"Right Livelihood" is a traditional Buddhist teaching and one of the limbs of the eight-fold path taught by the Buddha. For laypeople, Buddha's teaching of right livelihood meant ethical livelihood. In the book The Buddha's Teaching on Prosperity by Bhikku Basnagoda Rahula there is this quote from the scripture "Numerical Discourses": "The layperson's objective [is to] live a long and dignified life with the wealth obtained through rightful means." As Buddhism has taken hold in the West, meditation practice and general ethical teachings have been extensively taught and written about, but the details of "right livelihood" have, I think, received comparatively less attention.
Clearly, the Buddha saw prosperity and financial security as a good and appropriate activity for laypeople; "rightful means" meant any occupation that did not cause unnecessary harm to other living things. In the simple economy of 500 B.C. this meant avoiding occupations such as butcher, tanner, or soldier -- if possible. It also meant to be honest and ethical in business dealings -- not to cheat, steal or lie, and in general make one's living in an upstanding way. I daresay that all religions have ethical principles of this sort regarding making one's living -- certainly the Judeo-Christian tradition does.
In the much more complicated societies of today, what might "right livelihood" really mean? This is a very important issue, and not only for Buddhists. With many of the world's people subsisting on a few dollars a day, and with 15 million unemployed here in the U.S., what does this nice-sounding concept of an ethical livelihood mean in real life?
In my 1999 book, Work as a Spiritual Practice, I introduced the idea of right livelihood as conscious livelihood. In other words, regardless of our job (or lack of a job) we should be aware of the implications and consequences of what we do. Though Work as a Spiritual Practice, by intention, emphasized the choices and changes an individual could make in his/her workplace, I also feel that conscious livelihood should not be limited to individual awareness and action. Society at large also has a responsibility to be conscious of the consequences of its economic and employment policies, even more today than in 1999 when when the economy was booming. It is not clear whether the Buddha thought of right livelihood in this way, but it behooves us to do so now.
Two thousand five hundred years ago the Buddha could not have conceived of today's complex societies. But he clearly understood what is harm and what is not harm. When a person does not have a job and cannot support his or her family, that is harm -- there is no question about it. The fundamental moral position of buddhism is ahimsa -- which means non harm or minimal harm -- and that has powerful implications for today's workplace world.
My father used to tell me that a society should be judged by how well it takes care of its sick, its old and its children. I would add to that its unemployed and under-employed. By that standard, how are we doing? These days I ponder this. In ancient times, Buddhism's main strategy for achieving social justice was to convert the king or the emperor to Buddhism. That worked to a degree in ancient India and China -- the monarch could simply decree, as Ashoka the great Buddhist king of ancient India did in 250 B.C., that people should follow Buddhist teachings and avoid causing harm. Some of the stone pillars Ashoka erected to propagate his decrees are still visible as tourist attractions in India today.
But in democratic societies of today -- where responsibility for political and economic policy is widely dispersed, and disagreements are heated -- what is the responsibility of Buddhist teachers and leaders to contribute to that dialogue? What is the Buddhist position, for example, about collective bargaining for public employees -- a topic that is all over the headlines today? I am happy to continue writing and teaching about Buddhist meditation -- that is my primary role -- but I think my colleagues and I who teach and explain Buddhism should also consider the wider implications of our world-view.
In other words, right livelihood is now a societal, even planetary, responsibility.
Follow Lewis Richmond on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lewrichmond
Lewis Richmond: An Ancient Buddhist Model For Today's World
Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right Livelihood Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right Livelihood - The Buddhist Teaching of Right Livelihood
There are two quick points I'd like to bring up. First, there are many, many Buddhist scriptures—not to mention works by later masters like Nagarjuna and Mipham Rinpoche—that talk in a direct and sophisticated way about issues ranging from worker rights to taxes to health care reform to criminal justice. I've been compiling them from various sources for some time now, and would be happy to share some of them with you, if you are interested.
Second, the quote by the Buddha that you use is from the Pattakamma Sutta. (The Numerical Discourses is a huge collection of scriptures of which the Pattakamma Sutta is a much smaller part.) Perhaps providing a more exact citation will make is easier for readers to look up this wonderful sutta for themselves? Thank you, again, for your wonderful article, and please keep up the good work.
Of course he would have. He is the Buddha after all.
It makes me wonder if it might be possible to convert a majority of our elected representatives and senators to Americanism....
Well, yes, some of us find this a new idea, and many do not know it comes to us through the Declaration of Independence. Of course, we do not hear of any readings of the Declaration of Independence aloud in Congress, as we heard all the clatter about the readings (and misreadings) of the Constitution by the 21st Century's US Puritans... ugh, Tea Party Republicans.
So it is refreshing to see a Buddhist writer present the idea through Buddhist cultural veins.
The Declaration of Independence pronounced us all free; however, it acknowledged the freedom comes with a profound responsibility, a radically democratic responsibility: "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Of course, the Buddhists, like Helen Keller, know that security is a fine illusion, but, hey, we don't need that illusion to accept and act upon the authority of the Declaration of Independence as a guide for throwing out the Wall Street-Washington, D. C. Cabal that now aims to reduce us all to peasants.
But what do I know?
there is an emptiness of thought in this article which avoids the topic of how does amassing wealth jibe with buddhism. i suspect the author from his comfortable perch surveys the landscape and sticks his head back in the middle class shell and decides to think about it, some other day.
Or does that just seem like more "emptiness of thought" to you?
I am SGI Buddhist (True Buddhism)
No worshipping of statues or Zen.
Nam-Myo-Ho-Renge-Kyo
The Supreme Law of Cause and Effect.
Amazing how scientists keep searching for the beginning of the universe. i.e black hole etc.
The universe has ALWAYS existed . it is limitless.
The power of the Daimoku is never reported in any major media. No belief required for it to work. Try and find out.
SGI, a derivative of Nichiren Shoshu, the nationalistic, fanatical sect that got into trouble for its aggressive prosletyzing and BELIEVES that simply chanting the NAME of a Buddhist sutra will get you all the material wealth you want?
That one?
It´s fine that you BELIEVE that, but please, don´t say it doesn´t require belief, That´s just simply not true.
You outline a lot of complexity of the Modern Times, but as with all complexity it is made up of many less and less complicated to simplicity itself. This I think is unchanged.
Creating Income streams of renting people, buildings, land, trade, speculation and money speak to accumulation for the endless search for basic needs, security, happiness, love, belonging, happiness and power VERSUS the harm that is caused by the accumulating and accumulation.
The complexity of the World's problems are rapped into a few having 90% of all wealth and income while 90% of the world has to share 10% while the sum 0 approaches 100% and 0%. All blindly supported by Government, Business, and the rich stock traders. All at the sacrifice of knowledge, ethics, morality and mankind itself
Personally, I have chosen for my material return to be the gift of my karma. Not foolish on purpose in one on one dealing. But not forced yet to deal for survival, but to let it be as much as possible without the emotion or desire and want. Consuming within the means that are available for simple joy, relaxation and working for the material world and energizing, concentration, and meditation for the spiritual world .
A Buddha and Bob Dillon said "All is Change" and "These Times They are a Changing"
Really? I question it. Harm resulting from whose actions? Are the unemployed causing harm to their families? Are the prospective employers causing harm to the unemployed and their families? Is there clear consciousness behind it?
This is a complex world, and to imply that such a situation can be labelled unquestionably harmful in the context of rightness of livelihood is a bit over the top.
Does one have to stop Enabling others from picking all the flesh from the bones of your family and self. YES.
But the choice to have uncontrolled emotion and endless desires and wants or Joy and Bliss without material action is simple. The hardness of effort is not the choice, but the struggle of the simple life of Spirit. To me it is not saving the world, but yourself. To help others find their way. Living their life in your image is interfering with their journey. Many think I am trying to force my ideas on them, no leading by example and sharing what I know. Don't expect it work for all, but to share or find just one, is worth the chase.
One cannot cure the suffering of the world of Form by rearranging the world of Form. It is like sweeping a dirty floor, without actually picking up the dirt. All you do is just push it from one place to another.
Right Action can only be determined on a situational basis...not a conceptual one. One can---while holding true to the Dharma---come to a conclusion about what is the Right Action with respect to the collective barganing rights situation in Wisconsin. In this situation it is to side with the workers and the majority of the people of Wisconsin.
But what about collective barganing rights in the NFL? Where you have what amounts to little more than a p!ssing contest between millionaires and billionaires...that is ALL about Ego on both sides. I would submit that Right Action in this case is to simply not get involved. Taking a side in this conflict will only fuel all the Egos involved, and will not wake any one up, or reduce any legitimate suffering.
While contemporary Buddhists must remain engaged in the world, and be beacons of compassionate action (for all...not just the vulnerable), we must also not let this become conflated with run-of-the-mill social activism. Because to do so would be to forget the Four Noble Truths....especially dukkha.
As for the NFL. The last time I looked and things change, The player got 50% of the Gross their labor produced. They are fighting for 60% against the 40% the owners get. Let's leave the cost out for nowl. So what they are fighting for is should the owner get the 90% they did when the Player got $19,000 a year for mere Capital Investment and a Monopoly position.
Today most Corporate Profits are at 90% for mere Stock Trader Trading and all the sweat, GENIUS, and talent is getting a mere 7%. Like Ford Motor Company. Each hour of employee labor generates $396,000 gross. My figuring without a calculator is 70,000% gain to .0006% labor
What is at stake is a balance of Capital to Labor. In the Capital Supply Side Tax Cuts for the Rich and uncontrolled Profit of Investment. Loan Sharking use to be 30% and outlawed, Usury Tax use to be 30% and was outlawed as it was in the 1000 AD for Romans and Christians at 0%.
Saving Accounts rarely have reached 10% return. Stock Accounts can reach 1000 Times % and are not even taxed.
Establish Justice mean fair and equal. Much slack here for fair and equal in the price of ticket and public stadiums. But what is SWEAT, GENIUS and Talent worth compared to Cash Investment of a few in a Monopoly Market.
But as a Buddhist, if I do not keep the First Noble Truth in mind....no matter what I do, I simply become part of the problem. Not its solution.
There is nothing you can do in the world of form that will ever make it such that there is an end to pain, unfairness, greed, etc... To try to rearrange the world of form in an effort to do so is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Right Action can only be determined on a situational basis...but has to keep in mind that there needs to be a dynamic balance between compassion for the experience (and suffering) that comes along with the unawakened life in form....but the Wisdom to accept that they only release from the suffering is to wake up from the dream that any of this is Real or of enduring signficance.
Right Action calls (in my heart) to act in a manner that people have sufficient comfort and their needs met....such that they can be open to difficulties that are needed to wake them up. So that they can meet them with Wisdom...rather than Fearful reactivity.
That delicate balancing act is not something you can regiment and say...."This is the Buddhist Approach to social action."
Forcing others to your law is where it gets complicated.
In this country our forefathers set the Law of the Constitution that states in the first sentence "Establish Justice". That means fair and equal or punishment for those who take that away.
Problem Solved. Now lawyers, the courts supposedly interpret this as the Preamble and just the state of mind of the forefathers and not the law.
I say amend it or lock up the violators and interpretors of the Stated Law