<p><em>Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 124:</em></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Ordinary life is extremely important. After all, most of us are not
  monks or nuns in a monastery devoted to meditation. But if you take
  that [ordinary life] as a part of your practice—not inferior to
  monastic life and not superior—it can be extremely rich".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that what is really meant with <em>catuparisa</em> in the Sobhana sutra (AN. VII) , where the four groups [monks; nuns; lay man and lay women] are <em>(...) 'accomplished together in wisdom, disciplined, self-confident, deeply learned and dhamma bearers, who live according to the dhamma and illuminate the sasana?'</em></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-25T09:42:11.590Z
2015-02-25T09:42:11.590Z
Guy Eugène Dubois
<p>The quote was, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that statement is related to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekkhamma" rel="nofollow">Nekkhamma</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-24T18:34:24.687Z
2015-02-24T18:34:24.687Z
ChrisW
<p>&quot;Is it true that...&quot; is a difficult question to answer. If you mean, according to a certain school, then yes, according to the Theravada, it is true, since an arahant is unable to practice non-monastic livelihood. They are said to either leave the household life or pass into parinibbana.</p>
<p>See, for example, the enlightenment of Khemā:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At the conclusion of the lesson Khemā was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson.</p>
<p>Said the Teacher to the king, “Great king, Khemā ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbāna.” The king replied, “Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbāna, never!” She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher’s foremost female lay disciples.</p>
<p>Dhp-A 347 (from Buddhist Legends)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>N.B. the word &quot;never&quot; should actually be &quot;enough!&quot;, in the sense that it's not time to think about that now.</em></p>
<p>The point is that, as mentioned in the linked answer, there is a difference between conventional morality and ultimate morality. Conventionally, only those livelihoods mentioned explicitly are wrong, just as only adultery is wrong for one who keeps five precepts. That doesn't mean that ordinary sexual desire is not ultimately misguided; it is. Likewise, any livelihood for the purpose of maintaining a household life is ultimately misguided.</p>
<p>The only exception I can think of is where one's household life is identical to a monastic setting (i.e. no need for ambition, concern for belongings, etc.).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-25T03:13:22.823Z
2015-02-25T03:13:22.823Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
yuttadhammo
<p>In Tibetan Buddhism there are many examples of yogis that didn´t live a monastic life but achieved enlighten during their lives.</p>

<p>The most revered of them is Milarepa, who after murdering family members in his early life, later became a Buddhist yogi and got enlighten.</p>

<p>Marpa is another good example; he had an ordinary life with wife, son, properties, etc. and got enlightened.  </p>

<p>Milarepa and Marpa are both from the Kagyu school, but in all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyigma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelupa) are examples of yogis, not living the monastic life and getting enlighten.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-24T21:45:02.777Z
2015-02-24T21:45:02.777Z
Carlos Velasquez
<p>Leading on from this <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7855/157">answer</a> - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true.</p>

<p>Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful.</p>

<ethics><right-livelihood><monasticism><laity>
Are all non-monastic ways of life wrong livelihood?
# Are all non-monastic ways of life wrong livelihood?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-02-24)

Leading on from this [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7855/157) - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true.

Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful.

**Tags:** ethics, right-livelihood, monasticism, laity


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-02-25. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

"Is it true that..." is a difficult question to answer. If you mean, according to a certain school, then yes, according to the Theravada, it is true, since an arahant is unable to practice non-monastic livelihood. They are said to either leave the household life or pass into parinibbana.

See, for example, the enlightenment of Khemā:

> At the conclusion of the lesson Khemā was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson.
>
> Said the Teacher to the king, “Great king, Khemā ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbāna.” The king replied, “Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbāna, never!” She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher’s foremost female lay disciples.
>
> Dhp-A 347 (from Buddhist Legends)

*N.B. the word "never" should actually be "enough!", in the sense that it's not time to think about that now.*

The point is that, as mentioned in the linked answer, there is a difference between conventional morality and ultimate morality. Conventionally, only those livelihoods mentioned explicitly are wrong, just as only adultery is wrong for one who keeps five precepts. That doesn't mean that ordinary sexual desire is not ultimately misguided; it is. Likewise, any livelihood for the purpose of maintaining a household life is ultimately misguided.

The only exception I can think of is where one's household life is identical to a monastic setting (i.e. no need for ambition, concern for belongings, etc.).


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-02-24. Score: 3

In Tibetan Buddhism there are many examples of yogis that didn´t live a monastic life but achieved enlighten during their lives.

The most revered of them is Milarepa, who after murdering family members in his early life, later became a Buddhist yogi and got enlighten.

Marpa is another good example; he had an ordinary life with wife, son, properties, etc. and got enlightened.

Milarepa and Marpa are both from the Kagyu school, but in all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyigma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelupa) are examples of yogis, not living the monastic life and getting enlighten.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-02-25. Score: 1

*Rosenberg, Larry, (2012), Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation p. 124:*

> "Ordinary life is extremely important. After all, most of us are not
> monks or nuns in a monastery devoted to meditation. But if you take
> that [ordinary life] as a part of your practice—not inferior to
> monastic life and not superior—it can be extremely rich".

Isn't that what is really meant with *catuparisa* in the Sobhana sutra (AN. VII) , where the four groups [monks; nuns; lay man and lay women] are *(...) 'accomplished together in wisdom, disciplined, self-confident, deeply learned and dhamma bearers, who live according to the dhamma and illuminate the sasana?'*


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-02-24. Score: 0

The quote was,

> ... most non-monastic livelihood is "wrong" in the sense that it generally involves desire beyond what is functional (i.e. can arise in an enlightened being)

I suspect that statement is related to [Nekkhamma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekkhamma).


---

