Chapter Eight: On Monastic Life and Lay Life

I. The Difference Between Monastic and Lay Life

First, let us define what a household is and what it entails. A household comprises the following: First, there is a dwelling where the entire family lives together; second, there are family members—parents, spouses, or children—who accompany, depend on, and rely on one another; third, there is shared worldly life, including meals, daily routines, entertainment, and so forth; fourth, there is shared property and material resources as the foundation for communal living, along with sources of income; fifth, there are shared life goals and rules.

These conditions together constitute a family, which exists only in the human realm of the Desire Realm within the Saha World. This is because sentient beings in the human realm possess strong desires and require dwellings to conceal their sexual activities, shielding them from others’ prying eyes and ridicule. Initially, in the human realm of the Saha World, beings descended from the Second Dhyana Heaven to Earth. Having greedily consumed the Earth’s essence, their bodies became heavy, rendering them unable to return to the heavenly palaces. Thus, they remained on Earth, becoming humans. The earliest humans were beings from the Second Dhyana Heaven, without distinctions of male and female forms. Later, as their numbers grew, affection arose among them, leading to mutual craving and attachment. Humans then developed male and female forms. These men and women engaged in sexual activities, initially avoiding others but eventually building dwellings and gradually forming families. With the birth of children, households emerged.

Thus, it is clear that a household cannot exist without men and women or without sexual relations. Without sexual desire, people would not form families, nor would they have children. Beings in the Desire Realm with weak lust, such as heavenly beings, have no households. Even humans in Uttarakuru have no households. All beings in the Form Realm lack male or female forms and sexual desire, abiding in meditative concentration. They have no households, no need to toil for sustenance, and no need for sources of income. Therefore, households exist only in the human realm of the Saha World, and the concept of “leaving home” (monasticism) applies only there. Where there is no household, the question of “leaving home” does not arise. Without the need for income or the struggle to support a family, one cannot be considered a layperson.

In the Buddha-lands where Buddhas and Bodhisattvas reside, the environment is celestial, even surpassing that of heavenly realms. There are no male or female forms, no worldly life, no struggle for survival, and no secular pursuits. All actions are for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings—all are Buddha’s work. Thus, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have no need to manifest the so-called “monastic form” as seen in the human realm of the Saha World. There is no need to shave their heads to remove “the hair of afflictions,” for they have no afflictions. There is no need to wear monastic robes, as their forms are inherently unbound. Neither Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, nor sentient beings cling to bodily forms. Any form they manifest is that of a monastic, not a layperson, for there are no household affairs.

We, sentient beings in the human realm of the Saha World, cannot be compared to the Buddhas of the ten directions, nor to the Bodhisattvas of Equal Enlightenment and Wondrous Enlightenment, nor even to the Tenth Ground Bodhisattvas. To claim that sentient beings in this evil age of the Five Turbidities need not manifest the monastic form or leave home, yet are no different from monastics, is mistaken.

In reality, the difference between monastic and lay life in this world is vast. Laypeople are burdened by worldly life, unable to free themselves, and face great limitations in spiritual practice. Many suffer under the weight of worldly responsibilities, unable to focus on cultivation. Even those who wish to leave home are often hindered by karmic ties, and some who do leave are repeatedly pulled back by these ties. This is the reality of the Saha World’s human realm. We cannot ignore this truth and claim that lay and monastic life are the same. The difference is immense. Each person should examine their own heart honestly, without falsely elevating themselves by claiming equality with monastics.

II. Monasticism Is the Best Way to Isolate from Worldly Dharma

The Buddha stated in the sutras that monastics who sleep all day in the mountains are better off than those who struggle in worldly affairs. Why? Though sleeping is not cultivation, it avoids exposure to other worldly dharmas. Gradually, the mind’s clinging to worldly matters diminishes until it ceases altogether. At that point, reducing sleep allows for rapid progress on the path.

This principle parallels rebirth in the Pure Land, where beings dwell in lotus palaces. Within the lotus, isolated from worldly influences and devoid of opportunities for defilement, mental clinging gradually ceases, unwholesome thoughts diminish, and unwholesome karmic seeds wither. Once the mind is purified, the lotus blooms, and one sees the Buddha, hears the Dharma, and attains enlightenment. This is the simplest method, yet it surpasses the defilement of worldly dharmas.

Thus, the Buddha accepts anyone who wishes to leave home, even if they do not cultivate diligently, for it still reduces unwholesome influences. After attaining enlightenment, the Buddha urged all capable members of his clan to leave home, regardless of marital status, leaving only his father, King Śuddhodana, and a successor to the throne. For his cousin Nanda, the Buddha employed extraordinary means, deceiving him into ordination. Nanda was deeply attached to his wife and could not be persuaded through normal means. Thus, the Buddha forcibly brought him to the monastery, forbidding him to return home without his wife’s knowledge. Finally, the Buddha took Nanda to visit both a heavenly palace and hell, after which Nanda devoted himself to cultivation without returning to lay life, ultimately attaining the fourth fruition of Arhatship. This illustrates the importance of monasticism. The Buddha employed various methods to encourage ordination, laboring to establish the Sangha to remain in the Saha World and guide sentient beings with affinities into the Buddha’s path.

In the Buddha’s time, those who wished to leave home did not need to divorce or seek permission from spouses or children. They simply entrusted their families to others, arranged for their welfare, and then left to cultivate. Even if their families struggled in new households, they did not return to care for them, for their resolve for the path was unwavering.

Those who wish to leave home but cannot should not seek excuses. There are no excuses to be found. Examine your own mind: the sole obstacle is an unwillingness to relinquish worldly attachments. There is no other reason.

III. Monastic Confession and Karma Are Private Matters

The confession and karmic rituals performed by monastics are not to be overheard by others. Similarly, the confessions of lay Bodhisattvas should not be casually disclosed. This prevents the spread of unwholesome dharmas and avoids negative influences. Some adverse conditions may foster karmic connections to the Dharma; thus, what should not be resolved must remain unresolved. If resolved, the karmic connection to the Dharma may be lost. This includes various illnesses—do not interfere if unnecessary. Interference may prevent one from entering the Buddha’s path or hinder diligent practice. How many people with smooth, untroubled worldly lives can truly leave home and cultivate the path? For those with karmic connections to the Dharma, the more adversities they face, the better, as it spurs single-minded diligence. Removing their obstacles may cause them to neglect Buddhist practice.