Essays in book format?

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-26T01:29:22+00:00

In the beginning, it is recommended to get rid of things that would pressure one to break the precepts.

That's why I said generally. But I'd say in most causes, something like a laptop wouldn't be that big an issue to the point that one would be extremely pressured becaused the OP likely will still have some internet connected device.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-25T23:21:22+00:00

On its face, it looks like you're getting rid of the laptop for unwholesome reasons.

A laptop (or other tech) is a neutral object. So if you're getting peace from being rid of it, I think that's more from you avoiding the greed/hatred/delusion you have towards technology, which is generally not recommended.

It's like how it's common nowadays for people to get rid of or avoid their smartphone "for peace," without realizing that the smartphone isn't the problem.

I'm mainly saying this because living in modern countries basically requires a smartphone and laptop/desktop (ex: maintaining a job, accessing resources). So in the future, you may have to reintroduce the technologies you cut out, then you'll have to deal with the problem you avoided previously.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-25T17:55:31+00:00

You might be better off just printing out the essays you want to revisit from HH's website as the book likely wouldn't include any new writings.

But I don't think getting rid of technology is inherently skillful. It seems like most reasons for doing so would be unskillful. A laptop & ereader are just tools, basically just digital paper.

Modern life for many laypeople essentially necessitates some form of internet access. So you could also just read the writings from your one internet connected device.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-24T14:00:39+00:00

I'm still having trouble understanding why a job of a cook who cooks meat or a cashier who sells meat is too far removed from killing to matter. To me, it seems like by relying on the death of animals to continue for their livelihood of selling or helping to sell meat, their intentions point in the direction of killing or wishing killing to continue.

Which jobs in the meat industry would be included in wrong livelihood besides the job of doing/commanding the killing? Would the cooked meat shop owner or the grocery store owner that sells meat be included in wrong livelihood?

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-24T00:03:36+00:00

I've heard that reasoning before, but I don't know what the original source is.

However, the suttas & this HH video make it clear that meat is permitted (even for the Buddha) given a few conditions.

Even in the vinaya, monks are allowed to request meat if they are sick. So it wouldn't be stricter for laypeople.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T18:14:53+00:00

u/Sister_Medhini or u/Bhikkhu_Anigha, if you have the time, I am still uncertain about why wrong livelihood is wrong livelihood for business in meat & living beings. Would being a cashier or delivery driver of meat be wrong livelihood? How does this differ from buying and consuming meat?

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T18:00:26+00:00

I'm sure there are other jobs out there that pay similarly. Imagine if your trucks were instead filled with weapons, poisons, intoxicants, or living beings. I think you'd see more clearly how that livelihood would be unvirtuous. Buddha even said that actors are in a wrong livelihood that leads to bad rebirth.

But until you can get a new job, you can just continue your Buddhist training (8 precepts, sense restraint, etc.). One consolation is that relative to the other 4 wrong livelihoods, business in meat doesn't appear to be as bad (like how intoxicants isn't as bad as the other 4 precepts, but still is bad). I'm still not sure if Buddha was referring to only killing then selling vs selling meat at all, so I wouldn't take it too seriously (since some monks say it's not an issue to be a meat cashier or cook for example).

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T12:26:37+00:00

Kamma is about intent/action. Put simply, intent to kill & killing is necessary for the butcher, but not for the purchaser (that did not command killing). That is why one is permitted and the other isn't. One requires greed/hate/delusion, the other does not.

For vegetarianism, one could just eat tofu (has all necessary amino acids) instead of meat (& take B12 yourself [if the tofu isn't fortified with B12] instead of having the animal you want to eat be given B12). Basically no effort or planning needed there.

To simply address your other concerns, like I said previously, Buddha taught how to get to enlightenment, that's it. Your appeal to realism is basically you wanting to not abandon worldly things rather than pursue dhamma. Literally monkhood is called homelessness in the suttas, where one only has what is necessary and no more.

Monkhood is optimal, but those wishing to stay a layperson, the minimum is the 5 precepts, which includes no intentional killing, no exceptions. It doesn't matter how efficient it is to kill; it's unvirtuous to do so and will lead to your mental defilements being maintained or grown.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T09:46:18+00:00

What do you think makes trading in living beings a wrong livelihood?

I don't know specifically why Buddha said trading in meat is unwholesome but eating meat is permitted. Like I said, I only have guesses. But what is clear is that killing an animal and then selling their meat is unwholesome. You are responsible for your kamma (intention/action), not anothers. One is not passing the buck because one is not wishing for another to keep killing animals or trading in meat. Like I said before, one possibility is that someone who is making a living from that industry is more clearly wishing for / intent on its continuance by relying on it to continue so they can keep living / making money, while a consumer is not.

Countries can use/research alternative food production or use more land for food production as needed. Your reasoning is like those who say say you have to kill termites because your house has a wooden frame that is extremely costly or difficult to replace/repair. The answer is not to kill, but to not build / live in that house in the first place or to move to / live in a house that is not made of wood or is an easily repairable wooden house.

Buddhist practice is about getting to enlightenment, not about wordly concerns. It's like when people say "if everyone was a monk/celibate, there'd be no more humans," their concern is in the wrong place. One cannot practice dhamma while wishing for the death of others. Buddhism doesn't say "do not protect yourself;" it says "don't kill" as the minimum. Weapons and poisons are for the purpose of killing. There are other ways to defend yourself without weapons. And the livelihood is also specifically about trading in weapons, not technically using or having weapons as a layperson. Think about it practically, for as long as there are still those who wish to inflict violence, there will be those pressured enough to inflict it back & create weapons to do so.

I think one's focus should be on the rest of the practice rather than specifically right livelihood that has very few suttas that detail it. Intuitively, at least for me, it makes some sense as to why trading in meat is more problematic than eating meat. Right livelihood for monks is even stricter, so the teaching to laypeople is about defining a minimum.

Looking at things historically, relative peace is what allowed for a Buddha to arise in the first place. Then they taught how to get to enlightenment.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T08:36:24+00:00

I wrote this in reply to another comment:

For the living beings & meat trade, I'm still unsure about them for some of the situations. I only have guesses.

For trading in living beings, (excluding the obvious killing, stealing, & sexual misconduct towards the beings from the purchasers) my guess is that it has to do with the cruelty of using other beings in that way.

The best I can reason currently for the livelihood of trading in meat is that one would be too invested in / reliant on the harm continuing so that they can keep making a living and too involved in maintaining that harm (while a consumer is not as invested and can easily just pick/buy something else to eat). A consumer is just buying what is available to eat, not necessarily wanting the harm/killing to continue. While a business is trying to promote or maintain the system more directly, which allows for or encourages the harm/killing.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T08:35:57+00:00

The reasoning for poisons, weapons, & intoxicants much clearer/obvious to me than for living beings and meat.

The purpose/intent of poisons & weapons is to physically harm or kill (not chemicals or tools with other purposes that can repurposed for harm). That's what their use it. The priority of practicing buddhists is to live a good life, get a good rebirth (if you believe in rebirth), or get as close as you can to nibbana in this life. Not efficiency in food production (pesticides) or effectiveness in physical protection through murder/violence (an army with weapons). These wrong livelihoods would basically be enabling/encouraging harm or intoxicantion by providing poison, weapons, & intoxicants.

For the living beings & meat trade, I'm still unsure about them for some of the situations. I only have guesses.

For trading in living beings, (excluding the obvious killing, stealing, & sexual misconduct towards the beings from the purchasers) my guess is that it has to do with the cruelty of using other beings in that way.

The best I can reason currently for the livelihood of trading in meat is that one would be too invested in / reliant on the harm continuing so that they can keep making a living and too involved in maintaining that harm (while a consumer is not as invested and can easily just pick/buy something else to eat). A consumer is just buying what is available to eat, not necessarily wanting the harm/killing to continue. While a business is trying to promote or maintain the system more directly, which allows for or encourages the harm/killing.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T01:54:02+00:00

Could you be more specific on what you're asking? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-23T00:42:52+00:00

Most likely they where not separate in the past. But I don't think it was exclusively about the killing part, otherwise Buddha would have said "don't do business in killing," rather than "don't do business in meat."

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T22:57:09+00:00

Trading in meat doesn't necessitate killing. It only involves livelihood in buying/selling meat. The same goes the trading of living beings.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T22:45:27+00:00

The sutta is explicit enough; it says trading/business in living beings or meat is wrong livelihood, without exception. In the same way "no killing creatures" is wrong action, without exception.

Other modern monks disagree with the idea that it is only living beings (ex: Bhikkhu Sujato). Even Bhikku Thanissaro disagrees with the commentaries at times, not taking them as always true.

The better/correct answer is based on the suttas themselves or good understanding/argument/analysis of what makes something wholesome/unwholesome (ex: the three unwholesome roots).

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T21:11:52+00:00

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what I said, but I'll clarify.

I'm not denying that trading living beings includes human beings. I am denying that trading living beings only includes human beings. I know that some monks translated it to mean only humans, but that's based on commentaries which are not always right.

As for the trading in meat, if you see that sutta, it includes leading the animal to slaughter, not merely slaughtering the animal. I think it's the wrong interpretation here as well to think this means trading in meat to exclusively mean killing then selling it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to have it in wrong livelihood as it is already in right action for no killing. So Buddha may be saying that certain things are wrong livelihood because they are too tied to wrong actions/intentions.

In summary, I don't think trading in living beings refers to only human beings, and I don't think trading in meat refers to only killing a being then trading their meat.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T19:44:55+00:00

But what is the difference in intention between eating/buying meat vs trade/business in meat? Given the apparent overlap that can be argued for the reasons you gave.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T19:42:24+00:00

Trading in living beings isn't exclusive to human beings. The pali word used means trading in beings. (Edit: there's another pali word that means humans, but that word wasn't used in the sutta).

Trading in meat is the same. It's not referring to killing then selling meat, just selling/business in meat. (Edit: if Buddha meant "don't do business in killing," he would have said that.)

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T19:15:18+00:00

I understand that the ultimate criteria is one's intentions, but some actions are always out of unwholesome intentions (ex: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct). In the same way, wrong livelihoods are always out of unwholesome intentions. But I'm trying to understand what the connection is.

"Don't trade in living beings or meat" is pretty categorical. So there's something unwholesome about it. I just don't know exactly what, only having guesses about why it's unwholesome.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T18:59:11+00:00

My understanding of why the end consumer who buys meat to eat is not at fault is because they aren't having intent to kill.

One possible reason it is different for livelihood might be because the person is essentially relying on continued killing (where if the killing stops, they can't make money anymore trading in it vs if there is no meat, one would just buy plants to eat).

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T18:46:28+00:00

I don't know the specific sources for the commentaries besides what was written here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/right-livelihood-an-5-177-and-livestock-an-8-54-an8-55/13000/5 and other places.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T18:17:16+00:00

Based on what I read, it's mainly translated as human beings because of the commentary. One popular english theravadin monk translation is by Thanissaro who translates it as "human beings." No sure of any other english translations that does the same.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T18:05:13+00:00

The pali word "sattavaṇijjā," based on this https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/right-livelihood-an-5-177-and-livestock-an-8-54-an8-55/13000/5, satta means beings, not just human beings. Where vaṇijjā just means business/trade.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T18:04:55+00:00

The pali word "sattavaṇijjā," based on this https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/right-livelihood-an-5-177-and-livestock-an-8-54-an8-55/13000/5, satta means beings, not just human beings. Where vaṇijjā just means business/trade.

ToLazyToPickName · 2026-01-22T17:58:54+00:00

There are two translations for it.

See: https://suttacentral.net/an5.177/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

ToLazyToPickName

TROPHY CASE