Religion (1999) 29, 231­241
Article No. reli.1999.0163, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta
Pit*aka: A Reconsideration of the Lay/Monastic
Opposition
JEFFREY SAMUELS
Many scholars have argued that early Buddhism was primarily an `other-worldly'
religion focusing on ascetics and monastics. In their view, the laity does not figure
prominently, it was only centuries later that the laity's involvement became more
noticeable. By examining references to householders (gahapati) and lay disciples
(upasaka) in the Sutta Pit*aka section of the Pali canon, this article challenges the view
that the role of the laity primarily pertained to supporting the monastics with food,
clothing, and shelter.  1999 Academic Press
The traditional scholarly view of Theravada Buddhism has always maintained a sharp
distinction between the monastic and the lay communities. The distinction between
these two communities is most often based on their religious activities and obligations.
While the monastics are often identified as preservers of Buddhist doctrine and practice,
the responsibilities and concerns of the laity are believed to be limited to the
accumulation of merit through supporting the monastics with food, shelter, and
clothing. For instance, Nalinaksha Dutt, in paraphrasing N. N. Law, excludes the laity
from the religious practices associated with the monastics when he writes: `The
principles of early Buddhism did not make any special provision for the laity . . . [and]
it is evident that the new religion [i.e., Buddhism] was primarily meant for those who
would retire from the household life'.1
Another scholar who excludes the laity from the various forms of Buddhist learning
and practice (besides donating to the monastic community) is Max Weber. He
maintains, for instance, that the laity was viewed in a manner `similar to the tolerated
infidels in Islam, [who] existed only for the purpose of sustaining by alms the Buddhist
disciple who aspires to the state of grace'.2
The laity's support of the monks and nuns,
according to Weber, `constituted the highest merit and honor available to the upasaka
(adorer)'.3
Similarly, Etienne Lamotte, in his History of Indian Buddhism, writes that the
`monk aims at Nirvan*a and, in order to attain it, wearing the yellow robe, cultivates the
noble eightfold Path (arya as*t*an˙gikamarga)'.4
While the monk strives to reach enlight-
enment or nirvan*a, the lay householder, `involved in the troubles of his time, cannot be
expected to grasp ``the profound truth, which is difficult to perceive, difficult to
understand, sublime, abstruse and which only the wise can grasp'' '.5
Many later scholars continue to embrace this traditional view of Theravada
Buddhism. For instance, Akira Hirakawa writes that `The term ``upasaka'' [i.e., layman]
refers to one who waits upon or serves (another person). Thus an upasaka served
mendicants by supplying the items, such as food and robes, that they required for their
religious lives'.6
Hirakawa then even more sharply divides the monastics from the laity
when he argues that early Buddhism is `a monastic teaching for those who were willing
to leave their homes to become monks or nuns, strictly observe the precepts, and
perform religious practices'.7
He also states that, `Both doctrinal study and religious
practice presupposed the abandonment of a person's life as a householder. A strict line
separated those who had been ordained from lay people'.8
Because of this sharp
 1999 Academic Press
0048­721X/99/030231+11 r30.00/0
opposition between the monastic order and the laity, Hirakawa argues that `Buddhist
laymen were not included in the Buddhist san˙gha'.9
Finally, this depiction of Buddhism is also maintained by George Bond, who writes
that archaic Buddhism (as represented in the Pali canon) is `a religion of individual
salvation-striving for ascetic monks'.10
While Bond acknowledges that Buddhism
became markedly more social as time progressed,11
he argues that the most that the laity
could ever hope for and cultivate was a higher degree of morality (adhisila): in order to
cultivate higher wisdom (adhipan~n~a) and higher concentration (adhisamadhi), they had to
abandon the household life.12
While the dominant view of early Buddhism still maintains a sharp distinction
between the monastic order and the laity, some scholars have begun to challenge that
perception. For instance, Gregory Schopen's work on early donative inscriptions in
India questions this view by demonstrating that a considerable proportion of people
who donated to sacred sites and were involved in merit-making activity were monks
and nuns, including monks and nuns who were doctrinal specialists.13
As a result of the
evidence from early donative inscriptions, Schopen concludes that `None of this accords
very well, if at all, with received views on the matter, with the views that maintain that
there was a sharp distinction between the kinds of religious activities undertaken by
monks and the kinds of religious activity undertaken by laymen, and with the view that
cult and religious giving were essentially and overwhelmingly lay concerns in the Indian
Buddhist context'.14
In this article, I also challenge the dominant view of Theravada Buddhism that
maintains a sharp dichotomy between the monastic order and the laity and that appears
to be based on a rather limited reading of the Pali canon. By examining the sutta section
of the Theravada Buddhist Pali canon, I hope to show that the portrayal of the laity in
these early texts is not limited to merely providing the monks and nuns with food, shelter
and clothing. Alongside references in the Pali canon that depict the laity's primary role
as supporters of the monastics are a plethora of references in which householders and lay
disciples are portrayed as practitioners of the Buddha's dhamma, proceeding along on the
path to enlightenment. I argue that the Pali canon contains a historically diverse group
of viewpoints and attitudes towards religious practice and that the complexity of views
contained in the canon actually undermines, to a large degree, the absoluteness of the
categories of `monastic' and `laity'.15
Views toward Lay people in the Sutta Pit*aka
A close examination of the passages in the Sutta Pit*aka that refer to householders and lay
people reveals a complex and multifarious depiction. These findings reflect two
opposing views: 1) that the laity, as an important dimension of the Buddhist community
or san˙gha, primarily functioned to serve and support the monks and nuns; and 2) that the
laity were able to progress along the path to enlightenment by hearing Buddhist
teachings and practicing certain forms of Buddhist mediation. Though the first view
appears to coincide with the traditional reading of the Pali canon, the second view
challenges that reading.
Laity as Supporters of Monastics: the Superiority of Monastics
There are numerous passages in the Pali canon lending support to the traditional
interpretation of Theravada Buddhism. In these passages, lay life is portrayed as inferior
to monastic life, which is shown to be more conductive to progressing towards
232 J. Samuels
enlightenment. For example, in a passage in the Saman~n~aphalasutta (or Fruits of the
Wanderer), householder life is described as full of hindrances (sambadho gharavaso
rajapaho), thereby making it difficult for householders to live the celibate life which is
pure, complete and perfect.16
In this passage, a homeless person is portrayed as one who
renounces all worldly ties, practices mindfulness and contentment, enters into and
remains in the trance states, develops supernatural powers, and knows that the cycle of
death and rebirth is cut off. What this passage suggests, then, is that the qualities
conducive towards attaining enlightenment--for example, developing mindfulness
and concentration--can only be cultivated after renouncing household life.17
The
superiority of monastics over householders is also suggested in the Sutta Nipata (v. 221),
where it is stated that `just as a blue-necked peacock, flying through the air, never attains
the speed of a goose, thus the householder does not imitate the monk who is a sage
meditating in the forest'.
Though the Saman~n~aphalasutta primarily focuses on the benefits of homeless life, it
also contains a description of the actions and teachings appropriate for lay people. For
instance, after stating that household life is full of hindrances, we read that a graduate
sermon on giving, morality and heaven was given to the householder.18
Moreover, in
other suttas in the Pali canon, there are individual discourses on the subjects of giving
and morality taught to lay people,19
and these discourses often include a description of
the rewards that ensue from such practices.20
Lay Involvement
While these passages from various sections of the Sutta Pit*aka lend support to the
traditional reading of the Pali canon, other passages challenge the view that the highest
function of the laity is to support the monks and nuns, and that progress to the goal can
only be accomplished through abandoning the householder state. These suttas challenge
the traditional view of Theravada Buddhism by their portrayal of the laity as recipients
of profound teachings on Buddhist doctrine and as practitioners of Buddhist training.
There are even passages in which the laity are placed on an equal footing with monastics
in terms of spiritual attainment.
Recipients of Teachings and Teachers of the Doctrine
Though it is true that a number of passages in the Sutta Pit*aka pertaining to householders
portray them as recipients of discourses solely on morality and giving, other passages
portray them as receiving the same profound doctrinal discourses as monastics. In one
sutta in the Pat*isam*bhidamagga of the Khuddaka Nikaya, the Mahavagge Man*d*apeyya-katha,
we read that the best recipients of the Buddha's best teachings (desanaman*d*o) include
monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen and gods. Similarly, in the Nagarasutta of the Sam*yutta
Nikaya (II.107), the Buddha talks about his insight into conditioned arising
(pat*iccasamuppada) and the eightfold path, and then concludes by pointing out that
having come to this knowledge, he has taught it to monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen.
Finally, in the An˙guttara Nikaya (II.132), there is a statement that Aznanda (as well as the
Buddha)21
taught the dhamma to each of the four assemblies, monks, nuns, laymen and
laywomen.
Two components of the best teachings of the Buddha given to the laity, highlighted
in the Mahavagge Man*d*apeyya-katha, are the four noble truths and the eightfold path.22
The fact that these teachings were given to the laity is further supported by other
passages in the Sutta Pit*aka. For instance, we read in the Digha Nikaya (I.110) that after
giving a graduated sermon to the brahmin Pokkharasati, the Buddha then explained the
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pit*aka 233
dhamma in brief: suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path.
A similar phrase is also found in conjunction with the laymen Kut*adanta (D I.148),
Upali (M I.380) and Brahmayu (M II.145). Moreover, in the Rasiyasutta of the Sam*yutta
Nikaya, we find that the headman Rasiya became a lay disciple by taking refuge in
the Buddha, his doctrine and the monastic community after hearing a discourse from the
Buddha on the eightfold path.23
Other Buddhist doctrines that were of central importance and were sometimes
taught to householders include the five aggregates and non self (anatta). In the
Nakulapitasutta (S III. 1ff.), for example, the old and ailing householder Nakula visits
the Buddha and Sariputta and asks for some comforting teachings. Rather than
discussing with the householder the importance of faith, the benefits of being moral
and the rewards of giving, the Buddha and Sariputta teach Nakula about the five
aggregates and how each of the five aggregates is not to be construed as the self or as
being possessed by a self. In another sutta of the same Nikaya (S III.48ff.), moreover,
we find a Socratic-like dialogue ensuing between the Buddha and the householder
Son*a on the subject of the five aggregates and non self. In this dialogue, which
mirrors the conversation between the Buddha and his first five converts, the Buddha
leads the layman Son*a to the conclusion that the five aggregates are not to be taken
to be the self or the self taken as the possessor of the five aggregates.
In addition, there are suttas that portray the Buddha teaching lay householders and
brahmins about the abstruse doctrine of the twelve links of dependent origination
(pat*iccasamuppada). In the Nidana section of the Sam*yutta Nikaya (II.22f., 75f., 76f., and
77), for example, there are a number of suttas addressed to lay people pertaining to the
doctrine of dependent origination. In these cases, the householders and brahmins
become lay followers after hearing the discourse on the causal relationship between each
of the links as well as the way to break out of this chain binding one to rebirth and
suffering (S II. 76).
Another manner in which the laity are portrayed in the Sutta Pit*aka is as teachers
of the Buddhist doctrine. For instance, in the section of the An˙guttara Nikaya that
recounts the achievements of certain laymen and laywomen (A I.126), we read
that Citta is chief among the Buddha's laymen in terms of teaching the dhamma and that
Khujjuttara is foremost among the laywomen in terms of wide knowledge. Moreover,
in the same nikaya we find references to two laymen, Anathapin*d*ika and Vajjiyamahita,
who refuted the views of a group of wanderers by teaching them about dependent
arising, impermanence, suffering, non clinging and non self. Their discourse on these
subjects caused the wanderers to become speechless and led the Buddha to declare to his
monks: `A monk who dwells in the dhamma and vinaya for even one hundred years
might, in this manner, have to censure heretical wanderers with the dhamma just as the
ones who were rebuked by the householder Anathapin*d*ika'.24
Another passage that describes lay people as dhamma teachers is found in the Digha
Nikaya and repeated in the An˙guttara Nikaya. In this passage, Mara tries to encourage the
Buddha to attain final nibbana (parinibbana). The Buddha responds that he can only attain
parinibbana after he has monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen
who are learned, trained, self-possessed, who have great knowledge, who know the
dhamma by heart, who have reached complete righteousness, who are upright, who
walk in perfect conformity, who are their own teacher, and who, having learned [the
dhamma], will describe it, teach it, declare it, give it, uncover it, dissect it, and will declare it to
those who have arisen, who, having restrained and checked those who are in opposition with the
teachings, will teach the marvelous dhamma.25
234 J. Samuels
These passages, thus pose a challenge to some of the traditional distinctions made
between the monastic order and the laity. For instance, while Dutt argues that
`householders were as far as possible kept away from the deeper teachings, lest they
should be frightened away from taking interest in the religion',26
and while Hirakawa
states that `Nikaya Buddhist doctrine was a monastic teaching for those who were
willing to leave their homes to become monks or nuns',27
the passages quoted reveal
that the Buddhist attitudes expressed in the Pali canon are far more complex than that
`monastic' versus `lay'. In particular, the passages that refer to Citta as the foremost of the
Buddha's disciples in terms of teaching the dhamma, to Khujjuttara as the foremost of the
Buddha's disciples in terms of wide knowledge, and to Anathapin*d*ika and Vajjiyamahita
as having great understanding of dependent arising, impermanence, suffering, non
clinging and non self all suggest that there might have existed, in the Pali canon, some
ambiguity over the very nature of `monk' versus `householder' in regards to doctrinal
instruction and understanding.
Practicing Meditation
There are also several passages in the Sutta Pit*aka where certain lay people are portrayed
as engaging in Buddhist practices, especially those practices directed towards the
development of mindfulness and concentration.
While the cultivation of mindfulness through practicing the four foundations of mind-
fulness (satipat*t*hana) is often associated with monastics (as it is in the Mahasatipat*t*hanasutta
of the Digha and Majjhima nikayas),28
there are also passages in the Sutta Pit*aka that show
lay people following this same practice. For instance, in the Kandarakasutta of the
Majjhima Nikaya (I.340), the Buddha points out to a wandering ascetic and a house-
holder that his monks dwell in the four foundations of mindfulness. After the Buddha
extols the virtues of the four foundations of mindfulness, the householder accompanying
the wandering ascetic remarks, `We householder, oh sir, dressed in white, also practice
the four foundations of mindfulness from time to time'. In another sutta in the Sam*yutta
Nikaya (V.176ff.), the venerable Aznanda visits the sick and suffering layman Sirivad*d*ha.
After they exchange greetings and Sirivad*d*ha informs Aznanda about his illness, Aznanda
recommends that Sirivad*d*ha should practice the four foundations of mindfulness as
follows: `I will dwell contemplating the body, feelings, mind, and dhammas in the body,
feelings, mind, and dhammas ardent, with energy and mindful'. The householder then
retorts that he is already dwelling in the four foundations.29
Along with these passages in which there are several passages which lay people are
shown to be proficient in entering into and remaining in the trance states. For instance,
in the Acelasutta of the Sam*yutta Nikaya, the householder Citta who has been a disciple
of the Buddha for thirty years, remarks to the naked ascetic Acela that he, Citta, is able
to enter into the four trance states and is able to remain aloof from lust. In the Digha
Nikaya (II. 186), moreover, we find reference to a king who is able to enter into the
four trance states as well as cultivate the four divine abidings: compassion, friendliness,
sympathetic joy and equanimity. In the An˙guttara Nikaya (IV.66), there is mention of
how Nanda's mother (Nandamata) can enter into and remain in the four trance states.
Finally, in the Iddhikatha of the Pat*isam*bhidamagga of the Khuddaka Nikaya (II.212), we
find a discussion of the powers that ensue from abiding in the eight trance states. After
this brief discussion, we find that the monks Sariputta, San~jiva and Khanukon*d*an~n~a, as
well as the laywomen Uttara30
and Samavatika, have all developed this power of
pervasive concentration.
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pit*aka 235
There are also references to lay people practicing other types of meditation in the
Sutta Pit*aka. One example concerns a meditation focusing on the three characteristics of
reality: impermanence, non self and suffering. In the Dighavusutta in the Sam*yutta
Nikaya, for instance, the sick and suffering householder Dighavu is visited by the
Buddha. After inquiring about Dighavu's health, the Buddha recommends that Dighavu
cultivate faith in the three jewels and cultivate noble virtues. Dighavu then responds that
he has already cultivated these qualities. The Buddha then instructs Dighavu to practice
six other practices: `Now, oh Dighavu, you should dwell observing impermanence in all
constituent elements. [You should dwell] perceiving suffering in impermanence,
perceiving non self in suffering, perceiving abandoning, perceiving the absence of
desire, perceiving cessation. This is how you should train yourself, oh Dighavu'.31
In
others suttas, we also find references to a king who guards his senses and mind,32
and to
a group of householder brahmins who are being instructed on guarding the sense
doors.33
Yet another sutta where meditative practices are taught to a layman is the
Anathapin*d*ikovadasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, where Sariputta instructs the dying
Anathapin*d*ika to practice non grasping in relation to the six senses (the five senses and
the mind), the six forms (shape, sound, smell, tastes, touches and mental objects) and the
six consciousness associated with each of the senses. In addition, Sariputta remarks that
Anathapin*d*ika should not grasp after feelings as well as the last four trance states. After
describing the various types of non grasping meditation, Sariputta remarks that this kind
of meditation is usually given not to householders but only to monks. In response, the
householder Anathapin*d*ika points out that this teaching should be given to other
householders who have little dust in their eyes.34
Spiritual Attainments
By highlighting these passages in the Sutta Pit*aka, I hope to have shown that the sections
of the Pali canon that portray household life as full of hindrances are juxtaposed by
passages in which householders are depicted as progressing towards enlightenment, as
hearing and understanding profound teachings (such as non self and dependent
origination) and as practicing various kinds of meditation. At this point, one question
may be raised: while it is true that certain householders may `progress' towards
enlightenment and attain the first three fruits of the path (stream-enterer, once-returner
and non returner), is it possible for them to attain complete freedom from
suffering--i.e., to become an arahant? Unfortunately, there is not a single answer to this
question, thereby further showing the complexity of views regarding the laity in the Pali
canon.
On the one hand there are may passages in the Sutta Pit*aka where the final stage of
arahantship is shown to be unattainable by householders and where householders are
depicted as having attained only the first three fruits of the path to enlightenment. In the
Mahaparinibbanasutta (D II.92f.), for example, the Buddha recalls those lay people who
have become stream-enterers, once-returners and non returners; interestingly, there is
no mention of fully enlightened lay people.35
The Nal*akapanasutta of the Majjhima
Nikaya (I.467) further supports the notion that one must become a monastic before
attaining enlightenment. In this sutta the Buddha points out to Anuruddha the states
attained by certain deceased people. First, the Buddha mentions the states attained by
monks and nuns: having abandoned only the first three fetters (stream-enterer), having
eliminated the first three fetters and reduced attachment, aversion and delusion (i.e., a
once-returner), having eradicated the first five fetters (i.e., a non returner), and being
236 J. Samuels
established in profound knowledge (i.e., arahant). This statement is followed by a
discussion of the states attained by laymen and laywomen. However, there is only
mention of the first three stages: stream-enterer, once-returner and non returner.36
What is implied is that while monastics are able to reach all of the four fruits of the path,
lay people are able to attain only the first three stages. Even though householders are
able to progress along the path through hearing profound teachings and practicing
meditation, the ultimate goal of cessation from suffering can be attained only by a
monastic.
While these passages may lend support to the claim that the householder's life is
`ultimately' not conducive to spiritual progress and that lay people must abandon
household life in order to cultivate higher wisdom and enlightenment, other passages
suggest the contrary: that lay people can achieve the fourth fruit--arahantship. For
example, in two suttas in the Sam*yutta Nikaya, the `prospect' of lay people attaining
complete release from suffering (dukkha) and from the mental intoxicants (asavas) is
acknowledged. In the Mahanamasutta, for example, the layman Mahanama asks the
Buddha the difference between those lay people who are possessed with morality
(silasampanno), those lay people who are possessed with faith (saddhosampanno), those lay
people who are possessed with generosity (cagasampanno) and finally, those lay people
who are possessed with wisdom (pan~n~asampanno). This last group of lay people, the
Buddha responds, are those who are possessed with insight into rising and falling (i.e.,
impermanence), who are possessed with wisdom which in noble, who are discriminat-
ing, and who are moving towards the complete destruction of suffering (i.e., enlight-
enment).37
In this passage, there is neither a portrayal of a layperson's life as being replete
with hindrances nor an assertion that a lay follower (upasaka) must become a monastic.
Of even greater interest is the Gilayanasutta of the Sam*yutta Nikaya. In this sutta, the
Buddha points out to the householder Mahanama that lay people may be admonished
to develop faith in the three jewels,38
to develop noble virtues, and to eradicate all
attachment to their parents, to their children, to the five senses, to the four godly realms
and so on. Once the lay person eradicates all attachments, then the person should be
instructed to direct the mind on the state of cessation (nirodha). The Buddha then points
out that if the lay person is able to accomplish this feat, then there is no difference
between the lay person and the monk who is freed from the asavas (i.e., mental
intoxicants preventing one from reaching enlightenment) and that there is no difference
between the release of one and the release of the other.39
Another passage pertaining to the issue of whether lay people can become enlight-
ened is in the An˙guttara Nikaya, where Mara asks the Buddha to attain parinibbana.
Though this passage repeats the passage found in the Mahaparinibbanasutta of the Digha
Nikaya, there is one addition: not only should there be monks, nuns, laymen and
laywomen who are accomplished in the Buddhist teachings and can teach it to others,
but there must also be monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen who have attained perfect
peace (pattayogakkhema)--a word that Rhys Davids and Stede refer to as a `frequent
epithet of nibbana'.40
There are other passages in the Majjhima, Sam*yutta and An˙guttara Nikayas that
correlate the attainment of nibbana to lay people. In these passages another epithet for
nibbana is used: n~ayam*, or truth. In the Sam*yutta Nikaya, for instance, the Buddha
purports to have said to his monks that when `a householder or a wanderer is rightly
disposed, because of [his] correct mental disposition he is accomplished in the truth
(n~ayam*), the teachings (or the norm (dhamma)), and the wholesome'.41
Though the
word n~ayam*, or truth, may appear to be ambiguous in this phrase, certain post-canonical
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pit*aka 237
texts gloss this word as a synonym for nibbana. For example, in his Visuddhimagga,
Buddhaghosa succinctly writes, `ayo vuccati nibbanam*' or `Truth is called nibbana'.42
Moreover, in the Questions to King Milinda, King Milinda questions the monk Nagasena
on this exact passage: `if householders and monastics can realize the truth (n~ayam*), then
why should one give up the householder's life?' Though Nagasena skirts Milinda's
question at first by pointing out that the recluse is nonetheless superior because he
attains the goal of nibbana without delay,43
he later remarks that the householder who is
able to attain the highest peace of nibbana is able to do so only because he has laid the
groundwork in previous lives, when he followed the thirteen ascetic practices
(dhutagun*as).44
In addition to this sutta, we find other passages that even refer to lay people who are
enlightened. For example, near the end of the third book of the An˙guttara Nikaya, we
find the following:
Endowed with these six things, oh monks, the householder Tapussa who has attained perfection
and who has seen nibbana because of the Tathagata, is one who has gone to the state of perfection
having seen nibbana with his own eyes; with which six: with perfect faith in the Buddha, with
perfect faith in the dhamma, with perfect faith in the san˙gha, with noble morality, with noble
knowledge, and with noble release. Because of these six things, oh monks, the householder Tapussa
who has attained perfection and who has seen nibbana because of the Tathagata, is one who has
gone to the state of perfection having seen nibbana with his own eyes. (A III.450f.)
This same formula is then repeated for seventeen other householders (Bhallika, Sudatta
Anathapin*d*ika,45
Citta Macchikasan*d*ika, Hatthaka Azl*avaka, Mahanama Sakka, Ugga
Vesalika, Uggata, Sura Ambat*t*ha, Jivaka Komarabhacca, Nakulpita, Tavakan*n*ika,
Puran*a, Isidatta, Sandhana, Vijaya, Vajjiyamahita and Men*d*aka) and three other lay
disciples (Vaset*t*ha, Arit*t*ha and Saragga).
If we take these passages seriously, then it appears that Gananath Obeyesekere
(1968:28) might have had a rather limited reading of the Pali canon when he asserted
that `Since de facto a layman is incapable of entering the true path, the nirvana quest is
exclusively a phenomenon of elite religiosity'.46
Though there are canonical passages
that imply that lay people cannot become enlightened, these passages must be
interpreted as applying only to particular situations. Certain lay people are shown, in the
Pali canon, to have attained the same degree of perfection as enlightened monks and
nuns.
In highlighting the various passages pertaining to the laity in this paper, I am not
arguing that the function of the laity did not include supporting monastics. I am arguing
only that the Pali canon contains a complex view of lay people and that the traditional
limited reading of the Pali canon misses this complexity. Moreover, the multifarious
views of the lay community in the Pali canon actually challenge the rigid categories of
`monastic' and `laity'. While these two categories appear distinct and separate to us
today, these two categories might have been more indistinct and less meaningful during
the period represented in the Pali canon. For instance, in some of the passages
highlighted, the lay community, like the monastic community, is shown to be given
profound teachings, to have practiced various forms of Buddhist meditation and to have
reached the highest goal of the tradition--enlightenment.
If the two communities are less distinct in the period of the Pali canon, then it might
be fruitful to question when and under what circumstances did the sharp distinction first
arise. Is it possible that the early centuries of Mahayana Buddhism, with its posturing
about the superiority of its own path because it includes the laity, may have prompted
238 J. Samuels
the Theravada tradition to define itself against the Mahayana school by posturing a
distinct opposition between the lay and monastic communities? While such a question
lies beyond the scope of this article, it is worth further consideration.
Notes
1 Nalinaksha Dutt, `Place of Laity in Early Buddhism', Indian Historical Quarterly 21,
p. 163.
2 Max Weber, The Religions of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, trans. H. H. Gerth
and D. Martindale, Glencoe, IL, Free Press 1958, p. 214. In a similar manner, Edward Conze
denigrates the role of the laity in archaic Buddhism by referring to their beliefs and practices as
`bhaktic' (i.e., devotional) and `magical' (Buddhist Thought in India: Three Phases of Buddhist
Philosophy, London, Allen and Unwin 1962, p. 32).
3 Weber, p. 214.
4 Etienne Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Suaka Era, trans. Sara
Webb-Boin, Louvain-Paris, Peeters Press 1988, p. 67.
5 Ibid., p. 74.
6 Akira Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism: From Suakyamuni to Early Mahayana, trans. Paul
Groner, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press 1990, p. 61.
7 Ibid., p. 106.
8 Ibid., p. 105.
9 Ibid.
10 George Bond, The Buddhism Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Traditions, Reinterpretation and
Response, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press 1988, p. 23.
11 Ibid., p. 25.
12 Ibid., p. 27.
13 Gregory Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology,
Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press 1997,
p. 30.
14 Ibid., 31.
15 In this article, I am not arguing that the Pali canon `represents' early Buddhism. Rather, I am
arguing that the Pali canon contains all kinds of different ideas about the kinds of religious
practices undertaken by the monastic order and the laity, and that this complexity undermines
the common assumptions made regarding a strict monastic/lay opposition. I am not so
concerned about the issue of the chronological layering of the texts. Instead, I am interested in
looking at a body of texts (that Theravada tradition has said belong together in some way) and
examining what the texts themselves have to say on the issue of religious practitioners.
16 This phrase occurs numerous times in the Sutta Pit*aka. See, for instance, Digha Nikaya (hereafter
D) 1.63, 100, 124, 147, 157, 171, 181, 206, 214, 232, 250; Majjhima Nikaya (hereafter M)
1.179, 267, 344, 412, 521; II.38, 162, 226; III.134; and An˙guttara Nikaya (hereafter A) II. 208.
All translations of passages from the Pali canon are mine unless otherwise noted. All references
to the canon are based on the Pali Text Society's Pali edition.
17 This point is also made in the Rat*t*hapalasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (II.56), where the
householder Rat*t*hapala, while listening to a Buddhist discourse, comes to realise that the only
way to practice the Buddha's teachings is to go forth into the state of homelessness. In a number
of other suttas, the same point is made. For example, in the Mahavacchagottasutta we find that
only after Vacchagotta becomes a monk that he is taught by the Buddha about the two types of
the meditative techniques that lead to enlightenment--vipassana and samatha. While he was still
a layman, however, the Buddha taught him only the importance of cultivating the 10
wholesome actions. Other suttas in which a discussion of the meditative and trance practices is
limited only to monastics are the Vesali and Kamabhu suttas of the Sam*yutta Nikaya and the
Cul*avedalla and At*t*hakanagara suttas of the Majjhima Nikaya.
18 This idea of a gradual discourse is also found in D.I.148; II.41, 43, 44; A IV. 186, 209; M.I.379;
and M.II.145; see, especially, A III.184, where the Buddha tells Aznanda that the gradual
discourse on morality, giving and heaven should be given to lay people.
19 Suttas in which the importance of giving is established are the Udayo, Devahito, Aputtaka and
Puggala suttas of the Sam*yutta Nikaya (hereafter S), the Apan*n*akasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, as
well as numerous passages in the An˙guttara Nikaya (see, for example, A II.65, 391; III.39, 49,
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pit*aka 239
336; and IV.62, 239). Suttas in which the Buddha teaches lay people about morality include the
Son*adan*d*a and Mahaparinibbana suttas of the Digha Nikaya, the Paccabhumako, Vel*udvareyya,
Puggala and Pan~caverabhaya suttas of the Sam*yutta Nikaya, Apan*n*akasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya,
as well as several passages in the An˙guttara Nikaya (see, for instance, A I.56, 57, 62; III.203ff.,
247). In addition to discussing the fivefold moral code with lay people, the Buddha also points
out to certain lay people that they should cultivate the ten wholesome actions (see for instance,
the Mahavacchagotta and Esukari suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya).
20 The rewards correlated to giving and morality not only include attaining a favourable rebirth in
heaven, but also becoming a stream-enterer, once-returner, and even a non returner. This idea
becomes the central focus of the Vimanavatthu of the Khuddaka Nikaya.
21 A III.122 and A III.150.
22 Pat*isam*bhidamagga, II.86ff. The other components of the `best teachings' refer to the four
foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four special powers, the five faculties, the
five powers, and the seven factors of enlightenment.
23 This often occurring phrase of refuge is as follows: `I go to refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma,
and the San˙gha; let the Blessed One take me who is going for refuge as a lay disciple from this
day onward while still alive'.
24 A V. 189; this same story is repeated for Vajjiyamahita in A V.192.
25 D II. 104ff.
26 Dutt, p. 178. Even though Dutt acknowledges certain householders who `took greater and
greater interest in Buddhist religion and philosophy', he is still drawn to the conclusion that the
deeper and more profound Buddhist teachings were kept away from the householders. This
same tendency to acknowledge lay adepts but then to under emphasize their place in the early
Buddhist community is also present in the writings of Gananath Obeyesekere (see, for instance,
`Theodicy, Sin and Salvation in a Sociology of Buddhism', in E. R. Leach (ed.) Dialectic in
Practical Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1968).
27 Hirakawa, p. 107. These passages also belie Hirakawa's (p. 62) view that when the term `san˙gha'
was `used in early Buddhist texts, it usually indicated only the two orders of mendicants . . . The
four groups of Buddhists were not referred to collectively as a single order (san˙gha)'. In the one
section of the An˙guttara Nikaya (1.23ff.), for example, laymen and laywomen are shown to make
up 25 percent of the Buddha's community of 80 great Disciples (savaka-san˙gha).
28 In both nikayas, for example, the audience to which the teaching of the four foundations of
mindfulness is addressed is portrayed as consisting solely of monks.
29 In addition to these passages, there are also several reference in the Sutta Pit*aka which refer to
lay people cultivating the quality of concentration (see, for instance, the San˙kha (S IV 317ff.),
and the Brahman*a (S V.217ff.) suttas.
30 In the An˙guttara Nikaya, Uttara is described as being the foremost laywoman in terms of
meditative powers (A 1.26).
31 S V.345.
32 S IV.110ff.
33 S IV.116ff.
34 M III.258. Furthermore, in the An˙guttara Nikaya (III.207) the Buddha suggests to
Anathapin*d*ika (who is shown to be surrounded by five hundred lay disciples), that he should
abide, from time to time, in the joy of seclusion where he will not experience lust, pain and
pleasure, and grief.
35 Similar passages may be found in the Janavasabhasutta (D II.218), the Gin~jakavasathasutta (S
V.356 and 358) and the Mahavacchagottasutta (M 1.490).
36 In one section of the An˙guttara Nikaya (V.83), there is also a passage in which only the first three
fruits are described as being attainable by laymen and laywomen.
37 S V.395.
38 Though it is beyond the scope of this article, it is worth mentioning that even though the
importance of cultivating faith is usually ascribed to laymen and laywomen, this is not supported
by the textual data. For instance, we read that faith in the Buddha should be cultivated by
monks, nuns and lay disciples (S V.161) and that monks, nuns and lay people should talk about
the Buddha's qualities to increase faith (D III.116).
39 S V.410.
40 T. W. Rhys Davids and William Stede, Pali-English Dictionary, New Delhi, Munshiram
Manoharlal 1989, p. 558. The complete canonical passage is as follows: `I will not reach nibbana
240 J. Samuels
as long as there will be no laymen disciples of mine who are learned, trained, self-possessed, who
have attained perfect peace, who have great knowledge, who know the dhamma by heart,
who have reached complete righteousness, who are upright, who walk in perfect conformity,
who are their own teacher, and who, having learned [the dhamma], will describe it, teach it,
declare it, give it, uncover it, dissect it, and will declare it to those who have arisen, who having
restrained and checked those who are in opposition with the teachings, will teach the marvelous
dhamma'.
41 S V.19; see also M II.197 and A 1.69.
42 Vism., p. 219.
43 Miln., p. 342f.
44 Miln., p. 352.
45 This appears to be the same person mentioned in S V.380ff.
46 Obeyesekere, p. 28. This point is similarly made by Louis de La Valle´e Poussin. `Laymen,
however faithful, generous and virtuous they may be, even if they practice the fortnightly
abstinence and continence of the Upavasa, cannot reach Nirvan*a. The only Buddhist, in the
proper meaning of the word, is the monk who has broken all the ties of society' (The Way to
Nirvan*a: Six Lectures on Ancient Buddhism as a Discipline of Salvation, India, Sri Satguru
Publications 1917, pp. 150f.). Dutt attempts to straddle the fence on this issue by first
acknowledging `that there were exceptional cases of householders who became so spiritually
advanced that they deserved arhathood' (p. 183, emphasis added), but by later, in agreement with
Louis de La Valle´e Poussin, arguing that `the fourth fruit arhatta is not attained by any
householder' as well as that `Upasakas like Citta and Hatthaka, and Upasikas like Khajjuttara and
Nandamata were more spiritually advanced than many monks and nuns, but still they were
sekhas and not asekhas (=arhats)' (p. 182f.).
JEFFREY SAMUELS is a doctoral candidate in History of Religions at the University
of Virginia. His area of interest is Indian Buddhism, particularly the Theravadin
tradition. He is currently completing research on the roles and functions of upasakas and
upasikas in Sri Lankan Buddhism.
Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, Coche Hall, Charlottesville, VA
22903, U.S.A. E-mail: JS9D@virginia.edu.
Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pit*aka 241