Layman Arahant

[Astus]

There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not necessarily true. I'd like to hear some educated opinions about it.

[Ben]

Greetings Astus, its good to see you here on Dhamma Wheel.
I'll just move the thread out of the classical theravada thread as the guidelines do not permit the type of discussion you wish to engage in.
kind regards

Ben

[Freawaru]

There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not necessarily true. I'd like to hear some educated opinions about it.

Hi Astus,

if you ask me it is a matter of interpretation. The Buddha discerned between "householder" and "bhikkhu", but these words do not describe the current difference between laymen and monk. I think we all know the difference between laymen and monk as used today but in the suttic sense the two terms - householder and bhikkhu - describe a difference regarding consciousness:

"The property of form (property of feeling... perception... fabrication), householder, is the home of consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

To "live at home" means:

When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form, it is said to be living at home.

This describes the "householder", namely the consciousness that is bondage though passion to these properties.

The consciousness that leaves this home, goes forth into homelessness is called a "bhikkhu". The Tathagata has destroyed all possibilities to return this particular consciousness to "home": this is called Liberation.

"And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

So in the suttic sense there are actually two kinds of consciousness possible inside one person: householder and bhikkhu. A Tataghata is not some kind of unconscious or catatonic person: he talks and walks in a coherent way. Without a consciousness that is linked to form (feeling, perception and so on) this wouldn't be possible. Of interest to the dhamma however is the other kind of consciousness: the one in homelessness. This has a development of it's own. But it always depends on the householder consciousness (the "going for alms" part in the suttas).

The separation of these two consciousnesses (one at home and the other in homelessness) is not easy and takes time. I have not made a statistic but I would expect that more monks have developed it than laypersons but there is no one-to-one identity regarding meaning. So, yes, laypersons can reach arahatship but they still need the homeless bhikkhu consciousness to reach it.

[Astus]

Ben,

Thanks, I found the only discussion in that part about Lay Arahants, so thought it's OK there.

Freewaru,

I've never met that kind of interpretation, nevertheless, it sounds interesting.

[Richard]

In a footnote to his essay, "The Jhanas and the Lay Disciples according to the Pali Suttas," Bhikkhu Bodhi says, "The question of lay arahantship is a vexed one. While the texts record several cases of lay people who attained arahantship, immediately afterwards they either take ordination or expire." It seems the highest achievement of most laypeople is to reach the stage of non-returner--an amazing achievement considering all the obstacles that ordinary life puts in the way. As a layman myself, I no longer feel "vexed" by the difficulty, but just move forward the best I can.

[Reductor]

David, my reply was aimed at Bodom's assertion that there are no arahants without the Buddhasasana.

And is the Pali canon (like the bible and the koran) unimpeachable?
Don't surrender your own moral autority please.

The Pali canon is likely the only text to which you could surrender your moral authority and still be an exemplar person. But that's not what people are advocating, I don't think. But certain truths do have to be understood in order for Arahantship to be attained, and those truths are currently embodied in the canon. Not all parts of the canon are as essential as the other parts, but the essential truths are in there.

It is said that another Buddha cannot arise until the teaching of the last Buddha have passed away from the world. Why? I suspect that it is because those that are inclined to the view necessary for arahantship and Buddhahood will happen across the teachings at some point in their lives, and be sufficiently drawn to them as to practice them, thereby entering the stream or winning to the goal of arahantship.

The truth is that the path is the path independant of the canon and the Buddha. But seeing that the canon exists and it details the path, it would make sense that if you are inclined to the highest goal you would study and consider the canon. After all, only a dang fool would try and reinvent the wheel.

[Astus]

It seems not many people got interested in the possiblity of a lay arahant, or the essay is too long to go through...

[Ben]

Dear members

In contributing to this discussion, please limit your comments to issues raised by the OP and the essay provided by the OP.
Members wishing to discuss whether non-Buddhists can be come arahants, can post here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4318
Any off-topic commentary from this point may disappear mysteriously...
Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben

[sukhamanveti]

Hi, Astus.

> There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not
> necessarily true.

Piya Tan seems to inflate the number of layman arahats (in part 15) by assuming without sufficient justification that “seeing the Deathless” must necessarily refer to the attainment of arahatship, however, the Anguttara-atthakatha, commenting on AN VI, 131, says that it may refer to the attainment of any of the earlier stages of enlightenment (stream-enterer, once-returner, or nonreturner). Similarly, although Ven. Musila (in the Kosambi Sutta of the Nidanasamyutta of SN) “sees and knows” that Nibbana is the cessation of becoming and is an arahat (or arahant), Ven. Narada in the same sutta “sees and knows” that Nibbana is cessation *without* the attainment of arahatship, comparing his degree of attainment to that of a man who catches a glimpse of water (=Nibbana) in a well without having any contact with that water. In other words, one can see the Deathless at an earlier stage. One need not be an arahat.

I think it remains true that arahats among the lay followers in the Pali Canon tend to become monks (because the household life is incompatible with their attainments) or pass on.

Ed

EDIT: I corrected a redundancy.

[dennis60]

This is a few paragraphs in an article that addresses your question....

Lay life and arahantship. Though there are many instances of persons attaining spiritual development up to the third stage of non-returner, instances are not many of individuals attaining arahantship while yet being laymen. Yasa attained arahantship while being a layman, but he, too, entered the Order immediately afterwards (Vin.I.15-20). Khemā, chief of the Buddha's women disciples, attained arahantship before she entered the Order, but she entered the Order with the consent of her husband Bimbisāra, probably on the same day (ThigA.126f). Suddhodana, the father of the Buddha, attained arahantship a little while before his death (DPPN. s.v. Suddhodana). The Mahāvamsa (chap. xvi, 10-11) records that fifty-five brothers headed by the chief minister Mahā Arittha attained arahantship in the tonsure hall, while their heads were being shaved prior to being admitted into the Order. In the Kathavatthu (157-8) the question whether a layman can become an arahant is discussed. The point maintained in it is that what matters is not the external characteristics of a recluse or a layman, and that anybody who is free from the mental fetters and lives a life of complete renunciation could attain arahantship. King Milinda, too, maintains this view and quotes the following words of the Buddha: "I would magnify, o brethren, the supreme attainment either in a layman or in a recluse. Whether he be a layman, o brethren, or a recluse, the man who has reached the supreme attainment shall overcome all the difficulties inherent therein, shall win his way even to the excellent condition of arahantship" (Man. trsl., SBE. vol.36, p.56), but so far this statement has not been traced in the Tipitaka. In the Milindapañha (ibid. p.57) again, a question is posed as to why a person should enter the Order if laymen, too, could attain arahantship. In reply it is shown that facilities and opportunities for cultivating the mind are greater if one enters the Order, since monks are not bound up with duties of laymen such as earning to maintain oneself, wife and children and looking after the needs of relatives. In the Subha Sutra (M.II.197) the Buddha says that a person, whether he be a layman or a recluse, who leads a virtuous life, ever striving to cleanse the mind of impurities, would progress in the path to liberation.

There is a current belief among the Buddhists that when a layman attains arahantship he should enter the Order the same day or else he would die before the end of that day. Nagasena, too, confirms this view. It is difficult to trace from canonical sources any evidence to substantiate this view.

Again, if we examine the connotation of the word anāgāmī (non-returner to the material world) we obtain more evidence to support the view that arahantship is attainable outside the Order of monks. If an anāgāmī does not attain arahantship in that very existence, he will pass away and will be reborn among the Suddhāvāsā deities, where he will put an end to reiterated existence (see anāgāmī).

the whole article is here.....

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/arahat.htm

[Lazy_eye]

Astus,

Thanks for the topic and essay. I found it interesting not only because of the lay arahantship question specifically, but more generally because of its detailed discussion about the layperson's relationship to the various path stages.

It strikes me that once a person gets to anagami, the monk/lay distinction becomes a moot point. After all, at that stage one has really ceased to be a "householder" in any meaningful sense of the word, and all the fetters are gone except for attachment to jhana states, conceit, restlessness and our old friend ignorance. So I can't see how the external life conditions should make any difference -- even if such a person has not left the home physically, he/she is not "at home". It would just be like having a vinaya-observing monk residing in the house, no?

Which makes me wonder: what reasons would there be not to ordain at the anagami stage, let alone arahant? Just to wrap up household affairs?

LE

[Ben]

Which makes me wonder: what reasons would there be not to ordain at the anagami stage, let alone arahant? Just to wrap up household affairs?

Family responsibilities, one is unable to get the permission from parents to ordain, or one has a medical condition which prohibits one from ordaining.
kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Astus,

It seems not many people got interested in the possiblity of a lay arahant, or the essay is too long to go through...

I'm familiar with the argument from both sides, but don't find much value (and by that I mean that which is conducive to liberation) in pursuing it in depth when arahantship seems so far away, and when for the forseeable future, I'm committed to the householder's life.

On the other hand, if I become a non-returner, my interest in the topic may return.

Metta,
Retro.

[AryaSravaka]

There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not necessarily true. I'd like to hear some educated opinions about it.

Lay person can be an Anagami /Non returner
Only a bhikku can become an arhat. Source - directly from tipitaka

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was living in Supparaka by the seashore. He was worshipped, revered, honored, venerated, given homage — a recipient of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medical requisites for the sick. Then, when he was alone in seclusion, this line of thinking arose to his awareness: "Now, of those who in this world are arahants or have entered the path of arahantship, am I one?"

Then a devata who had once been a blood relative of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth — compassionate, desiring his welfare, knowing with her own awareness the line of thinking that had arisen in his awareness — went to where he was staying and on arrival said to him: "You, Bahiya, are neither an arahant nor have you entered the path of arahantship. You don't even have the practice whereby you would become an arahant or enter the path of arahantship."

"But who, living in this world with its devas, is an arahant or has entered the path to arahantship?"

"Bahiya, there is a city in the northern country named Savatthi. The Blessed One — an arahant, rightly self-awakened — is living there now. He is truly an arahant and he teaches the Dhamma that leads to arahantship. "

Then Bahiya, deeply chastened by the devata, left Supparaka right then and, in the space of one day and night, went all the way to where the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. At that time, a large number of monks were doing walking meditation in the open air. He went to them and, on arrival, said, "Where, venerable sirs, is the Blessed One staying — the arahant, right self-awakened? We want to see him."

"He has gone into the town for alms."

Then Bahiya, hurriedly leaving Jeta's Grove and entering Savatthi, saw the Blessed One going for alms in Savatthi — calm, calming, his senses at peace, his mind at peace, tranquil and poised in the ultimate sense, accomplished, trained, guarded, his senses restrained, a Great One (naga). Seeing him, he approached the Blessed One and, on reaching him, threw himself down, with his head at the Blessed One's feet, and said, "Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss."

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "This is not the time, Bahiya. We have entered the town for alms."

A second time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One: "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss."

A second time, the Blessed One said to him: "This is not the time, Bahiya. We have entered the town for alms."

A third time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One: "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss."

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted Bahiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left.

Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bahiya — attacked by a cow with a calf — lost his life. Then the Blessed One, having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from his alms round with a large number of monks, saw that Bahiya had died. On seeing him, he said to the monks, "Take Bahiya's body and, placing it on a litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your companion in the holy life has died."

"As you say, lord," the monks replied. After placing Bahiya's body on a litter, carrying it off, cremating it, and building him a memorial, they went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to him, "Bahiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?"

"Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:


Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Paññāsikhara]

There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not necessarily true. I'd like to hear some educated opinions about it.

To me, one of the biggest problems comes from the over-extrapolation of a limited range of case examples into a general rule. In this case, the case examples of some lay arahants who did not become monastics but died, and then then inferring that "if any lay arahant does not ordain, then they will definitely die". It's not a logical corollary of the cases given.

The way in which we now largely look at "lay" and "monastic" is in terms of social status / vocation. Being an arahant is not at all to do with social status / vocation. Though, and I agree with this point, any arahant who had the social status / position of a "lay person" would in many ways act quite differently to other "lay people", though in other ways maybe not.

Some studies, eg. Collin's Selfless Persons, do show how in classical thought, the monastic is clearly associated with the arahant, and the lay person with the common person. This sort of classical thought is the general "common perception" however, and simplistic to the point of problematic with regard to questions asked in detail.

[Paññāsikhara]

There is an interesting essay by Piya Tan: Layman Saints. Basically it shows how the view that an arahant must be a monk or die shortly is not necessarily true. I'd like to hear some educated opinions about it.

Lay person can be an Anagami /Non returner
Only a bhikku can become an arhat. Source - directly from tipitaka

Sorry, but this example of Bahiya only indicates that Bahiya became became an arahant, and that the buddha considered him a bhikkhu. It does in no way prove that "only a bhikkhu can become an arhat" at all, unless we take the definition that "true bhikkhu = arahant", in which case it is a mere tautology.

[Virgo]

Lay person can be an Anagami /Non returner
Only a bhikku can become an arhat.

Actually Bahiya became an Arahant while still a layperson, while on his way to seek out a bowl, robe, and requisites for ordination, just after leaving the Buddha. Unfortunately he was killed by a cow before he got a chance to ordain.

Kevin

[bodom]

I am currently reading The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma by Red Pine and came across the following...

"People who see that their mind is the Buddha don’t need to shave their head. Laymen are Buddhas too. Unless they see their nature, people who shave their heads are simply fanatics."

As a practicing householder this line is very inspirational to me and my practice.

Bodhidharma was cool.

[Anicca]

mind is the Buddha

A swing and a miss - strike one. No balls - one strike.

Laymen are Buddhas

Foul tip off the end of the bat - strike two. No balls - two strikes.

Unless they see their nature

Ump calls strike three - he's outta there!

As a practicing Theravadin this line of thinking is very inspirational to me and my practice.

Metta - (no one loves you more than i do bodom!)

[tiltbillings]

Metta - (no one loves you more than i do bodom!)

No public smooching, please.