I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any. Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood? Kind regards, Timothy

As a Buddhist looking for perfecting his Right Livelihood: finding a Livelihood which is so perfect and Right that it not only avoids bad-karma-making (killing, stealing, intoxication, etc.) but even furthers the level of Dharma in the world (healing, love, connectedness, self-understanding)... seeing people involved in these kinds of work truly brings me joy. What kind of information technology careers do you think most easily contribute to the Dharma and how? If you are involved in IT and are Buddhist, how do you connect the two (other than through donating to Buddhist causes)?

In the Talaputta Sutra , the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell. > When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn > in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, > there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: > either hell or the animal womb. Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in India 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries? The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately, there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion, so I just muttered an apology and moved on. Many thanks for any/all responses.

Is worry about life, body health, e.g. householding, status-maintaining, obstacles for Arahataphala? Is this in accordance with what the Teacher taught? And why is such an obstacle? Would one believing no former, no next life (deny rebirth), not hold either strong on kaya (Sakkaya), worry about life and health, or falls into ideas of "abounding life will be Nibbana, end of suffering"?

If you do an ordinary job, say anything like a software engineer, or a waiter in a hotel or a farmer, anything, like a 9-5 job. Helping society in whichever peaceful means possible. Does it accumulate good karma? I understand it is a 'Right Livelihood' but does it fill the storehouse of good karma? I understand that 'karma' is dependent on the 'intention', but doing a job has no particular intention other than fulfilling your financial monthly obligations or getting the fodder for the fire to cook dinner. Do we have to be in a position to help millions, like the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahma, or just an ordinary guy doing ordinary routine **will also get one in higher realms**?

I have run into a mental trap about desire on the Buddhist path. I know desire is good if it is wholesome, ie say desire for enlightenment and etc. Yet what about a desire for the mastery of a skill such as being a musician or artist, and what about wanting in part that mastery for something as a career? The desire to make a enjoyable living seems ok but is it at odds especially if you want it because there is an aversion to other work that one finds disheartening and unfulfilling? Thank you.

Say one has gravely fallen into slavehood by consuming 'free' and, almost unaware, is driven to steal and pull the Gems and it's heritage, into this evil bound. Almost unaware and deluded, he even thinks he does a good by following a Robin Hood like lane, trying to gain surface by pulling Sublime into his sink. What does good householder think: Which fruit, by acts grave wrong view (taking ungiven, cheating, hiding up, disregard...), following demand and 'my right' (given by Lord Mara, industy and his host), has he and those he encourage likewise, to expects, how ever 'naively good' he might justify his ways, even it directly warned? Liberation or long time even lower slave of Mara and his host? Sure, answer honest and in line with the teacher, after having reflected wise, might change ones ways, and one might not only seek for excuse old but change the way toward out. Yet those answers might be rare and less voted up, naturally, bound like-a-like.

Currently, I work at home taking calls for tech support for a cable company. I work to help solve customers' issues as best as possible over the phone and send a technician if need be. The one thing I have been able to get past now is getting people onto the newest service available. The way that I see this being right livelihood is due to the fact that I am relieving suffering through poor cable services and possibly stress with paying too much (only sometimes is it paying more for the new service). I would like some thoughts on this as this has been running through my mind lately. No harm is being done through this job from what I can tell. Thanks in advance and Big Love!

Regarding the teachings on virtue, not considering the more advanced teachings (such as Dependent Origination), did the Buddha ever speak of where the sphere of personal responsibility ends? The Buddha [seems to be clear](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html) that what determines the moral quality of one's volitional actions is the intention behind them. But other times, such as when [discussing wrong livelihood](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN5_177.html) , it seems that one is responsible for second-order effects as well (e.g. the harm that might result from the weapons that one has sold). So is there something exceptional to trading in weapons to qualify it as wrong livelihood? Or is there more nuance to the teachings of virtue, and one is responsible for some second-order effects as well? If the latter is true, then in which cases is one responsible? Are there any Suttas I can read about this? Thank you, and Metta.

In line with my understanding of the teachings, I have been letting go of many possessions that have been accumulating in my life. I realized they really are unnecessary, they mostly just add stress to my life, and I can possibly use them to do good for myself and others by turning them into gifts/dana. I decided to clear out my parents garage of most of the things they are storing from my childhood. Initially, I quickly came up with the plan to sell all the valuables donating their proceeds to the Sangha, and donate anything else to Goodwill or a similar non-profit thrift store. However, as I thought about it, I began to consider the Buddha's teachings about right livelihood and the five trades he specifically discouraged as well as his teachings to the actor, Talaputa. My understanding of this teaching regarding livelihood is that the Buddha discourages participating in trade where you will be harmed or encourage others to be harmed through the breaking of the precepts, or in arousing passions, aversion or delusion. As I thought about this, I have started wondering: is it right to sell my old valuables, or even give away possessions that may cause this kind of harm to their recipients? Would it be better to just throw these things away? I would like to keep the question general, as perhaps others will have this same dilemma but have different possessions; but in my case, there are a few notable examples that have me perplexed, including: Things that could be classified as weapons like fishing poles, fishing tackle. Fishing/camping/bushcraft knives. Things that have fed my passion for sensuality (and still do even as I have firmly decided to part with them). Like my trading card game collections of Magic the Gathering and Pokemon. And my collection of retro video games. Even things like kids toys, stuffed animals, action figures, nerf guns all seem like they will excite passion, aversion and delusion in their ultimate recipients. So I am having this dilemma, because some of the things are valuable and could become support for the Sangha through the donation of the proceeds. But, the vast majority of the items are now questionable to me as to whether they cause harm. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to part with these possessions skillfully?

A lay follower should not engage in five types of business i.e. business in weapon, human being, meat, intoxicant and poison. But there are many jobs can be considered harmful but not included in the five types of business mentioned in the Sutta. I have a qualification in music and I want to put this into practice. Is teaching music can be considered right livelihood? Talaputa Sutta says > Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound > by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things > inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a > festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who > are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on > things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst > of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin > with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more > delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage > in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & > heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup > of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of > laughter. Teaching piano may not be explicitly mentioned in this Sutta but it is possible for a person who teaches music and for those who are taught to be focused with even more passion, aversion and delusion. Does this livelihood lead us to hell? I believe the majority of healthy, normal people in the most strictest sense will not object to teaching piano. But the Sutta is probably saying otherwise and it can potentially limit your career or business you want to pursue or at worst you can end up unemployed for the sake of keeping yourself on the right path. The antidote to this type of situation is to ignore it and keep going but I don't think ignorance is the right path. I may misunderstand the Sutta or may not misunderstand it. Hope someone can shed some light, that will be a very helpful and appreciated. Many thanks.

Receiving alms is definitely part of the monastic life. Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered Right Livelihood for lay persons? Is begging for alms considered skillful for lay persons, compared to earning their livelihood in accordance with the five precepts, principles of Right Livelihood and teachings of the Pali Canon (or other scriptures)? Or is it considered laziness?

It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not: Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on... To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business. I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals. Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

According to the Vanijja Sutta on Right Livelihood : > "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. > Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, **business > in meat**, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. The first precept forbids taking of a life. The ability to freeze, store, transport and sell meat later was not possible in the time of the Buddha. Questions: 1. Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to be a frozen meat retailer, supplier or importer selling frozen meat sourced from elsewhere (but is not involved with the actual farming and slaughter of animals)? 2. Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a cashier or general worker in a supermarket or hypermarket (e.g. Tesco, Target or Aldi) that sells many things including frozen meat? 3. Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as an employee in a logistics company (like FedEx) that stores and transports all types of products including frozen meat? 4. Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a chef or waiter in a restaurant that serves meat dishes, using only frozen meat (no live animals)?

The [Vaṇijjāsutta](https://suttacentral.net/an5.177/pli/ms) : > Pañcimā, bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca? Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā — imā kho, bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā”ti. > > Sattamaṃ There are many translations regarding above quoted text, not sure which one needs to be included. But from what I understand, if one raises a pig and kill it in order to sell its meat, this is considered wrong livelihood. But what if the restaurant owner simply buys meats and cook them and then sell them, is this considered wrong livelihood?

...and why? Is the a case where one would neither need nor want? What's (or would be) a "trade" purified on one or both sides and it's quality, effect, if given into? That of one pulling one out, not in. *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, or other world-binding earning but for a pull out of the wheel.]*

My person remembers a possible common know story about a Brahman collecting as much as possible cow's leading to sorrows for poor. The Sublime Buddha approached him one day, gave a talk and later he released the cows. It might be that's just a later tale not found in the scripts, my person just does not remember where having been come across aside in an illustrated "Children"-book. Good if one likes to share messages on livelihood. *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel]*

AFAIK, in Theravada, ordained monastics are prohibited from growing their own food. Even hydroponics would likely be prohibited by vināya due to probability of harming small unseen life (algae, etc) in maintaining a hydroponic system. Are there any ethical concerns for Buddhist laity, including those moving towards but not yet fully ordained, especially from a Theravada perspective? As a side issue do ordained monastics maintain houseplants or gardens, or outsource this work to laity?

I currently am taking care of an organic garden and minimizing any harm that could befall on any living beings by sustainable techniques, and on the side am helping to pick cherries and yet I have discovered that they use a product (insecticide) to treat the cherries. Am I somehow earning a wrong livelihood by picking them up ? Considering the five different types of wrong livelihood AN 5.177 > Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. > Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in > meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. > > "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not > engage in. May you be blessed.

Does stock trading count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117 ? Sure active stock trading is very destructive, especially nowadays it's like trading the weather, but does it count as pursuing gain with gain even for passive stock traders? Thanks a mil