[Buddha-l] Monk/nun or lay person

[at43naug at tds.net]

     Maybe this is a bit late, but I was under the impression that one way this issue was addressed in the early literature was to uphold the status of the ordained clergy by making the claim that anyone who became enlightened had to either be a monk (or nun) already, or become one pretty quick, the only other alternative being to attain the nirvana without remainder, i.e., die. But it seems to me that the figure of the pratyeka buddha is interesting in this context as well, as someone who definitely has some spiritual attainment or otherwise obvious religious charisma, but is not necessarily affiliated with the existing Buddhist community. If one wishes to insist that all valid realizations must proceed from Buddhist teachings, then the only way to account for such individuals is to assume they had contact with the Dharma in some prior state of existence. 
    It's not at all surprising that the Pali literature is inconsistent, given that the Book of Genesis and the Christian Gospels are also inconsistent, and the process of canon formation is apparently somewhat haphazard. The problem comes in trying to decide how to distinguish earlier from later in Pali texts. One way is to assume that anything that starts to look like something else does so as a result of outside influence, meaning that original teachings would tend to be those that are most idiosyncratic. I did a little bit of work on this connected with the issue of omniscience in Indian philosophy, and there is definitely a change in approach towards this concept. But I don't want to go on too long here, so I will stop. 

          All the best,      Alex Naughton