Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c33.s3.41

v2.c33.s3.41

*Re. Arhat*. There is a sharp difference of opinion among the various schools on the problem, *viz.*, whether arhathood is identical with *mukti* or not? Those who adhere to the former view state that an arhat cannot recede from arhathood. This was the view of the Śaila schools and a section of the Mahāsanghikas.² From Mahādeva's five points, we have to infer that a section of the earlier Mahāsanghikas adhered to the opposite view, *viz.*, that an arhat may fall from arhathood. In this respect the *Kathāvatthu*³ and the *Kośa*⁴ come to our aid. These texts state that, according to a section of the Mahāsanghikas, the arhats are not omniscient like Buddha (vide *Kvu.*, XXI, 3) and that they are subject to fall from arhathood.⁵ The *Kośa* (ii, p. 210) incidentally mentions that an adept who has attained the *nirodha-samāpatti* (meditation in which perception ceases almost completely), appertaining to the fourth *dhyāna*, cannot have a fall from that state. The Theravādins admit *pattaparihāni* (loss of what is attained) of those adepts who have attained only lokiya-samāpatti (meditation limited to the worldly sphere) and not the higher fruits of sanctification (arhatādisāmaññaphala) while the opponents speak of retrogression of the latter also, but confine it only to those arhats who are samayavimuttas.¹ The basis of this contention of the opponents is a passage of the Aṅguttara Nikāya (iii. 173), in which Buddha says that five ārāmatā (indulgences), viz., in kamma, (deed), bhassa (desultory talks), niddā (sleep) and saṅganikā (frequenting societies) lead to the fall of a samayavimutta-bhikkhu. Buddhaghosa infers from the discussion that the opponents assert that the arhats retrogress up to the Sotāpattiphala but no further and that the retrogression happens only in the sphere of Kāmaloka and not in the higher two spheres, Rūpa and Arūpa, and that also is confined only to the mudindriya or samayavimutta arhats.