I just read the Kv 4.1 As to whether a Layman may be Arahant.
The Theravadin points to the layman-fetters such as: “Again, in affirming your proposition, you imply that an Arahant may carry on sexual relations, may suffer such matters to come into his life, may indulge in a home encumbered with children, may seek to enjoy sandalwood preparations of Kāsī, may wear wreaths, use perfumes and ointments, may accept gold and silver, may acquire goats and sheep, poultry and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses and mares, partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants, may wear an attractively swathed head-dress, may wear white garments with long skirts, may be a house-dweller all his life—which of course you deny.” I have difficulty agreeing with these items being relevent to our modern life particularly for someone like me who is retired and is totally dedicated to live an ethical life and free myself from the three poisons.
Anyway the other party in the discussion says: “Uttarapāthakas: Then, if my proposition be wrong, how is it that Yasa of the clans, Uttiya the householder, Setu the Brahmin youth, attained Arahantship in all the circumstances of life in the laity?”
Could anyone points in the direction of the suttas that mention Yasa, Uttiya and Setu having attained Arahanship.