佛陀认为，人生就是“苦”的根源，这个论断在佛学（佛学指去掉佛教的上层建筑——业报，剩下的佛陀对于人生的系统思考，按照冯友兰先生的观点，这种思考的本质是一种哲学，故称为佛学）当中的地位，相当于“世界是物质的”在马克思主义哲学中的地位，它们都是各自哲学系统的地基。
那么，什么是“苦”？既然人生是痛苦的，佛陀如何解释人生之中的快乐？这对于我们理解经济学当中的核心概念“稀缺”有什么样的启示？
“苦”对应的梵文词，"duhkha"，有两层意思：首先，“苦”即“痛苦”，是身体疼痛或是精神折磨；其次，“苦”还指一种有欲望而不满足的状态。痛苦不常有，而不满足常有。
如果“苦”是一种不满足的状态，那么快乐就是一种欲望满足的状态，它是短暂的：饱餐一顿后，想着下一顿；得到爱人的关爱，想要更多亲密接触；习得了新的知识技能，想要精进。人终将处于一种不满足的状态，也就是“苦”。
但佛陀并不“朋克”，并不是悲观主义的，也并不劝人自我毁灭，也不会有哪个信佛的人或是出家人在外面劝人自我终结以摆脱“苦”，佛陀认为，死并不能终结“苦”，反而自我毁灭是对“苦”的一种否认。
我们来看一下经济学当中的“稀缺”。在古典经济学看来，经济学的研究有着多重用途的稀缺资源的安排与使用方式。从佛学的角度出发，对“稀缺”我个人有着以下的理解：
稀缺资源的存在是绝对的。经济活动的主体是人，而人生就是“苦”的根源，没有人处于一种绝对满足状态。如果人人都绝对满足，那任何资源都无所谓稀缺。既然不满足的状态是绝对存在的，那么可以说所有人想要的东西的总和一定会大于目前市场上存在的所有东西，不论一个人的贫富贵贱，对待稀缺的资源不会有双赢，而只能有舍弃权衡。
Buddhism and Economics: What is "Scarcity"?
Buddha says: Life is duhkha. This argument in Buddhism is as cardinal as the argument, 'This world is based on Matter', in Marxian philosophy, and both two lay the very foundations of their respective philosophical systems.
What is duhkha? How does Buddha account for pleasure? Will the understanding of "duhkha" shed light on the economic term "scarcity"?
The Sanskrit word "duhkha", suggests (1) suffering, the physiological pain or mental distress; (2) a state of unsatisfactoriness caused by deferred wishes and unmet plans. Suffering is an acquaintance at most, while unsatisfactoriness is a good old friend who we come across very often.
If duhkha indicates an unsatisfied state, then pleasure suggests a transient, satisfied state: we wish for a feast after a course; we long for more intimacy after receiving love from our beloved ones; we want to sharpen our new skills after mastering them. Wishes will never be fulfilled, and that is the underlying meaning of duhkha.
Pessimistic and "punk" as Buddha might seem to be, Buddha never ever points a path to self-destruction, and Buddhists, be they religious or not, would ever teach a self-termination lesson in order to escape from the eternal duhkha. Rather, Buddha holds that no one could get away from duhkha via death; self-destruction negates the truth of duhkha.
Let's take a brief look at the term "scarcity" from economics. From a classical economics perspective, economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. Personally, I have some new understanding of "scarcity":
Scarce resources are absolute. The subjects of economical activities are human and not a single person is fully satisfied. Had everyone fulfilled his or her wishes in an absolute sense, it wouldn't matter whether any resource is scarce or not. What everybody wants add up to is more than there is, for the same rationale behind applies. This implies that there are no easy win-win, but painful trade-offs and that is the same for both the affluent and the impoverished.
