Talk:Householder (Buddhism)

Householder (gahapati) vs. Lay Follower (upasaka)

When I initially created this article, I assumed that "householder" (gahapati) included "lay follower" (upasaka). While this might make sense from contemporary Western standards, I'm concerned that I'm imposing my own assumptions onto the Pali text. Thus, I'm going to try to revise my own edits in this article so that only references to "gahapati" in the Pali text are mentioned here and that those identified as "upasaka" will be moved to the appropriate article. If someone more educated on this topic knows better, please let me know! Also, I hope those familiar with non-Pali Buddhist texts would feel comfortable adding appropriate material here as well. Thanks! LarryR 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it will impact on your article, but "householder" is too weak for gahapati. These gahapatis were not mere householders, but leading citizens in their communties -- one is tempted to think of medieval English burghers. If you want to talk about householders in contrast to bhikkhus, then you should refer to gaha.t.thas. This distinction, often elided, is dealt with in the PED under gahapati. Also, Jan Nattier in her book on the Upali-pariprccha (A Few Good Men) has a useful discussion on this.--Stephen Hodge 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An after-thought: I think that all gahapatis were male, but possibly gaha.t.thas would have included women -- though I am not sure about this as a matter of canonical usage.--Stephen Hodge 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stephen — You're teaching me something excellent all the time. Thanks once again for the terrific education! I'll try to reconcile the article as you suggest (though it might have to wait a weekend or two or three) and, obviously, I'll need to return to the Tipitaka for more ideas! (Not that I need much motivation for that :-) ) Seriously, I'm grateful for your taking the time to educate me on something that is so dear to me. Any time you find it beneficial to correct or otherwise guide me, please do so! Thanks so much once again! LarryR 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

4:00 a.m., baby stirred, so I made an initial stab at including PED-related material on the distinction between gahattha and gahapati. (My sifting through the on-line PED is somewhat akin to a two-year-old turning on a buzz saw. Beware the carnage.) My better half has offered to pick up a copy of the Nattier text you mentioned from the local divinity school, so hopefully I'll be able to write more intelligibly then. I also hope to include mention of some of the suttas that explicitly address gahattha-s, sometime in the future. Frankly, I feel a wee dishonest attributing the additions to the PED -- much rather have noted something like "Personal communication with Stephen Hodge, 2 October 2006" -- but I don't think the WikiLords would like such. Thanks so much again for all your help. Please feel free to edit any of my tripe as you see fit. Also, if you feel I've missed the point by trying to maintain inclusion of gahapati-related material, please let me know that as well. Best wishes, LarryR 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lay Buddhist practices by school

I just added the "Lay Buddhist practices by school" table to this article. I thought that, for the moment, it is better than the current "LayBuddhistPractices" template that I had previously included because, much to my chagrin, I realized recently that the template is very Theravada-centric. So, this newly inserted table is meant to be more balanced, more inclusive of the three most popular schools in the English-speaking world (listed in terms of their chronological development): Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.

However, I realize that the table has a blank or two, a couple of wishy-washy words (such as "regularly"), a need for citations, and possibly some errors. I'd appreciate if other editors would be able to correct these errors and add additional information and/or practices. (For instance, is there a place for the "Four Immeasurables" in the table and is there a better way to represent non-Zen Mahayana practices, and what is the Vajrayana version of metta practice [though perhaps that's captured with Chant-mantra and Meditation-tantra?]?) Please accept my apologies for any such errors or omissions; I mean no disservice to any other.

Relatedly, if someone sees an error or omission but is too intimidated by the rather elaborate HTML used to create the table, please let me know what you would like changed (either on this Talk page or on my User Talk page) and I'll be happy to make the change for you.

Hope you find this table of benefit/interest. Thanks ahead of time for any appropriate amendments. With metta,
LarryR^(Talk) 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence is Awkward

"In English translations of Buddhist literature, householder denotes a spectrum of terms which refer, most broadly, to any layperson to, most narrowly, a wealthy and prestigious familial patriarch." This sentence needs editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.153.159.218 (talk)

Well, as the one whose keystrokes I think last touched the first sentence, let me agree. Part of the problem is that it was trying to address multiple viewpoints. The other part is that my own thoughts tend to be pretty convoluted and I wouldn't be offended if people thought I spoke English as a second language.

The core issue -- and one of the main motivators for my starting on and attempting (unsuccessfully?) to work out this article -- is that when one reads Buddhist discourses in English, the word "householder" is actually used to mean different things, is used to translate various Pali words by different translaters, and thus could mislead an earnest English-speaking Buddhist householder about what the Buddhist discourses tell a householder to do. (More succinctly: I'm an English-speaking Buddhist householder. What does the tipitaka say I should do? Turns out different translations of similar texts provide different guidance.)

So, I feel it is important to state up front that the English word "householder" has been used to represent different classes/groupings/conceptions of people in the Pali canon by different translators (or sometimes at different times by the same translator, etc.). Given this, could you (or anyone else) suggest an alternate wording?

Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"In English translations of Buddhist literature, householder denotes a spectrum of terms. Most broadly, it refers to any layperson, and most narrowly, to a wealthy and prestigious familial patriarch??????" Greetings, Sacca 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! What do you think: should we get rid of the word "spectrum" and use something more common like "variety"? (I was using "spectrum" for its visual impact but, in a simple [and appropriate!] sentence, I think it just becomes awkward sounding.) Whatever you think is fine with me. Also, if you'd like to go ahead and cut in your new version of the intro, please feel free to do so! Thanks again! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it took over a month, but I did it :-) Thanks again to Sacca & User:216.153.159.218. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Contemporary Buddhist householder practices" likely to confuse

IMHO, the section Contemporary Buddhist householder practices is likely to be misleading to the non-Buddhist reader. I'm concerned that readers familiar with more orthopraxic faiths may misunderstand this section to mean that Buddhists who do not engage in the practices as outlined should be considered remiss in their observations, when in reality, the spectrum of practices between different Buddhist schools (and individuals) is so very broad as to make a listing such as this one not very meaningful. It seems to me difficult to reconcile WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:WEASEL here, as if we seem to be describing "correct" practices we miss the diversity, while if we describe the diversity we are left without a list of "correct" practices. I suspect that wise heads can resolve this dilemma, but I don't clearly see how to do so myself. -- Writtenonsand 04:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, IMHO, any part of this section that is not footnoted and is in the Mahayana and Vajrayana columns is fair game for change. I think the Theravada column is pretty accurate though. Is there anything column/row/cell in particular you are concerned about? Or, from a different angle, do you see any objections to the Theravada column? Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

page move

I'd like to rename this page householder (spiritual) and expand it to include the Hindu and Sikh use of the term as well. comments? --Ludwigs2 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that idea at all. I think if one were to read and appreciate the current content of this whole article (outside of the unsourced material that was just added to the lead), it is clearly an attempt to resolve the notion of "householder" as represented in English-language Buddhist literature as well as to document the variety of current Buddhist practices. This is significantly different than traditional Hindu notions of "householder" (e.g., grihastha) -- which, for what it's worth, I believe were formalized about 200 to 300 years after the passing of the historical Buddha. For me, it seems that imposing such notions on this article is to greatly distort the actual Buddhist texts, beliefs and practices. Thus, for instance, the recently added statement, "Householder status is generally regarded as an important intermediary stage in spiritual development ...." -- this is perfect for Hinduism but absolutely 'incorrect regarding Buddhist practice.

For this reason, I'm reverting the unsourced, incorrect, material that was newly added. What I would strongly recommend is that, if this topic truly attracts you, then you consider developing articles for other religions' notions of "householder" and then, if you have material comparable to that in this article, you then consider a merge or, better yet, a summary article that includes a link to this article.

Having said this, I regrettably don't have much time for WP editing or extensive talk-page discussion lately. I'm acting now given the speed with which the new incorrect unsourced generalizations were added to this article's lead and then the recommendation was made here for such a radical change. However, given my limited time, you can easily out-type and out-edit me -- if you revert my revert, I will not revert you again (I've no intention or time to engage in an edit war); so, if my strong words of caution do not persuade you, you win. :-)

Either way, despite my strong feelings and regardless of how you choose to respond, I wish you well in your pursuits.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Larry, please read wp:AGF and wp:BRD. Jumping into the conversation with steam coming out of your ears is both unnecessary and disconcerting.

Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment (though not entirely, mind you). the term is used in many eastern religions, not just Buddhism, and I think a bit more inclusiveness would make the article stronger rather than weaker. How we do that is (of course) a matter for discussion. Would it be possible, though to hold that discussion with a somewhat more polite atmosphere? thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)'

Ludwigs,

I apologize. My concern was that, given the changes you had made, some might see them as justifying a quick undisputed move -- so I felt compelled to act quickly to make it clear that such a recommendation was not undisputed. I'll take it on faith -- and based on your tone and your refraining from reverting my revert -- that this is not your intent. I very much appreciate it. I can ratchet down readily.

So, I owe you at the very least, some rational engagement now :-) .

I think it would be interesting to see some scholarly literature that compares notions of "householder" across religions. Are you aware of such? I'm not. I think if you sought to pursue such, that could be really interesting. As stated above though, I'm concerned that the gap between Buddhist notions (e.g., as embodied in the Pali Canon) and Hindu notions (e.g., as embodied in the Laws of Manu) is so large to make generalizations difficult.

How might we pursue fleshing out your idea better here?

Thanks for the splash of cool water :-), Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Larry's concerns with your proposal were entirely valid. Of the introductory material you added, none of it was particularly applicable to the Buddhist context. Not to mention the fact that you refer to "East Asian religious philosophy" when it is South Asia that you seem to have in mind.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Householder (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704202056/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-03.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)