So: hurry up and get enlightened already! 
I can’t find it now, but there’s a sutta where the Buddha basically says that unless you’re a sotāpanna, you’re not a true Buddhist at all! 
Which is to say that, like all good teachers, the Buddha had high expectations of his students. Of course we aren’t there yet… That’s why it’s a training. But the Buddha has faith in us that we can, one day, live up to that seemingly impossibly-high standard.
So, we trust our teacher’s faith in us even when we don’t have faith in ourselves: stepping left, stepping right… breathing in, breathing out…
2 Likes
I heard this sutta talk by Ajahn @Brahmali once, and thought it was great advice on Right Livelihood. He covered MN 17 and MN114.
https://www.podbean.com/ei/pb-vr9jw-8f0f96
Hope you find this useful. 
1 Like
Sorry guys to wake this thread up, missed it.
That’s actually the question, how do you determine whether it’s far to harmful side or not, based on what?
2 Likes
Hi SC1100, I think we’re having this conversation also on SE Buddhism? I’m Oyamist.
Based on the Buddha’s teachings related to conduct like right vs wrong livelihood, wholesome vs unwholesome kamma, non-harming, right speech, etc. The closer an occupation is to the Dhamma, the better.
2 Likes
Hi karl_lew, nice to meet you here. Just want to clarify some points.
1 Like
Thanks for your reply. I assumed you compare selling weapon vs selling bread, the answer is quite obvious. I believe there are few very people on this forum selling weapon.
The question arises when you do “fair comparison”, say, selling breads vs selling light bulbs, etc. How do you reach that conclusion?
I agree that there is a lot of gray area between selling bread and selling weapons. And there’s no general rule that will cover all of it and apply 100% of the time. So to do a fair comparison, we’d need to know the specific details of what each job requires someone to do and then we can compare those details. Again there’s no general rule.
1 Like
If we give precedence to the goal I guess everything else will follow after. Whether a layperson or a monk, means to the goal is the Noble Eightfold Path. The best kind of livelihood is that which allows to fulfil all the factors of the Path(ie Mendicant) . For us laypersons I guess if the livelihood allows also the fulfilment of the two previous factors of Right Speach and Right Action then it is right livelihood.
1 Like
As described, selling breads vs selling light bulbs. Later technology, Light Emitting Diode light bulb poses serious health risk to the health of human eye. It causes permanent damage to retina. So we got carcinogen vs LED light bulb, any thoughts?
1 Like
IMO, both are right livelihood all things being equal.
1 Like
They’re both right livelihood.
Where do they lie on the spectrum of harm?
They’re equally harmful but I am not sure my own conclusion.
Although they are harmful?
I think on our end livelihood can be kept pure. I am specifically thinking about the stories of the escort Sirima and the hunters wife in the Dhammapada stories.( I don’t know if they are considered EBT, others can guide us on that)
I guess the key is the intention. If we think about it even breathing is harmful to many unseen creatures.
2 Likes
There are four deeds:
DN33:1.11.144: Four deeds.
DN33:1.11.145: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.
DN33:1.11.146: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.
DN33:1.11.147: There are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.
DN33:1.11.148: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.
Conscience should lead us to the end of deeds. Conscience should lead us away from obsessions about darkness and lightness of deeds. And the only way forward starts with relinquishing identity view.
The Buddha and the Arhants seemed to live/work a pure livelihood.
This seems to be a pop culture refrain that is being repeated so often that people begin to take it as a “self-evident” fact. Seems like a false claim though.
Difficult? Yes, but then again, which part of the Dhamma-Vinaya is easy?
Impossible? I don’t think so.
Gradually minimize harm (and maximize benefit) until complete harmlessness.
Just because “it’s impossible to do it overnight,” doesn’t mean it is “impossible to do ever.”
I think repeatedly reflecting on how oneself and all being reap what one/all sows helps progress towards this end.
Conscience seems subjective. One person’s conscience tells them one thing, while another’s tells them something else.
Perhaps understanding?
Understanding seems to lead away from dark deeds towards light deeds - and then from light deeds towards “neither-dark-nor-light deeds” - i.e. the noble eightfold path.
The only way forward seems to start with developing right view, the forerunner of the eightfold path.
The sufficient development of the eightfold path seems to lead automatically to the first stage of Nibbana, which is accompanied by the “relinquishing identity view.”
“Relinquishing identity view” seems like a result, not an action - one cannot volitionally release it.
How do we know? Just try it.
Without sufficient development of the eightfold path, I think it is impossible to “relinquish identity view” - I think the clinging to identity view will likely remain somewhere in the mind.
He gave up wrong livelihood and earned a living by right livelihood. He refrained from falsifying weights, metals, or measures; bribery, fraud, cheating, and duplicity; mutilation, murder, abduction, banditry, plunder, and violence.
micchājīvaṃ pahāya sammāājīvena jīvikaṃ kappesi, tulākūṭakaṃsakūṭamānakūṭaukkoṭanavañcananikatisāciyogachedanavadhabandhanaviparāmosaālopasahasākārā paṭivirato ahosi.
Due to performing, accumulating, heaping up, and amassing those deeds, when his body broke up, after death, he was reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
So tassa kammassa kaṭattā upacitattā ussannattā vipulattā kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā sugatiṃ saggaṃ lokaṃ upapajjati (DN 30).
There is a difference between noble right livelihood and secular.
what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions. This is wrong livelihood.
And what is right livelihood? Right livelihood is twofold, I say. There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. This is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements.
And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is right livelihood that is noble.
They make an effort to give up wrong livelihood and embrace right livelihood: that’s their right effort. Mindfully they give up wrong livelihood and take up right livelihood: that’s their right mindfulness. So these three things keep running and circling around right livelihood, namely: right view, right effort, and right mindfulness (MN 117).
5 Likes
Right Livelihood : Buddhism (reddit.com)
There’s a recent discussion here.
A new question for it is how far does the trading in the 5 wrong livelihood covers? Does it include delivery person? Can see my reply on the topic in the link above. What do you think?