I have to disagree with you, Shih-fu. Sure, monks and nuns take vows and leave home, but that is a ritual, and it is purely an intellectual conception. Most monks and nuns are pretty much the same as lay practitioners. I see the monks who live and work here. They have responsibilities just as I do. In fact, it seems they have more responsibilities and work than I do. They have bills to pay, legal matters to deal with, visitors to greet and take care of, and a very hectic social schedule. It seems that they have replaced one home with another.

On the other hand, why can't I, as a lay practitioner, have the attitude of a monk or nun? Yes, I must go to work and earn money, but it is something I must do to survive. But in all things I do, whether it be work or being with my family, I try to see it as practice. I try to be mindful in all that I do. I try to live by the precepts and put Buddhist principles into practice. If some lay practitioners have this attitude, why should they be any different from monastics?

SHIH-FU:

The difference is that the responsibilities of home-leavers are just responsibilities, and nothing more. Monastics should not be emotionally involved with and attached to what they do. Let me rephrase that. Monks and nuns should not be emotionally attached to anything, and they live in an environment with rules that constantly remind them of that. On the other hand, most householders cannot help but be emotionally attached to their families, their work, their possessions. But, if you can practice with the attitude of a home-leaver, and detach yourself from things, then you are correct, there would be no difference. A fine example is Layman P'ang, who was a highly-attained lay practitioner of the Tang dynasty.