Livelihood and the Eight Renunciations

Q: My livelihood makes it difficult or apparently impossible to commit to The Eight Renunciations. Does this make it difficult or apparently impossible for me to practice the Asheyana path?

A: An Asheyana practitioner may have a livelihood that appears to pose a contradiction to one or more of The Eight Renunciations. 

For example, a law enforcement officer may be required to use lethal force in the course of their duties and so, fulfilling the responsibilities entrusted to them may appear to place them at odds with committing to the first Renunciation, "Give up taking life."

The idea behind The Eight Renunciations is to support the Asheyana practitioner on their desired return home.

If one's livelihood leaves them feeling that their desired return home is an increasingly out-of-reach prospect, it would be worth them contemplating whether they are engaged in wrong livelihood, ie., a livelihood that does not benefit society and does not benefit them by ill-preparing them for their desired return home.

If one's livelihood is necessary to society and can be a good support for making preparations for their desired return home, and yet appears to pose a contradiction to one or more of The Eight Renunciations, one can still commit to the Eight Renunciations as a reference point and work incrementally towards meeting them throughout their remaining life.

One will eventually retire from their livelihood, either with years ahead or on their deathbed. Working with commitment to the Eight Renunciations and with the Asheyana path throughout one's life will be of benefit.

To conclude, The Eight Renunciations are a support for an individual practitioner for their desired return home. The Eight Renunciations are not criteria for some kind of group membership nor are they a method to evaluate the quality or standing of another. 

Further Clarifying Thought: If an Asheyana practitioner's livelihood is necessary to society and can be a good support for making preparations for their desired return home, and yet they find their incidental actions--those not definitely related to their source of livelihood--appear to pose a contradiction to one or more of The Eight Renunciations, one should work more diligently than incrementally to give up those contradictory actions. For example, if speaking falsely is an apparent enhancer to one's livelihood or is apparently not a detriment to one's livelihood, one should still work to give up speaking falsely.

Finer-grained consideration on the permissibility of incidental or deliberate morally-contradictory actions in daily life could be considered further when working with Ethical Conduct.