Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c38.s9.28

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