SuttaCentral
The Suttas when describing Arahats are mainly talking about monks Arahats. Is MN 71 a “late Sutta” ? i.e. much after the Buddha. I found it not in the usual compassionate approach of the Buddha.
To me the status/lifestyle of lay Arahats is left to be rediscovered.
On a more practical note, I do not see any lifestyle connection with the destruction of the last five Fetters.
[quote=“alaber, post:9, topic:2696”]
On a more practical note, I do not see any lifestyle connection with the destruction of the last five Fetters.
[/quote] I couldn’t find the reference, but it’s been said that non-returners may still harbor thoughts of family, reputation and country. I suspect that these are related to the I-am conceit (Asmi-mana) i.e. it’s my reputation or avijja (lacking the divine eye and the recollection of past lives, one sees ones family and country as permanent). As a result, the destruction of the I-am conceit and/or avijja leads necessarily to the practice of itinerancy (leaving one’s relatives and native place), which is required by the vinaya (e.g. making a journey after rains residency). A good sramana lives like a bird and goes where conditions are helpful. So while a non-returner might keep 10 precepts at home and focus on helping out the family, an arahant would prefer seclusion and wandering, even if that does mean getting called a bald-pated recluse or having other people think that you are deaf-mute.
Seen through this lens, sramanic lifestyle is in fact the “making visible” of the destruction of both the higher and lower fetters. Sramanic life is a metaphysical (or anti-metaphysical?) statement- the answer to both “is there a permanent self?” and “does a sramana have a permanent home”? is N/A. To put it another way, as itinerants, sramanas live the realisation of impermanence and non-self. Which is why arahants can’t be laypeople (i.e. practitioners living at home) but non-returners can & why arahants have abandoned the “fetter of householdership” in MN71. The key difference is itinerancy .
i think it’s not so much the anticipation of the authors as the objective reality, as having to provide for themselves and their families by labor laypeople don’t have as much time and attention span for the practice as monastics or recluses do plus they’re being constantly seduced and distracted by temptations of sensual pleasures, and just the circumstances, the environment itself isn’t very conducive
‘Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness.’
Cūḷahatthipadopama sutta (MN 27) in particular
Once you are done with raising a family, earning a living, i.e. being retired then you can spend as much time as you wish/can if your circumstances permit, to progress on the path (I suggest in particular long self-retreats at Jhana Grove).
The environment of lay life is not worse than the monastics for working with greed, hatred and delusion. In the contrario it allows you to monitor very carefully where you are all the time and work accordingly.
The monastic environment could be too much of a shelter for some leading to spiritual by-passing.
The destruction of the remaining of the I-concept does not imply to abandon duties and care for family and others. Instead it should allow true love without attachment.
IMHO, modern Arahant, if he is not satisfied with modern monasteries, may well lead a solitary life like a Paccekabuddha, since nowadays monasteries are too often just costumed performances.
Paccekabuddhas also attained Arahantship and just dwelled alone, for lack of suitable monastic communities.
There are a number of indications in the suttas that you cannot remain in lay life as an arahant. For example, in the chapter on the leading disciples of the Buddha in the Anguttara ones, all the lay people listed are non-returners or stream-enterers. Also noticeable is that the category for “great wisdom” is altogether missing for lay people.
At AN2.132 you find the following: “Bhikkhus, a male lay follower endowed with faith, rightly aspiring, should aspire thus: ‘May I become like Citta the householder and Hatthaka of Āḷavī!’ This is the standard and criterion for my male lay disciples, that is, Citta the householder and Hatthaka of Āḷavī. … Bhikkhus, a female lay follower endowed with faith, rightly aspiring, should aspire thus: ‘May I become like the female lay followers Khujjuttarā and Veḷukaṇṭakī Nandamātā!’ This is the standard and criterion for my female lay disciples, that is, the female lay followers Khujjuttarā and Veḷukaṇṭakī Nandamātā.” All of these are non-returners. For the monks and nuns the people to be emulated are arahants.
But I am not sure how useful this discussion is. Let’s all become arahants and then see what happens. If you find you still want to be a lay person, then so be it. Otherwise you will be very welcome to join the Sangha!
As for lifestyle changes upon abandoning the five fetters, this is what the non-returner Ugga has to say: “I had four young wives. I then went to them and said: ‘Sisters, I have undertaken the training rules with celibacy as the fifth. If you want, you can enjoy wealth right here and do merits, or go back to your own family circle, or inform me if you want me to give you over to another man.’ My eldest wife then said to me: ‘Young sir, give me to such and such a man.’ I sent for that man, and with my left hand I took my wife, with my right hand I took the ceremonial vase, and I gave her to that man. But even while giving away my young wife, I don’t recall that any alteration took place in my mind. This is the third astounding and amazing quality found in me.”
This reminds me of something the Dalai Lama once said. When he was asked if it was possible to have sex, tantra-style, while fully enlightened, he said, well, only if you can prove it by flying up on a pillar of fire afterwards!
But on a more serious note, the question of whether a lay person can become an arahant is not, to my mind, an interesting one. “Arahant” is simply a word we use for someone who has let go of greed, hate, and delusion. The real question, how do we do this?
One thing just on my mind was that access to the Dharma was totally different 2500 years ago. In those days in India, learning sutras required memorizing them. Just having basic access to them would involve spending an enormous amount of time learning them from monastics. For learning the Dharma, there was basically no other route than being a monastic.
Many scholars have pointed out that the later Mahayana Buddhism probably only became possible with the widespread use of writing in India. At that point, it was possible for anyone to obtain a physical copy of a sutra. We know that historically some educated laypeople in East Asia did exactly that, and learned sutras primarily by reading them from books.
In the modern world, we are all literate, and we all have Sutta Central. This level of access to the Buddha Dharma is completely unprecedented in the history of Buddhism. If that sort of society existed in the Buddha’s own time, the early sutras would certainly take on some different perspectives. Ananda would have been uploading MP3’s.
Religious texts purport to teach universal truths, but their presentation and framing can never fully escape their own cultural contexts. Just like we are not illiterate villagers, we also should not expect that everything about the framing of early Buddhism is necessarily transferable to our exact circumstances in the modern world.
That’s the point of my other question on this forum. Shall we do it by using the framework that the Buddha-to-be used i.e. the three asavas. Or do we do it using the four Stages and the ten fetters framework?
Neither; you do it by following the Gradual Path, and nevermind about the stages or the asavas. You just get to work from where you are: have a careful look around and start walking.
In fact, AN 9.12 has the Buddha saying he almost didn’t teach the four stages to anyone because it can support laziness, iirc.
:anjal:
Dear Alaber,
Then why did the Buddha leave his lay life and became a mendicant? I think you should look more closely in and go back to why you asked your question. This is just my opinion but what you’re implying is completely going the other way where the Buddha is pointing to, which is renunciation.
Numerous times it’s mentioned in the suttas that lay life is crowded and one can’t practice and purify themselves as pure as ‘a polished shell’.
Numerous times it is mentioned that a disciples knowledge and wisdom is from the Buddha. So why deviate from his teachings when it is guaranteed that even if you don’t attain Nibbana in this lifetime, it is guaranteed you will enjoy a good rebirth when you follow and practiced the path in accordance with the Dhamma to the best of your abilities? The Buddha has left us the greatest teaching out of great compassion because he saw the truth of suffering.
I just can’t see an arahant going back to lay life. That being has let go of everything and the very purpose of her/his existence is to guide others to the same path s/he took to get there. It’s just mind boggling to me, why someone whose let go of all suffering, will go back into the midst of
suffering. It’s like being cured of poison, only to stupidly go back and drink poison again knowing that it is deadly and painful. Or pardon the grossness, it’s like stepping into really putrid excrement and washing off your feet really good only to go back and intentionally stepping again into even more putrid excrement? I have yet to taste even the first jhana, but the little stillness I get from my meditations and from observing my mind and seeing how indeed I am “afflicted” makes me yearn for what the suttas describe as “abiding in the here in now with the mind freed from the taints”! I can only imagine how that feels like. No more thinking, no more worries, no more bodily aches, no more underlying tendencies,and no more conflicts just to say a few! Must be really outta this world kind of feeling that no conventional words could ever describe!
Maybe I’m just slow, so please forgive.
May you one day, with the support of your practice and caga, be one who says "Free at last! Free at last! Free at last! I really wish you that with a sincerity. Because, the Buddha, who is our greatest kalyanamitta, gave us the greatest gift of all, the path to liberation and the deathless.
May your mind be free!
in mettā,
russ
:anjal:
Dear Russell
no idea how you came to the conclusion that the monastics should go back to the lay life. Please review the thread and you will find that nobody proposed such idea.
the suttas mention lay Anagamis. If you are an Anagami you have gotten rid of greed and ill-will and diminished a lot delusion of a self (already as a stream-enterer). So what remains is mainly getting rid of the last traces of belief in an I. Having already done what I believe is the hardest (greed, ill-will, main delusion) a lay Anagami should be able to do the last step while still living a lay life.
The discussion in this thread is about what happen after. Can he/she stay in the lay life while being an Arahat?
New point: how many Arahats these days are we producing per say half centuries? During the 45 years of the Buddha teaching we could estimate there were several thousand Arahats, mainly monastics, some lay people.
The conditions have changed. Very few people are living a monastic life and also not many monastics (see in Thailand) are really commited to become Awakaned. Also there are many brands of buddhism, many do not promote the idea to become Arahats.
So the number of Arahats produced by the “buddhist systems” is not that big. This is very disapointing.
What I’m saying is: let’s promote the production of lay Arahats.
Where’s Ford when you need him, hey?
DN 16…
Blessed One said, “In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first… second… third… fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first… second… third… fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first… second… third… fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants.”
mind the right speech, hey 
Sorry, maybe a bit too jocular. It was just the softest way I could think of saying I feel “promot[ing] the production of lay Arahats” is a bit of a peculiar preoccupation that misses the point a little. I’m totally behind the promotion of diligent practice in accordance with the Dhamma for lay people and monastics (including right speech).
:anjal:
Dear Alaber,
I wasn’t talking about monastics. I said arahats as you mentioned. We should be on the same page right?
Anagamis aren’t arahants. Where did you get this idea that anagamis are arahants? The word “arahant” is pointing to the meaning completely unbound/untied. An arahant’s mind has been completely been liberated through the path left that was taken by the Buddha to get there. Which path? Renunciation. I hope this makes sense to you. Why the words renunciation, arahants, and nibbana are all connected?
Why the preoccupation about how many arahants are being “produced”? It’s not like a factory. The Buddha didn’t set up a system like that. Please be reminded that everyone is trying their best in the practice. May I ask are you any better in the practice than the Thai monks you are mentioning about? You can answer that in your own mind. Yes it is a sad state that some people take advantage of the system. But guess what? You can’t do anything about it. It’s been going on like that even in the Buddhas time. Besides, over and over, the Buddha gave warning to those who abused the ordination and aren’t following vinaya rules. He said it is better to “swallow a glowing ball of hot iron than to eat the alms of the country” than to break the vinaya rules and keep pretending to be a good monk. Now, there is a reason why the Buddha refered to himself as the Tatagatha. Because he is incomparable in wisdom and knowledge and only Buddhas are capable of discerning the results of kamma. Do you think he would give such a warning like that because he didn’t know what would happen if people pretend to be bhikkhus and bhikkhunis? Even when he gave those warnings, it was for the benefit of those people so that they may correct their actions.
The Buddha said to look inwards first before looking out. Even in the suttas, you will find that the arahants teach by example so that other’s can emulate them.
Please forgive if I am too direct, but if you’re so disappointed that there aren’t too many arahants, maybe you you should do your best and be one now so that you may add to their numbers. For me, it is better to have a few arahants than nothing at all.
And by the way, if you met a real arahant, would you know they are one? If I met one, I wouldn’t know to be honest. Why? I wouldn’t know until I’ve known them for a long time. A real arahant wouldn’t be claiming their one either.
I really suggest we should stick to the Buddha’s way of doing things and not try do to something he didn’t encourage. He didn’t leave his teachings for the fun of it. No, he gave it for the welfare and benefit of everyone willing enough to see suffering. This teaching is so utterly perfect and yet so simple really. But what do we do? We make it complicated for ourselves.
When I see a lay person saying he/she is an arahant, to be honest, I would be too doubtful. I’ll be waiting to see if they die within a few days because their will to exist is no longer present.
Bhante Sujato already asked a great question. So how can you let go enough to be an arahant? I think that question should be really contemplated.
Just my humble opinion. Sorry to take your time.
May you be free.
in mettā,
russ
:anjal:
what is exactly a lay arahant, is this an arahant who leads family life and works a regular job to earn some living?
motorcycle maintenance, no doubt…
Hello alaber and everyone!!
Lay Arahats, Why not?
Excellent question for Investigation.
First I would like to pose some rhetorical questions to the group, to consider.
Is there mention of being a Lay person or Bhikkhu specifically in the Four Noble Truths? Does the Buddha mention even the practice of I-making or conceit view of being or becoming either this or that in the Four Noble Truths?
Does the Buddha mention being or becoming either a lay person or a bhikkhu within the expounding of the Noble Eightfold Path?
Does identifying with either being a bhikkhu or a layperson also qualify as a hindrance to final release, identifying a sense of self with the concepts as being I , me , or mine?
What is the real difference in heaps of blue jeans, robes, skin and bones? The real difference between huts, forests and houses, all heaps of wood and stone. Is it not just in the mind wherein these proliferations occur? And if that is so, is it actual a physicality of becoming homeless that liberates, or is it the mind, for a lack of a better word, that becomes homeless in a sense, i.e. finding nothing that can become attached or clung to.
Though , I would definitely agree, that at first glance it does seem that to live physically apart from the normal marketplace mentality of society would seem rather beneficial for in depth training and study of what the Buddha taught.
But, on the other hand I would also state that any layperson could and should, if they are so inclined, take up full strength practice of what the Buddha taught, in whatever life situation the mind and body may be presented with.
Either way, the practice of what the Buddha taught is of great benefit, and this can be investigated and discovered to be true or not by each and every individual. Again, if one is so inclined, be it as a lay practioner or bhikku practioner. And , maybe since those are just papanca type labelings describing the phenomenon of the heaps of aggregates anyhow, they may be incorrect assumptions, thus the Investigation.
Just some thoughts.
Psi