Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutta?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutt

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

SarathW wrote:This thread may some help:

What is right livelihood?
Thank you for finding that thread. This is the first page
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutt

Post by LXNDR »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.
but then there's sattavanijja trade in living beings (one translation of satta is animal) which isn't right, how does breeding, trading and using animals for labor accord with it?
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutt

Post by LXNDR »

mahat wrote:
LXNDR wrote:so mahat you mean the sutta is an allegory and doesn't speak of actual types of commerce?
Yes, and incorrectly translated in English. Mansa means flesh, if you read the Silavimamsa Jataka, Buddha defines Lust as "Mansa". If you can't find it, I'll post it. So Mamsa Vanijja means flesh trade--- which is prostitution, not purchasing your burger from McDonalds. :smile:
that's not what i meant, i thought your claim was that in the sutta these words were used allegorically meaning defilements, but now see that my assumption was incorrect
mahat
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutt

Post by mahat »

mahat wrote:If anything requiring killing was wrong livelihood, than why wasn't farming banned too?

No. 11.

LAKKHAṆA-JĀTAKA.

Towards harvest-time in Magadha, when the crops stand thick in the fields, it is dangerous for the deer in the forests round. Anxious to kill the creatures that devour their crops, the peasants dig pitfalls, fix stakes, set stone-traps, and plant snares and other gins; so that many deer are slain.

From Access to Insight
One day, however, when Pipphali Kassapa was inspecting the fields, it happened that he saw, as if with new eyes, what he had seen so often before. He observed that when his people plowed, many birds gathered and eagerly picked the worms from the furrows. This sight, so common to a farmer, now startled him. It now struck him forcefully that what brought him his wealth, the produce of his fields, was bound up with the suffering of other living beings. His livelihood was purchased with the death of so many worms and other little creatures living in the soil. Thinking about this, he asked one of his laborers: "Who will have to bear the consequences of such an action?" — "You yourself, sir," was the answer.4
Again, no one has responded to this. Why was farming where farmers kill millions of beings not termed as wrong livelihood?

The Vyagpaggha Sutta Directly contradicts the Vanijja Sutta:
Vyagghapajja Sutta

“Herein, Vyagghapajja, by whatsoever activity a householder earns his living,
whether by farming,
by trading,
by rearing cattle, (this is trading in beings - you have to buy cattle to breed it and sell it)
by archery, (archery?That's weapons trading and practicing)
by service under the king,
or by any other kind of craft-

at that he becomes skilful and is not lazy. He is endowed with the power of discernment as to the proper ways and means; he is able to carry out and allocate (duties). This is called the accomplishment of persistent effort.
Frankly these contradictions mean there is something missing.

Again, it is not meat trade, it is flesh trade. I speak Hindi and I know Mansa also means flesh and in English, flesh trade immediately means prostitution and sex trade. Sirima is a case in point, she was a prostitute and upon becoming a stream enterer no longer remained in this profession.

Meat is NOT illegal. Buddha states in the Jatakas, Mahasutosoma Jataka, that the right to eat meat is given by Trayistrimsa Heaven to duly elected rulers on earth and they can decide how to delegate it but not ordinary lay people since animals have to be treated properly they all come under the jurisdiction of the elected officials. Meat must be government certified.

Similarly Maccha Jataka, The Bodhisat, a government officer, saves only one fish that was going to hell. That means fish and meat granted from rulers are Legal.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Wrong Livelihood - incorrect Translation of Vanijja Sutt

Post by DNS »

mahat wrote: Again, no one has responded to this. Why was farming where farmers kill millions of beings not termed as wrong livelihood?
I forget the reference, but the Buddha states that accidentally killing a being one cannot see, there is no offense. Farmers who kill unintentionally from their plows do not incur an offense. However, a butcher or slaughterhouse worker must intentionally kill / slaughter an animal to make it into meat.

As to your statements about meat eating being acceptable, refer to the great vegetarian debate discussion for that. In terms of Right Livelihood, the Buddha was very clear: No killing of humans or animals.
Post Reply