SuttaCentral
Good day people, I hope you’re doing great.
After reading the SN 35:63, now I have the next question: is it really possible to live happily without a partner in an environment where there’s constantly a reason, and a stimuli that encourages you to have one? Is it really mandatory to have one?
I’m open to your comments. Blessings to you all!
G’day I checked out the sutta so thanks for the opportunity. I read it as having fetters, cravings,attachments… as opposed to a physical partner?
It mentions environment, so even being a forest monk, secluded, physically alone, they can still be partnered by fetters…
I may be totally off base and would be open to correction.
Metta 
No, but you are right that all the stimuli are encouraging you to have one. The little sense pleasures lead to bigger sense pleasures and all the things that come with taking up sense pleasures such as
So it is, Ānanda, that feeling gives rise to craving. Craving gives rise to searching. Searching gives rise to gaining material things. Gaining material things gives rise to evaluation. Evaluation gives rise to desire and lust. Desire and lust gives rise to attachment. Attachment gives rise to ownership. Ownership gives rise to stinginess. Stinginess gives rise to safeguarding. 9.2Owing to safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies. DN15:9.1
So if you are a monastic in the forest and thinking about all the sensory things, not just the kinds of people you are attracted to, but all the other things like Bugz says; then it’s going to lead to the building up of desire and lust. If you follow that line of thought, see value in it etc. then it can lead to valuing and taking up those things. Then it’s a slippery slope.
Society is geared towards acquisition. Capitalism likes the idea of couples because they have more ‘buying power’. If you aren’t interested in a partner, then great! One less thing to not cause you grief when it ends.
Savage truth… 
And yet, lay practitioners are so attached to the ideal of partnership that they keep on asking monastics for dating and marriage advice! 
A celibate who has voluntarily opted out of the birth-to-parenthood pipeline might not be the best source of relationship guidance.
(Or they can absolutely be the best source, if you want to dislodge yourself from the machine…)
I love the Bodhisattva’s reflection on this: “Why am I, who is subject to aging and illness and death, looking for someone who is also subject to aging and illness and death?”
Like… why would I need another body? One is already suffering enough! 
This one speaks to me like not thinking about this in terms of a partner but in terms of the dhamma like “I want to marry the dhamma” and looking for forms
IMHO, it is not possible to live a stable life without partner unless you are monastic who have willfully (knowing and accepting the advantages of monastic life) chosen life of celibacy with the goal of attaining nibbana or goal of living life of purity. But till then it is better to live with partner otherwise there is no check, relief and protection from the natural stimuli/incitements of our physicality.
As far as I understand, buddha’s dhamma is not about suppression, suppression almost always leads to depression, so you cannot just wake up in the morning and choose to live without having the partner. That is only possible when one really attains to something that is even more fruitful than what a partner or the life with partner has to offer. Buddha’s dhamma is middle way, so the transition from dependency on partner towards independency from life with partner has to happen smoothly without the suppression (otherwise it would lead to issues such as depression).
Moreover, in the environment where there is constantly a reason and stimuli that encourages us to have a partner, having partner is the best available protection for people like us who cannot live without one, from living even more impure life. Partner acts as some form of protection and fulfilment (till one defeats the need to have one).
Non-returner is the only stage where this fetter of ‘craving for sensual desire (kamaraga)’ is broken or uprooted completely, till then one cannot live without partner and one should not (unless one chooses with knowledge), to avoid more complex issues. By partner I mean lawful life partner such as wife or husband and not girlfriend or boyfriend which are just temporary solutions with dangerous side effects as compared to proper solution which is lawful marriage. Again this is not valid only in case of monastics who have willfully chosen life of celibacy with goal of attaining nibbana or goal of living life of purity.
So I feel it is mandatory to have life partner to live stable life as a lay person. Partner also helps one protect/keep the 3rd precept from 5 precepts of lay people. Btw having gf/bf thing is like trying to find a temporary solution for the problem that requires ultimate solution and marriage is like one of the better possible solution for that problem so that one can focus on other important things like living life properly.
Having said that, I completely agree with all that venerable @Pasanna has said, without a doubt!.
Venerable @Virocano , I really think that monastic can also act as the better source of relationship guidance as compared to lay people (married specifically).
Logically speaking, monastics know the benefits/advantages of monastic life and dangers/disadvantages of married life, and as a lay person, we are gonna walk the path of those dangers/disadvantages, so who else is better to guide than ones who know the dangers of that path? Because I believe for us lay persons who don’t completely understand as well as accept the advantages of monastic life, it is compulsion (because of natural as well as societal needs) to live married life and considering it is already a compromise on purity of conduct, monastics are the better person to guide how married life should be conducted, as compared to all those who are living married life.
Main reason I believe is that, for happily married couple, it is hard to understand the advantages of monastic life and it is almost impossible for those who are yet to experience proper marriage (and stuck in either issues of relationships or waiting to marry). I believe later category is where questioner and people like me belong to.
Monastic people symbolize those who live life of more purity, less bindings, less problems and issues (but comparatively more challenging life altogether!) as compared to those who are not monastics. So as a monastic who lives purer life, monastics should be able to guide lay followers of buddha in many matters including marriage, as they are closer to dhamma than the lay people. Like they know what is less dangerous and what is more dangerous. They are guide/teacher for lay people and I believe are representatives of buddha, dhamma and sangha…so undoubtedly best fit to get guidance for lay people.
I’d like to point out that, while it is ok to have this kind of an opinion based on ones own personal experience, this is not a universal experience or view., and is certainly not stated by the Buddha anywhere in the suttas.
It is not, by any means, ‘Mandatory’ to have a life partner in order to live a stable life as a lay person..
Indeed these opinions are just about the complete opposite of my own experience. It is not that one view or experience is more superior to the other, but to highlight that there is a large scope and variation here, and what is right for one person may not be right for another.
If one wants to cultivate a beneficial and fulfilling relationship, as a lay person, then that is fine.. The Buddha gives lots of examples for what constitutes beneficial and skilful relationships. You don’t need an excuse to pursue a relationship and it doesn’t have to be justified by saying it is harmful to NOT have a relationship. But if you feel happy and content being single and celibate, then that is also good.
Rather, I would highlight that it is dependent on a variety of things, and differs from person to person.
So to answer the OP question - Yes, it is possible to be completely content, happy (and stable) living a single, celibate life, as a lay person. Of course the Path requires relinquishment and the ability to be perfectly content with little external pleasures or personal validation. One becomes increasingly self sufficient.
And just to add, there is less of a gap between being a monastic and a dedicated Lay practitioner than is often portrayed.. There is no ‘magic’ that occurs by putting on a robe.
I don’t think it is useful to view ‘Lay people’ as some kind of homogenous group - there is a great deal of variance there, from individuals wholly driven by craving with no idea of the Dhamma, through to Ariyas already far advanced on the Path. The same is true of monastics, in that there is a great deal of variance, though they should all be abiding by the Patimokkha, so there is more uniformity there than in the Lay category .
The more consequential difference is all about how one practices and the conditions one puts in place. You can have monastics who pine for relationships and have to work hard to suppress lust, (and even disrobe for this reason), and you can have Lay people who have left these issues behind already.
So one needs to use some wisdom in assessing where one is at.. no right and wrong here, and to do whatever is suitable at the time, with skill, in order to cultivate wholesome and beneficial outcomes
I believe it is possible. I have been in a couple of long relationships before and I always take on the role of carer and provider. I find a deep sense of fulfillment when I had someone to care for and fawn over. And in the past, whenever a relationship ended I often got into another one quickly so that I can feel this fulfillment once more.
When my practice deepened last year (around the end of a long relationship of 5 years) I had an insight. That I could bring this care and attention to myself, and more particularly my own spiritual progress. Be my own teacher, parent, friend, partner in my meditation practice and spiritual life. I cultivated this attitude over several months and found myself experiencing a deep fulfillment - similar but different to the kind of fulfillment I used to experience in relationships.
No longer was another person the object of my care. I am my own project. My spiritual progress is my own project.
And this love and care I used to exclusively provide for my partners, I am now able to not limit it to the one woman I was with at the time - I provide this care and acts of service for whoever is in my environment that I find capable to help. The world is filled with so much suffering and a lot of people are desperate for even a small act of care and concern. Now that I am my own project, I can work towards and achieve significant well being - and from this state of well being I am able to extend my help wholeheartedly to others. Something I could not do earlier when I was in a relationship.
I find that my current attitude has been a successful counter to my yearning to be in a relationship. It has been a year since I felt this yearning and I have even turned away opportunities that fell into my lap.
Also I used to feel my whole body completely relax and every tension melt away only when I was physically close to or in contact with a partner I loved. When I was with someone I cared deeply in a romantic sense, I felt myself being able to put down my efforts or exertion and truly relax and be still. I craved this and often engaged in relationship / contact seeking behaviour when I was single. Now I have found that a similar relaxation is possible through deepening meditation (especially anapanasati). The fourth step meditation instruction - to calm (or tranquilize) the whole breath-body (or the bodily fabrications) - was helpful. I worked on this step till I understood it’s potential.
I might have sounded rigid, but it is really not the case. My response was to OP based on assumptions from his previous posts as well as this post. Off course what I said does not apply generally. When I said Mandatory, I meant that for those who are in bad relationship or who can’t live without one, like those jumping from one to another or are experiencing some form of depression after getting out of any relationship which was obviously filled with issues. Off course there are many lay people who are living (fulfilling/satisfactory) life of celibacy, without partner and I believe there are even those who live such life of celibacy even with partner. Best example would be any lay people who keep 8 precepts, for the duration they are protecting/keeping those 8 precepts.
What I said may have sounded like an excuse to live fulfilling relationship, but that’s not what I meant. It is excuse for only those who justify lay life as completely harmless.
I also agree with this, though I may have not implied that. I know some lay people who live single and purer life than some of the monastics literally.
I also agree with above, but..
living like that is not an easy thing. To live like that, as a lay person, it really requires one to have knowledge of benefits of such life. Off course, one who has faced a bad relationship due to let’s say bad partner, he or she might still have a belief that, there can be even better person who will not be like this, I just need to be more careful while searching for him/her. Such a person is likely not able to see that, there can be fulfillment without partner as well. For someone who is like this in some way or other, unless he/she meets such seemingly fulfilling partner and marries, it is not a good idea to suppress those EMOTIONAL urges. Off course if one can meet such partner or not is different discussion.
I believe if one follows dhamma truly (it is very challenging), one inevitably experiences some form of fulfillment or fruit of such life at some point if not immediately (after some struggle off course), be it lay life (celibate or not, single or not) or monastic life because if this is not true, then one is not following dhamma properly yet.
As others have already commented upstream, the sutta in the OP does not appear to be speaking about actual partners in the same way that the modern saying of “a monkey on your back” doesn’t refer to literal monkeys. It’s a metaphor.
If I read the OP in that light, the question becomes something like: “Is it possible to live without desire/craving/relishing”. To that question, I redirect to Desires : A Study Guide, compiled by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. The introduction in that book is very readable, and I would recommend it to anyone.
An excerpt to show relevance:
Basic in everyone is the desire for happiness. Every other desire is a strategy for attaining that happiness. You want an iPad, a sexual partner, or an experience of inner peace because you think it will make you happy…
The short answer is yes.
The only condition is that one finds happiness within oneself, without being swayed by societal expectations or by one’s own defilements and delusions. One needs confidence that the Dhamma is a reliable refuge for true happiness.
When a person discovers a rhythm of life that brings peace and contentment, they no longer need someone else to make them happy.
We’ve been conditioned to believe that we are incomplete, and therefore unable to be fully happy without a perfect partner. But in reality, only one in a million couples lives a perfectly happy life.
It is often easier to live a happy life on one’s own.
If only we could see this truth clearly…
Hmmm….I think my life is quite stable 
Well, I agree with the first part, but not the latter part. I interpret the teaching as suggesting that we are all addicts (addicted to sensual delight), hence the advice to see the “dangers” in such delights, so not sure taking those “hits” because you cant live without them is necessarily the right approach. I certainly see that it might be a reasonable approach at times (i.e., small doses to wean oneself off) but I think whenever you are dependent on anything external, you are at risk. Your partner can never be what you want/need them to be to make you happy.
….this isn’t my understanding….its just the core view of a self, doubt and reliance on rituals. A stream enterer can still get angry or crave sensual desires. There are many lay people with this Stage of Awakening who stayed in their married life as I understand it. It is only at the Arahant stage that all ordained.
….again, not my understanding. I dont think there are any marriage ceremonies in the EBT (only in local cultural practices of the individual countries where the Buddha Dharma was taken up, but its THEIR local rituals, its not from the Buddha Dhamma itself). In other words, sexual misconduct is not being faithful to your partner, to whom you have made a commitment. It is irrelevant whether you have a piece of paper with the words “Marriage Certificate” on the top or not, its all to do with the mind state of whether or not you have made a mental commitment.
Anyway, you have clarified that you were bringing your own views, which is perfectly fine, but just adding my comments to the mix. FYI, I have been celibate throughout my life and am perfectly happy with that decision and it aint never going to change at this stage. I can assure you I am very happy and have a very stable life (although, alas, not enlightened). It is much easier to live alone when you have for a very long time; but it is not impossible to leave a life with a partner- millions do it. That doesn’t mean its the right decision for you, I’m just saying it isnt necessarily as impossible an eventuality as it might seem while within the lay-life partner-focussed paradigm.
Hello! Yes, I think it’s possible to live without one. Ultimately, it comes down to your personal motivations and focus. There are also different types of partners that meet different needs, and recognizing this is important. It helps to be very clear about what need you’re actually trying to meet. It is, however, a complicated topic, especially when one is not bound by any vows of celibacy. That’s a real issue in the Japanese Zen tradition, for example, particularly as it is being exported to the West.
With respect, I believe this could be a misinterpretation:
The misunderstanding, to my knowledge, is that uprooting the craving for sensual pleasures is equivalent to not engaging in sensual pleasures. It’s my understanding that restraint (e.g. celibacy) is actually a prerequisite to uprooting the fetter of sensual craving. I.e. one must restrain from sensual pleasures to uproot sensual craving.
One Sutta comes to mind which I think explains this distinction well:
“Leaving aside the worthy Gotama, the monks, and the nuns,is there even a single layman disciple of Mister Gotama—white-clothed and chaste—who, with the ending of the five lower fetters, is reborn spontaneously, to be extinguished there, not liable to return from that world?”[1]
“There are not just one hundred such chaste laymen who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
- Devoted layfolk would regularly keep the five precepts, which forbid sexual misconduct, and undertake the eight precepts, including celibacy, on the sabbath. However it seems that then, as today, there is a less formalized class of layfolk who would undertake the eight precepts continuously. White-robed, celibate layfolk are mentioned in DN 29:12.11, where they are a property of a fully-developed and prosperous religion. Celibate laypeople are also referred to at AN 5.180 and AN 10.75:2.2. Such layfolk have the potential to realize non-return, since that requires the complete letting go of all forms of desire.
MN 73 - Mahāvacchasutta
This quote is contrasted by the following category, which includes laypeople that still indulge in sensual pleasures (i.e. sex). They are said to be able to reach stream entry:
“Leaving aside Mister Gotama, the monks, the nuns, and the chaste laymen,is there even a single layman disciple of the worthy Gotama—white-clothed, enjoying sensual pleasures, following instructions, and responding to advice—who has gone beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and lives self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instruction?”[2]
“There are not just one hundred such laymen enjoying sensual pleasures who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
- That is, they are stream-enterers.
Another way to think about this is more broadly in terms of sīla generally. Just because we undertake the precepts to not kill, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, take intoxicants, etc. does not mean that we never have desires to commit those acts. It’s just that we understand that these are unwholesome actions which lead to unwholesome kamma and feed the defilements. Then by practicing that way, we eventually uproot the craving.
Again this is just my opinion, and I do appreciate you sharing your perspective
Apologies, yes, you clearly stated Non-returner but I responded as for Stream-enterer so my mistake!
Exactly. I don’t see contradiction here with what I said. Maybe there is grammar issue with my earlier post. I have same understanding, one becomes non-returner when one uproots the sensual craving (off course ill will as well), so there is no need for willful restraint anymore. Restraint is required till one reaches at that point. I don’t see difference in your understanding and mine.
Also, when I said,
I believe I also considered all those lay people who live willful celibate life or single content life, I highlighted that statement by which I meant that only. To be even more clear, following sums up what I wanted to say:
A lay person may live celibate and even be content with life for many reasons—ethics, vows, health, past experiences, convenience, or personal aspiration or just as a comfortable choice. But in case of non-returner, the sensual desire and ill will are uprooted completely and it is not just choice or mere restraint anymore, it is completely natural. (SN 45.179)
Without a romantic/ sexual partner.. yes!
But not without noble friends, associates and companions.
Because….
SN45.2
Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.
Also see, SN3.18, AN9.1 for why noble companions are a prerequisite for awakening and Snp1.3 for what it actually means to live ‘alone’.
*****************************************
For a layperson, seeking a partner who can be both a noble friend as well as offer the mundane benefits ( 
) of lay life would likely be the holy grail, IMO. Someone with whom one can have not just a relationship of the flesh, but of the mind!
Excellent point!
I forgot to add that the rhythm of life that brings us peace and contentment also requires kalyāṇamittas.
In our 21st‑century world, we are more physically isolated than ever. It can be difficult to find kalyāṇamittas in person, but we can still find them in cyberspace. I’ve found a few: Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Brahmali, and Ajahn Sujato. These great monks also help connect me with the Buddha—though I’m still not quite on the same wavelength as the Buddha, due to many shortcomings on my side.
To reiterate my point: when one finds contentment in one’s own life, one no longer needs a sexual partner.
Is it really possible to live happy with a partner?