Kathavatthu 4.1: Gihissaarahātikathā

4.1.1.1

Gihi’ssa arahāti?

Can a householder be an arahant?

Theravādin: You say the layman may be Arahant. But you imply therewith that the Arahant has the layman's fetters. “No”, you say, “they do not exist for him”. Then how can a layman be Arahant? Now for the Arahant the lay-fetters are put away, cut off at the root, made as the stump of a palm tree, incapable of renewed life or of coming again to birth. Can you say that of a layman?

4.1.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.1.3

Atthi arahato gihisaṃyojananti?

Does an arahant have the householder’s fetter?

4.1.1.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

4.1.1.5

natthi arahato gihisaṃyojananti?

Does an arahant have no householder’s fetter?

4.1.1.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.1.7

Hañci natthi arahato gihisaṃyojanaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If an arahant has no householder’s fetter, surely then one should not say:

4.1.1.8

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti.

“A householder can be an arahant.”

4.1.2.1

Gihi’ssa arahāti?

Can a householder be an arahant?

4.1.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.2.3

Nanu arahato gihisaṃyojanaṃ pahīnaṃ ucchinnamūlaṃ tālāvatthukataṃ anabhāvaṅkataṃ āyatiṃ anuppādadhammanti?

Is not the householder’s fetter abandoned by an arahant, cut off at the root, made like a palm tree stump, done away with, not subject to arising in the future?

4.1.2.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.2.5

Hañci arahato gihisaṃyojanaṃ pahīnaṃ ucchinnamūlaṃ tālāvatthukataṃ anabhāvaṅkataṃ āyatiṃ anuppādadhammaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If the householder’s fetter is abandoned by an arahant, cut off at the root, made like a palm tree stump, done away with, not subject to arising in the future, surely then one should not say:

4.1.2.6

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti.

“A householder can be an arahant.”

4.1.3.1

Gihi’ssa arahāti?

Can a householder be an arahant?

You admit that there was never a layman who, as such without putting away his lay-fetters, made an end in this very life of all sorrow. Is there not a Suttanta in which the Wanderer Vacchagotta addressed the Exalted One thus:

4.1.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.3.3

Atthi koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaroti?

Is there any householder who, without abandoning the householder’s fetter, puts an end to suffering in this very life?

4.1.3.4

Natthi.

There is not.

4.1.3.5

Hañci natthi koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaro, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If there is no householder who, without abandoning the householder’s fetter, puts an end to suffering in this very life, surely then one should not say:

4.1.3.6

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti.

“A householder can be an arahant.”

4.1.4.1

Gihi’ssa arahāti?

Can a householder be an arahant?

4.1.4.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

4.1.4.3

Nanu vacchagotto paribbājako bhagavantaṃ etadavoca—

Did not the wanderer Vacchagotta say this to the Blessed One:

4.1.4.4

“atthi nu kho, bho gotama, koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya kāyassa bhedā dukkhassantakaro”ti?

“Is there, Master Gotama, any householder who, without abandoning the householder’s fetter, puts an end to suffering upon the breakup of the body?”

“Is there now, O Gotama, any layman who, without having put away the layman's fetters, makes at death an end of Ill”?

4.1.4.5

“Natthi kho, vaccha, koci gihī gihisaṃyojanaṃ appahāya kāyassa bhedā dukkhassantakaro”ti.

“There is no householder, Vaccha, who, without abandoning the householder’s fetter, puts an end to suffering upon the breakup of the body.”

And to whom the Exalted One said:

“Nay, Vacchagotta, there is none”?

4.1.4.6

Attheva suttantoti?

Is there such a discourse?

“Nay, Vacchagotta, there is none”?

4.1.4.7

Āmantā.

Yes.

“Nay, Vacchagotta, there is none”?

4.1.4.8

Tena hi na vattabbaṃ—

Therefore it should not be said:

“Nay, Vacchagotta, there is none”?

4.1.4.9

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti.

“A householder can be an arahant.”

“Nay, Vacchagotta, there is none”?

4.1.5.1

Gihi’ssa arahāti?

Can a householder be an arahant?

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 Kāsi, 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.

4.1.5.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

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 Kāsi, 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.

4.1.5.3

Arahā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya, methunaṃ uppādeyya, puttasambādhasayanaṃ ajjhāvaseyya, kāsikacandanaṃ paccanubhaveyya, mālāgandhavilepanaṃ dhāreyya, jātarūparajataṃ sādiyeyya, ajeḷakaṃ paṭiggaṇheyya, kukkuṭasūkaraṃ paṭiggaṇheyya, hatthigavassavaḷavaṃ paṭiggaṇheyya, tittiravaṭṭakamorakapiñjaraṃ paṭiggaṇheyya, cittavaṇḍavālamoḷiṃ dhāreyya, odātāni vatthāni dīghadasāni dhāreyya, yāvajīvaṃ agāriyabhūto assāti?

Would an arahant indulge in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, live in a bed crowded with children, use Kāsī sandalwood, wear garlands, perfumes, and unguents, accept gold and silver, accept goats and sheep, accept fowl and pigs, accept elephants, cattle, horses, and mares, accept partridges, quails, peacocks, and pheasants, wear a crest with a colorful hair-ribbon, wear white clothes with long fringes, and live as a householder for life?

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 Kāsi, 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.

4.1.5.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

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 Kāsi, 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.

4.1.6.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said:

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.2

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti?

“A householder can be an arahant”?

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.4

Nanu yaso kulaputto, uttiyo gahapati, setu māṇavo, gihibyañjanena arahattaṃ pattoti?

Did not Yasa the young gentleman, Uttiya the householder, and Setu the youth attain arahantship in the guise of a householder?

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.6

Hañci yaso kulaputto, uttiyo gahapati, setu māṇavo, gihibyañjanena arahattaṃ patto, tena vata re vattabbe—

If Yasa the young gentleman, Uttiya the householder, and Setu the youth attained arahantship in the guise of a householder, surely then one should say:

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.7

“gihi’ssa arahā”ti.

“A householder can be an arahant.”

Uttarāpathaka: 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?

4.1.6.8

Gihi’ssa arahātikathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on whether a householder can be an arahant is finished.