mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) (02/28/91)
In article <2339@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> SECBH%CUNYVM.BITNET@Princeton.EDU (Jack Carroll) writes: >After posting my thoughts about some of the problems which >the Gulf War may pose for non-combatants, and reading the comments >of several readers, I came across the following comment in reference >to the more far-reaching implications of the Precepts. > >The quotation is from the book "The Buddha's Way" by H. Saddhatissa, >a noted Theravadin monk and teacher... > >The quote: > >"(The) straightforward interpretation of samma ajiva - right >livelihood - makes a very useful beginning, but it is only a >beginning. As soon as we delve a little deeper into the concept >of right livelihood, a host of problems and further shades of >meaning becomes apparent. > >"...Among the problems raised by an attempt to practice samma ajiva are: > >1. whether one can support, by working, paying taxes and accepting > benefits, a government which is engaged in warfare, or actively > preparing for it; > >2. whether, in the name of the relief of human suffering, one > can engage in medical research that involves sacrificing the > lives of countless animals; and, more subltly, whether one > can prescribe, sell -- or even use --those drugs which have > been discovered and tested by means of such experiments. > >3. whether one has the right to destroy disease-bearing insects, > or work in the preparation of materials for that purpose; [This last point is actually addressed quite specifically in the Pali canon. See below.] > >4. whether the third and fourth precepts would prohibit one > from working in advertising or mass production work. > >The list is endless. The questions are all ones that can only be >answered by careful anlaysis of the circumstances, the motives >and the attitudes of the people involved." > >End of quote. These are indeed difficult and important problems and I appreciate Jack's concerns and taking the trouble to share them with us. I am posting this response after some internal struggle because the position I am presenting is in some respects more permissive than my own practice (as in part two when I get to vegetarianism) and sometimes less :-(. The full implications are by no means resolved in my own mind. Some of what follows may appear to argue against the concerns Jack expressed. If so, they should be considered counterpoint in the musical, not the argumentative sense. First it may be useful to consider the specific teachings we have with regard to right livelihood, which are part of the assumed background to Ven. Saddhatissa's comments quoted above. (I assume he elucidates the specifics elsewhere.) The Pali scriptures define wrong livelihood (miccha ajiva) by listing specific categories of occupations which existed in the time of the Buddha and declaring that these are wrong livelihood. The explanation of right livelihood actually recited in some versions of the Noble Eightfold Path gives the tautological definition: Right livelihood: Giving up wrong livelihood you earns one's living by a right form of livelihood. [This is a quite literal translation from Pali, but I don't know the original source.] Taken by itself this definition adds nothing to our understanding, but taken with the list of occupations specifically declared to be wrong livelihood it tells us a great deal. Right livelihood for a monk or nun means living on alms, hence virtually all worldly occupations are prohibited for them. At least knowing what they are to do is actually easier for them than for us! The list of occupations specifically declared to be wrong livelihood for lay people are: (1) Dealing in flesh. (E.g. hunting, fishing, slaughtering, and evidently running a meat or fish market...) (2) Dealing in weapons. (Serving in the army or defense industry? This is not completely clear, but a reasonable argument could be made.) (3) Dealing in poisons. (Bearing directly on the third of Ven. Saddhatissa's list of issues.) (4) Dealing in human beings. (E.g. slave trading, not a big issue today, and some say various forms of prostitution.) (5) Dealing in intoxicants. No one claims that this list is exhaustive, but it is instructive. In the order I have listed them it is clear that the first three examples of wrong livelihood are directly related to the precept against taking life, but are more inclusive. Wrong livelihood includes not only occupations in which we directly violate the first precept, but also supplying others with the means to do so or generally being part of the business of doing so. (Similarly for the precept against using intoxicants ourselves and the occupation of supplying them to others.) In my opinion it is significant that the standard put forth in defining right livelihood is this case stricter than the precepts. The precepts are presented as the minimum standard for ethical human beings, whether Buddhist or not. With the exception of the fifth precept (abstaining from intoxicants) [see note] and loop holes in the first (abstaining from killing) such as killing animals and some kinds of "justifiable homicide" (as practiced in all societies, including Buddhist) they are part of a universal moral code expounded as an ideal in virtually all religions and societies, even secular ones. [NOTE: Without taking anything away from the wisdom of the fifth precept, it is interesting to note that some in some versions of the precepts only the first four are given. Superficially the fifth seems not to be quite on the same level as the others, though there is a marvelous Tibetan story of a man who thought it the least important and by violating it went on to break the rest as well.] The Noble Eightfold Path, of which right livelihood is a part, has a higher objective. That is, it leads to peace, wisdom, and enlightenment. It explicitly includes four of the precepts. Right action = abstaining from from taking life, abstaining from stealing, and abstaining from sexual misconduct. Right speech includes abstaining from false speech, but adds to this abstaining from malicious, harsh, and useless speech. [These explanations of the Path are actually taken from the English translation of the version chanted in some Theravada temples, and indirectly from the Pali canon or commentaries.] Indulgence in intoxicants, though not specifically mentioned is clearly an impediment to right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, and possibly to keeping the other precepts as well. And as noted right livelihood extends the precepts of abstaining from taking life, possibly some kinds of sexual misconduct, and intoxicants. The precepts are like minimum standards of hygiene and diet are to health. The Noble Eightfold Path is like the training regime of an athlete who is not satisfied merely to avoid the things most harmful to health. The wording of the precepts as taken by Buddhists "I undertake the rule of training..." (...sikkhapadam samadiyami) is more in accordance with the latter view than the former. But undertaking the precepts "as a rule of training" rather than merely to avoid painful consequences of harmful action, or as a commandment to avoid offending a diety, is more a Buddhist than a universal view of ethics. The formula recited is intended for people on the Path. The extension of precepts given in the Noble Eightfold Path, especially the section on right livelihood is very much in the spirit of the broader concerns expressed by Jack Carroll and Ven. Saddhatissa. But #pragma PERSONAL_OPINION ON /* as if it weren't already */ there is another side to this, namely the Buddhist view of kamma/karma and the limits of personal responsibility. Just as Buddhism is the middle path between asceticism and hedonism it is also the middle path between an unexamined, irresponsible life and one in which we expand our feelings of worldly responsibility beyond reasonable bounds. This is a hard balancing act for anyone, but especially for those (like me) who were children of the sixties growing up with the delusion that we could change the world much more than we in fact can. Never the less, in the next part of this long essay I'll address the other side.