The products of PIM will be among the front-liners in overseeing the economic realities of our time. It would be preposterous on my part to spell out to them what those realities are. Suffice it to say that those realities depict now an almost world-wide consensus: that what is best for the historically agrarian societies of the third world is to set themselves on a trajectory of development aimed at transforming them in the same way that western nations changed from agrarian into industrial and then to technological societies in the last two and half centuries. Of course we do not want to have the luxury of that time span; rather we desire to telescope the process into a few decades, if not less.

In brief then, changing the economy has become our primary goal; and to acquire the intellectual and other equipment for that, we are looking towards the west. We feel aggrieved if we are not absorbing the intellectual and cultural habits of the technological civilisation as fast as seems desirable. Are we perhaps not converting all that well? Is there something holding us back? Something may indeed be intervening. Listen to these words of Vacslav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic. In a convocation address at Harvard University in May 1996, he refers to the fact that in the space of a few decades our planet has been covered by a single technological civilisation, and goes on to say:

Many of the great problems we face today ... have their origin in the fact that this global civilisation ... is no more than a thin veneer over the sum total of human awareness ... this new epidermis of world civilisation ... merely covers or conceals the immense variety of cultures, of peoples, of religious worlds, of historical traditions and historically formed attitudes, all of which in a sense, lie "beneath" it...This "underside" of humanity ... demands more and more clearly to be heard and to be granted a right to life... ancient traditions are reviving, different religions and cultures are awakening to new ways of being... and struggling with growing fervour to realise what is unique to them and what makes them different from others.

The first point I wish to submit for the consideration of the class receiving their degrees today is this: that you must not forget that in the depth of your own consciousness there might be going on a struggle to realise what is unique to your cultural background.

In both constitutions promulgated in Sri Lanka since independence, there is a recognition of the importance of culture. The question however remains whether our legislators are equally attentive to this fact when they frame policies for the economic future of the country.

Buddhism is often said to be all about the way we live. And the way we live surely means, among other things, the way we order our economic life - how we produce, buy, sell and consume things as also what we do with them. Now Buddhism stands, by its own admission, for the eradication of psychological suffering. The Buddha is reported to have said that all that he teaches is about this. What Buddhism prescribes for this purpose is the Noble Eightfold Path.

So our; inquiry can be reduced to a seemingly simple task: Do we find any economic and social meanings in the categories of the Eightfold Path and in statements that are explicatory of these categories? The evidence that links the Eightfold Path with economic, social and political issues is super-abundant. But, unfortunately the conventional wisdom looked for the most part at other aspect, thus giving us an incomplete vision of the Buddhist message.

Economic issues are those concerned with production, buying and selling and consumption or utilisation - of commodities and services. The middle of the three terms here, namely buying and selling (i.e., commerce) is the lynch-pin upon which the whole economic operation rests.

Both production and consumption would be severely restricted if there were no commerce.

I wonder if it is fully realised that the fifth step in the Eightfold Path, Right Livelihood, is very much about commerce.

References in early Buddhist literature give us a vivid picture of the significance of Right Livelihood in the economic field. Basic to the concept are the following: (a) desisting from killing living beings and from doing anything that harms their mental and physical well being, (b) desisting from cheating, beguiling or falsely attracting others to the products that one has to offer and (c) desisting from taking excessive gain at the expense of others.

The supreme principle in righteous profit-making is moderation. The cowherd who milks leaving enough for the calf is held out as an example in this regard.. Wealth obtained in the manner of the bee (who gathers honey without harming the flower) is wealth rightly got. How stark is the difference between these notions and the modern concepts of marketing! Having earned wealth unrapaciously, the earner should also know how to spend it rightly. One should know the limits of one’s income and keep one’s expenses within those limits. The consumer who lives ostentatiously above one’s means is like the person who loots the whole tree when there are only a few ripe fruits. At the other extreme is the one who, though actually a rich person, lives like a pauper, simply hoarding most of his wealth. The proper use of wealth is to get reasonable comforts for oneself and for one’s family and servitors, friends and relations and also to do religiously meritorious acts . One should know the possible ill- effects of wealth and not be fettered, beguiled or obsessed by it. So acting, one can be free of the clutches of wealth at the proper time.

What is earned in accord with dhamma, Buddhism regards as blameless wealth. That is why the Buddha told Esukari the Brahmin that he would not say that to have great wealth was by itself good or bad. It all depends on how it was got and what one did with it.

The fifth step of the Eightfold Path speaks of a number of trades which the Buddhist disciple should not engage in. They are: dealing in flesh, in living beings, armaments, intoxicants and poisons.

These are all hugely profitable businesses in the modern world. Take the first, dealing in flesh. In 1999, it was reported that 9 billion animals raised in conditions of extreme confinement in factory farms were killed and eaten in the United States, "at a staggering rate of 285 animals every second." These farms resort to the terrible practice of close confinement of animals purely- guided by economics of scale- to reap bigger profits at lesser cost. The plight of the confined animals is not a matter of concern.

One could go on and on. Buddhism cannot possibly approve of such enterprises. In other words, the moral consideration applies-which is not the case in the world of global business.

Concern for Environment and Animals

In a recent article on Buddhism and the Ethics of Nature, Prof. Lambert Schmithausen of Hamburg University, one of the most sober scholars of Indology and Buddhism in Germany, refers to the ecological implications inherent in the First Precept and the concept of Right Livelihood which is partly based on it. He says:

... abstention from killing and injuring living beings as well as caring for their welfare holds good not only with regard to humans but also with regard to other living beings, especially animals. If in the case of humans this includes keeping their habitat in the condition which is most suitable to their welfare, it is difficult to see why the same should not hold good for animals as well. According to the Golden Rule, just as oneself wants to live in a favourable surrounding, so do animals. In other words: for animals too, living in a habitat most suitable for their welfare is a value which humans ought to respect just as they are obliged to respect their lives. This means that the precept should be understood as implying not only abstention from killing and injuring the very body of animals but also abstention from destroying or polluting their habitats (which after all may entail their death).... this idea is not alien to the (Buddhist) tradition. And it is probably from the same reason that in his 5th Pillar edict, Asoka prohibits the burning of chaff with small animals in it and the unnecessary burning of forests. In positive terms, caring for the welfare of living beings including animals would imply caring for their habitat.

In an interesting footnote to these observations, Schmithausen refers to the possible objection that "the destruction of habitat cannot be evaluated as an unwholesome action unless killing the animals inhabiting it is intended..." and adds:

But then why are, already in the canonical texts, Buddhist lay followers prohibited from trading with meat, weapons or poison...? Clearly, the merchant has no intention to contribute to the killing of animals or people but just wants to earn money. Yet, he of course

knows that his business involves killing. Hence in this connection we find a concept of responsibility that takes unintended but foreseeable damage into account. This is all the more remarkable in that it addresses lay Buddhists, especially businessmen.

This position of the Buddhist tradition, needless to say, contrasts fundamental!, with the ethos of capitalist industry which is for ever at cross purposes with "the environmentalist lobby".

In the eyes of the Buddha the duty of the ruler is to offer "ward and protection" not only to the country’s human population, but also to its birds and beasts. This is in line with the Buddhist commendation of benevolence, sympathy and compassion to all living beings without exception. Any government in the modern world to heed this advice? Thank goodness, at least there is something in civil society called an animal rights movement.

Over-consumption and waste

Frugality, moderation, simplicity: these are virtues that Buddhism advocates. On the other hand, global business is unabashed in the advocacy of consumption. Business can thrive only if consumers keep on buying endlessly.

Closely related to over-consumption is the problem of waste. Says one American observer:

Our waste problem is.... the fault of an economy that is wasteful from top to bottom - a symbiosis of an unlimited greed at the top and a lazy, passive and self-indulgent consumptiveness at the bottom...

This reference is to waste due to partial use of materials. There is also the other form of waste, the creation of ecologically harmful materials during production and consumption. One of the most glaring instances of this comes from the intensive factory farming of animals- a very un- buddhistic industry that originated in the USA and is now spread all over the world. The US Environment Protection Agency estimates that Concentrated Animal Feedlots (CAFOs) generate a total of 128 billion pounds of animal waste annually, which incidentally equals the human waste of the country’s entire population

Criteria to assess the Quality of Life

Does this mean that the Buddhist is expected to lead an ascetic way of life? The answer of course is NO. The Buddha rejected the life of ascetic self-denial, after experimenting with it for close to six years. In many ways he has indicated that comfort (phasu-vihara) could be reasonably sought and one did not have to reject pleasures that could be obtained without violating the dictates of dhamma, i.e., those that are righteously obtained. Buddhism recognises the fact the lay life is not to be denied the pleasures of ownership (atthi-sukha) and of reasonable consumption (bhoga-sukha). Indeed poverty is recognised as the worst ill in the iife of ordinary persons. What is incompatible with the spirit of Buddhism is the life-style that is characterised by wastefulness and extravagant over- indulgence.

There is in Buddhist discourse a reference to another ‘pleasure’ in the life of a person. It is the pleasure of knowing that one is leading a blameless life (anavajja-sukha). It is not enough to own wealth, to enjoy the benefit of its consumption and to be free of the burden of debt. Over and above these, one’s economic life should be such that it is not an obstacle to the ethical life. One must be able to feel that one’s life is blameless in word, deed and thought.

Buddhistically speaking then, there are two sides to the coin of human development. The notion of such a twin development is more than implicit in the Buddhist teachings. In his study of the economic philosophy of Buddhism, Dharmasena Hettiarachchi, draws our attention to several Buddhist texts where material and spiritual well-being are characterised as complementary to each other. In one, the Buddha speaks of some who are "one-eyed" and others who are two-eyed. Some have the eye for producing and increasing wealth. Others have that eye, and also the eye wherewith one discerns the good and the bad, the low and the wholesome. They earn wealth by righteous means and share with others what has been earned by initiative and hard work.

This idea is even further developed in another text. Here the Buddha speaks of two aspects of growth or development. By the one there is the increase of lands and fields, wealth and grain, family and children and servitors and flocks; by the other there is increase of faith and virtue, knowledge, charity and insight. That is the "noble growth", whereby one grows in both these aspects.

Obviously what Buddhism recommends is a tranquil life with enough time for cultural and ‘spiritual’ pursuits, in which one has the freedom and space for inquiry and observation of inner reality (i.e., meditation), not one in which you are engaged in incessant work and competition with others. What global business commends is the opposite, namely ‘competitiveness’ whose final effect is the notorious rat race.

I have no doubt in my mind that some of you will find unattractive the picture of right livelihood implicit in the Buddhist conceptions just referred to. However, do not forget that we have probably lived through a very unusual interval in human history when totally unsustainable levels of growth were maintained due to cheap availability of fossil fuels. That period may be coming to an end. "We have embarked on the beginning of the last days of the age of oil", says Mike Bowlin, Chairman of ARCO.

In a recent article, author Richard Heinberg makes some recommendations "for a fundamental change of direction for industrial societies from the larger, faster, and more centralized, to the smaller, slower, and more locally-based; from competition to cooperation; and from boundless growth to self-limitation".

"If such recommendations were taken seriously, they could lead to a world a century from now with fewer people using less energy per capita, all of it from renewable sources, while enjoying a quality of life perhaps enviable by the typical industrial urbanite of today. Human inventiveness could be put to the task, not of making ways to use more resources, but of expanding artistic satisfaction, finding just and convivial social arrangements, and deepening the spiritual experience of being human. Living in smaller communities, people would enjoy having more control over their lives. Traveling less, they would have more of a sense of rootedness, and more of a feeling of being at home in the natural world. Renewable energy sources would provide some conveniences, but not nearly on the scale of fossil-fueled industrialism. ...Such a happy result can only come about through considerable effort. There are many hopeful indications that a shift toward sustainability is beginning."

These predictions may or may not be fulfilled. Of course, that does not affect the validity of Buddhist values.

I have taken more of your time than I should have. Let me therefore end, offering my heartiest congratulations and best wishes to the new graduates of the Postgraduate Institute of Management.