The Middle Way (Eightfold Path) – Realistic Livelihood

This is the second post of the “middle way” articles. It is only a personal exploration of the middleway; just my understanding of it. The eightfold path (the “middle way”) is described as path to the cessation of suffering or the fourth noble truth.

My last post dealt with Right or Realistic Effort… This post will cover the subject of Right Livelihood.

To review, the eightfold path, (the middle way) has the following parts (the discipline it is connected to in parenthesis):

1. Realistic Understanding (Wisdom)
2. Realistic Thought (Wisdom)
3. Realistic Speech (Ethical Conduct)
4. Realistic Action (Ethical Conduct)
5. Realistic Livelihood (Ethical Conduct)
6. Realistic Effort (Mental Discipline)
7. Realistic Mindfulness (Mental Discipline)
8. Realistic Concentration (Mental Discipline)

For a description of why I describe these as “realistic” as opposed to right or rightful please read my post Right or Realistic Effort.

- DV

–

In contemplation of the beginning of my new job, I thought I would explore the path of Realistic Livelihood next.

Realistic livelihood seems kind of self explanatory, but these Buddhist have a wonderful way of classifying that helps to push things outside of my normal assumptions.

Realistic livelihood appears to have a more concrete Buddhist definition by defining what is not right livelihood. Livelihoods defined as not “right” are those dealing with:

1. Killing or weaponry
2. Slavery
3. Poisons
4. Anything that may make one conflict with other elements of the eightfold path

People who are familiar with the common definitions of the eightfold path might notice that I have phrased my “wrong” livelihoods to something more general from those commonly defined. It is my work in my own life with not labeling things as “bad” or “good” that has censored me. This leaves me a bit unsure.

For example… the killing of animals seems to be denying the natural nature of human beings. The life you have lead may have left you a choice to not eat animal flesh. It is a luxury of home that can pick and choose their diet. But was it not the teaching of Buddhists that you do not refuse what is given in the begging bowl? Do we lay he karmic blame on the butcher when the charitable give meat? Is it not Right or Realistic Effort for a person to choose such a livelihood?

Poisons, in the above list, could also mean intoxicants. It is in the teaching of Buddhist monks not to drink alcohol or use drugs. There are positive drugs in the world, with positive outcomes. Taken to its extreme, right livelihood would mean those who work in pharmaceuticals are as wrongful in action as those selling speed in the streets. Those selling marijuana to cancer patients, or those who practice ritualistic use of drugs in religious ceremonies would also be in wrongful action. Those who make ceremonial wine would also be wrong. I suppose these examples are an extreme. Let’s look at it a different way…

The intent of the path is to end suffering, the forth noble truth. In this case the problem is not “drugs” in general or sales of which, it is the differentiation between just using the chemical as an intoxicant and no other reason than to make yourself senseless. So, in this case, those who sell alcohol, the type that will be drunk for no health reasons and only to intoxicate would by Buddhist definition not be living a right or reasonable livelihood. An easier example would be those who sold cigarettes.

If taken to another extreme, Buddhist teaching of Nirvana could also be wrongful if right effort is not employed. How many times have I heard Buddhist’s pridefully speak of how wondrous and blissful their meditation practice is. Is the sale of such intoxication, samadhi, also wrongful? It certainly turns more ears than how meditation is difficult and can help, but only with hard work and practice.

It seems to me all things “good” could be seen as “bad” and the other way around. The harsh duality of these rules of thumb once again lends me to believe the action or karma can only be judged in the hands of the one in the situation.

Precepts – Monks and Laymen

I keep wanting to break into the Precepts but I also want to keep those till last because of how they can be defined. I have to remind myself that most of these rules in Buddhism were written for Monks and adjusted later for lay practitioners. This is where some of the more “extremist” ideas come into play, perhaps that is why there is such harshness in the translation. The life of a monk maybe difficult but it seems easier to reasonably restrict.

Dharma’s Simplified Version of the Realistic Livelihood (for the lay person)

Overall, the path really is to end suffering. Let’s see if we can simplify some rules to have a realistic livelihood:

1. Don’t do anything that will cause suffering to other beings (including animals)

2. Don’t do anything that will cause suffering to yourself

3. Don’t do anything that will impair your ability to not allow you to be present and aware in the moment

Lax in Judgement

If we look at the cycle of Karma, or action, it should be easier to see how the outcome of perfect behavior (the path is known as the perfection of the element of the path) could reduce suffering. How the down stream of perfect behavior could help in the complete annihilation of suffering. Perhaps if we all practiced this perfection we could in my life time all reach Nirvana; and then perhaps the doubt in such a thing is what will never get me to Buddhahood.

I don’t seek perfection, I seek the middle way. Perhaps my perfection is in the realization that I can, through right personal action, reduce the suffering of myself and those around me by a little bit, and then the suffering of the world is reduced by that little bit. Perhaps it is good enough for me to believe that a little bit, in the cycle of karma goes a long way.

So what about Rightful Livelihood?

How does this apply to right livelihood? It should be simple to all I think.

You probably don’t want to work in any trade that causes suffering. You probably don’t want to do anything in your job that causes suffering. The organization may be something that causes suffering, for example the sale of cigarettes, this may be seen as wrong. Now what about the sale of animal meat?

One might say that human kind is an omnivore. The sale in animal meat to humans may not seem so wrong, but are you causing those animals you butcher to suffer needlessly? Or if your lifestyle allows should you remove animal products from your intake, is it healthy?

How about dairy? Does keeping dairy cattle cause them suffering?

Do plants suffer?

Perhaps to answer to these questions is in asking ourselves another question, “where do we draw the line at perfection in our own lives and what is reasonable?”

Articles that may interest you:

More Dharma Voyager’s Buddhism Explorations