Buddhist work ethics

The Watercooler
1

I am wondering if, according to Buddhist ethics, every person is morally obliged to work and contribute to the most general needs of society, even if he/she is financially well off or has reached Nibbana.

It seems obvious to me that not even a Sangha could exist without different people providing the work to create shelter, clothing, medications …

Thank you, Thomas

PS To clarifiy this: I may have wrongfully chosen “Upasaka” as part of my username. I have never taken an official oath at any time. I interpreted Upasaka to just mean lay follower.

2

At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha in Jīvaka’s Mango Grove. Then Jīvaka Komārabhacca went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, how is a lay follower defined?”

“Jīvaka, when you’ve gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, you’re considered to be a lay follower.”

“But how is an ethical lay follower defined?”

“When a lay follower doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence, they’re considered to be an ethical lay follower.”
AN 8.26

I cannot discern any problem with your usage of the term.

:pray:

3

I’m voting “no”! Particularly in relation to Enlightened Ones, who seem to immediately LEAVE lay life and stop working.

I would reframe your question this way: if you work, even when you dont need the money, to enable you to help others, thats wholesome and would be expected to have wholesome results. If you stop working because you hate it and cant be bothered anymore, thats unwholesome and likely to have unwholesome results.

I think we may be in error when we say what “should” you do or what is the “perfect” thing in this or that situation…when you can just say to the extent that there exists greed, hatred and delusion, then to that extent there will be similar results (and vice versa etc). In other words, protecting and or developing society isnt the goal of Dharma…The goal is individual liberation IMHO anyway…

4

But … is it possible to liberate oneself from the human condition? It seems to me that nobody of us would even have running water or a pair of underpants without some sort of cooperation.

6

So that monastic would not collect wood for a fire if it was -30 degrees celsius or try to build himself a hut in the monsun rain?

7

Its not about liberating oneself from the human condition (there is no such thing as a ‘human’ in the Buddhist teaching as I read it- that term is a construct, its not a supramundane reality just a mundane label). Dharma is about liberation from all conditions as I see it.

“It seems to me that nobody of us would even have running water or a pair of underpants without some sort of cooperation”

True, but does it matter if humans exist or become extinct if an infinite number of beings continue to suffer infinitely on an infinite number of other planets (possibly even an infinite number of universes)? As I see it, Buddhism isn’t for humans the way all other religions are for humans (quite strange when you think about us in the context of what we now know about the size of the universe)…it is an operating manual for all sentient beings (even ones that have no bodies whatseover).

8

Yes they would, as sustaining their bodies enables attaining Nirvana.

9

Somewhat relevant:

In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir/:

i. by assigning them work according to their ability, ii. by supplying them with food and with wages, iii. by tending them in sickness, iv. by sharing with them any delicacies, v. by granting them leave at times.

The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their master show their compassion to him in five ways:

i. they rise before him, ii. they go to sleep after him, iii. they take only what is given, iv. they perform their duties well, v. they uphold his good name and fame.

1 Like
10

Interesting. Just to clarify. By work I don’t necessarily mean paid work but any action that contributes to the material needs of oneself and others. Do monastics really don’t have little jobs in that way? Who cleans the Sangha?

11

Hi,

Of course they work. Buddhism isn’t a monolithic thing, so what is done and who does it depends.

Kongshi’s Bathhouse.pdf (761.9 KB)

12

I am wondering, from where you’ve got such idea? Certainly not from the Suttas, unless rising quality of your own existence by diminishing the states of greed, hate and delusion, you classify as contribution to the most general needs of society, but I feel you don’t mean such contribution (sorry if I am mistaken):smiling_face:

The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one’s own welfare. (Dhammapada 166)

How are we to choose between these two ways of being selfish? The answer is: ‘choose the way of being selfish that leads to the ending of being selfish; which is the Buddha’s way, not Schweitzer’s’. There are many earnest Buddhists in Ceylon who are scandalized by the Buddha’s words quoted above; but naturally enough they will not admit such a thing, even to themselves; either they skip that verse when they read the Dhammapada or else they add a footnote explaining that the Buddha really meant something quite different. Here is the actual note made by a very well known Ceylon Thera: ‘One must not misunderstand this verse to mean that one should not selflessly work the for weal of others. Selfless service is highly commended by the Buddha’. But this itself is a complete misunderstanding of the Buddha’s Teaching. Time and again the Buddha points out that it is only those who have successfully devoted themselves to their own welfare and made sure of it (by reaching sotāpatti) that are in a position to help others—one himself sinking in a quicksand cannot help others to get out, and if he wishes to help them he must first get himself out (and if he does get himself out, he may come to see that the task of helping others to get out is not so easy as he formerly might have supposed).

13

There are still plenty of chores around monasteries that monks do. There are some tasks they are forbidden from doing though (cooking, digging into the earth, and others).

Overall I don’t think there is any obligation in Buddhist ethics to work. If you can support yourself without needing to work, then fine. Working ethically and using the money for good means can bring good karma, but not working does not bring bad karma.

Arguably, somebody who was capable of working, but chose to live off of government assistance, would be creating bad karma.

14

Generosity is great and you need both sides of the equation for it to flow through the world unhindered. You need those who give and those who receive. Of course which one of those you are changes over time. We can be generous with material needs, but also (and maybe more importantly in the long run), we can be generous with spiritual needs.

1 Like
15

As I understand it one can be devoted to one’s own welfare AND that of others, which is even better.

“Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four?

  1. One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others;
  2. one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;
  3. one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and
  4. one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.

Suppose there was a firebrand for lighting a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, and smeared with dung in the middle. It couldn’t be used as timber either in the village or the wilderness. The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.

The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that. The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those. But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

From a cow comes milk, from milk comes curds, from curds come butter, from butter comes ghee, and from ghee comes cream of ghee. And the cream of ghee is said to be the best of these. In the same way, the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four. These are the four people found in the world."
AN 4.95

And how does a person practice to benefit themselves, but not others? It’s when a person practices to remove their own greed, hate, and delusion, but doesn’t encourage others to do the same. That’s how a person practices to benefit themselves, but not others.

And how does a person practice to benefit others, but not themselves? It’s when a person doesn’t practice to remove their own greed, hate, and delusion, but encourages others to remove theirs. That’s how a person practices to benefit others, but not themselves.

And how does a person practice to benefit neither themselves nor others? It’s when a person doesn’t practice to remove their own greed, hate, and delusion, nor do they encourage others to remove theirs. That’s how a person practices to benefit neither themselves nor others.

And how does a person practice to benefit both themselves and others? It’s when a person practices to remove their own greed, hate, and delusion, and encourages others to remove theirs. That’s how a person practices to benefit both themselves and others. These are the four people found in the world.” - AN 4.96

2 Likes
16

Buddhism highly values doing one’s duty in one’s chosen/ assigned role to the best of one’s ability. viz abiding by the Dharma.
When one has chosen to be a layperson, one is obliged to fulfil one’s duties to parents, family, friends, employees, ascetics etc. (DN 31)
Similarly, if one is married, one tries to be the very best kind of partner one can be. (AN 7.63)
It is only when one has realized that ‘the lay life is dusty…’, that one may choose to renounce the world and go forth - that too, after settling one’s obligations and taking permission! The only work assigned by society to a renunciate is to develop ethics, immersion and wisdom (MN 29). This is all that is expected of them (AN1.394).

2 Likes
17

No doubt about it. There are two gifts, gift of material things and the gift of Dhamma, which is the highest. But topic seems to be about the first kind of gift. At least I have such impression.

18

You’re probably getting a bit of a warped perspective on this topic by talking to people who have renounced. Especially in western monastic communities you encounter people who are so disillusioned with western work culture and society, and see monastic life as an alternative to that.

Again this is a western view of work and old age. In Asian countries the elderly are greatly valued and their life of work is appreciated.

In the Buddhist communities I’ve visited around the world, the work of lay people is not dismissed but considered part of their spiritual practice (right livelihood is a path factor after all). And monastics and monasteries aren’t just striving for enlightenment but they do a lot of work around the monastery daily. Plus they are frequently also focussed on activities that benefit the community, such as education, health and sanitation (such as being places for covid info, inoculations, or blood donation) , as well as supporting cultural activities, and more.

Buddhism doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

7 Likes
20

Non sequitur:

I am still having a difficult time getting my head around that one.

21

Well I want to use right speech so I have to be careful, but I guess that in so far as what I’m saying is truthful and I’m not mentioning people by name and I am saying this to illustrate my understanding (and to answer your comment which suggests that I am talking nonsense) I think what I say below is ok.
So if you value working you would presumably prefer finding a job, however humble, as opposed to becoming involved in a Ponzi scheme to get rich without producing anything, which the person in question suggested I join too (that’s how I know about it though I did not get involved luckily) and which didn’t end up well USI Tech - Wikipedia
So this is just one amongst several impressions I got ( from personal exchanges or from books like that by Paul Breiter, where you get clear impression of the psychology of the author) that working is not really valued.
As I said in my first post I think there is a deep reason for this because in Judeo Christian religions existence is said to be good. for example in Genesis, in spite of the suffering inherent to it so there is this idea of work as being worthwhile to improve one’s life and that one’s people (sacrifice in the Old Testament can be understood as delayed gratification and thus work is ethical in sofar as it is a kind of sacrifice). In contrast to this in Buddhism existence is not to be affirmed since suffering is considered an objection to it. Thus improving the world through work has no meaning nor there is the idea of History or of linear time where humanity can improve itself through progress.

22

As I remember it this ex monk ordained at a young age and had no training, experience or employable skills on leaving the monastery, which is why he resorted to get rich quick schemes (and through naivety ended up paying the price!) But it would be a bit much to extrapolate from this one monk’s personal story a generalisation that work is not respected in Buddhism or, indeed, necessary, as most people know all too well.

1 Like