Why Buddhism Is Not Against Possessions, Only Possessiveness (Dhammapada 92) Reflections by Bhante Dr. Chandima

                         

1. “No Hoarding” as Inner Non-Clinging, Not Material Poverty

The phrase sannicayo natthi does not primarily condemn ownership; it critiques appropriation. In Early Buddhism, the danger is not having things, but possessively taking things as “mine,” “me,” or “necessary for my security.”

For lay people, this means examining inner accumulation:

• Hoarding plans far beyond what is needed

• Carrying unresolved resentment and old narratives

• Clinging to ambition as identity

• Accumulating self-images (“the successful one,” “the failed one,” “the spiritual one”)

A layperson may possess wealth, family roles, and responsibilities, yet still practice sannicayo natthi by not anchoring their sense of self in these holdings. Wisdom lies not in owning little, but in being lightly related to what one owns. When possessions serve life rather than define it, hoarding has already weakened.

2. Wise Relationship with Food = Wise Relationship with Consumption

Pariññātabhojanā means “one who understands food with wisdom.” In the canonical sense, food is recognized as supportive, conditional, and non-gratifying in itself.

For lay life, “food” expands far beyond meals:

• News and social media

• Entertainment and stimulation

• Praise, validation, and attention

• Emotional dependency in relationships

Unexamined consumption creates mental agitation and dependency, while wise consumption cultivates steadiness. A lay practitioner reflects:

• Why am I consuming this?

• Is this nourishing clarity or feeding restlessness?

• Does this increase dependency or freedom?

Mindful consumption is not denial, but knowing sufficiency. When consumption is guided by understanding rather than craving, the mind naturally becomes calmer and more transparent.

3. Efficiency over Excess: Using Resources to Support our Thoughts 

Venerable Bellaṭṭhisīsa stored food to reduce distraction, not to increase comfort. The Buddha’s approval reveals a crucial principle:

The Dhamma values mental efficiency over ritualistic austerity.

For lay people, the question is not how much one has, but what function it serves. Consider:

• Do my habits simplify life or fragment attention?

• Do my routines protect mental clarity or exhaust it?

• Do my possessions reduce anxiety—or create more to manage?

Skillful simplification differs sharply from compulsive minimalism. The former is guided by wisdom and calm; the latter often hides control, fear, or spiritual pride. When simplification serves the mind, it is wholesome. When it feeds identity, it becomes another form of accumulation.

4. Blamelessness Depends on Intention, Not Appearances

Other monks judged the thera by external behaviour; the Buddha assessed him by intention (cetanā). This is a foundational ethical principle in Buddhism.

Lay people are frequently misunderstood:

• Choosing a quieter life may be seen as laziness

• Limiting ambition may be mistaken for lack of drive

• Simplicity may be judged as irresponsibility

This verse reminds us that moral purity is internal before it is social. Ethical evaluation begins with motivation, not conformity. For practitioners, this also means refraining from quick judgment of others. The Dhamma trains discernment, not suspicion.

5. Freedom Leaves Fewer Psychological Traces

The simile “like birds in the sky” points to non-residual living. Arahants leave no trace because no clinging remains.

For lay people, this ideal translates into everyday practice:

• Resolving conflicts without replaying them endlessly

• Speaking without leaving regret or guilt

• Letting go without rehearsing self-justification

A freer mind leaves less emotional debris—less resentment, less defensiveness, less self-narration. While lay people cannot eliminate traces entirely, they can thin them. Each time we respond without prolonging conflict, we move closer to this quality of freedom.

6. Not Accumulating New Kamma ≠ Inaction

Arahants still act, speak, and think—but without craving, actions no longer generate future rebirth. Lay people, however, still generate kamma. The teaching invites a refinement, not passivity.

The key reflection is:

Can I act with less craving, less ego, less narrative about “me”?

Even small shifts matter:

• Giving without self-advertisement

• Speaking without the need to win

• Working without tying worth to outcome

Such actions still produce kamma, but of less binding force. Restraint here is not suppression; it is wise modulation of intention.

7. True Freedom Is Inner, Not Socially Visible

The arahant’s gocara—their “range” of the mind—is suññatā (emptiness) and animitta (signlessness). These are not outward states, but inner orientations.

Lay people may touch these briefly:

• In silence without anxiety

• In generosity without expectation

• In deep attention without commentary

• In letting go without replacement

Such moments rarely receive social recognition. They may even appear unremarkable. Yet Buddhism affirms that liberation begins invisibly—long before robes, titles, or institutions.

8. A Practical Ideal, Not an Untouchable One

Although arahantship is the culmination of the path, this verse is directional, not exclusionary. It functions as a compass rather than a demand.

For lay practitioners, the trajectory is clear:

• Less accumulation → more mental space

• Less craving → more ease

• Less trace → more peace

The lay path differs not in direction, but in degree and pace. Every moment of reduced clinging already echoes the arahant’s freedom in miniature.