Is shellfish aquaculture considered a wrong livelihood? I am currently employed on an aquaculture farm that specializes in clams and oysters. According to our modern system of taxonomy, both of these organisms are considered animals. I also know that a profession in which one trades animals is not right livelihood. However, according to this site, clams and oysters don't really have brains. Furthermore, according to wikipedia, it would seem that the nervous system of the mollusk doesn't really function to sense pleasure or pain. So, I am wondering- does trade in shellfish count as wrong livelihood? If so, how does one determine what is an animal and what is not according to Buddhism? If one is meant to go by whatever their respective society defines as an animal, surely this definition will change and therefore make this aspect of right livelihood unreliable, right?
Thankya
The Vanijja Sutta is the standard definition of &quot;wrong livelihood&quot; and is, as you saw, not specific. It says, in its entirety (at least in this translation),

&quot;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.
&quot;These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.&quot;

FYI in this commentary on the Vinaya, on page 308, it says,

Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14)

So, apparently, according to this, oysters (and eggs and caviar too) are considered flesh or meat.
Whether you're vegetarian is slightly up to you. This article too (of unknown authority) says not to &quot;steam live clams or eat live oysters&quot; but explains why it's seen as relatively OK to buy meat under certain circumstances.
There was an argument between the Buddha and Devadata apparently, with the Buddha's not mandating vegetarianism because he didn't want the Sangha to be difficult for lay people to support.
FYI one of the criteria for the &quot;no killing&quot; precept is whether you're conscious that the being is alive and that you intend to kill them: killing someone by accident if you thought they were already dead, for example, wouldn't be breaking the precept. So, who knows, maybe it's partly up to you decide or to be aware of whether they count as &quot;animals&quot; or &quot;meat&quot; or &quot;sentient&quot;.
I found this modern paper which claims that they're not especially sentient, but I doubt that's canonical.
And some people would have you know that even being a vegetable farmer or crop farmer presumably wouldn't prevent the deaths of worms and possibly field mice and so on.
Anyway, good luck with finding a solution.
And don't know any context to the Vanijja Sutta (it's in the Anguttara Nikaya as a list of five things). You'd think that if &quot;Right Livelihood&quot; were important enough to be in the Eightfold path then it would be better defined; but maybe it's better defined for monks than it is for laypeople; or maybe it's tangential to the main message, i.e. the Buddha's messages wasn't especially about right livelihood.
The book The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity which is a bit of compendium of rules for lay people doesn't talk about &quot;right livelihood&quot; exactly but does say &quot;don't destroy life&quot;. It claims that the Gihi Sutta (although I don't see this there) says that you should avoid trapping animals unless you're too sick or weak to farm.