Buddhist Guidelines On Development Of Future Tibet

(Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Director of Central Institution of Higher Tibetan studies, Sarnath, India, and chairman of the Assembly of Tibetan people’s deputies, Dharamsala, India.) His Holiness the Dalai Lama has indicated that the Tibetan government in exile is now working on a plan for the development of future Tibet. Could you comment on the general objectives of that plan?

Basically, the plan foresees future Tibet as a kind of “zone of peace” which means, according to international understanding, to have no military force, not to be alienated to a big power, and not producing arms. But this is only a super structural idea; since “zone of peace” within Tibet really means that the majority of the population should live in peace and experience it. For that purpose, we have to create the economic, political and social conditions that would not foster violence; that is, to eliminate the potentiality of violence from the kind of the people. A violent person cannot live in peace and a non-violent person does not harm anybody.

Therefore, the real objective of the development of future Tibet, consists in the development of human beings basically non-violent (which does not mean inactive or passive) and compassionate, and to create the conditions in order for the majority of the people to behave in that manner. In this context, “peace” will be the only way through which we will be able to measure if we have succeeded or not in our objective.

And what are the means you are thinking of to make people non-violent?
To train the human mind depends on the individual, and if it is so, each person has to go through individual training, but for that the entire environment should be oriented to that direction. The environment includes: government policies, the education system, the socio- economic development, the political arrangement and the cultural aspect of the country. Also, and perhaps more important, it should include how to expose our people to the outside world, to the explosion of information of media. In all these things people can be trained.

Briefly speaking, the sequence of the method to train our mind, as thought by the Buddha, consists in“Threefold training”: sila, or training in morality; Samadhi, or training in concentration; and, prajna or training in wisdom. In this sense, morality is necessary to eliminate the gross negative approach in thinking and in behavior and in this matter people have to abide. This step requires the formulation of government policies mainly in the educational aspect. The other two trainings will help the individual to look for the correct realization or direct perception of truth. Stability of mind must be developed through meditation and the total elimination of negative will come with the perception of reality, after that the entire conventional level approach in the behavior would change.

Western economic theory had establish as national economic goals the following:

a) an annual increase in the gross national product (GNP);

b) the attainment of full employment; and

c) price stability, that is, no inflation. In this sense, what could be the Buddhist stand?

There are two different terms in English, one is growth and other is development and I do not understand very clearly their technical differences. It seems that growth refers to quantity, and development to quality. However, from a Buddhist perspective the question is how to measure them and that is the matter to be answered.

If we are going to measure it with the “national product”, then the concepts of nation and production must be discussed. The Buddhist view does not give any important to the concepts of nation; division of countries or nationalities is a human condition. Every sentient being has equal right to share, they all belong to the same world. Therefore, the concept of nation is limited and restrictive for that purpose.

Then production, as well as employment or any other economic indicator, are just parts but not the totality of the economic phenomena. Also, at the same time, the economic phenomenon is part of the social condition and this of the total real phenomena.

Even though, talking about growth in production, it is very difficult to determine when there is real growth or development. There could be economic growth (an increase in production) but development is not there, even more there could be less satisfactory for the whole population. Economic growth is interdependent with the effort to produce, with the amount of goods produced with the increase in the population and mainly with the demand or wants of the people. And only when there is some kind of limitation or contentment in the wants of the population, or when you are able to distinguish between real wants and those which are artificial, then you will have real growth.

And as far as employment is concerned, it should be seen in relative terms, total employment is relative and not absolute. When there exist differences in income you cannot say there is total employment; when there are people less paid, or the income is not sufficient, these people are like if they were unemployed. Also, the supply of labor depends on “competition” (pecuniary emulation) and all these things depend on the mental projections or outlook of the people, therefore, total employment can only happen when competition disappears.

It is held that western economies had misinterpreted the meaning of abundance or affluence, by defining it as a continuous acquisition and accumulation of material wealth. But, consequently, they have also misinterpreted poverty as the absence of such material possessions. So then, from a Buddhist perspective, what could be a more correct interpretation of poverty and economic growth?

First of all, nobody has the authority to judge others as rich or as poor. For example, Tibet, past Tibet, may be poor according to the western standards of measurement, but that does not make Tibet poor. In fact, on the contrary, Tibet was rich, very rich, very rich if we take into account that there were huge surpluses of grain and livestock; crop storage were estimated to last for about five years in case of famine.

However, it may be, the Buddhist point of view is that the sense of possessions is a delusion of permanence and it is unreal. Nothing can be owned by anybody. Therefore, there cannot be rich or poor people. Real things are dependent originated and there is no real sense of ownership, it is an illusion. And like a mental projection, poverty comes from unsatisfied wants then, if you are satisfied you are rich.

So, we should distinguish between needs and wants? Buddhism teaches that you should be satisfied with four things or “simplicities”: alms (food), house, clothe and medicine. These are the real needs of a noble person, like an Arahat, which would be satisfied with”sufficiency” in all these simplicities. However, development or economic growth, as I said, is a metal projection and a cultural condition. The real needs are those four things I have already mentioned, but growth implies many things and there is a tendency to disproportion, to exaggerate the real needs of the citizens of a country.

Government should be responsible to look after, or to take care, the satisfaction of these four requisites for the entire population. A portion of the growth should be assigned to secure the satisfaction of food for the gross of the population, plus education and other public services, as well as, to provide the facilities (social infrastructure) for that objective. And in this aspect the policy of the government should be based on the concept of sufficiency, that is “policy of sufficiency”.

And how could sufficiency be measured? Sufficiency means, “To give the result”. There are many examples, and it is not difficult to find a standard measure, but this has to be done for each case at hand. In the charter of the Tibetans In-exile, the common goal is defined under:

i) social welfare,

ii) education and culture and,

iii) health. In this sense, what are the perspectives for future Tibet?

We pretend to take medical care and health services to each remote place in Tibet. This certainly will be a great task but we are thinking that these services should be based on natural cure, Tibetan herbal system, health education, yoga practices and other kind of ancient medical sciences, and of course there should be some modern hospitals, for surgery and specialized care.
And the services will be free of charge?

Not necessary, may be on special circumstances and for certain period of time. There should be a fee for the service and for the medicine even if it is a small amount, regular patients should pay it. There are many possible alternatives to finance a social security and health systems” we must study them and we can also benefit by the experience of other countries. But the state in future Tibet has to take care over the health of its citizens.

When talking about economic development one of the main problems consists in setting national priorities and the establishment of policies for the attainment of socio-economic goals. However, in western societies it is held that the role of government in this aspect should be minimum and decisions should be made by the individuals (though the market mechanism) since “individuals know better themselves than the government.” So, therefore, what could be the case for future Tibet?

When people say, that they know themselves better than anybody else, it is very gross affirmation. From a Buddhist perspective, there are no independent individual at all. The individual’s mental and physical condition is a set of conditions created by culture, religion, social environment, government, etc. therefore, in this sense the mind of the individual is limited (constrained) and it is conditioned.

People are taught how to work, how to speak, how to behave, how to think, everything is taught, and hence are totally conditioned. They are not independent and have not individuality, I one word, people do not really know themselves.

However, on the other hand, the government or group of people who make people’s decisions, have no authority and have no right to decide what is correct or incorrect for the individuals of the country. It cannot be said that government’s judgment is better than the individual’s judgment, and vice versa. Government is not the final judge, individuals are not the final judges, the only guidance we have for correct decisions is in the “truth”.

Here, I am not speaking from my own side, or faith, but from the side of the truth. And the reality of the truth can only be certified by cognition of logic, that is, cognition of Buddha’s teachings. The judgment could only be reality and that depends on correct teachings on dharma. In this sense, one can say if government’s decisions are or are not according to dharma, and this should be the core of a Buddhist economy.

And could how the decision-making be controlled?
For that aim, it is necessary for a great deal of orientation and training of those persons in the government who will make people’s decisions. Even though, honesty and integrity could not be fully guaranteed. Buddhism is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient in that case.

In general, it is accepted that economic plans and economic reforms should promote, among other things, the betterment of the quality of life and a “more equal” distribution of income amongst the member of society. And in this concern the tax-system is of utmost relevance. Is there any Buddhist principles which could be applied in the definition of the institutional setting, above mentioned? And what could it be learned from the experience of past Tibet in this aspect?
In general, the Buddhist viewpoint on taxes goes back to Buddhist mythology on the evolution of society and of government. In brief, the people designated a man to work for them, and to watch after their problems, mainly to prevent thieving in their settlements. For this purpose everybody had to pay their share for the living expenses of this watchman or guardsman and for the functioning of his government.

Also, from a different view, Buddhist see individual as interdependent entities and not only among other individuals but with all sentient beings and with nature. Individuals depend on each other in many things and individuals. For example, if in a country there were no electricity or water supply, then each individual had to provide all these things by himself and for himself. Otherwise, with a simple organization all individuals could have the possibility of having supply system, but for that purpose all the people have to contribute with their shares. And for this reason you have no choice, no option, your contribution is compulsory and it is decided by the state.

Could you tell us what was the experience of past Tibet, with the tax system, and what should be changed for future Tibet?

In most feudal system, the land belonged to the king, even citizens belonged to him. Therefore, the king had the right to get his share and had no obligation to spend it back for the benefit of the citizens. He could do whatever he wanted with his share. However, in past Tibet things were different there were tax-payers; those who paid taxes directly to the government and those who paid then to the land lord. From these revenues the government’s administration gets a salary for their services but the gross of these taxes went for religious purpose, temples, ceremonies, etc. it is true, little was done to provide public services or facilities, but that must change in future Tibet. First of all government servants must be paid properly, according to their functions, and then we must find a way to support the religious sects and establishments whether from individual’s contribution or government patronage, but only the basic things should be provided by the government.

As far as taxes-revenues and their spending several considerations could be mentioned here: taxes should be in accordance to the required public service and facilities (social infrastructure) and to promote growth for the commonwealth. On the other hand, taxes should be imposed according to the income of the individual, and the tax-system should encourage a more equal redistribution of income or at least it should prevent unfair accumulation of wealth.
The tax system that we would define for future Tibet is very important, in the social aspect if we want a non-violent and compassionate society, and in the economic aspect if we want to be a self-sufficient and a free country.

The land-tenure system in past Tibet was the result of a long history of socio-political arrangements and certainly it was not in accordance with Buddhist teachings. However, for future Tibet what could be a land-tenure, system which would be in accordance to Buddhism?
In Buddhist conception the earth, air, water, and fire are the basic elements from which everything in the world is made of. And cannot be owned by anybody, since it was created by collective karma (action) of all sentient beings, therefore, it belongs to all sentient beings living in the planet. You cannot say this air is mine, that fire is yours; it is common wealth to all sentient beings.

The land of future Tibet, the water, the air, the fire must belong to all living beings that live there. We cannot say the land belongs to the state, nor can we say, it belongs to individuals. However, the state has the responsibility to administrate and to take care of the land, and not only the land but the entire environment and the whole of the living beings.

The state should make a very comprehensive plan of all the entire land of Tibet, keeping in view the principle of non-violence, the concept of zone of peace, and the ecological balance. The “master plan for the use of land in future Tibet” should include: i) preservation or reserved areas, like those of natural jungle, animal sanctuaries, ecological-fragile environment, etc; ii)agricultural lands for cultivation, grazing lands, timber woods, etc; iii)remote areas for small industries and mining; iv) tourist areas; and v) urban centre, gardens and green belts.

Therefore, the land should not be given in absolute ownership to any one, to any individual. It could be kind of leasing for the occupation of the land and the settler should pay a nominal rent for the right to use the land. In some sense this is a king of ownership but there must be certain limitations, for example the right could not be transferable, if the land is abandoned for certain period of timely tenant loses his rights, etc, these and other considerations should be discussed in greater detail. However, the tenant has to pay amount every year to the state. Since the land belongs to all sentient beings the duty of the state to look after it, for the benefit of all.

Here, there is technical problem. This payment could not be a tax, since taxes are imposed in individual’s income but also it could not be rent since there is no owner. Perhaps the problems are one of semantics, but whatever we may call it, the revenue collected must be used for the preservation of the land and the wild environment.

This concept does not exist in western economics; nobody pays the cost to nature. But we needed the concept to repay nature of what has been taken or to restore what has been destroyed.

Is there a name for this?

Yes, we can name it “Gun-Sab”, which means precisely that; “to restore what has been destroyed”.

The monetary system of western economics is fundamental, and the banking and finance institutions are of prime importance. However, the concern here is neither with its technical functioning nor with its questionable morality of the “interest rate” or their excessive capitalization of “financial gains”, but rather with the value system which lies behind it. There is something wrong with the pecuniary values,. And could it be prevented from a Buddhist perspective?

There should be in future Tibet a monetary system as it is now in this world. Perhaps an individual can survive without a monetary system but a nation or a country cannot survive, the entire economic arrangement would be brought down.

Technically the banking system is practical, but there must be a strict control over the bank’s operations or maybe it should be government owned to assure its public function; the main function should be to foster saving and to promote productive investments, and nothing else. That is, self sufficiency and nothing else.

However, there should be a minimum possible use of currency for internal exchange purposes. Moreover, there should be a different system of valuation; the absolute value of money should not

prevail. I do not know if this is possible or if there is another system of evaluation, but what I་know for sure is that the monetary system changes people’s mind and disintegrates people’s honesty་and integrity. Money is very easy to accumulate, it is very easy to steal, and it is very easy to show off.

The system of valuation could be based on “barley-seeds” as was in past Tibet?་I do not know, but may be you can advice us on this matter. (Comment: it is a very difficult problem. In the west, economists have been trying during the last two hundred years to solve it. Anyway, I will keep it in mind)

Under actual circumstances, economic interdependent among nations has been generally accepted as favorably for mutual development. In particular, for the case of future Tibet, what should be the role of foreign borrowing and foreign direct investment?

Borrowing should be discouraged as possible. Though borrowing you may expect some profit for your own benefit, although you have to pay interest, but ultimately borrowing grows or་competition for loans grows there will be pressure from the lenders on you, to do or not do this or that, they will be a set of conditions that individual freedom or freedom of the nation will have little meaning, even though, it may be apparently a sovereign country.

But the problem is not, to borrow or not to borrow, but to have a balanced budget, is it not?
When borrowing, as I understand it, means that you have nothing and you need someone to lend you a thing or money, plus an interest payment. Otherwise if your balance is positive you can buy it without getting debt. However, if your budget is balanced and you will have future income then you do not mind to take in “advance” since future payment will be guaranteed.

Actually, the world is interrelated, countries are absolutely in bond as well as population, and you must take advantage of that. For example: Tibet can acquire a big power station from other country in “advance”, but Tibet will not be in debt if future payment is guaranteed, but repayment cannot be done then that is totally immoral.

Buddhism does not recommend or encourage being in debt; therefore, self sufficiency is very important. And unless a country is based on self sufficiency it will not be a free country.