadaMu.
Kecewa karena mempunyai harapan yang tidak terpenuhi.
Salah satu bentuk dhuka.


ya sudah saya yang post saja The Buddhist economics oleh E.F Schumacher.




"Right Livelihood" is one of the requirements of the Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear, therefore, that there must be such a thing as Buddhist economics.

Buddhist countries have often stated that they wish to remain faithful to their heritage. So Burma: “The New Burma sees no conflict between religious values and economic progress. Spiritual health and material well-being are not enemies: they are natural allies.” 1 Or: “We can blend successfully the religious and spiritual values of our heritage with the benefits of modern technology.” 2 Or: “We Burmans have a sacred duty to conform both our dreams and our acts to our faith. This we shall ever do.” 3

All the same, such countries invariably assume that they can model their economic development plans in accordance with modern economics, and they call upon modern economists from so-called advanced countries to advise them, to formulate the policies to be pursued, and to construct the grand design for development, the Five-Year Plan or whatever it may be called. No one seems to think that a Buddhist way of life would call for Buddhist economics, just as the modern materialist way of life has brought forth modern economics.

Economists themselves, like most specialists, normally suffer from a kind of metaphysical blindness, assuming that theirs is a science of absolute and invariable truths, without any presuppositions. Some go as far as to claim that economic laws are as free from "metaphysics" or "values" as the law of gravitation. We need not, however, get involved in arguments of methodology. Instead, let us take some fundamentals and see what they look like when viewed by a modern economist and a Buddhist economist.

There is universal agreement that a fundamental source of wealth is human labour. Now, the modern economist has been brought up to consider "labour" or work as little more than a necessary evil. From the point of view of the employer, it is in any case simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it can not be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of view of the workman, it is a "disutility"; to work is to make a sacrifice of one’s leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice. Hence the ideal from the point of view of the employer is to have output without employees, and the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income without employment.

The consequences of these attitudes both in theory and in practice are, of course, extremely far-reaching. If the ideal with regard to work is to get rid of it, every method that "reduces the work load" is a good thing. The most potent method, short of automation, is the so-called "division of labour" and the classical example is the pin factory eulogised in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. 4 Here it is not a matter of ordinary specialisation, which mankind has practiced from time immemorial, but of dividing up every complete process of production into minute parts, so that the final product can be produced at great speed without anyone having had to contribute more than a totally insignificant and, in most cases, unskilled movement of his limbs.

The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.

From the Buddhist point of view, there are therefore two types of mechanisation which must be clearly distinguished: one that enhances a man’s skill and power and one that turns the work of man over to a mechanical slave, leaving man in a position of having to serve the slave. How to tell the one from the other? “The craftsman himself,” says Ananda Coomaraswamy, a man equally competent to talk about the modern West as the ancient East, “can always, if allowed to, draw the delicate distinction between the machine and the tool. The carpet loom is a tool, a contrivance for holding warp threads at a stretch for the pile to be woven round them by the craftsmen’s fingers; but the power loom is a machine, and its significance as a destroyer of culture lies in the fact that it does the essentially human part of the work.” 5 It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character. Character, at the same time, is formed primarily by a man’s work. And work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products. The Indian philosopher and economist J. C. Kumarappa sums the matter up as follows:

If the nature of the work is properly appreciated and applied, it will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent background for man to display his scale of values and develop his personality. 6

If a man has no chance of obtaining work he is in a desperate position, not simply because he lacks an income but because he lacks this nourishing and enlivening factor of disciplined work which nothing can replace. A modern economist may engage in highly sophisticated calculations on whether full employment "pays" or whether it might be more "economic" to run an economy at less than full employment so as to insure a greater mobility of labour, a better stability of wages, and so forth. His fundamental criterion of success is simply the total quantity of goods produced during a given period of time. “If the marginal urgency of goods is low,” says Professor Galbraith in The Affluent Society, “then so is the urgency of employing the last man or the last million men in the labour force.” 7And again: “If . . . we can afford some unemployment in the interest of stability—a proposition, incidentally, of impeccably conservative antecedents—then we can afford to give those who are unemployed the goods that enable them to sustain their accustomed standard of living.”

From a Buddhist point of view, this is standing the truth on its head by considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the worker to the product of work, that is, from the human to the subhuman, a surrender to the forces of evil. The very start of Buddhist economic planning would be a planning for full employment, and the primary purpose of this would in fact be employment for everyone who needs an "outside" job: it would not be the maximisation of employment nor the maximisation of production. Women, on the whole, do not need an "outside" job, and the large-scale employment of women in offices or factories would be considered a sign of serious economic failure. In particular, to let mothers of young children work in factories while the children run wild would be as uneconomic in the eyes of a Buddhist economist as the employment of a skilled worker as a soldier in the eyes of a modern economist.

While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is "The Middle Way" and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist’s point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern—amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory results.

For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand. He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve the smallest possible input of toil. The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. It would be highly uneconomic, for instance, to go in for complicated tailoring, like the modern West, when a much more beautiful effect can be achieved by the skillful draping of uncut material. It would be the height of folly to make material so that it should wear out quickly and the height of barbarity to make anything ugly, shabby, or mean. What has just been said about clothing applies equally to all other human requirements. The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means.

Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production—and, labour, and capital—as the means. The former, in short, tries to maximise human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximise consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort. It is easy to see that the effort needed to sustain a way of life which seeks to attain the optimal pattern of consumption is likely to be much smaller than the effort needed to sustain a drive for maximum consumption. We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pressure and strain of living is very much less in say, Burma, than it is in the United States, in spite of the fact that the amount of labour-saving machinery used in the former country is only a minute fraction of the amount used in the latter.

Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related. The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching: “Cease to do evil; try to do good.” As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade.

From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale. Just as the modern economist would admit that a high rate of consumption of transport services between a man’s home and his place of work signifies a misfortune and not a high standard of life, so the Buddhist would hold that to satisfy human wants from faraway sources rather than from sources nearby signifies failure rather than success. The former tends to take statistics showing an increase in the number of ton/miles per head of the population carried by a country’s transport system as proof of economic progress, while to the latter—the Buddhist economist—the same statistics would indicate a highly undesirable deterioration in the pattern of consumption.

Another striking difference between modern economics and Buddhist economics arises over the use of natural resources. Bertrand de Jouvenel, the eminent French political philosopher, has characterised "Western man" in words which may be taken as a fair description of the modern economist:

He tends to count nothing as an expenditure, other than human effort; he does not seem to mind how much mineral matter he wastes and, far worse, how much living matter he destroys. He does not seem to realize at all that human life is a dependent part of an ecosystem of many different forms of life. As the world is ruled from towns where men are cut off from any form of life other than human, the feeling of belonging to an ecosystem is not revived. This results in a harsh and improvident treatment of things upon which we ultimately depend, such as water and trees. 8

The teaching of the Buddha, on the other hand, enjoins a reverent and non-violent attitude not only to all sentient beings but also, with great emphasis, to trees. Every follower of the Buddha ought to plant a tree every few years and look after it until it is safely established, and the Buddhist economist can demonstrate without difficulty that the universal observation of this rule would result in a high rate of genuine economic development independent of any foreign aid. Much of the economic decay of southeast Asia (as of many other parts of the world) is undoubtedly due to a heedless and shameful neglect of trees.

Modern economics does not distinguish between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its very method is to equalise and quantify everything by means of a money price. Thus, taking various alternative fuels, like coal, oil, wood, or water-power: the only difference between them recognised by modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The cheapest is automatically the one to be preferred, as to do otherwise would be irrational and "uneconomic." From a Buddhist point of view, of course, this will not do; the essential difference between non-renewable fuels like coal and oil on the one hand and renewable fuels like wood and water-power on the other cannot be simply overlooked. Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does.

Just as a modern European economist would not consider it a great achievement if all European art treasures were sold to America at attractive prices, so the Buddhist economist would insist that a population basing its economic life on non-renewable fuels is living parasitically, on capital instead of income. Such a way of life could have no permanence and could therefore be justified only as a purely temporary expedient. As the world’s resources of non-renewable fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men.

This fact alone might give food for thought even to those people in Buddhist countries who care nothing for the religious and spiritual values of their heritage and ardently desire to embrace the materialism of modern economics at the fastest possible speed. Before they dismiss Buddhist economics as nothing better than a nostalgic dream, they might wish to consider whether the path of economic development outlined by modern economics is likely to lead them to places where they really want to be. Towards the end of his courageous book The Challenge of Man’s Future, Professor Harrison Brown of the California Institute of Technology gives the following appraisal:

Thus we see that, just as industrial society is fundamentally unstable and subject to reversion to agrarian existence, so within it the conditions which offer individual freedom are unstable in their ability to avoid the conditions which impose rigid organisation and totalitarian control. Indeed, when we examine all the foreseeable difficulties which threaten the survival of industrial civilisation, it is difficult to see how the achievement of stability and the maintenance of individual liberty can be made compatible. 9

Even if this were dismissed as a long-term view there is the immediate question of whether "modernisation," as currently practised without regard to religious and spiritual values, is actually producing agreeable results. As far as the masses are concerned, the results appear to be disastrous—a collapse of the rural economy, a rising tide of unemployment in town and country, and the growth of a city proletariat without nourishment for either body or soul.

It is in the light of both immediate experience and long term prospects that the study of Buddhist economics could be recommended even to those who believe that economic growth is more important than any spiritual or religious values. For it is not a question of choosing between "modern growth" and "traditional stagnation." It is a question of finding the right path of development, the Middle Way between materialist heedlessness and traditionalist immobility, in short, of finding "Right Livelihood."



Endnotes

The essay "Buddhist Economics" was first published in Asia: A Handbook, edited by Guy Wint, published by Anthony Blond Ltd., London, 1966. In 1973 it was collected with other essays by Ernest Friedrich Schumacher in Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. The book has been translated into 27 different languages and in 1995 was named by the London Times Literary Supplement as one of the hundred most influential books written after World War II.

In December of 2001, Mrs. Vreni Schumacher and Hartley and Marks Publishers kindly extended permission to include "Buddhist Economics" in the pamphlet, An Economics of Peace, available from the E. F. Schumacher Society, 140 Jug End Road, Great Barrington, MA 01230 USA, (413) 528-1737, www.smallisbeautiful.org.

Dan betapa indahnya saat kita bisa hidup dalam utopia
Chapter 80 dari Tao Te Ching
Written by Lao-tzu
From a translation by S. Mitchell

80​

Tanggung Oom Mod, walau ngak ada kaitan dengan Ekonomi Buddhis, mumpung ngomong tentang Utopia, tentang negara di atas awan, tak sekalianin ya...


"When the Great Way prevailed, the world community was equally shared by all. The worthy and able were chosen as office-holders. Mutual confidence was fostered and good neighborliness cultivated. Therefore people did not regard as parents only their own parents, nor did they treat children only their own children. Provision was made for the aged till their death, the adult were given employment, and the young enabled to grow up. Old widows and widowers, the orphaned, the old and childless, as well as the sick and the disabled were all well taken care of. Men had their proper roles and women their homes. While they hated to see wealth lying about on the ground, they did not necessarily keep it for their own use. While they hated not to exert their effort, they did not necessarily devote it to their own ends. Thus evil schemings were repressed, and robbers, thieves and other lawless elements failed to arise, so that outer doors did not have to be shut. This was called the age of Great Harmony (Ta Tung)"

in :.... The Book of Rites (Li Chih)
dan kemudian juga ditemukan dalam The Four books.


Seandainya saja, semuanya bis hidup dalam The Great Harmony...
seandainya saja......

Dan ini,
tentang
Negara diujung Pelangi, ketika apa saja yang kita berani mimpikan akan segera ada buat kita.
tentang
Dunia yang indah dimana "How do you do?" dan "I love you" mengalir dari lubuk hati

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe5p1BXNCQM&mode=related&search= - 97k -

Over The Rainbow
(Arlen-Harburg)

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true

Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?

If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?





Why, oh why can't We?
Why, oh why can't We?
Why, oh why can't We?
Why, oh why can't We?
Why, oh why ............?

What a Wonderful world​

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for.

But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be.

Now i don't claim to be an "A" student,
But I'm trying to be.
So maybe by being an "A" student baby
I can win your love for me.

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took.

But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me too,
What a wonderful world this would be.

Latatatatatatahuwaah (history)
Oehwoewoe (biology)
Latatatatatatahuwaah (science book)
Oehwoewoe (French I took)

But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me too,
What a wonderful world this would be.

Tidak banyak tahu tentang sejarah Buddhisme
Tidak banyak tahu tentang tiga karakteristik Dharma
Tidak banyak tahu tentang Abhidharma
Tidak banyak tahu tentang Bahasa Pali maupun Sanskrit

Tetapi saya tahu bahwa saya mengasihimu
dan saya tahu jika kamu juga mengasihiku
Betapa ini akan menjadi dunia yang luar biasa

Tidak banyak tahu tentang tempat-tempat suci
Tidak banyak tahu tentang segala kendaraan agung
Tidak banyak tahu tentang paticca sammupada
Tidak tahu bagaimana menggunakan mala

Tetapi saya tahu bahwa satu tambah satu adalah dua
dan jika itu adalah saya tambah kamu
Betapa ini akan menjadi dunia yang luar biasa

Saya tidak berani mengaku sebagai siswa yang baik,
Tetapi saya sungguh berusaha.
Jadi dengan belajar menjadi seorang siswa kecil yang baik
Saya dapat memenangkan cintaMu untukku.

Tidak banyak tahu tentang sejarah Buddhisme
Tidak banyak tahu tentang tiga karakteristik Dharma
Tidak banyak tahu tentang Abhidharma
Tidak banyak tahu tentang Bahasa Pali maupun Sanskrit

Tetapi saya tahu bahwa saya mengasihimu
dan saya tahu jika kamu juga mengasihiku
Betapa ini akan menjadi dunia yang luar biasa

Latatatatatatahuwaah (sejarah)
Oehwoewoe (tiga karakteristik)
Latatatatatatahuwaah (abhidharma)
Oehwoewoe (Pali dan Sanskrit)

Tetapi saya tahu bahwa saya mengasihimu
dan saya tahu jika kamu juga mengasihiku
Betapa ini akan menjadi dunia yang luar biasa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

Gross National Happiness (GNH) is an attempt to define quality of life in more holistic and psychological terms than Gross National Product.

The term was coined by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1972 in response to criticism that his economy was growing poorly. It signaled his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan's unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values. Like many moral goals, it is somewhat easier to state than to define. Nonetheless, it serves as a unifying vision for the Five Year planning process and all the derived planning documents that guide the economic and development plans of the country.

While conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective, the concept of GNH claims to be based on the premise that true development of human society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance.

Artikel Ekonomi Buddhis ini tulisan Saudara Singthung? Atau dari penulis lain? Ingin saya masukan kedalam blog saya dan saya cantumkan penulisnya.

Mr. Wei berkata:

Artikel Ekonomi Buddhis ini tulisan Saudara Singthung? Atau dari penulis lain? Ingin saya masukan kedalam blog saya dan saya cantumkan penulisnya.

Klik untuk memperluas...

Dari sumber YM. Bhante Uttamo Mahathera.

kk Sinthung........ aku sekrang lbh aktip diweb dhammacitta.org
apa kk sinthung jg di sana??......
dan jgn bosan-bosan buat thread di sini ya.... aku masih sering baca2


Thz ya.......


Semoga semua makhluk hidup berbahagia

virya berkata:

kk Sinthung........ aku sekrang lbh aktip diweb dhammacitta.org
apa kk sinthung jg di sana??......
dan jgn bosan-bosan buat thread di sini ya.... aku masih sering baca2


Thz ya.......


Semoga semua makhluk hidup berbahagia

Klik untuk memperluas...

Disana bagus tuh,artikel disini kan banyakan sumber dari sana.
akhir-akhir ini sibuk ,jadi jarang online di forum ini^_^