My husband plays a lot of video games. That’s not too surprising, since he used to be a video game programmer. One of his favorite types of games has a “quest” theme. In the quest game, the hero is on a mission to accomplish something epic. The entire game is built around the hero’s ability to complete his or her challenge.
But in a capitalistic society, it seems to me that there are many more ways to deal in living beings—ways that might not seem obvious until they are deconstructed.
I realized recently that I am on a quest in real life. My “epic” goal is twofold: 1. I want to heed my calling to help others; and 2. I want to integrate my ethics and values—and the faith from which both stem—into my professional life.
This isn’t as easy as it seems, at least not for me. Part of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path addresses “right livelihood.” Dealing in living beings is listed as one way in which people can harm others while earning a living. For this reason, dealing in living beings is to be avoided for those aspiring to live their lives according to the path.
I’ve been sitting with the idea of dealing in living beings as it relates to truly helping others. Raising animals for slaughter and engaging in slave trade and prostitution are examples of dealing in living beings that are called out in the Noble Eightfold Path. These are obvious examples. But in a capitalistic society, it seems to me that there are many more ways to deal in living beings—ways that might not seem obvious until they are deconstructed.
We are all being dealt like cards every day, in one way or another. When a healthcare management company focuses on making its partnering physicians and its own executives wealthy instead of focusing on optimizing healthcare and minimizing costs for its patients, is that not dealing in living beings? When university-administered nutrition education programming is both funded and governed by the USDA—a deeply conflicted organization whose partnership with the dairy and beef industries impedes its ability to promote an optimal diet—is that not dealing in living beings?
In the first scenario, the profits are not possible without moving people through the health system. In the second, the programs cannot operate without the recipients of the programming. In each case, who is benefiting? Who is being exploited and potentially left in a worse state than before the interaction with the system? Who is being traded for profit?
At its core, right livelihood means doing work that is ethical. Since I decided to leave the field of communications, I have been trying to find the right path, one that supports and furthers my ethics. Because I want to live a life of service that is guided by respect—for myself and others—I need to find work that is in alignment with those goals.
Gaia University puts it aptly when they discuss the relationship many of us have with our work:
Most of us think in terms of “getting a job” as the primary way to earn a living—which means, of course, that we’re accepting a livelihood that’s been created by someone else and will be working on projects that meet the goals of other people’s agendas, not necessarily our own.
This is not, however, the only way to work in the world, and it’s certainly not the most fulfilling approach. As Ruth Purtilo, et all, state in Health Professional and Patient Interaction: “ … a life guided by respect depends in part on the ability to identify and shape one’s own life according to personal values and those that help to build a stronger community.”
This is what I’m looking for. This is my quest. And, like my husband’s game characters who get knocked down repeatedly in their efforts to find what they need, I’ll continue to get knocked down—and get back up again—until I become the hero of my own life and rise to this challenge.
Dana Henry Martin 
There is nothing easy about right livelihood; but like most Buddhist concepts, it does not fit into the Western idea of quest, exactly: it’s not a state that you reach but a state that you practice, and practice every day. You can turn work into livelihood; and you can turn work into right livelihood by how you approach it. I try to make a conscious effort at my job, where I have people management responsibilities in a very operational department, to always keep in mind that people’s lives are more important than their work, and that their jobs are not prerequisites for their lives or the fulfillment of those lives. It helps. But I have to approach it every day as if I just thought of that idea! with the enthusiasm of something new. Because the “job” part of our work can chip away at that realization until, without noticing it, you’re suddenly not caring about the well-being of the people around you, your customers or end-users, or even your self. I think you’ve got the right mindset, and maintaining that in the perfectly imperfect world of suffering is pretty key.
LikeLike
Jeff, I see what you are saying about “quest” being a Western concept that doesn’t quite apply to Buddhist concepts. At the same time, I realize that I am living in the West and that my culture is very different from Eastern culture. My world is also very different from the world in which Buddha lived. For me, Buddhism embodies both being and seeking—the being you describe above and the seeking the word “quest” captures. Buddha himself sought out truth when he went into the world and saw suffering.
In a culture that does not value many of the central teachings of Buddhism, I feel the need and calling to both embody Buddhist principles and seek out the best and most appropriate ways to honor those principles through the work I choose to do. I agree with you when you say that daily practice can turn work into right livelihood, and I also think there are limits to that idea. We must come back to the idea of “right livelihood” in order to explore those limits. If someone is building nuclear weapons, they might bring awareness to their job and treat others in the workplace well, but they are still building nuclear weapons in the end. Not all work can be turned into right livelihood, and many lines of work need to be scrutinized to ascertain the ways in which living beings are suffering needlessly as a result of those lines of work.
I also want to clarify that I didn’t say my search for ethical work is a state I want to reach, nor did I say that I wasn’t practicing every day. Finding ethical work isn’t going to get me to any end state; I am aware of that. But it is something I need to make every effort to find during this lifetime. I never again want to be in a position where I am looking someone in the eye and telling them I am helping them when I am not. I never again want to do work that contributes to the objectification of people, the abuse of animals, and the destruction of the planet. I’ve been in those positions before, and it feels rotten (because it is rotten).
LikeLike
Well put. I think you know the balance you want to strike very well. There’s quite a difference between seeing things as they are and accepting them that way (and thus participating in them). Sometimes that gap is enormous, in fact, and the processes and institutions that can lead to passive “acceptance” are insidiously dull and banal. And therefore more dangerous to the soul, spirit, whatever we want to call it, than ever.
LikeLike