Chapter I: Introduction Upāsaka/upāsikā or “laity” is known as the person who worships Buddha, follows his teaching, and actively carries out religious activities in relation to Sangha, the monastic order found by the Buddha. As householder, not ordained for the full-time devotion to the spirituality, he forms the major- ity within the ‘community’ of Buddha’s followers. He is the counterpart of the monastic follower in the community, playing subordinate roles, particularly the supporter.1 His ideal and virtue as generally pursued aim at a good rebirth, happiness and luck, considered inferior to that of the monastic people, who follow the Buddha’s path leading to Nibbāna.2 In this way, he is considered as Buddha’s follower “not in the proper sense.”3 This is the reflection from the notion that Buddhism is amonastic religion which exclusively encourages the renunciation for the foster of the libera- tion.4 Recently, phenomena of the lay follower after the age of colonial- ism have shown another tendency: more Buddhist householders nowadays have played a leading role in movements, instruction, and interpretation of doctrine within their community. Not to neglect in favor of field studies on current situations, the study of the phenomena should call for a revision of the upāsaka/upāsikā as represented in the canon for the understanding about the followership in light of insider’s perspective.5 1 Conze, Buddhism, p. 70. 2 Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, p. 67. 3 Conze, Buddhism, p. 53: “They (the monk) are the only Buddhists in proper sense of the word.” 4 Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, p. 24: “For Buddhists, religion is what is relevant to this quest for salvation, and nothing else.”; Kieffer-Pülz, Die buddhistische Gemeinde, pp. 281–282: “The word ‘Buddhist community,’ which despite sometimes includes monk, nun, novices, and laity, specifically denotes merely the community of monk and nun.”; Tworuschka, “Mönchtum,” p. 147.: “Aus Indien stammenende Religionen, z.B. Buddhismus und Jainismus, sind typische Mönchsreligionen, da hier die Heilsgewinnung an das Mönchtum gebunden ist.” 5 Wijayaratna, Buddhist Monastic Life, p. 164. Wijayaratna has the opinion that many scholars consider Buddhism an essentially monastic religion because the position of laity has not been sufficiently studied. 1 The author intends to use the word non-monastic follower or lay follower in place of laity, which is generally used in English or its deriva- tive in a European language, to represent the word upāsaka/upāsikā in Pāli language. First, to distinguish the two kinds of Buddha’s followers men- tioned in the scripture, i.e. between those inside monastic order and those outside the monastic order. Second, to presuppose that the non-monastic follower is “Buddhist,” Buddha’s follower, in some way, although they do not join the order mentioned as the path to the Buddhist goal or Nibbāna. Hence, it is necessary to explore the way that makes the people the follow- ership as established in the scripture. Third, the usage of the word avoids the connotation from the sense of the English word laity or its European derivatives from Christian culture that reinforces the image of the folks in the high religion attending and supporting the religious activities held by the religious specialist in a community. The followership in Pāli discourse might be unique in some way, and thus, should be handled without influ- ences from other factors. 1.1 Background of the Study Scholars tried to investigate the concept of upāsaka/upāsikā “non-monastic follower,” from relation with Buddha and his order and religious goal in Pāli canon. The first scholar who challenged the widely held perception is Bimala Law in his article “Nirvana and Buddhist Laymen,” published in 1933,6 in which he found that the non-monastic follower may access the spiritual goal that bhikkhu/bhikkhunī accesses. In 1945, Nalinaksha Dutt published an article “Place of Laity in Buddhism,”7 which remarked the spirituality of the people as manifested in the Pāli canon. He found that the lay follower are clearly discriminated from the monk and the nun, who are the members of monastic order that the Buddha has founded for his official followers, as ethical teachings in the canon are clearly prescriptive to the monastic people, not the people outside the order. In this way, the non-monastic follower should not be reckoned Buddha’s followers in the 6 Law, Nirvana and Buddhist Laymen, pp. 80–86. 7 Dutt, Nalinaksha: Place of Laity in Buddhism, In: Indian Historical Quarterly 21, 1945; referred in: Samuels, View of Householder and Lay Disciples in Sutta Pitaka, p. 231. 2 sense of those who practically obey the teaching for the spiritual goal that the Buddha has given. In 1994, Reginald Ray in his book “Buddhist Saints in India,”8 studied in Buddhist scriptures the important persons that he, following Catholic tradition, called Buddhist saints. In the book, he placed the people in the “threefold” model that comprises “monastic” monk (or village monk) and forest monk. He found that the non-monastic people are involved in “a complex web of interdependence,” in which the three groups of the Buddha’s follower depend on one another: the Buddhist householder relies on both village and forest monks; monastic monk on the householder and forest monk; and forest monk on village monk.9 The relation within the community is hierarchical in that the importance of forest monk is located at the top, the village monk in the middle, and the householder at the base of the complex web.10 In this relation, the non-monastic gives material donations towards the monastic and receives some teachings as well as meditational instructions in return.11 The thesis on the position of non-monastic follower in Buddhist com- munity was once more raised by D.C. Ahir in his book “The Status of Laity in Buddhism,” published in 1996.12 Ahir, neglecting the negative viewpoint on the non-renunciation in the Pāli canon mentioned in Dutt’s article, presented the discipleship of the lay follower in relation to the Buddha and his community. In the book, he, raising the humanist prin- ciple in the Buddha’s doctrine in Pāli canon, argued that the people are Buddha’s disciples who have potential to develop spirituality to reach Nibbāna as well. In 1999, another consideration about non-monastic follower according to Pāli canon was made again by Jeffrey Samuels,13 who pointed to both of the negative and positive aspects of the people, previously mentioned by Dutt and Ahir respectively. He noticed that the 8 Ray studied other scriptures apart from Pāli canon that represents Indian Buddhism. 9 Ibid., p. 437. 10 Ibid., p. 438. 11 Ibid., p. 436. 12 Ahir, The Status of Laity in Buddhism, p. 171; referred in: Freiberger, Oliver: Salvation for Laity?, p. 35. 13 Samuels, View of Householder and Lay Disciples in Sutta Pitaka, pp. 231–241. 3 two images of non-monastic religiosities, which sharply oppose to each other in the canonical, are unambiguous in the sub-canonical by raising the monastic value. From this fact, he surmised that the reaction in the later tradition probably aimed to defend the followership of monastic peo- ple in objection against the spiritual success of the non-monastic people, which should have appertained to the interpretation of Mahāsāṇghika and partly existed in the old canonical.14 In 2002, two articles raised questions on the spirituality of the lay fol- lower in the Pāli canon. First, on the attainment of jhāna,15 in the article “The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple according to the Pāli Suttas” by Bhikkhu Bodhi,16 and the second, on the spiritual path of the householder, in the article “The Path of the Householder: Buddhist Lay Disciples in the Pāli Canon” by Robert Bluck.17 Bhikkhu Bodhi in the article demonstrated how the jhāna plays a significant role in the lay achievement of spiritual attainment.18 According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, the noble followers, both mo- nastic and non-monastic, should have acquired the right concentration, which is essential for the achievement of a stage of spiritual attainment in Buddhism. However, he paid more attention to the philosophical ques- tion about the role of the mystic experience playing in the achievement, so the article did not provide in particular, how and why the non-monastic people managed to develop the concentration successfully without living in the monastic order, where the practice of meditation was taught and learned. Bluck’s article gave more reflection on the spirituality of non-monastic follower. Arguing over the superiority of bhikkhu in Buddhism support- ed by former scholars, he defended that the non-monastic follower was not the “second-class Buddhist” by surveying the status and role of the 14 Ibid, pp. 238–239. 15 Humphreys, A Popular Dictionary of Buddhism, p. 99. Jhāna is defined as a state of serene contemplation attained by meditation. Buddhism recognizes eight states of the Jhāna. 16 Bodhi, The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas in Buddhist Studies, p. 64. Available online at http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ ebdha267.htm (last access 12.08.2013). 17 Bluck, The Path of the Householder, pp. 1–18. 18 Bodhi, The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas, p. 3. 4 people in the Pāli canon.19 In the survey, he found that the lay follower is in parallel to the monastic follower in different ways, viz. in the Buddha’s propagation of the doctrine at early time,20 in the sermons delivered to followers,21 in the description of spiritual development in Buddhism22 and in the reference of the followership within the scripture.23 He concluded at the end that the division of the monastic and non-monastic followers merely lies in the quantitative difference, as the monastic life provides a better opportunity for the spiritual development, not the qualitative differ- ence, as the monastic life is more special than the lay life.24 The conclusion emphasizes the individualism in that the achievement of spiritual develop- ment depends on individual effort to follow the Buddha’s path rather than on the enjoyment of a status as the condition.