Who pays for all of this.
Monastics cannot own, earn, or ask. Laypeople cannot practise full-time. Each supplies exactly what the other cannot get, and the whole two-and-a-half-thousand-year institution runs on that arrangement with nothing enforcing it.
The economics of Buddhism are its most underrated feature. Monastics in the strict traditions cannot handle money, own property beyond a few possessions, grow food, or even ask for what they need — they can only accept. Laypeople have households and no time for full-time practice. The arrangement makes each dependent on the other, and it is enforced by nothing but reciprocity: the laity give material support, the sangha gives teaching, blessing and a visible example, and either side can walk away. It has survived twenty-five centuries, several state persecutions, and the arrival of the cash economy, though the last of those is doing more damage than the others — temple tourism and commercial meditation have both put pressure on a model that assumed nobody was charging.
Householders and homeless alike, each depending on the other, accomplish the true teaching.
Itivuttaka 107 (rendered)The contract stated as doctrine rather than as economics.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.
