Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c38.s9.22

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.