Where’s Ford when you need him, hey?
2 Likes
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.”
1 Like
mind the right speech, hey 
1 Like
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).
4 Likes
: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?
3 Likes
motorcycle maintenance, no doubt…
3 Likes
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
5 Likes
For me there is no issue for a lay person to attain Arahat stage.
The discussion is about what after?
I postulate that he/she can continue to live in the world and consider that in doing so they will be of immense value helping others to get liberated.
In short, there is plenty of room for monastic and for lay Arahats. Both will have roles to play in society.
1 Like
the traditionally considered first sermon the Buddha addressed specifically to monks, after his awakening among people to whom he may teach his Dhamma he only considered ascetics
Or , one could say, the first sermon taught to sentient beings, with little dust in their eyes, and they happened to be ascetics. The Buddha only considered teaching them because they would have enough wisdom to understand what he was saying, not out of consideration whether they were ascetics or not.
And, in the first sermon, they could not have been Buddhist Monks specifically, because the Buddha had not taught yet.
I think more importantly is whether a sentient being has practiced the Dhamma, and either has or has not gained in Understanding of the Dhamma. Not whether one is a monk or not.
Though, as I understand it, becoming a Monk or Ascetic does show a degree of commitment that may not be normally thought of as possible for a layperson to aspire to. And becoming a Monk, should certainly put one in a position to be able to delve deep into the true nature of phenomenon. But, it does also seem to me, at least from the outside, that being an Abbott carries many responsibilities, and indeed, many fetters.
Sometimes it is better to be as the Rhino, even the Buddha went off on his own at times, away from the bickering Monks. 
Though , that may or may not be true in actual reality. There may be sentient beings who can find a way to practice The Noble Eightfold Path each and every mind moment that arises and one remembers and has the energy to practice, in every posture and in every activity.
I think , overall the title of the post is just saying that being a Lay Arahat is possible. Maybe it is true that practicing as a Lay Person, and then becoming an Arahat, one would then become a monk. I have no personal experience of this , one way or the other, so how would I know anyway?
I vote that it is possible, and best just to practice the Dhamma, and whatever happens at that point happens.
Also, as a side note, in the Suttas, I thought I remember there being a Householder Potter being an Arahat??
Psi
2 Likes
I think you are referring to Ghaṭīkāra the Potter, whose story is in MN 81? He couldn’t leave his blind and aging parents behind to become a bhikkhu under Buddha Kassapa and so remained in the lay life. His friend Jotipāla (who becomes the Buddha in the future) goes forth as a bhikkhu but his attainments are not mentioned (I guess he has to hang around so he can become Buddha!)
However despite the impressive range of virtues that Buddha Kassapa sings of Ghaṭīkāra, he is mentioned to be a non-returner, not an arahant.
Ghaṭīkāra the potter, sire, by the destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), is of spontaneous uprising, he attains final nibbāna there, he is not liable to return from that world. MN 81
I’m not saying this proves anything, perhaps the story is just reinforcing the concept that a layperson cannot be an arahant.
For me the question hinges on two factors, the impracticality of lay life, and the nature of an arahant.
I don’t see how they could be in lay life. Lay life is burdensome, anyone who could give it up, would.
But I can also understand misgivings about ‘having’ to be a monk, because there are some not so good examples of that nowadays. And what does it mean to be a monk anyway? That’s my question…is it that someone speaks words over you like a magic spell, because you wear a robe, because you are an ascetic, or because you have precepts in your heart?
Ghaṭīkāra is an interesting example. He gave up so many aspects of lay life and lived so purely, and yet still was not fully liberated.
3 Likes
Hello Cara,
Yes, that is probably the person I remember. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I also want to add, that the stage of the non-returner, or Anagami seems to be an underestimated stage. To not have Lobha and Dosa arise again would surely bring great peace and ease of mind.
And this is possible, as you have shown, per the Suttas anyway, as trainable, for both bhikkus and laypersons. So maybe the topic could also be:
Lay and Bhikkhu Anagamis. Why not? 
Psi
2 Likes
I’d suggest, “Lay, bhikkhu and bhikkhuni anagamis, why not?”
1 Like
Ah, of course, my error and bad grammar. I think of bhikkhus as a non gender word. Thank you for the correction. There should be a better all encompassing word for one who practices the Dhamma, there is no distinction between male and female practitioner.
I think in the text bhikkhus is often used because that is who he was speaking to at the time, but Pali words are not my everyday forte, I will be more cognizant in the future. I am sorry for the error.
I usually uses the word “one”, practitioner, or spiritual practitioner.
Psi
2 Likes
Done!
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to correct, just y’know… saying. Also, I’ve definitely heard folks suggest that in many places ‘bhikkhu’ is used in the suttas in a non-gender-specific way. 
I’m all up for a gender neutral word, but what would then be done with the two different patimokkhas?
There is a certain uncomfortable topic here. There are so many people claiming to be reincarnate “living buddhas” in one tradition or another. In Theravada Buddhism, even some westerners are now claiming to be arahants. But does a truly enlightened person go around calling himself Arahant Joe? Come on…
This is a dangerous phenomenon that leads to even more grandiose claims. History is full of religious cults and political movements started by people claiming to be “living buddhas” or reincarnations of Maitreya. It has also led to political scandals, sex abuse scandals, etc.
A monk who is enlightened is still just a monk. In Theravada Buddhism, consider Ajahn Chah. Was he an arahant? Who knows. Does it matter? Not really. His cultivation was his own private matter. He certainly didn’t boast about himself, though, and that to me speaks highly of his character.
How did he spend his time? Just teaching the Dharma, and meditation, and making them accessible to his students. The same as the Buddha did, and the same as so many other great teachers have done for some 2500 years of Buddhist history.
Arahants don’t have a club house, and they are not part of a Justice League. There are no membership cards or colored rings. In Buddhism, enlightened teachers are still just teachers. Enlightened monks are still just monks.
5 Likes
not quite, according to the EBT the Buddha did claim his elevated and exclusive status
What is the difference between a Buddha an an arahant?..SN 22.58:
“So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?”
“For us, lord, the teachings have the Blessed One as their root, their guide, & their arbitrator. It would be good if the Blessed One himself would explicate the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the monks will remember it.”
“In that case, monks, listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”
“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path.
“This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released.”
4 Likes
My point was not that everything about the Buddha was entirely ordinary. Just that he spent most of his time teaching the Dharma and helping others. That was the whole point of the Dharma.