<p>One of the Dhammapada stories (for example) suggests it's possible.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=142" rel="nofollow">Dhammapada Verse 142 &ndash; Santati Mahamatta Vatthu</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In agony, he tried to think of a refuge and remembered the Buddha. He
  went to the Buddha, accompanied by his followers, and related to him
  about the grief and anguish he suffered on account of the sudden death
  of the dancer. He then said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! Please help
  me get over my sorrow; be my refuge, and let me have the peace of
  mind." To him the Buddha replied,</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"Rest assured my son, you have come to one, who could help you, One who could be a constant solace to you and who will be your refuge. The
    tears you have shed due to the death of this dancer throughout the
    round of rebirths is more than the waters of all the oceans."</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The Buddha then instructed the minister in verse. The meaning of the
  verse is as follows.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"In the past there has been in you clinging (upadana) due to craving; get rid of it. In future, do not let such clinging occur in
    you. Do not also harbour any clinging in the present; by not having
    any clinging, craving and passion will be calmed in you and you will
    realize Nibbana."</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>After hearing the verse, the minister attained arahatship. Then,
  realizing that his life span was at an end, he said to the Buddha,
  "Venerable Sir! Let me now realize parinibbana, for my time has come."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think that counts as Theravada: apparently the stories were compiled 5th century CE, by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa" rel="nofollow">Buddhaghosa</a> who is called Theravadin.</p>

<p>Other things to note:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>It was deep distress, sorrow, grief (perhaps disenchantment) that led to his seeking refuge. My guess is that at that point in his life perhaps he found that his clinging was no longer tenable, perhaps he then no longer had the attachments you'd expect to find in a lay person.</p></li>
<li><p>His having attained arahatship, perhaps you would no longer call him a lay person.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>At the congregation, the bhikkhus asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! The minister had realized parinibbana dressed in full regalia; is he a samana on a brahmana?" To them, the Buddha replied "<em>Bhikkhus! My son can be called both a samana and a brahmana</em>."</p>
  
  <p>Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Verse 142: Though he is gaily decked, if he is calm, free from moral defilements, and has his senses controlled, if he is established in Magga Insight, if he is pure and has laid aside enmity (lit., weapons) towards all beings, he indeed is a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu.</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<p><a href="http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/sa/santati.htm" rel="nofollow">This version of the story</a> explains that Santati had been the follower of Vipassī Buddha in an earlier kalpa, had preached the Dhamma for eighty four thousand years ... perhaps that (i.e. his past life) helps to justify why he might be called "a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-06T09:05:58.053Z
2015-06-06T09:54:01.013Z
2015-06-06T09:54:01.013Z
ChrisW
<p>This is what one of the <em>suttas</em> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an
end of suffering?”<sup>1</sup></p>
<p>“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of
householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of
suffering.”</p>
<p>“Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has gone to
heaven?”</p>
<p>“Vaccha, there are not only one hundred or two or three or four or
five hundred, but far more householders who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body have gone to
heaven.”<br />
-<a href="http://books.google.pt/books?id=BN8ORQsvxX0C&amp;pg=PA588&amp;dq=%22Vaccha,%20there%20is%20no%20householder%20who,%20without%20abandoning%20the%20fetter%20of%20householdership,%20on%20the%20dissolution%20of%20the%20body%20has%20made%20an%20end%20of%20suffering.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=imXOU-KkFcqc0AXq_IDwDg&amp;ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Vaccha%2C%20there%20is%20no%20householder%20who%2C%20without%20abandoning%20the%20fetter%20of%20householdership%2C%20on%20the%20dissolution%20of%20the%20body%20has%20made%20an%20end%20of%20suffering.%22&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>MN 71, To Vacchagotta on theThreefold True Knowledge (Tevijjavaccha-suttaṃ)</em></a></p>
<p><sup>1</sup> (Post-canonical texts:) MA explains “the fetter of householdership”
(gihisamyojana) as attachment to the requisites of a householder,
which MT details as land, ornaments, wealth, grain, etc. MA says that
even though the texts mention some individuals who attained
arahantship as laymen, by the path of arahantship they destroyed all
attachment to worldly things and thus either went forth as monks or
passed away immediately after their attainment. The question of lay
arahants is discussed at <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3605.htm#fr_244" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Miln 264</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><sup><em>Disclaimer: Taking only this discourse into account (without post-canonical works), the following is what I find reasonable. If there are other suttas which also shed light on this, I'd be glad to know.</em></sup></p>
<p>So, it seems a householder <em>cannot</em> make an end to suffering on the dissolution of the body <em>without</em> being free of the &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot;. Since this applies to the furthest case of &quot;on the dissolution of the body&quot;, it would be safe to assume that it also applies before. If this is correct then the answer depends on the meaning of &quot;householder&quot; &amp; &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot;. Since the meaning of &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot; is not, as far as I know, explicit in any of the discourses, I'll lay out two cases:</p>
<p><strong>Case 1</strong><br />
If &quot;householder&quot; means &quot;living in a house&quot; &amp; &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot; means &quot;owning a house&quot;<br />
Then, the answer is <strong>yes</strong>, since one can live in a house without being it's owner.</p>
<p><strong>Case 2</strong><br />
If &quot;householder&quot; &amp; &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot; mean the same thing as &quot;living in a house&quot;,
Then, the answer is <strong>no</strong>, since the problem is living in a house.</p>
<p>Since <strong>Case 2</strong> seems absurd (because of it's implications) and <strong>Case 1</strong> is suggested implicitly by the possibility of there being householders who <em>-have-</em> abandoned the &quot;fetter of householder-ship&quot;, I would say:</p>
<p><em>&quot;Yes, a lay person -without- the fetter of householder-ship can become an arahat&quot;</em>.</p>
<p>I hope this is understandable &amp; helpful.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-06T07:58:03.617Z
What are "MA" and "MT"?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-06T08:04:44.287Z
Would the dilemma be resolved, might be the explanation be, that "gone to heaven" isn't the same as "become an arahat"? I read it as saying that if the fetter isn't abandoned then they haven't made an end to suffering but might be reborn in heaven.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-06T10:51:15.083Z
@ChrisW MA & MT are the commentary and sub-commentary of the *Majjhima-nikāya* (*Aṭṭhakathā* & *ṭīkā* respectively). Yes, I think that is the case. The answer doesn't mention that because the question is only about arahant-ship.
Unrul3r
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T02:39:38.897Z
User [Leonardo C.](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/16530/leonardo-c) intended to comment: Implicit definition of householdship in SN 22.3: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_3.html
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T15:50:43.023Z
By a householder I understand not someone that simply lives in a house, but a family man, a father, a worker, not a monk, not a recluse, but this is only my interpretation.
konrad01
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T16:14:22.363Z
That would seem more difficult but *Case 1* would still stand I think. If you can manage to live in a house in which you have no authority over your sons, wife, wealth etc, it seems possible but *-not-* helpful if the intent is to reach the end of suffering. The problem is ownership of house, wife, sons, etc. and what this ownership entails. *"'I have sons, I have wealth' — the fool torments himself. When even he himself doesn't belong to himself, how then sons? How wealth?" -[Dhp 62](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.than.html#dhp-62)*
Unrul3r
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-28T00:05:35.683Z
IMO the key element of "the fetter of householdership" is attachment to worldly things, so if householder completely drops such attachment (while still remaining a householder) then arahantship is perfectly possible.
Andriy Volkov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-28T07:57:48.363Z
@AndreiVolkov Indeed, that is the point of this answer. I think it is possible but I'd suggest monk-hood if cessation of suffering is intended. It's like a drug-addict detaching himself from drugs while still having them by his side. He can certainly stop using them but with the drugs by his side it's much more difficult. I think you would certainly agree that monk-hood life style is far more conducive to the goal.
Unrul3r
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T15:22:49.310Z
2014-07-23T15:17:44.173Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
Unrul3r
<p>Thus have I heard: A lay person can become an Arahath, but he will enter the Sangha within a week or he will enter Parinibbana. If it's a Pacceca Buddha, he will leave the lay life to dwell in the forest since there's no Sasana in the world. Also, if an Anagami lay person dies, he will be born in one of the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html" rel="nofollow">pure abodes</a>. There he will attain Arahantship and won't be entering the Sangha.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T13:03:37.377Z
2014-07-22T13:03:37.377Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<p>The answer is Yes. Please look through <a href="http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Lay_arahant" rel="nofollow">this website</a>. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" -- Milindapanha III.19</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-27T23:59:25.887Z
Good answer, but Milindapanha is not a sutta it is a post-canonical work and OP asked specifically about suttas.
Andriy Volkov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T15:32:56.217Z
2014-07-22T16:08:14.707Z
2014-07-22T16:08:14.707Z
aknay
<p>I have already seen different answers to that question, but I don't know which one is based on the suttas. I would appreciate the source of the answer for this specific topic. </p>

<p>If you think the answer is "No", could you please write about how far a lay person can get? Just a higher rebirth?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-23T18:10:00.350Z
Seems to be a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23/do-you-have-to-follow-a-monastic-lifestyle-to-attain-enlightenment/25#25
Andriy Volkov
<theravada><laity><arhats>
Can a lay person become an Arahant according to the Suttas?
# Can a lay person become an Arahant according to the Suttas?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-07-22)

I have already seen different answers to that question, but I don't know which one is based on the suttas. I would appreciate the source of the answer for this specific topic.

If you think the answer is "No", could you please write about how far a lay person can get? Just a higher rebirth?

**Tags:** theravada, laity, arhats

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Seems to be a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23/do-you-have-to-follow-a-monastic-lifestyle-to-attain-enlightenment/25#25  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-07-22. Score: 6

This is what one of the *suttas* says:

> When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One:
> “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
> fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an
> end of suffering?”1
>
> “Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of
> householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of
> suffering.”
>
> “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
> fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has gone to
> heaven?”
>
> “Vaccha, there are not only one hundred or two or three or four or
> five hundred, but far more householders who, without abandoning the
> fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body have gone to
> heaven.”  
> -[*MN 71, To Vacchagotta on theThreefold True Knowledge (Tevijjavaccha-suttaṃ)*](http://books.google.pt/books?id=BN8ORQsvxX0C&pg=PA588&dq=%22Vaccha,%20there%20is%20no%20householder%20who,%20without%20abandoning%20the%20fetter%20of%20householdership,%20on%20the%20dissolution%20of%20the%20body%20has%20made%20an%20end%20of%20suffering.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imXOU-KkFcqc0AXq_IDwDg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Vaccha%2C%20there%20is%20no%20householder%20who%2C%20without%20abandoning%20the%20fetter%20of%20householdership%2C%20on%20the%20dissolution%20of%20the%20body%20has%20made%20an%20end%20of%20suffering.%22&f=false)
>
> 1 (Post-canonical texts:) MA explains “the fetter of householdership”
> (gihisamyojana) as attachment to the requisites of a householder,
> which MT details as land, ornaments, wealth, grain, etc. MA says that
> even though the texts mention some individuals who attained
> arahantship as laymen, by the path of arahantship they destroyed all
> attachment to worldly things and thus either went forth as monks or
> passed away immediately after their attainment. The question of lay
> arahants is discussed at [Miln 264](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3605.htm#fr_244).

*Disclaimer: Taking only this discourse into account (without post-canonical works), the following is what I find reasonable. If there are other suttas which also shed light on this, I'd be glad to know.*

So, it seems a householder *cannot* make an end to suffering on the dissolution of the body *without* being free of the "fetter of householder-ship". Since this applies to the furthest case of "on the dissolution of the body", it would be safe to assume that it also applies before. If this is correct then the answer depends on the meaning of "householder" & "fetter of householder-ship". Since the meaning of "fetter of householder-ship" is not, as far as I know, explicit in any of the discourses, I'll lay out two cases:

**Case 1**  
If "householder" means "living in a house" & "fetter of householder-ship" means "owning a house"  
Then, the answer is **yes**, since one can live in a house without being it's owner.

**Case 2**  
If "householder" & "fetter of householder-ship" mean the same thing as "living in a house",
Then, the answer is **no**, since the problem is living in a house.

Since **Case 2** seems absurd (because of it's implications) and **Case 1** is suggested implicitly by the possibility of there being householders who *-have-* abandoned the "fetter of householder-ship", I would say:

*"Yes, a lay person -without- the fetter of householder-ship can become an arahat"*.

I hope this is understandable & helpful.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: By a householder I understand not someone that simply lives in a house, but a family man, a father, a worker, not a monk, not a recluse, but this is only my interpretation.  
> **username_3**: That would seem more difficult but *Case 1* would still stand I think. If you can manage to live in a house in which you have no authority over your sons, wife, wealth etc, it seems possible but *-not-* helpful if the intent is to reach the end of suffering. The problem is ownership of house, wife, sons, etc. and what this ownership entails. *"'I have sons, I have wealth' — the fool torments himself. When even he himself doesn't belong to himself, how then sons? How wealth?" -[Dhp 62](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.than.html#dhp-62)*  
> **username_1**: IMO the key element of "the fetter of householdership" is attachment to worldly things, so if householder completely drops such attachment (while still remaining a householder) then arahantship is perfectly possible.  
> **username_3**: @AndreiVolkov Indeed, that is the point of this answer. I think it is possible but I'd suggest monk-hood if cessation of suffering is intended. It's like a drug-addict detaching himself from drugs while still having them by his side. He can certainly stop using them but with the drugs by his side it's much more difficult. I think you would certainly agree that monk-hood life style is far more conducive to the goal.  
> **username_2**: What are "MA" and "MT"?  
> **username_2**: Would the dilemma be resolved, might be the explanation be, that "gone to heaven" isn't the same as "become an arahat"? I read it as saying that if the fetter isn't abandoned then they haven't made an end to suffering but might be reborn in heaven.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 MA & MT are the commentary and sub-commentary of the *Majjhima-nikāya* (*Aṭṭhakathā* & *ṭīkā* respectively). Yes, I think that is the case. The answer doesn't mention that because the question is only about arahant-ship.  
> **username_4**: User [Leonardo C.](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/16530/leonardo-c) intended to comment: Implicit definition of householdship in SN 22.3: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_3.html  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-07-22. Score: 4

Thus have I heard: A lay person can become an Arahath, but he will enter the Sangha within a week or he will enter Parinibbana. If it's a Pacceca Buddha, he will leave the lay life to dwell in the forest since there's no Sasana in the world. Also, if an Anagami lay person dies, he will be born in one of the [pure abodes](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html). There he will attain Arahantship and won't be entering the Sangha.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-07-22. Score: 4

The answer is Yes. Please look through [this website](http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Lay_arahant).

> "If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" -- Milindapanha III.19

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Good answer, but Milindapanha is not a sutta it is a post-canonical work and OP asked specifically about suttas.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-06-06. Score: 1

One of the Dhammapada stories (for example) suggests it's possible.

[Dhammapada Verse 142 – Santati Mahamatta Vatthu](http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=142)

> In agony, he tried to think of a refuge and remembered the Buddha. He
> went to the Buddha, accompanied by his followers, and related to him
> about the grief and anguish he suffered on account of the sudden death
> of the dancer. He then said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! Please help
> me get over my sorrow; be my refuge, and let me have the peace of
> mind." To him the Buddha replied,
>
> > "Rest assured my son, you have come to one, who could help you, One who could be a constant solace to you and who will be your refuge. The
> > tears you have shed due to the death of this dancer throughout the
> > round of rebirths is more than the waters of all the oceans."
>
> The Buddha then instructed the minister in verse. The meaning of the
> verse is as follows.
>
> > "In the past there has been in you clinging (upadana) due to craving; get rid of it. In future, do not let such clinging occur in
> > you. Do not also harbour any clinging in the present; by not having
> > any clinging, craving and passion will be calmed in you and you will
> > realize Nibbana."
>
> After hearing the verse, the minister attained arahatship. Then,
> realizing that his life span was at an end, he said to the Buddha,
> "Venerable Sir! Let me now realize parinibbana, for my time has come."

I think that counts as Theravada: apparently the stories were compiled 5th century CE, by [Buddhaghosa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa) who is called Theravadin.

Other things to note:

* It was deep distress, sorrow, grief (perhaps disenchantment) that led to his seeking refuge. My guess is that at that point in his life perhaps he found that his clinging was no longer tenable, perhaps he then no longer had the attachments you'd expect to find in a lay person.
* His having attained arahatship, perhaps you would no longer call him a lay person.

  > At the congregation, the bhikkhus asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir! The minister had realized parinibbana dressed in full regalia; is he a samana on a brahmana?" To them, the Buddha replied "*Bhikkhus! My son can be called both a samana and a brahmana*."
  >
  > Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  >
  > > Verse 142: Though he is gaily decked, if he is calm, free from moral defilements, and has his senses controlled, if he is established in Magga Insight, if he is pure and has laid aside enmity (lit., weapons) towards all beings, he indeed is a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu.

[This version of the story](http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/sa/santati.htm) explains that Santati had been the follower of Vipassī Buddha in an earlier kalpa, had preached the Dhamma for eighty four thousand years ... perhaps that (i.e. his past life) helps to justify why he might be called "a brahmana, a samana, and a bhikkhu".


---

