The Buddha Declares Political/Economic Theory

The Buddha on War:

"The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful."

On Livelihood and Wealth:

"Four things lead to worldly progress:  achievement in alertness, in caution, in good friendship and achievement in balanced livelihood.  And what is achievement in alertness?  Concerning this, in whatever way one earns a living, whether by farming, trading, cattle rearing, archery, service to the king or by some craft, in that one becomes deft and tireless, gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and able to arrange and carry out the job.

And what is achievement in caution?  Concerning this, whatever one earns by work and effort, collected by strength of arm and sweat of brow in a just and lawful manner, one husbands, watches and guards so that kings do not seize it, thieves do not steal it, fire or water do not destroy it, and unwanted heirs do not remove it.

And what is balanced livelihood?  Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income.  Just as a goldsmith or his apprentice knows, on holding the scales, that so much has dipped down and so much has tilted up, one knows income and expenditure.  
If one with small income were to lead an extravagant life there would be those who would say: "He enjoys his wealth like a wood-apple eater."  Likewise, if one with a good income were to be miserly, there would be those who would say: "He will die like a beggar."  

[ Anguttara Nikaya IV.281]

On Leadership:

"When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good."
[Anguttara Nikaya]

On Social Duties:

 "He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom."
— Anguttara Nikaya

 "By protecting oneself (e.g., morally), one protects others; by protecting others, one protects oneself."
— Samyutta Nikaya; Satipatthana Samy

On Self Autonomy and Responsibility:

"Thus you should go about self-governed, mindful; governed by the cosmos, masterful, absorbed in concentration."
[Adhipateyya Sutta]

On Force and the Role of Government:

"In the "Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta", the Buddha said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force.

In the "Kutadanta Sutta, "the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity."
-- http://www.buddhanet.net...

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

Where would you place him politically?

I conclude that he is Left Libertarian like myself, whereas DanT believes his Right Libertarianism is more consistent with the Buddha.

At 4/9/2012 1:40:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
On Social Duties:

"He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom."

— Anguttara Nikaya

Seems like the Bhudda is taking the best of both right and left ideologies and fusing them into something in between.

...where are the right wing parts? Most of the policies are left-wing, from what I can see...

At 4/9/2012 1:32:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Buddha on War:

Basically he is anti-interventionist

On Livelihood and Wealth:

"Four things lead to worldly progress:  achievement in alertness, in caution, in good friendship and achievement in balanced livelihood.  And what is achievement in alertness?  Concerning this, in whatever way one earns a living, whether by farming, trading, cattle rearing, archery, service to the king or by some craft, in that one becomes deft and tireless, gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and able to arrange and carry out the job.

Sounds like straightforward capitalism where you earn based on how hard you work

On Leadership:

Believes in a strong central government

On Social Duties:

The philosophy that a nation is only as rich as its poorest people comes into play here, but only on an individual level not an actual government level.....

On Self Autonomy and Responsibility:

Believes in self rule as long as it is exercised with extreme caution

On Force and the Role of Government:

According to him all crimes are related to poverty and the government should not invest in using force but instead should focus on helping the lowest class improve their livelihoods, and then it goes on saying how it would invest heavily in their own business and provide adequete wages for workers (A minimum wage)

I'd rank him leftist and libertarian, but by how much is beyond my guess

On Dealing With Corrupt Dictators:

"If a man, who is unfit, incompetent, immoral, improper, unable and unworthy of kingship, has enthroned himself a king or a ruler with great authority, he is subject to be tortured‚ to be subject to a variety of punishment by the people, because, being unfit and unworthy, he has placed himself unrighteously in the seat of sovereignty. The ruler, like others who violate and transgress moral codes and basic rules of all social laws of mankind, is equally subject to punishment; and moreover, to be censured is the ruler who conducts himself as a robber of the public."

-- [Milinda Panha]

At 4/9/2012 2:31:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
On Dealing With Corrupt Dictators:

"If a man, who is unfit, incompetent, immoral, improper, unable and unworthy of kingship, has enthroned himself a king or a ruler with great authority, he is subject to be tortured‚ to be subject to a variety of punishment by the people, because, being unfit and unworthy, he has placed himself unrighteously in the seat of sovereignty. The ruler, like others who violate and transgress moral codes and basic rules of all social laws of mankind, is equally subject to punishment; and moreover, to be censured is the ruler who conducts himself as a robber of the public."

Sounds more anti-interventionist now since hes basically saying that if a corrupt dictator rules then its up to the oppressed people to help themselves.... Not have other countries come in and help

At 4/9/2012 1:32:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Buddha on War:

"The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful."

Buddha preached the middle way. Pacifism is not the middle way. Buddha was not opposed to fighting, so long as you are not the aggressor. To allow oneself or others to be attacked without the appropriate defense is not compassionate.

"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings." ~ What Buddhist Believe by the Venerable Dhammananda

On Livelihood and Wealth:

"Four things lead to worldly progress:  achievement in alertness, in caution, in good friendship and achievement in balanced livelihood.  And what is achievement in alertness?  Concerning this, in whatever way one earns a living, whether by farming, trading, cattle rearing, archery, service to the king or by some craft, in that one becomes deft and tireless, gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and able to arrange and carry out the job.

And what is achievement in caution?  Concerning this, whatever one earns by work and effort, collected by strength of arm and sweat of brow in a just and lawful manner, one husbands, watches and guards so that kings do not seize it, thieves do not steal it, fire or water do not destroy it, and unwanted heirs do not remove it.

And what is balanced livelihood?  Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income.  Just as a goldsmith or his apprentice knows, on holding the scales, that so much has dipped down and so much has tilted up, one knows income and expenditure.  
If one with small income were to lead an extravagant life there would be those who would say: "He enjoys his wealth like a wood-apple eater."  Likewise, if one with a good income were to be miserly, there would be those who would say: "He will die like a beggar."  

What the Buddha was saying is that one should be fiscally responsible, and if one has a high income he should be kind to himself with his earnings, rather than depriving himself of rewards.

[ Anguttara Nikaya IV.281]

On Leadership:

"When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good."
[Anguttara Nikaya]

On Social Duties:

 "He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom."
— Anguttara Nikaya

It's probably good to note he was not talking of social welfare. He was talking of individually helping others. Buddha was an individualist.

 "By protecting oneself (e.g., morally), one protects others; by protecting others, one protects oneself."
— Samyutta Nikaya; Satipatthana Samy

This brings me back to the point I made about war.

On Self Autonomy and Responsibility:

"Thus you should go about self-governed, mindful; governed by the cosmos, masterful, absorbed in concentration."
[Adhipateyya Sutta]

On Force and the Role of Government:

"In the "Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta", the Buddha said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force.

In the "Kutadanta Sutta, "the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity."
-- http://www.buddhanet.net...

which sutra did he say that? Sounds like that is a loose reference to the Buddha. Does not sound in context.

At 4/9/2012 2:39:21 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/9/2012 1:32:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Buddha on War:

"The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful."

Buddha preached the middle way. Pacifism is not the middle way. Buddha was not opposed to fighting, so long as you are not the aggressor. To allow oneself or others to be attacked without the appropriate defense is not compassionate.

Fighting =/= war. The Buddha preached an anti-war sentiment. He seems to be fine with self-defense. The Shaolin Temple and Bodhidharma are perfect examples of being prepared for self-defense while practicing peace and non-aggression.

War is something completely different from a brawl. War involves conscription, loss of innocent lives, high number of casualties, destruction of the mind from Sergeants, and more.

"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings." ~ What Buddhist Believe by the Venerable Dhammananda

Sorry, I prefer the words straight from the Buddhas mouth to determine what he said rather than what some Buddhist says.

On Livelihood and Wealth:

"Four things lead to worldly progress:  achievement in alertness, in caution, in good friendship and achievement in balanced livelihood.  And what is achievement in alertness?  Concerning this, in whatever way one earns a living, whether by farming, trading, cattle rearing, archery, service to the king or by some craft, in that one becomes deft and tireless, gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and able to arrange and carry out the job.

And what is achievement in caution?  Concerning this, whatever one earns by work and effort, collected by strength of arm and sweat of brow in a just and lawful manner, one husbands, watches and guards so that kings do not seize it, thieves do not steal it, fire or water do not destroy it, and unwanted heirs do not remove it.

And what is balanced livelihood?  Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income.  Just as a goldsmith or his apprentice knows, on holding the scales, that so much has dipped down and so much has tilted up, one knows income and expenditure.  
If one with small income were to lead an extravagant life there would be those who would say: "He enjoys his wealth like a wood-apple eater."  Likewise, if one with a good income were to be miserly, there would be those who would say: "He will die like a beggar."  

What the Buddha was saying is that one should be fiscally responsible, and if one has a high income he should be kind to himself with his earnings, rather than depriving himself of rewards.

Agreed.

[ Anguttara Nikaya IV.281]

On Leadership:

"When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just agood; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good."
[Anguttara Nikaya]

On Social Duties:

 "He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom."
— Anguttara Nikaya

It's probably good to note he was not talking of social welfare. He was talking of individually helping others. Buddha was an individualist.

Agreed.

 "By protecting oneself (e.g., morally), one protects others; by protecting others, one protects oneself."
— Samyutta Nikaya; Satipatthana Samy

This brings me back to the point I made about war.

On Self Autonomy and Responsibility:

"Thus you should go about self-governed, mindful; governed by the cosmos, masterful, absorbed in concentration."
[Adhipateyya Sutta]

On Force and the Role of Government:

"In the "Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta", the Buddha said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force.

In the "Kutadanta Sutta, "the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity."
-- http://www.buddhanet.net...

which sutra did he say that? Sounds like that is a loose reference to the Buddha. Does not sound in context.

In the Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta and the Kutadanta Sutta. Why, what do you disagree with in that?

He spoke of being against initiatory coercion and was against the use of force when enforcing the law. He also supported a thriving economy to raise the wealth of the people to eliminate poverty which leads to violence.

.
.
.
.

At 4/9/2012 4:11:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/9/2012 2:39:21 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/9/2012 1:32:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Buddha on War:

"The victor breeds hatred, the defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful."

Buddha preached the middle way. Pacifism is not the middle way. Buddha was not opposed to fighting, so long as you are not the aggressor. To allow oneself or others to be attacked without the appropriate defense is not compassionate.

Fighting =/= war. The Buddha preached an anti-war sentiment. He seems to be fine with self-defense. The Shaolin Temple and Bodhidharma are perfect examples of being prepared for self-defense while practicing peace and non-aggression.

War is something completely different from a brawl. War involves conscription, loss of innocent lives, high number of casualties, destruction of the mind from Sergeants, and more.

Shaolin monks were historically used by the Chinese imperial military. Such as in defense against pirates who invaded china.

"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings." ~ What Buddhist Believe by the Venerable Dhammananda

Sorry, I prefer the words straight from the Buddhas mouth to determine what he said rather than what some Buddhist says.

None of the sutras are straight from the Buddha; they were written afte his death by people he taught.

On Livelihood and Wealth:

"Four things lead to worldly progress:  achievement in alertness, in caution, in good friendship and achievement in balanced livelihood.  And what is achievement in alertness?  Concerning this, in whatever way one earns a living, whether by farming, trading, cattle rearing, archery, service to the king or by some craft, in that one becomes deft and tireless, gifted with an inquiring turn of mind into ways and means, and able to arrange and carry out the job.

And what is achievement in caution?  Concerning this, whatever one earns by work and effort, collected by strength of arm and sweat of brow in a just and lawful manner, one husbands, watches and guards so that kings do not seize it, thieves do not steal it, fire or water do not destroy it, and unwanted heirs do not remove it.

And what is balanced livelihood?  Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income.  Just as a goldsmith or his apprentice knows, on holding the scales, that so much has dipped down and so much has tilted up, one knows income and expenditure.  
If one with small income were to lead an extravagant life there would be those who would say: "He enjoys his wealth like a wood-apple eater."  Likewise, if one with a good income were to be miserly, there would be those who would say: "He will die like a beggar."  

What the Buddha was saying is that one should be fiscally responsible, and if one has a high income he should be kind to himself with his earnings, rather than depriving himself of rewards.

Agreed.

[ Anguttara Nikaya IV.281]

On Leadership:

"When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just agood; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good."
[Anguttara Nikaya]

On Social Duties:

 "He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom."
— Anguttara Nikaya

It's probably good to note he was not talking of social welfare. He was talking of individually helping others. Buddha was an individualist.

Agreed.

 "By protecting oneself (e.g., morally), one protects others; by protecting others, one protects oneself."
— Samyutta Nikaya; Satipatthana Samy

This brings me back to the point I made about war.

On Self Autonomy and Responsibility:

"Thus you should go about self-governed, mindful; governed by the cosmos, masterful, absorbed in concentration."
[Adhipateyya Sutta]

On Force and the Role of Government:

"In the "Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta", the Buddha said that immorality and crime, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, could arise from poverty. Kings and governments may try to suppress crime through punishment, but it is futile to eradicate crimes through force.

In the "Kutadanta Sutta, "the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity."
-- http://www.buddhanet.net...

which sutra did he say that? Sounds like that is a loose reference to the Buddha. Does not sound in context.

In the Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta and the Kutadanta Sutta. Why, what do you disagree with in that?

The government intervention part.

He spoke of being against initiatory coercion and was against the use of force when enforcing the law.

So he is against government intervention... Make up your mind.

He also supported a thriving economy to raise the wealth of the people to eliminate poverty which leads to violence.

That I believe

.
.
.
.

" Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income. "

How is this right wing Capitalism again?

At 4/9/2012 5:16:55 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
" Concerning this, one knows both his income and expenditure and lives neither extravagantly nor miserly, knowing that income after expenditure will stand at so much and that expenses will not exceed income. "

How is this right wing Capitalism again?

It's fiscally conservative to have expenditures that does not exceed your income.
It's fiscally conservative to not spend too much on luxuries.
It's fiscally conservative to not punish yourself when you can afford more.

great topic

At 4/9/2012 5:08:08 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/9/2012 4:11:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Fighting =/= war. The Buddha preached an anti-war sentiment. He seems to be fine with self-defense. The Shaolin Temple and Bodhidharma are perfect examples of being prepared for self-defense while practicing peace and non-aggression.

War is something completely different from a brawl. War involves conscription, loss of innocent lives, high number of casualties, destruction of the mind from Sergeants, and more.

Shaolin monks were historically used by the Chinese imperial military. Such as in defense against pirates who invaded china.

Sorry, I prefer the words straight from the Buddhas mouth to determine what he said rather than what some Buddhist says.

None of the sutras are straight from the Buddha; they were written afte his death by people he taught.

False. The Buddha spoke the sutras directly to his disciples who used the oral tradition to record it. The oral tradition was a highly reliable and accurate form of documentation. This repository of oral records were then written a couple centuries after the Buddha lived.

But the thing is, youre giving me the opinion of some Buddhist as if it holds more weight than the Words of the Buddha himself.

In the Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta and the Kutadanta Sutta. Why, what do you disagree with in that?

The government intervention part.

Well take it up with the Buddha. Some things like infrastructure are better left to the government rather than private companies.

He spoke of being against initiatory coercion and was against the use of force when enforcing the law.

So he is against government intervention... Make up your mind.

I'm just reiterating what the Buddha said. Take it up with him.

However, initiatory coercion =/= government created infrastructure or investing in agriculture.

At 4/11/2012 12:56:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/9/2012 5:08:08 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/9/2012 4:11:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Fighting =/= war. The Buddha preached an anti-war sentiment. He seems to be fine with self-defense. The Shaolin Temple and Bodhidharma are perfect examples of being prepared for self-defense while practicing peace and non-aggression.

War is something completely different from a brawl. War involves conscription, loss of innocent lives, high number of casualties, destruction of the mind from Sergeants, and more.

Shaolin monks were historically used by the Chinese imperial military. Such as in defense against pirates who invaded china.

Sorry, I prefer the words straight from the Buddhas mouth to determine what he said rather than what some Buddhist says.

None of the sutras are straight from the Buddha; they were written afte his death by people he taught.

False. The Buddha spoke the sutras directly to his disciples who used the oral tradition to record it. The oral tradition was a highly reliable and accurate form of documentation. This repository of oral records were then written a couple centuries after the Buddha lived.

But the thing is, youre giving me the opinion of some Buddhist as if it holds more weight than the Words of the Buddha himself.

Well that's the same thing you were doing. My quote does not conflict with the words of the Buddha, it rather explains the Buddha's teachings more in depth. Your interpretation is conflicting with Buddha's other teachings.

In the Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta and the Kutadanta Sutta. Why, what do you disagree with in that?

The government intervention part.

Well take it up with the Buddha. Some things like infrastructure are better left to the government rather than private companies.

That's a personal opinion, and you have yet to provide a quote by the Buddha, promoting this.

He spoke of being against initiatory coercion and was against the use of force when enforcing the law.

So he is against government intervention... Make up your mind.

I'm just reiterating what the Buddha said. Take it up with him.

However, initiatory coercion =/= government created infrastructure or investing in agriculture.

Not unless Buddha spoke in the third person. You quoting someone talking about the Buddha. That is not the same as quoting the Buddha.

@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

.
.
.

Buddha was a individualist. He believed that the economy would flourish through the efforts of individuals. Hi teachings was centered around the efforts of the individual. He taught that all forms of suffering was self-inflicted and that the individual's actions are the only thing that can fix that.
Buddha did how ever promote generosity. At the time Buddha was alive and teachings, India had a feudal system of kings and casts. The economy and states was much different than today's economy's and states, and he often spoke of how the kings should be charitable. Again, this is not social welfare, this is charity he spoke of. He believed the kings should give some of their person property, the property of the royal family, to those in need.
It's like trying to compare Robbin Hood to a modern crook who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Robbin Hood was stealing from lords who taxed people into poverty; modern crooks who steal from the rich are stealing not from the state, but from citizens who worked for their money.
In a feudal system property rights are not the same as in modern times, and the king or ruler has two separate funds, that which is used for the royals, and that which is used for the state.
It's kind of like the British Monarch's bank account. The British monarch could give to charity, but the charity would not come from the treasury, it would come from the monarchy's personal Finances.
Giving from the privy purse is not the same as giving from the treasury.

At 4/11/2012 2:21:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

Again, privy purse =/= treasury

At 4/11/2012 2:43:48 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:21:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

Again, privy purse =/= treasury

Buddha was talking of the Kin's Estate, not the State's treasury

"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." ~ siddhartha gautama Buddha

here is a page from a history book, about land tenure in ancient India.
http://www.jstor.org...

At 4/11/2012 2:50:19 PM, DanT wrote:
"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." ~ siddhartha gautama Buddha

Which Sutta?

From my limited research it seems Buddhism is not incompatible with the system of capitalism, per se. However, it should be clear that the ideal Buddhist is not the ambitious entrepreneur if we take Buddha himself as a model for the ideal Buddhist.

At 4/11/2012 3:02:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:50:19 PM, DanT wrote:
"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." ~ siddhartha gautama Buddha

Which Sutta?

Don't know which sutra. I pulled it out of my book on the life of the Buddha. In the back are some quotes. Does it matter which sutra it's from?

At 4/11/2012 3:00:33 PM, DanT wrote:
here is a page from a history book, about land tenure in ancient India.
http://www.jstor.org...

oh and it's a political science book, not history. Sometimes I think two words at the same time, and end up typing the wrong word.

At 4/11/2012 3:21:31 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 3:02:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Which Sutta?

Don't know which sutra. I pulled it out of my book on the life of the Buddha. In the back are some quotes. Does it matter which sutra it's from?

Yes. The quote has more credibility if it has a sutta reference. Otherwise it's just unverified. There's several false Buddha quotes floating sound on the Internet and on quote sites. For example the "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." is a falsified unsourced quote. I know where it came from (Kalama Sutta) but it is a complete and utter misquote to the highest degree.

And aren't you the one who was asking me for the sutta reference? It is only fair that I ask the same and you provide. Unlike many Buddhists on the Internet, I can provide sutta/sutra sources for nearly all the Buddha quotes I provide.

That being said, I have seen that quote before and I agree with it. However, I don't see it's contradictory to Left Libertarianism.

.
.
.

At 4/11/2012 2:45:38 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:43:48 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:21:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

Again, privy purse =/= treasury

Buddha was talking of the Kin's Estate, not the State's treasury

The Kings wealth is the treasury. There is no indication that the Kings own money was separate from some treasury. In the quote it even mentions the "Kings revenue" as opposed to the Kings "income." It also says "let the king give capital."

What you are suggesting is completely different than what was intended by the quote. If it merely suggested that it's about a rich man being charitable to his community, then why include that it's a king trying to restore order to his country, make it prosperous, and restore peace in the context of a King and his country?

.
.
.
.

At 4/11/2012 3:40:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 3:21:31 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 3:02:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Which Sutta?

Don't know which sutra. I pulled it out of my book on the life of the Buddha. In the back are some quotes. Does it matter which sutra it's from?

Yes. The quote has more credibility if it has a sutta reference. Otherwise it's just unverified. There's several false Buddha quotes floating sound on the Internet and on quote sites. For example the "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." is a falsified unsourced quote. I know where it came from (Kalama Sutta) but it is a complete and utter misquote to the highest degree.

Didn't pull it off the internet; I pulled it out of a book. All of Buddha's teachings focus on self improvement. Buddha believed that people cause their own suffering, and it is up to the individual to eliminate their own suffering.
In fact the last words of the Buddha was, "Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."

And aren't you the one who was asking me for the sutta reference?

No I asked you for a Buddha quote.

It is only fair that I ask the same and you provide. Unlike many Buddhists on the Internet, I can provide sutta/sutra sources for nearly all the Buddha quotes I provide.

Probably because your list of quotes are limited to specific sutras; ignoring all other sutras that you either have not read, or don't aree with.

I'm a chan Buddhist, so I put little importance on scriptures.

That being said, I have seen that quote before and I agree with it. However, I don't see it's contradictory to Left Libertarianism.

So you know it's legit, but you still question it, for the sake of argument?

1st off, define left libertarianism, because you seem to think social liberalism is left libertarianism, when in actuality anarchism is left libertarianism.

2ndly, it shows that Buddha was a individualist, economically, and culturally

At 4/11/2012 4:33:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:45:38 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:43:48 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:21:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

Again, privy purse =/= treasury

Buddha was talking of the Kin's Estate, not the State's treasury

The Kings wealth is the treasury. There is no indication that the Kings own money was separate from some treasury.

The King's wealth is not the treasury, it's the king's estate. The King's revenue is a privy purse separate from the treasury. Taxes go to the treasury, and he king get's x from that in the form of a privy purse. Much like the President's salary.

In ancient India individuals held little to no property rights. Land was granted by the king to people who have acquired hereditary titles. This land grant would have been the type of gift the Buddha was referring to. Property grants from the King's estate, in the form of land (from the king's estate), seeds (grown on the king's estate), or food (hunted, slaughtered, or grown on the king's estate).
http://www.jstor.org...

In ancient times, in various cultures, the kings would have a royal estate, and would grant portions of their estate to people who have earned it. It would also be customary for kings to grant gifts from their estate to other kings, or to people within the community.
Often times people would work the lands of nobles and kings in exchange for food, and land to live on.

In the quote it even mentions the "Kings revenue" as opposed to the Kings "income." It also says "let the king give capital."

WTF revenue is income. "Capital" would point to a royal estate, not a treasury.

What you are suggesting is completely different than what was intended by the quote. If it merely suggested that it's about a rich man being charitable to his community, then why include that it's a king trying to restore order to his country, make it prosperous, and restore peace in the context of a King and his country?


.
.
.
.

At 4/11/2012 5:39:46 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 4:33:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:45:38 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:43:48 PM, DanT wrote:

At 4/11/2012 2:21:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ DanT

"Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm, the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors."

-- The Buddha [Kutadanta Sutta]

Again, privy purse =/= treasury

Buddha was talking of the Kin's Estate, not the State's treasury

The Kings wealth is the treasury. There is no indication that the Kings own money was separate from some treasury.

The King's wealth is not the treasury, it's the king's estate. The King's revenue is a privy purse separate from the treasury. Taxes go to the treasury, and he king get's x from that in the form of a privy purse. Much like the President's salary.

In ancient India individuals held little to no property rights. Land was granted by the king to people who have acquired hereditary titles. This land grant would have been the type of gift the Buddha was referring to. Property grants from the King's estate, in the form of land (from the king's estate), seeds (grown on the king's estate), or food (hunted, slaughtered, or grown on the king's estate).
http://www.jstor.org...

In ancient times, in various cultures, the kings would have a royal estate, and would grant portions of their estate to people who have earned it. It would also be customary for kings to grant gifts from their estate to other kings, or to people within the community.
Often times people would work the lands of nobles and kings in exchange for food, and land to live on.

In the quote it even mentions the "Kings revenue" as opposed to the Kings "income." It also says "let the king give capital."

WTF revenue is income. "Capital" would point to a royal estate, not a treasury.

What you are suggesting is completely different than what was intended by the quote. If it merely suggested that it's about a rich man being charitable to his community, then why include that it's a king trying to restore order to his country, make it prosperous, and restore peace in the context of a King and his country?

sorry forgot to answer that last part.
The nobles are granted land from the king's estate to manage for the king, as their own. The king taxes to nobles, and his estate, and the nobles tax the estate they were granted to pay the king his taxes.
So the king taxes the nobles, and the nobles tax the people. The king also taxes the people on his estate, which no noble was granted.

By giving to the people on his estate, and the estates managed by the nobles, the king makes the more prosperous, and the king would get more in taxes, and output. The healthier the workers, the more they are able to produce for their kings and nobles. This means if they are not starving, and can afford a clean and healthy lifestyle, the king and nobles would benefit.

.
.
.
.