Lay Arahants. Why not?

[Russell]

@Psi

Lay and Bhikkhu Anagamis. Why not?

Dear All,

Just wanted to point out that an anagami is a non-returner and will not reborn again into this world. They’ve let go so much that once they pass away from this world, they are reborn in the pure abodes where only anagamis live. There they will go into parinibbana at the end of their life cycle. Imagine just enjoying peace of mind for such a long time and then “poof”! Nothing! How wonderful is that?

This thread brought up another interesting topic people tend to think of: that consciousness lingers on in nibbana

May all beings be free.

in mettā,
russ

[anon29387788]

Dear llt

I like your comment, it’s an interesting point to consider, especially the reality of early monastic life being much more about memorising the Dhamma. It got me reflecting and I feel has led me off on a tangent which somewhat relates to your comment and perhaps (I hope respectfully) disagrees with some of it.

Perhaps memorising the Dhamma became more important after the Buddha passed away.

I have a notion that during his lifetime, things would’ve been more in flux.

Also, perhaps the life of a householder at that time was less cerebral and more conducive to being present to the realities of life. Thus perhaps it wasn’t the lack of literacy (as we know it), so much as the clarity and presence to reality and nature that may have existed then, in a way that it does not, now; unless of course you live, very simply and purely as a householder.

I suggest that the householders of the Buddha’s time had a far better chance of attaining any stage of enlightenment, than we do today. Today, we have Sutta Central, books and talks about suttas and we spend endless hours trying to work out what it all means. Surely in the Buddha’s time, they didn’t have to think about it so much and figure it out so much, surely the language used had to have been ordinary to that time and place, meant to speak and relate directly to things known in daily life. Simple and clear and able to go into those illiterate minds, basically, deeply and “un-cerebrally”; those minds that would’ve been so much more present to their lives, their deaths, the seasons and things that were real and concrete and tangible and emotional and clear. The reason I think this is because of the agrarian nature of those societies. Surely, being close to nature and being unable to control and keep thoughts through writing, would’ve freed them up to be present to and closer to nature and particularly to their own nature - their bodies and minds.

So perhaps they didn’t need to memorise whole heaps of stuff. Perhaps it was enough to hear the teachings a few times. Also, I imagine, (going on what it’s like to be around monastics today who inspire me) that it would’ve left an indelible mark on your mind to have been taught by the Buddha himself, or even one of his enlightened disciples. Such experiences probably amply balanced out the lack of modern literary conveniences

Thank you for your comment llt, it sort of stirred the pot and perhaps a notion that you hadn’t intended, presented itself to me!

I’ve noticed that often on online (or indeed any kind of written dialogue) forums like this, we often think we’re interacting with each other. But actually we’re interacting with our own reactions to the written words we read. Thus I want to make it clear, that I write this to you with great respect for you and great well wishing for you and a sense of gratitude for all the differing and respectfully and fearlessly expressed opinions here. It’s nice that we all create as safe and as welcoming a space as possible.

With metta and thanks.

[Cara]

Very interesting comments @anon29387788, @llt, and others!

On the subject of teachings to lay people in the Buddha’s time, I am attaching this paper by Ven. Analayo, studying in particular the example of Anathapindika here, but giving some hints on teachings to lay people, although he doesn’t discuss lay arahantship. An interesting point being that it seems in the Buddha’s time, many lay people knew they didn’t have the conditions to practise fully? Maybe? Tell me what you think.

It also raises the interesting point of stream entry without deep practice… but let’s not go there!

https://www.olat.uni-hamburg.de/olat/auth/1%3A3%3A1005213541%3A2%3A0%3Acid%3Aattachment_1_8/TeachingsLay.pdf

[bachew]

Wait, arahant? Let’s not go that far, it’s easier to win lottery than to attain stream-entry in household life. Well maybe there are one or two arahants out of millions of lay buddhists in this world, but would you even consider that as a possibility? If we really understand the suffering that Buddha refers to, we’d immediately let go of everything, viewing household life as interesting as a toy duck to an old man. Discussing the possibility of being a lay arahant is just like trying to be a pilot by just playing flight simulator, it’s possible alright.

[Vstakan]

My impression is that the major theme in becoming a monk is renunciation. You renounce the sense pleasure, greed, anger, money, family, sex, social standing, career, political activity, paying taxes that can be spent on violence, responsibility for the food you buy, any thoughts about saving money for living on after retirement, domestic animals, your and, mosr crucially, your material and ethical independence. I am 100 % sure this daunting task is a key element in attaining Awakening. Whetehr it is impossible for a lay person is a debatable question, but I am sure you would agree it would be very, extremely, unbelievably difficult.

[LXNDR]

vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṃ etadavoca: “atthi nu kho, bho gotama, koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya kāyassa bhedā duk­khas­santa­karo”ti? “Natthi kho, vaccha, koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya kāyassa bhedā duk­khas­santa­karo”ti.

the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering?”
“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering.”

MN 71

Commy: “the fetter of householdership” (gihisaṃyojana) as attachment to the requisites of a householder, which details as land, ornaments, wealth, grain, etc. MA says that even though the texts mention some individuals who attained arahantship as laymen, by the path of arahantship they destroyed all attachment to worldly things and thus either went forth as monks or passed away immediately after their attainment. The question of lay arahants is discussed at Miln 264. (Ven Bodhi)

So eva kho te, mahānāma, dhammo ajjhattaṃ appahīno yena te ekadā lobhadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhanti, dosadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhanti, mohadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhanti. So ca hi te, mahānāma, dhammo ajjhattaṃ pahīno abhavissa, na tvaṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvaseyyāsi, na kāme pari­bhuñ­jeyyāsi. Yasmā ca kho te, mahānāma, so eva dhammo ajjhattaṃ appahīno tasmā tvaṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasasi, kāme paribhuñjasi.

Mahanama, there is still a state un-abandoned by you internally, owing to which at times states of greed, hate and delusion invade your mind and remain; for were that state already abandoned by you internally you would not be living the home life, you would not be enjoying sensual pleasures. It is because that state is un-abandoned by you internally that you are living the home life and enjoying sensual pleasures.

MN 14

[Erika_ODonnell]

@bachew, @Vstakan, I don’t think it is that difficult to attain stream-entry for lay people. Take AN 10.61 for example:

“Thus associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing the good Dhamma.

Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith…

…fill up true knowledge and liberation. Thus there is nutriment for true knowledge and liberation, and in this way they become full.

We have access to high quality monks teaching the Buddha’s discourses. We can read the words of the Buddha on this site.

If a person keeps on studying the Dhamma, reads the words of the Buddha, visits monks, goes on retreats, hangs out with virtuous people - I don’t see how that person can not become a stream-winner eventually

Yeah maybe it takes 10 or 25 years, or even the rest of one’s lifetime, but that’s the time it takes to become an expert at anything else anyway. Why not?

Obviously it’s safer to ordain, but that’s not an excuse to not make the most out of one’s lay practice!

[Vstakan]

@Erika_ODonnell

I don’t think it is that difficult to attain stream-entry for lay people.

I totally agree it is not impossible and in fact pretty doable for lay people, but I really think it is difficult for everyone, no matter whether you are a monk or a lay person =)

[Gabriel]

‘Householder’ and ‘Bhikkhu’ were labels for easily describing a status but also a way of life. You say ‘bhikkhu’ and basically knew what they were up to. These labels are easy communicators, but they weren’t true even in the Buddha’s time. We have foolish bhikkhus in the suttas and noble lay people. How much more complicated it is today, how many life styles, access to suttas as lay people, how much monkhood resembles a householder life in Asia!

Dipa Ma, as far as I remember, was not officially a bhikkhuni. Did the absence of the label prevent her from leading a pure dedicated life? Is it impossible that Nisargadatta was an arahant? UG Krishnamurti didn’t ordain anywhere but was far away from leading ‘a householder life’. Even Ramana didn’t ordain anywhere - was he therefore a householder?
Not warming up again the question if those were arahants but I don’t see at all how it should be impossible. They were lay people or ascetics with a quasi-ordained life style, and that is to me much more important than to add, at their level, a ceremony to their biography.

Let’s say a contemporary lay person attains arahantship in Spain. What is s/he supposed to do - drop everything and go to the next building that is called ‘buddhist monastery’? or get a plane ticket to Asia to live in Thailand with zero language skills? And then ordaining as an arahant and starting to learn the patimokkha?

[Gabriel_L]

I have recently been exposed to the life story of Karin Bagoien (aka Mali Bagoien).

It seems Ajahn Thate considered her a well attained disciple. Has anyone here ever heard of her story, was she considered an arahant?

If anyone is interested, the book which tells us of her spiritual journey - entitled Truth Heals - Issues through the moss - can be found in this link.

[Vstakan]

@Gabriel

These labels are easy communicators, but they weren’t true even in the Buddha’s time.

For me, there is no problem in considering a non-ordained person a bhikkhu if they observe the crucial Vinaya rules. I.e. they couldn’t eat what is not given to them, but they could easily wear, say, a gym suit instead of robes or not shave their hair. I think when the Buddha used words like ‘bhikkhu’, ‘true brahman’, ‘savaka’ he first and foremost meant a renunciant person on the path of the Dhamma, the Ordination itself played a subordinate role and was not considered by Him as an absolutely necessary condition. In fact, He Himself was not ordained. An ordination is just a symbolic act of leaving the lay world, the actual leaving can happen much earlier, but in that case I wouldn’t call this man or woman ‘a lay person’.

The reason for ordination in the contemporary world is not only for maintaining the social institute of the Buddhist Sangha and the spiritual connection to the Teacher, but also for the benefit of lay people for whom the attributes of the Sangha do matter. While it can eventually become an impediment for my practice, I become very emotional when I see a monk in an underground train every now and then.

@Gabriel

Let’s say a contemporary lay person attains arahantship in Spain. What is s/he supposed to do - drop everything and go to the next building that is called ‘buddhist monastery’? or get a plane ticket to Asia to live in Thailand with zero language skills?

Okay, it would be impossible or hardly feasible for him or her to go to Thailand. What is she supposed to do in Spain? What lifestyle would this arahant adopt? No job, no family, no accommodation - how would that be different from being a monk?

[bachew]

It’s very simple:

• I used to underestimate the attainment
• My friend thought he’s a stream-entry until he read an article I sent him
• I read a book where the author thinks he is enlightened
• Many meditators regard quiet mind and meditation pleasure as the jhanas

I feel that it’s safe to say that you and I think too easily about the attainments. So by seeing it as a much harder goal to achieve, we are much closer to the reality. It also helps us to strive and renounce more.

I think if a person attains arahantship in Spain, he’ll become a hermit if he cannot get to a monastery to ordain, maybe he’ll die trying. But there’s no answer on this because I don’t think we’ve got an arahant here.

[laurence]

The Buddha was a renunciate! He left his household lifestyle - with all the sense pleasures and enjoyments at his disposal - and exchanged this for asceticism. The Buddha saw a renunciate - ‘a heavenly messenger’ - and decided to emulate his example. If, he had seen a wise and serene lay practitioner that had made a similar impression on him when he ‘hit the streets’ we may have had a different kind of Buddhism?

[GWKS]

Just my own opinion,

I think it may be possible for lay devotees to reach Arahantship but it may not be that a conducive journey for him/her as he still needs to carry on with his livelihood and other things else. It pretty much is quite a more difficult journey compared to being in the monastic (not saying it’s any easier for a monk to achieve the greatest fruit!)

I believe for alot of us whom are striving for the basic Stream Entry, it is already quite “inconvenient” in the sense we don’t mix in much with pretty much of the sensual world. Friends complaining we’re too “holy”, “too good” for them that they might feel we don’t fit in.
Now think about a lay arahant’s journey!

I’m not sure and wouldn’t comment if a lay arahant needs to ordain within certain days after his achieving. But i’ll take it from a more practical sense of view, that when a lay person reached Arahantship… there seems to be no obligation to commit to anything anymore. Just imagine if one is free from desires, why would he want to stay and endure the sufferings the physical body gives everyday (not taking in the factor the karma of him having a physical body is still not yet exhausted)?

For an Arahant in monkhood he might be obliged to continue till his end of life to provide refuge for his fellow colleagues or devotees who have been supporting his cause. But for a lay Arahant he has no such commitment and even with the highest compassion he still is not bounded by any reason to stay. So why should he? (again assuming his reasons for staying e.g. for his parents to repay their kindness is not valid as his parents are not around anymore).

But in the end i think this is all just for the spirit of discussion. Something we might never have an answer, and having an answer doesn’t really benefit us rather we should focus on the very thing of cultivating ourselves and meditation.

Metta!

[Gabriel_L]

@laurence

If, he had seen a wise and serene lay practitioner that had made a similar impression on him when he ‘hit the streets’ we may have had a different kind of Buddhism?

I am not sure if we would have a very different kind of Buddhism, but think it is worth noting that the Vinaya gives us a hint on what kind of Buddhism arose from the previous six Samma-SamBuddhas.

In a nutshell, all of the six previous Buddhas have established communities of contemplatives. And in the case of those who did not establish a proper set of training rules / a monastic code the Dhamma disappeared earlier than in the case of those who established a set of training rules / a monastic code.

“Master Vipassī, Master Sikhī, and Master Vessabhū were disinclined to give detailed teachings to their disciples.
They gave few discourses in prose and in prose and verse, few expositions, verses, inspired utterances, quotations, birth stories, amazing accounts, and analyses; and they didn’t lay down training rules or recite a monastic code.
After the disappearance of those Buddhas, after the disappearance of the disciples awakened under them, those who were the last disciples—of various names, clans, and social standing, who had gone forth from various families—allowed that dispensation to disappear rapidly.
It’s just like loose flowers on a flat surface: they’re scattered about, whirled about, and destroyed by the wind. Why’s that?
Because they’re not held together by a thread. Just so, after the disappearance of those Buddhas, after the disappearance of the disciples awakened under them, those who were the last disciples allowed that dispensation to disappear rapidly.

“Master Kakusandha, Master Konāgamana, and Master Kassapa were diligent in giving detailed teachings to their disciples.
They gave many discourses in prose and in prose and verse, many expositions, verses, inspired utterances, quotations, birth stories, amazing accounts, and analyses; and they laid down training rules and recited a monastic code.
After the disappearance of those Buddhas, after the disappearance of the disciples awakened under them, those who were the last disciples—of various names, clans, and social standing, who had gone forth from various families—made that dispensation last for a long time.
It’s just like flowers on a flat surface that are held together by a thread: they’re not scattered about, whirled about, or destroyed by the wind.
Why’s that?
Because they’re held together by a thread. Just so, after the disappearance of those Buddhas, after the disappearance of the disciples awakened under them, those who were the last disciples made that dispensation last for a long time. This is the reason why the dispensation established by Master Kakusandha, Master Konāgamana, and Master Kassapa lasted long.
– Vinaya Vibhanga, The origin of the monastic law

[laurence]

I have seen the Chronicle of the Buddha’s with its repetitions in the life stories of Buddha’s stretching back through vast periods of time. Its interesting that this Vinaya related account has details of clear differences in their teaching behaviour. The Buddha’s you have mentioned above - when are they supposed to have lived? Some of them were around before the dinosaurs - others were on Earth teaching before the solar system existed. I think we can take these accounts as ‘articles of faith’?

[Gabriel_L]

I don’t take them as articles of faith but that is an individual choice, as much as it is a choice to believe there could be a lay Buddha, teaching a Dhamma empty of renunciation, in between Netflix-watching sessions and wine tasting events!!

[Pasanna]

And working 2 jobs to pay off the BMW 4WD.
As we say in Australia ‘No worries mate’

[laurence]

Ha Ha! Perhaps a Buddha if they were alive today would be happy to watch a morality tale during a flight between teaching engagements. A Buddha - if they were alive today - may use the internet to reach a wider group of suffering beings? Sipping on a glass of wine hmm … I would not like to look down on a Buddha and suggest they were to self-indulgent. I think I would prefer to be cautious and circumspect!

How long ago did the first Buddha you mentioned live - according to the record?

[Gabriel_L]

I am unaware of an EBT which states the exact timing of previous SammaSamBuddha “occurrences”.

The commentaries however seem to place Lord Vipassi’s sasana a massive number of years before Buddha Gotama.