Greetings to all and my respectful salutations to the members of the Sangha.
I’ve tried posing as a model for drawing classes and as I had been offered posing naked, I am wondering if engaging in such an activity could be considered going against right livelihood (having in mind the Talaputa sutta where if one where to enhance lust and aversion in other people that would be a wrong mode of livelihood, but here the intention wouldn’t be to arouse people).
I thank you very much for reading me,
All the best to all.
Wrong Livelihood for lay people does include “dealing in bodies.” While that means e.g. the slave trade, does that definition extend to other, more subtle forms, of selling bodies?
Ultimately, the best livelihood is to renounce the world and become a monk or nun.
Everything between there and here is murky waters each person has to navigate for him or her self: paying close attention to their own sense of what is wholesome and unwholesome, possible and impossible for them.
Hi , now this has to do with the effect which directed toward the other beings , so it is not right livelihood . For example , even if your intention is to earn some money by taking a job as a delivery man or rider where you only deliver some package without knowing the contents (eg. illegal drug) , you still violate the laws and the precepts .
Intention is an active and essential component, doing something unknowingly or unintentionally does not break precepts. Of course if you take a job as a courier for a gang, for instance, you can’t reasonably claim ignorance. But a regular delivery driver is not responsible for the content of their packages. The person who sent the package is.
Many poor people when desperate in need for money and didnt know if they are gang of what , still they breaks the laws . Sure , if they are not buddhist or taken up the vow , they didnt break it .
It seems to me that there’s a crucial disanalogy between selling other people’s bodies and selling the benefit of one’s own body. Selling other people’s bodies is founded on violence and coercion.
The relevant consideration seems to me to be the effect of the service that one provides. This seems to raise the pretty difficult question of where we draw the line between acceptable provision of sensual gratification, such as making a coffee for someone, and unacceptable provision of sensual gratification, such as selling meth to children. It doesn’t seem to me that there is any obvious way of drawing the line. However, if giving any sensual gratification were unacceptable, then it seems like we’d have to stick to tasteless vitamin-enriched gruel as far as giving dāna is concerned.
If the suttas say anything about sex work, then that would seem to be pretty relevant. If sex work is not said to be wrong livelihood, then that would seem to point pretty strongly to the conclusion that posing naked for an art class is not even in the neighbourhood of wrong livelihood.
This line of reasoning seems to suggest that we shouldn’t help elderly ladies with their shopping unless we’re certain that they’re not hiding a brick of heroin in it. I think this should lead us to suspect that we’ve gone wrong somewhere with our approach to the issue.
Well , your reasoning is your line of thinking for sure . I would say it is up to each one to deal with it in real life situation . Supposition in such matter probably might be unsuitable .
That’s indeed a trickier situation. For the law it may be illegal, but from a Buddhist point of view the responsibility for the illegal packages lies with the people who send them. When something is done out of necessity or ignorance, there is no criminal or precept breaking intention. With necessity they would in fact rather not do it, so their intention is against it, but the need to feed their family is stronger.
There are limits to the necessity argument, I’m thinking of place like Myanmar where the only option for poor farmers is to grow poppies. It’s really an exception for a desperate situation.
Well , if you are not a buddhist no vow get violated . But there are many ignorant buddhist whom would try their luck due to greediness possibly could break the precept knowingly or unknowingly .
Posing as a live model is probably closer to ‘business in intoxicants’ than ‘business in human beings’., which surely has to do with slavery and prostitution.
Posing for drawing students as they learn perspective, etc is surely much less harmful than many jobs.
I don’t really understand the desire (obsession?) with increasing the list of forms of wrong livelihood. We can see that in the DN the Buddha had no problem coming up with a very lengthy list of professions that fall under wrong livelihood for monastics. If he wanted to do the same for lay people there was nothing stopping him.
I still don’t see how a job that involves arousing lust or aversion falls under wrong livelihood. Am I missing something? If we are going to start making up factors like that then we will end up with the only form of right livelihood being monastic life.
It was one of the concerns addressed in the OP, so I addressed it. It seemed more helpful to point out that the concern doesn’t apply than to argue that the concern isn’t valid. Rhetorical choice.
Thank you very much for all of your replies (and thank you to yours as well Bhante), my main concern was that, technically, being an actor isn’t described as being a wrong livelihood, and yet the Buddha did speak quite clearly about the unwholesome consequences to the actor (arousing lust and aversion in those who already have it).
Although an actor may a certain degree of intention in such, being a model in my eyes seemed different since the intention is simply for people to exercise their drawing skills (with the possibility of lust arising still), and since I was still wondering I preferred to address it.
Personally I think you’re fine. The human body is as it is, and there’s nothing inherently wholesome or unwholesome about it being clothed or naked. For much of the history of Buddhism, most people were semi-naked by today’s standards, including in artwork in Buddhist temples, and it has never been an issue.
do you mean a buddhist nun/monk?* Would you not agree that some professions can be just a noble or nobler? People often speak of say Nelson Mandela as exemples of very high virtue. Or think of scientists who made important discoveries to cure diseases that were decimating humanity; or of a doctor like Ignaz Semmelweis who promoted a method (washing one’s hands before surgery) that saved so many lives and who ended up mentally ill because of the hostility of the establishment.
I mean one’s moral intuition would suggest that these are very noble livvelihoods, which have been of great benefit to the human family.
*I mean another person who is often cites as a very noble human being is Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a Christian.
Certainly many such people have a great and positive impact on the world, but in Buddhism, “Right Livelihood” (as a factor of the path) is ultimately more about what effect your livelihood has on your mind than its effects on the external, material world.
Now, karmically there is some connection there: being a maker of poisons is probably bad for both the world and your mind and working to e.g. heal the sick is probably good for both the world and your peace of mind. But ultimately the karma that leads out of saṃsāra entirely is “neither bright nor dark” i.e. renunciation: leaving the world behind. I hope that helps?
