Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c38.s9: Upāsaka’s Spiritual Attainments

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c38.s9

Language
English

Upāsaka’s Spiritual Attainments

v2.c38.s9.1

The goal that was held before the householders was rebirth in one of the heavens² or as Sakka, the king of gods. This conception was already existing in the pre-Buddhist days, and all religions which accepted the theory of karma endorsed it. A householder should be first instructed to make gifts and to observe the precepts, and he is to be convinced that as fruit of this he would be reborn in the heavens (*sagga*). The Nikāyas are full of instances of good householders, who by leading a virtuous life were reborn as gods, and then there is the whole of the *Vimānavatthu* to illustrate this theory of karma. Aśoka also upheld this view, and did not like to go beyond. But the principles of Buddhism could not support it fully. Immediately after *saggakhatham*, the householders were to be instructed in looking upon worldly pleasures as evil and retirement as the best course of life (*nekkhamme ānisamsam*). Hence it is evident that the ideal held by Buddhism even before the householders was not rebirth in one of the heavens but retirement from the worldly life. In the *Mahāparinibbānasutta*, Buddha is heard to say about the fruits attained by some of his departed *upāsakas*. He said that Sudatta (= Anāthapiṇḍika) and ninety others had become Sakadāgāmi, while Sujātā and 500 others Sotāpanna. Kakudha *upāsaka* reached the Anāgāmi stage, so also did Kāliṅga, Nikaṭa, Katissabho, Tuṭṭha, Bhadda, Subhadda and several others.¹

v2.c38.s9.2

² *Majjhima*. i, p. 505: Householders enjoying worldly pleasures by good conduct goes to *sagga*.

v2.c38.s9.3

¹ *Digha*, ii, pp. 92-93, 200-1.

v2.c38.s9.4

The next lower fruits attained by the *upāsakas* are detailed in the *Janavasabha Sutta*² where it is stated that those who take the *tisaraṇa* and observe the *sīlas* are reborn as Paranimmitavasavatti, Nimmāṇarati, Tusita, Yama, Tāvatiṃsa and Cātummahārājika³ gods, and that the lowest state in which an *upāsaka* is reborn is that of Gandhabba. The merit of observing the uposatha with eight precepts is immense happiness surpassing even that of the kingship of all the sixteen provinces of India. He is reborn as one of the gods of the heavens mentioned above. A man or a woman who has observed the uposatha and earned the least merit will be reborn as a god.⁴

v2.c38.s9.5

² *Ibid.*, ii, p. 212.

v2.c38.s9.6

³ *Cf. Aṅguttara*, iv, pp. 252 f.

v2.c38.s9.7

⁴ *Ibid.*, iv, p. 255: Tasmā hi nārī ca naro ca silavā aṭṭhaṅgupetam upavass’uposathaṃ puññāni katvāna sukhudrayāni aninditā saggam upenti ṭhānan ti.

v2.c38.s9.8

It is evident therefore that the fruits earned by an upāsaka ranged from the Anāgāmi stage to rebirth as a Gandhabba. An advanced upāsaka naturally did not wish to re-existence however happy it might be. Citta Gahapati when in deathbed was tempted by the gods to wish to have a future existence as a Cakkavatti, but he convinced them that the life of a Cakkavatti was impermanent and hence it was also not a desirable state.¹

v2.c38.s9.9

¹ Samyutta, iv, pp. 301-4.

v2.c38.s9.10

The upāsakas and upāsikās, though retaining their white dress, aspired for the fruits obtained by the monks and nuns, viz., Sotāpatti, Sakadāgāmi and Anāgāmi. Like the monks they had not the opportunity of following a particular way of life, but still they were held out the hope that by fulfilling the duties prescribed for them they could attain three of the four fruits attained by a monk or nun.

v2.c38.s9.11

The first fruit attained by a monk is Sotāpatti. It could also be attained by an upāsaka or upāsikā by practising saddhā, sīla, suta, cāga and paññā explained above.² The condition precedent to the attainment of this fruit is the removal of three hindrances, viz., belief in the existence of a self (sakkāyadiṭṭhi),³ belief in the efficacy of rituals (sīlabbataparāmāsa) and lack of faith in the Triratna (*vicikicchā*). There are instances of several upāsakas and upāsikās who attained sotāpatti.

v2.c38.s9.12

² Pp. 222-3; for details, see Samyutta, ii, p. 681 also Samyutta, v p.. 411. In addition to the above five-fold practices the lay-devotees were recommended to cultivate the following four habits: association with wise men, listening to religious discourses, proper mental exertion (yoniso manasikara) and observance of all major and minor rules of morality.

v2.c38.s9.13

³ That the self is identical with one or all of the khandhas. See Samyutta, iv, p. 287.

v2.c38.s9.14

It is rather interesting to read of an instance of a lay-devotee addicted to drinking attaining the fruit of Sotāpatti. The reason shown is that he had so much faith in the Triratna that he could not be reborn in any of the lower planes of existence and was destined to *sambodhi*.¹

v2.c38.s9.15

¹ Samyutta, v. p. 375.

v2.c38.s9.16

The second fruit attained by a monk is Sakadāgāmi. The conditions precedent to the attainment of this stage was the reduction of attachment (*rāga*), hatred (*dosa*) and delusion (*moha*) to the minmum (*tanutta*). A large number of lay-devotees complied with this condition and attained the Sakadāgāmi stage, i.e., they would come once more to this world, and then attain Nibbāna.

v2.c38.s9.17

The third fruit attained by a monk is Anāgāmi. To attain this stage one must completely remove *rāga*, *dosa* and *moha*. The usual condition laid down for a lay-devotee is that he is to remove the five impurities of the lower category (*orambhāgīyas*) to attain this fruit. The five impurities are the three *saṃyojanas*, mentioned above viz., *sakkāyadiṭṭhi*, *sīlabbataparāmāsa* and *vicikicchā*, the other two being *kāmarāga* and *byāpāda* in other words, *rāga* and *dosa*. By reaching the Anāgāmi stage, the lay-devotee does not return to the world but is reborn only once in one of the heavens to attain Nibbāna (*tatthaparinibbāyī*).

v2.c38.s9.18

The fourth fruit *arhatta* is not attained by any householder, hence it is beyond the range of achievements of a lay-devotee.²

v2.c38.s9.19

² See, Infra.

v2.c38.s9.20

In view of the several statements in the Nikāyas about the after-life of an upāsaka, it is clear that no upāsaka attained arhathood, i.e., Nibbāna. In the *Aggivacchagottasutta*¹ it is explicitly stated that no householder without giving up the householder’s life can end his suffering at the time of his death. In other words, he can be only at the most an Anāgāmi, i.e., he must be born once more as a god to attain Nibbāna.

v2.c38.s9.21

¹ *Majjhima*, i, p. 483: Natthi koci gihi gihisaṃyojanam appahāya kāyassa bhedā dukkhass' antakaro 'ti.

v2.c38.s9.22

There was a controversy between the Theravādins and the Uttarāpathakas, and recently between Prof. de la Vallée Poussin and Dr. B. C. Law² on the point whether a householder could become an arhat (*Gihi 'ssa arahā ti*?)³ The Uttarāpathakas and Dr. B. C. Law relied on certain passages of the Nikāyas, in which a few householders are mentioned as having become arhats. The Uttarāpathakas cited the instances of Yasa Kulaputta, Uttiya gahapati and Setu Māṇava,⁴ while Dr. B. C. Law drew his support from the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* (iii, p. 451), in which it is said that Sudatta gahapati (= Anāthapiṇḍika), Citta gahapati, Uggo gahapati and a few other householders realised the immortal (*amataddaso*), i.e. Nibbāna. The remark in the *Majjhima Nikāya*⁵ that a householder could realise the excellent truth is discussed in the *Milindapañha* (p. 243), in which Milinda raised the question that if a householder or a recluse could attain the truth by following the right course, there was no necessity for a person to become a monk. Again he questioned if countless householders visualised the truth, what was the good of taking recourse to the ascetic practices (*dhutaṅgas*).⁶ Nāgasena gave an evasive answer and dilated on the merits of renunciation and observance of *dhutaṅga* precepts, and avoided the issue by stating that those householders who realised the truth had practised the *dhutaṅgas* in their previous lives.

v2.c38.s9.23

² *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute*, xiv, p. 72.

v2.c38.s9.24

³ *Kathāvatthu*, iv, 1.

v2.c38.s9.25

⁴ *Ibid.*

v2.c38.s9.26

⁵ Cf. *Majjhima*, ii, p. 197: gahaṭṭho ārādhako hoti ñeyyaṃ dhammaṃ kusalam.

v2.c38.s9.27

⁶ *Milindapañha*, p. 350.

v2.c38.s9.28

The passage relied on by Dr. B. C. Law no doubt speaks of the gahapatis having been *amataddaso*, but in the same Nikāya and elsewhere Buddha declared at Nadika that none of the Upāsakas mentioned there became arhats. Nakulapitā and Jīvaka became a Sotāpanna, Sudatta a Sakadāgāmi,¹ Ugga and Citta became Anāgāmis.² The Theravādins³ contended that a householder in the enjoyment of worldly pleasures could not normally be expected to become arhats. In the similar strain Nāgasena stated that on the very day that a householder attained *arhathood*, he must either die or take the yellow robe.⁴ Prof. de la Vallée Poussin also held the opinion that a layman, however faithful or virtuous he might be, could not attain Nibbāna.⁵ Buddhaghosa explained the anomaly by saying that Yasa, Uttiya and Setu were mere householders in name, in external dress but not spiritually; they were free from all worldly ties though they had not yet discarded the white dress of a householder.⁶ The conclusion that should be drawn from the conflicting statements in the Nikāyas about the attainments of an upāsaka and the controversies in the *Kathāvatthu* and the *Milindapañha*, is that normally a householder could not become an arhat, but there were exceptional cases of householders who became so spiritually advanced that they deserved arhat-hood but the convention was that no householder unless he gave up his household life would be recognised as an arhat. Upāsakas like Citta and Hatthaka, and Upāsikās like Khujjuttarā and Nandamātā were more spiritually advanced than many monks and nuns, but still they were *sekhas* and not *asekhas* (= arhats).¹ They are said to have destroyed the *oram-bhāgīya* impurities² but not the five *uddhambhāgīyas*: viz., *rūpa-rāga*, *arūparāga*, *māna*, *uddhacca*, and *avijjā*, and hence, they could not attain arhat-hood.³

v2.c38.s9.29

¹ See above, p. 233.

v2.c38.s9.30

² *Samyutta*, iv. p. 301. Cf. Malalasekera, *Dictionary*, s.v., Citta, Nakulapitā, Jivaka.

v2.c38.s9.31

³ *Kathāvatthu*, iv. 1.

v2.c38.s9.32

⁴ *Milindapañha*, p. 265.

v2.c38.s9.33

⁵ *The Way to Nirvāna*, p. 150-151.

v2.c38.s9.34

⁶ Cf. *Papañcasūdani*, iii, p. 196: Santati the minister, Uggasena the banker's son, Vitasoka the young boy attained arhathood while in householder's dress, but the householder's dress (*gihilingam*) cannot uphold the merit of an arhat and so they must either die or retire on the very day *arhathood* is attained by them.

v2.c38.s9.35

¹ Cf. *Visuddhimagga*, p. 442: Cittagahapati, Upāligahapati, Dhammika-upāsaka, Khujjuttarā upāsikā acquired *paṭisambhidā* of the *Sekhabhūmi*.

v2.c38.s9.36

² Cf. *Majjhima*, I, pp. 467, 490-1.

v2.c38.s9.37

³ In the *Aṅguttara*, (iv, p. 456), it is stated that one cannot be an arhat without removing *rāga*, *dosa*, *moha*, *kodha*, *upanāha*, *makkha*, *palāsa*, *issā*, and *macchariya*.

Linked texts (20)