Sports gambling

[bodom]

MN 141--Sacca-vibhangga Suttank


DN 31--Singgalaka Suttank

"... And what are the six ways of wasting one's possessions
what not to follow? ... Liquor ... Gambling, etc."

Yes those suttas speak on gambling. No where does it say that it's wrong livelihood. As ive already said the suttas speak on the dangers of gambling but it's not included under wrong livelihood.

[DNS]

Yes those suttas speak on gambling. No where does it say that it's wrong livelihood. As ive already said the suttas speak on the dangers of gambling but it's not included under wrong livelihood.

How it is ill goten gains qhen he is not cheating the casino machine ?

Good points above, it's not ill gotten gains because the winner is not cheating the casino. The machines are literally programmed to put out big cash payouts once in a while, to keep the customers interested. And the casino is not forcing anyone to gamble and operates under many regulations. And they have to pay out the winnings and collect taxes and also employ thousands of people.

As I mentioned previously, it's unwise, but not wrong livelihood for both the casino operator and the customer. It's unwise, because in the long run, the customers will have a net loss, except for a rare few.

It's dangerous and detrimental to your finances and to your family, but no more say, than someone with a family to care for, but addicted to video games who never leaves the home to look for a job.

[Gwi]

not to follow = wrong livelihood

Why can't it be followed?
Because, it is a wrong livelihood.

If someone understands,
He would definitely conclude like that.

[bodom]

not to follow = wrong livelihood

Why can't it be followed?
Because, it is a wrong livelihood.

If someone understands,
He would definitely conclude like that.

Sure. I don't gamble and I don't promote it and I agree it can be dangerous but the Buddha still didn't list it under wrong livelihood. In the suttas he is very specific about what falls under wrong livelihood. This is not one of them.

[Mr. Seek]

What everyone else said, particularly AN 8:54. IMO, the jaws of hell don't care if you enter them fast, slow, with your rear or front end--only that you enter then. I'm using the word hell here as a metaphor for degradation into heedlessness.

[Gwi]

not to follow = wrong livelihood

Why can't it be followed?
Because, it is a wrong livelihood.

If someone understands,
He would definitely conclude like that.

Sure. I don't gamble and I don't promote it and I agree it can be dangerous but the Buddha still didn't list it under wrong livelihood. In the suttas he is very specific about what falls under wrong livelihood. This is not one of them.

So, gambling is a livelihood right?
Of course not. Even from a non-religious
perspective, we know that gambling
Is a wrong livelihood, especially from religion.


Gambling may be legal,
But still a wrong livelihood.

[bodom]

not to follow = wrong livelihood

Why can't it be followed?
Because, it is a wrong livelihood.

If someone understands,
He would definitely conclude like that.

Sure. I don't gamble and I don't promote it and I agree it can be dangerous but the Buddha still didn't list it under wrong livelihood. In the suttas he is very specific about what falls under wrong livelihood. This is not one of them.

So, gambling is a livelihood right?
Of course not. Even from a non-religious
perspective, we know that gambling
Is a wrong livelihood, especially from religion.


Gambling may be legal,
But still a wrong livelihood.

I don't have much more to say on the subject since I'm not that invested in this topic but if you can show me a sutta reference that specifically says that gambling is wrong livelihood then I'd love to see it. If not then my view remains unchanged.

"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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[asahi]

Gambling is unwholesome . If Buddha didnt approve of gambling , surely He also disproved of gambling business and the supporting of it .



https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/kelly-sawyer-yareham

“And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost; one’s word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage, since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

[Gwi]

Sure. I don't gamble and I don't promote it and I agree it can be dangerous but the Buddha still didn't list it under wrong livelihood. In the suttas he is very specific about what falls under wrong livelihood. This is not one of them.

So, gambling is a livelihood right?
Of course not. Even from a non-religious
perspective, we know that gambling
Is a wrong livelihood, especially from religion.


Gambling may be legal,
But still a wrong livelihood.

I don't have much more to say on the subject since I'm not that invested in this topic but if you can show me a sutta reference that specifically says that gambling is wrong livelihood then I'd love to see it. If not then my view remains unchanged.

"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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

So, can Buddhists sell pirated tapes?
Adult videos? Then, saying rude is allowed,
slander is allowed (sotāpanå can still do slander,
different from lying).



In fact, The Buddhå did not forbid
killing, stealing ... drunkenness.
The Buddhå just saying to be avoided.

Why should we observe the precepts??


MN 141
And what is right livelihood? It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. This is called right livelihood.

Gambling is wrong livelihood,
Even though it's legal.

[Gwi]

Gambling is unwholesome . If Buddha didnt approve of gambling , surely He also disproved of gambling business and the supporting of it .



https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/kelly-sawyer-yareham

“And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost; one’s word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage, since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

That's why gambling is a wrong livelihood.

[DiamondNgXZ]

Sure. I don't gamble and I don't promote it and I agree it can be dangerous but the Buddha still didn't list it under wrong livelihood. In the suttas he is very specific about what falls under wrong livelihood. This is not one of them.

So, gambling is a livelihood right?
Of course not. Even from a non-religious
perspective, we know that gambling
Is a wrong livelihood, especially from religion.


Gambling may be legal,
But still a wrong livelihood.

I don't have much more to say on the subject since I'm not that invested in this topic but if you can show me a sutta reference that specifically says that gambling is wrong livelihood then I'd love to see it. If not then my view remains unchanged.

"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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Very good points. Interesting, I never thought about gambling and livelihood before.

Anyway in terms of livelihood, I think it's safe to say that it's a means of making sure one can eat to survive another day. That is income.

Gambling in a sense doesn't really qualify as income generator as it's more likely to lose money than to win them. So I doubt gambling can be called a livelihood. Are there professional gamblers who just spends all their days gambling and survive based on that? Most gamblers should have their normal jobs too.

As for people who own, operates, works in casinos, hmm.... strictly speaking, it's hard to pin down them on the wrong livelihood categories, not trading in weapons, living beings (not just humans) https://suttacentral.net/an5.177/en/sujato , meat, intoxicants or poisons. However, most (should be all?) casinos serves alcohol or meat, so we can fault them on that part.

Do the casino owners break 5 precepts in operating them? One can imagine they don't need to. No killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, or drinking needed.

However, one can still say that since the livelihood involves creating a lot of losers, people who would have a lot of suffering due to lost of wealth that it is unwholesome in that manner. So still, generally to be advised against as a career/job consideration if one wishes to have a livelihood which doesn't harm as much. This applies too to those working in oil and gas, fossil fuel companies, etc. It's a wider consideration.

[asahi]

[asahi]

So I doubt gambling can be called a livelihood. Are there professional gamblers who just spends all their days gambling and survive based on that? Most gamblers should have their normal jobs too.

Here are some of the Professional Gamblers :

Amarillo Slim
Edward Thorp
Bill Benter
Archie Karas
Billy Walters
Chris Moneymaker
Doyle Brunson


Actually , opening a hotel or restaurant are not in the list . Vegetarian restaurant are exception . But one can imagine a hotel would involve operating restaurant to provide foods which mostly include making bulk ordering of meats therefore are more directly commiting asking other to kill .
Most of the monks i knew advises us not to involve ourselves in such businesses .

[DiamondNgXZ]

Actually , opening a hotel or restaurant are not in the list . Vegetarian restaurant are exception . But one can imagine a hotel would involve operating restaurant to provide foods which mostly include making bulk ordering of meats therefore are more directly commiting asking other to kill .
Most of the monks i knew advises us not to involve ourselves in such businesses .

Indeed, from the literal reading of the right livelihood list,

“Mendicants, a lay follower should not engage in these five trades.
“Pañcimā, bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā.
What five?
Katamā pañca?
Trade in weapons, living creatures, meat, intoxicants, and poisons.
Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṁsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā—
A lay follower should not engage in these five trades.”
imā kho, bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā”ti.

Satta as frequently chanted refers to living beings, not just humans.

It’s due to that that I consider opening, operating, owning a pet shop is also wrong livelihood. Example, selling dogs, cats, rabbits, fish, parrots, other birds, etc. I extend this to breeders whose job is to specially breed certain types of dogs or cats, lab rats or other animals, and sell their offsprings off.

Being a vet, animal doctor however, is not wrong livelihood, as no trading is involved of animals, but practically speaking, vets usually kill pets people bring to them for active euthanasia, so for that part, it can become a wrong livelihood for breaking the precepts.

Operating a zoo is not trading in animals, unless there’s barter between other zoos, but if there’s meat eating animals in the zoo, the person feeding those animals may incur killing kamma, depending how they got the meat. Are they feeding live fish to the crocodiles?

However, zoo does oppress animals. Or provide a sanctuary compared to the wild forest (hunting, forest burning, forest cutting etc), depends on how the zoo is designed.


I consider vegan restaurant to be ok, vegetarian is borderline, as egg and milk industry nowadays involves killing down the line. It's hard to have a hotel or mall with right livelihood. Imagine a new nation with practising Buddhists only with Buddhist principles. Only vegan restaurants, malls don't have pet shops, alcohol, etc. However, it's hard to limit what counts as weapons and poisons, like dishwasher liquid and knife are fairly basic things even monasteries uses. I suppose it depends on the intention of usage.

If however, one is just a low level cashier at a normal mall, I don't think that counts so far to be considered wrong livelihood. It's more of the person who has the power to decide what the mall sells.

[Gwi]

So, gambling is a livelihood right?
Of course not. Even from a non-religious
perspective, we know that gambling
Is a wrong livelihood, especially from religion.


Gambling may be legal,
But still a wrong livelihood.

I don't have much more to say on the subject since I'm not that invested in this topic but if you can show me a sutta reference that specifically says that gambling is wrong livelihood then I'd love to see it. If not then my view remains unchanged.

"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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Very good points. Interesting, I never thought about gambling and livelihood before.

Anyway in terms of livelihood, I think it's safe to say that it's a means of making sure one can eat to survive another day. That is income.

Gambling in a sense doesn't really qualify as income generator as it's more likely to lose money than to win them. So I doubt gambling can be called a livelihood. Are there professional gamblers who just spends all their days gambling and survive based on that? Most gamblers should have their normal jobs too.

As for people who own, operates, works in casinos, hmm.... strictly speaking, it's hard to pin down them on the wrong livelihood categories, not trading in weapons, living beings (not just humans) https://suttacentral.net/an5.177/en/sujato , meat, intoxicants or poisons. However, most (should be all?) casinos serves alcohol or meat, so we can fault them on that part.

Do the casino owners break 5 precepts in operating them? One can imagine they don't need to. No killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, or drinking needed.

However, one can still say that since the livelihood involves creating a lot of losers, people who would have a lot of suffering due to lost of wealth that it is unwholesome in that manner. So still, generally to be advised against as a career/job consideration if one wishes to have a livelihood which doesn't harm as much. This applies too to those working in oil and gas, fossil fuel companies, etc. It's a wider consideration.

Can I peek at the bathing girl?
I can't find a verse that forbids it.
Or sell adult videos?


Actually, gambling is just a “game”.
That is why it is not categorized as “job”.
However, it is a wrong livelihood (an Income).