It is not widely known by Buddhists (and sure as heck, non-Buddhists) that the division between clergy, consisting of monks and nuns, and laity, is strictly social—not spiritual. What I mean by this is that the distinction between clergy and laity is one between ‘social actors’ each playing a different external role; each with specific duties and—yes—even dress. In light of this, it doesn’t follow that a monk or a nun is a noble disciple (S., arya-sravaka; P., ariya-savaka). In fact, it is not requisite that one become a monastic to win nirvana.
Yet, it matters to the Buddha’s real teaching whether or not an individual is a noble disciple. Beings, in fact, who are not noble disciples will never reach the other shore of nirvana. And being a noble disciple begins with a profound spiritual insight into the Buddha’s sublime Dharma, not otherwise.
Therefore, in no way should we imagine that having a shaved head and wearing robes makes anyone a noble disciple, i.e., spiritual. Nor should we hold the opinion that laity can never attain a high spiritual state of being, even becoming an Arhat. As a matter of fact the Buddha said that “A man is not easily known by outward form nor should one trust a quick appraisal” (S. i. 79). So why should we judge a monk, for example, to be anymore than a social actor who is playing a role defined by an elaborate rule system?
When we look at the real division between individuals in Buddhism, it is always a spiritual division. The noble disciple, i.e., the arya-sravaka, who is spiritually higher than an ordinary person (prithagjana), might very well be a mother of three children, a truck driver or a nun. By the same token, a monk of twenty years might still be an ordinary person, that is, a prithagjana, who is spiritually blind.
What primarily makes the disciple different than the ordinary person who, according to the Buddha is “blind, lacking vision, unknowing, unseeing” (S. iii. 140), is the view and knowledge of the transcendent; who has also realized that the Mind (citta) is radiant (A. i. 10). In his book Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism, Peter Masefield offers the following passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya which sheds even more light on the notion of arya-sravaka (P., ariyasavaka), i.e., the noble disciple.
"He is called, monks, an ariyasavaka who possesses (right) view, who possesses vision, who has come to this true Dhamma [Skt. sad-dharma], who sees this true Dhamma, who is endowed with the knowledge (ñânena) of the sekha (i.e., a sotapanna, sakadagaminor anagamin), who is endowed with the wisdom (vijjiya) of the sekha, who has attained the Dhamma-ear, who has the ariyan [aryan] insight of revulsion, who stands having arrived at the door to the Deathless [Skt. amrta]" ( S. ii. 43 = 44 = 58 = 79; cp S. ii. 80).
To reiterate, the spiritual categories of the noble disciple and the ordinary person render the social division between clergy and laity insignificant. But more importantly, the spiritual category of the noble disciple is found throughout the Pali canon in great abundance which is made up of lay men and women.
Next time we meet a monk or a nun, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about their spiritual attainments most notably about being a noble disciple. Chances are they are prithagjanas and will always remain such. But most of all we need to work on our own prithagjana nature, hopefully, to move beyond it by becoming a noble disciple. We shouldn’t allow our social roles to delude us into believing we are something we are not.
Maybe it's just a capital "n" thing.
Posted by: Ted Bagley | January 21, 2010 at 09:59 AM