Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s3: III. Are Arhats fully emancipated?
Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s3
- Language
- English
III. Are Arhats fully emancipated?
v2.c34.s3.1
According to Vasumitra, Bhavya and Vinītadeva, the secession of the Mahāsaṅghikas from the Theravādins happened on account of the five points of Mahādeva. Four of these points relate to the qualities attainable by an Arhat. According to the Theravādins only one who is fully emancipated is called an Arhat,—he is *anupatto sadattho vītarāgo vītadoso vītamoho khīṇāsavo ohitabhāro katakaraṇīyo nāparam itthattāyā ti* (in possession of the excellent goal, free from attachment, hatred and delusion, in short, all impurities, relieved of burden of khandhas, accomplished in all that is to be done and devoid of any further existence). He has further acquired the clear vision about the origin and destruction of things, got rid of all doubts (*kaṅkhā*) about the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha, non-existence of soul and the theory of causation, seen things for himself without the help of others (*na paravitāraṇā*)¹ and attained *bodhi* which however is *catumaggaññāṇa*² and not *sabbaññutañāṇa*—the *bodhi* of the Buddhas.³ The Theravādins do not admit the failings⁴ which are attributed to the Arhats by the Bahuśrutīyas, the Śaila schools and the Haimavatas. The failings are thus enumerated in Vasumitra's treatise:
v2.c34.s3.2
¹ See *infra*, p. 87
v2.c34.s3.3
² The *catumaggas* are sotāpatti, sakadāgāmi, anāgāmi and arhatta
v2.c34.s3.4
³ See *Kvu.*, A., p. 76.
v2.c34.s3.5
⁴ For the discussion "Parīhāyati arahā arahattā ti" see *infra*, p. 90.
v2.c34.s3.6
(1) Arhats can be tempted by others;
(2) They have still ignorance;
(3) They have still doubt;
(4) They gain knowledge through others' (help).⁵
v2.c34.s3.7
⁵ Masuda, pp. 24, 36, 38, 53, cf. *JRAS.*, 1910, pp 413-423. For the 5th point see *infra*, p. 87.
v2.c34.s3.8
In the *Kathāvatthu* (II, 1-5) all the above statements are taken up for discussion and appear thus:
v2.c34.s3.9
(i) *Atthi arahato rāgo?* (II. 1).⁶
(ii) *Atthi arahato aññāṇan*⁷ *ti?* (II. 2).
(iii) *Atthi arahato kaṅkhā ti?* (II. 3).
(iv) *Atthi arahato paravitāraṇā ti?* (II. 4).
v2.c34.s3.10
⁶ In the text the wording is "atthi arahato asucisukkavisaṭṭhi?" It perhaps refers to an instance of the Māra gods having removed *asucisukka* of an arhat. The commentator remarks that the impostors passing as arhats may have *asucisukkavisaṭṭhi* and upon that the contention of the Śaila schools is based. The Theravādins take their stand upon the fact an arhat cannot have *rāga* and hence they cannot commit *asucisukkavisaṭṭhi*.
v2.c34.s3.11
⁷ *Aññāṇam* is not the same as *avijjā*.
v2.c34.s3.12
The Theravādins emphatically deny that an Arhat who is free from attachment (*vītarāga*) can be subject to temptation. The opponents, as shown in the *Kvu.*, draw a subtle distinction between a *Sa-(=Sans. Sva-)dhammakusala-arhat* and a *Para-dhammakusala-arhat*, the former, according to the commentator, is a *Paññāvimutta* and the latter an *Ubhatobhāgavimutta*, that is, the knowledge of the former is confined to his own personal attainments while that of the latter is extended to other’s attainments besides his own. In the Pāli texts the *Ubhatobhāgavimutta* is not regarded as superior to the *Paññāvimutta* the only distinction made between the two is that the former has *samathābhinivesa*¹ and realisation of eight *vimokkhas*² while the latter has *vippassanābhinivesa*³ and realisation of only four *jhānas*,⁴ but as far as the question of *rāga* or *āsavas* is concerned both the classes of Arhats must be regarded as completely free from them, hence the subtle distinction drawn by the opponents is of no avail according to the Theravādins.
v2.c34.s3.13
¹ Samatha leads to concentration of thoughts and eradication of attachment (*rāga*). Cf. *Aṅguttara*, I, p. 61: *rāgavirāgā cetovimutti*.
v2.c34.s3.14
² For the eight *Vimokkhas*, see Appendix.
v2.c34.s3.15
³ Vipassanā leads to knowledge and removal of ignorance. Cf. *Aṅguttara*, I, p. 61: *avijjāvirāgā paññāvimutti*.
v2.c34.s3.16
⁴ Cf. *Aspects*, pp. 250, 276. See *Majjhima*, I, p. 477 and *Manorathapūraṇī*, III, p. 188; *Puggala-paññatti*, 14, 72.
v2.c34.s3.17
The next two points, that an arhat may have ignorance (i.e. *aññāṇa* and not *avijjā*) and doubt (*kaṅkhā* or *vimati*) are also vehemently opposed by the Theravādins on the ground that one cannot be an arhat unless he gets rid of *avijjā* and *vicikicchā* and develops perfect vision free from impurities (*virajam vītamalam dhammacakkhum*) after having dispersed all his doubts (*kaṅkhā vapayanti sabbā*).
v2.c34.s3.18
The opponents, as presented in the *Kvu.*, in this case also draw a distinction between a *Sadhammakusala-arhat* and a *Paradhamma-kusala-arhat, saying that both the classes of arhats may not have avijjā in regard to the truths, the theory of causation, etc. or vicikicchā about Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha or absence of soul, but the former may have aññāṇa and kaṅkhā, say, as regards the name and family of an unknown man or woman or of a tree. It should be noted here the opponents do not mean sabbaññutañāṇa (omniscience) but just paradhammañāṇa—an intellectual power attained by the Ubhatobhāgavimutta-arhats, by which they can know many things outside himself. Arguing in this way the opponents maintain that a section of the arhats, i.e., the Paññāvimuttas or Sa-dhammakusala-arhats have ignorance (aññāṇa) relating to things or qualities other than those belonging to himself.
v2.c34.s3.19
The same arguments and counter-arguments are applied in the next discussion relating to atthi arahato paravitāraṇa? The word paravitāraṇa perplexed our translator Mr. Shwe Zan Aung.¹ The discussion in the Kvu. reveals that the word means that an arhat develops faith in the Triratna or acquires knowledge of the truths, etc. not by himself but through the instruction of his preceptor¹ in whom he had firm faith. The Theravādins oppose the contention of the opponents, saying that an arhat is vītamoha and is possessed of dhammacakkhu and so he does not require paravitāraṇa. The opponents as before contend that a sa-dhammakusala-arhat requires paravitāraṇa, while a para-dhammakusala-arhat does not.
v2.c34.s3.20
¹ "Excelled by others." See Points of the Controversy, p. 119. Buddhaghosa writes: yasmā yesaṃ tāni vatthuni pare vitaranti pakāsenti ācikkhanti tasmā tesaṃ atthi paravitāraṇa ti. Cf. Masuda, p. 24: "gain spiritual perception by the help of others (lit. enlightenment through others)."
v2.c34.s3.21
Another statement of Vasumitra relating to the Arhats, namely, "one who is kṛtakṛtyaḥ (= Pāli: katakaraṇīyo) does not take any dharma to himself i.e. has no attachment for worldly things" is echoed, I think, in the *Kvu.* (XVII, 1 & XXII. 2) in these terms: *atthi arahato puññopacayo ti?* and *arahā kusalacitto parinibbāyati ti*. The Theravādins agreeing with the Mahāsanghikas contend that the citta of Arhats goes beyond *pāpa* and *puṇya*, *kusala* and *akusala*, *kriyā* and *vipāka*, hence, to speak of them as acquiring merits or demerits is absurd. The opponents, the Andhakas, however, contend that the Arhats perform many good deeds, e.g., making gifts, worshipping caityas and so forth, and remain always self-possessed (*sato sampajāno*) even at the time of his parinibbāna, and so he does collect merits and passes away with *kusalacitta*.
v2.c34.s3.22
Neither the above discussions in the *Kathāvatthu* nor the terse statements of Vasumitra help us much in finding out the real difference between the Andhakas and the Theravādins about the position of an Arhat. The Mahāyāna works point out the distinction thus: Arhats, who are perfect Śrāvakas, get rid of only *kleśāvaraṇa*, i.e., the veil of impurities consisting of *rāga*, *dosa*, *moha*, *sīlabbataparāmāsa*, and *vicikicchā* but not of *jñeyāvaraṇa*, i.e., the veil which conceals the truth—the veil which can only be removed by realising the Dharma-śūnyatā or Tathatā.¹ It is the Buddha alone who is perfectly emancipated having both *kleśāvaraṇa* and *jñeyāvaraṇa* removed. That the Mahāsanghikas appear to be groping to get at this clear distinction will be evident from two other topics discussed in the *Kvu.* but not referred to in Vasumitra's treatise. The topics are,—*atthi kiñci saññojanam appahāya parinibbānan ti?* (XXII. 1) or *arahattappattīti?* (XXI. 3). To these the Mahāsanghikas replied in the affirmative, saying that an arhat is *nikkileso* (free from impurities) and does attain *parinibbāna* or *arhatta* but as he is not cognizant of all that is *Buddhavisaya* (domain of Buddha's knowledge), it must be admitted that some *saññojanas* are left in him. This opinion may be taken as a hint that the arhats do not remove the *jñeyāvaraṇa*.²
v2.c34.s3.23
¹ For details, see *Aspects*, pp. 35 ff.
v2.c34.s3.24
² There are a few subsidiary discussions in the *Kathāvatthu* relating to Arhats. These are given here briefly:—
v2.c34.s3.25
IV. 1. Householders cannot become Arhats—*Theravādins*. But householders like Yasa, Uttiya, Setu became Arhats—*Uttarāpathakas*.
v2.c34.s3.26
IV. 2. No one is born as Arhats—*Therav*. But there are Upahacca-(uppajja)-parinibbāyī Arhats—*Uttarāp*.
v2.c34.s3.27
IV. 3. All dharmas of Arhats are not anāsava, e.g. their physical body etc.—*Therav*. But Arhats are anāsavā (free from āsavas)—*Uttarāp*.
v2.c34.s3.28
IV. 4. In the Arhat stage, only arhattaphala is acquired—*Therav*. But all the phalas are possessed by the Arhats—*Uttarāp*.
v2.c34.s3.29
IV. 5. An Arhat is chaḷupekkho (see App.)—*Therav*. Rather Arahā chahi upekkhāhi samannāgato—*Uttarāp*
v2.c34.s3.30
IV. 10. All saññojanas are gradually destroyed and not by Arhattamagga alone—*Therav*. But by the destruction of all saññojanas one becomes an Arhat—*Andhakas*.
v2.c34.s3.31
XVII. 2. Arhats may have untimely death as arahatghātaka is mentioned in the Buddhavacanas—*Therav*. But as one cannot become an Arhat before the karmaic effects are exhausted, an Arhat cannot have untimely death—*Rājagirikas* and *Siddhatthikas*.
v2.c34.s3.32
XVII. 3. Arhats do not die when in imperturbable meditation and devoid of kriyācitta—*Therav*. But did not Gautama Buddha pass away immediately after arising from the 4th jhāna—*Uttarāp*.
v2.c34.s3.33
IV. Can there be retrogression of Arhats, Srotaāpannas and other Phalasthas?
v2.c34.s3.34
The following views regarding the possibility of retrogression of Arhats, Srotaāpannas and other phalasthas are attributed in Vasumitra's treatise¹ to a section of the Mahāsanghikas and some of their sub-sects:
v2.c34.s3.35
¹ Masuda, p. 22.
v2.c34.s3.36
(i) From the gotrabhūmidharma there is in all stages the possibility of retrogression.
v2.c34.s3.37
(ii) A Srotaāpanna has a chance of retrogression while an Arhat has not.
v2.c34.s3.38
The above two views are discussed in the *Kathāvatthu* under the topic: *Parihāyati arahā arahattā ti?* (I. 2).
v2.c34.s3.39
It will be observed that the *Kvu.* does not attribute to the Mahāsanghikas the above views about the retrogression of Arhats and Srotaāpannas. According to the Mahāsanghikas, the *Kvu.* says, an Arhat has retrogression while a Srotaāpanna has not, while Vasumitra takes a contrary view, as above (ii). Vasumitra says that the former opinion is held by the Sarvāstivādins and other schools. Buddhaghosa points out that this opinion is held by one section of the Mahāsanghikas and not all, and so Vasumitra may have in view the views "of that section, according to whom the Arhats may retrogress but the Srotaāpannas do not."²
v2.c34.s3.40
² *Kvu. A.*, p. 35: Sammitiyā Vajjiputtiyā Sabbatthivādino ekacce ca Mahāsanghikā arahato parihānim icchati.
v2.c34.s3.41
All the schools advocating the view that arhats retrogress hold, as stated in the *Kvu.*, that the Sotāpannas have no retrogression. This, however, contradicts the statement of Vasumitra.³ All these schools accept that a sotāpanno is *niyato* *sambodhiparāyaṇo* and hence is not subject to retrogression, but a sakadāgāmī or an anāgāmī may retrogress but not further than the sotāpanna stage, for some of the adepts in these stages may have *anusaya* which may develop into *pariyuṭṭhāna*¹ and thus bring about the fall—an argument which will be discussed next in connection with the Aṭṭhamakas. In regard to these two stages the *Kvu.* corroborates Vasumitra’s statement (no. ii).
v2.c34.s3.42
³ See Masuda, II, p. 27.
v2.c34.s3.43
¹ *Anuśaya* means that which lies in the mind in a latent state with the possibility of its coming into appearance if it receives an effective impulse, while *pariyuṭṭhāna* means its actual appearance in the mind without however a corresponding response in the outer world. For further details, see p. 94f.
v2.c34.s3.44
Regarding the srotaāpannas, Vasumitra further states that:
(1) they are capable of knowing their own nature (*svabhāva*) through their *citta* and *caitasika dharmas*;
(2) they can also attain the *dhyāna*;
(3) they are liable to commit all sorts of offences except the five *anantarīyas* (i.e. matricide, patricide etc.)
v2.c34.s3.45
In the *Kvu.* we do not come across any controversy relating to the first two topics. This silence may be interpreted as that the Theravādins accepted the two views. As regards the third topic, we may take into consideration the controversy: *Diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropeyyā ti?* (see infra). A sotāpanna is a person with right view (*diṭṭhisampanno*), hence, according to the Theravādins, he cannot commit killing (*pāṇātipāta*) or such other offences, not to speak of the five extreme offences like matricide or patricide. Vasumitra perhaps speaks of the opinion of that section of the Mahāsaṅghikas i.e., the Andhakas, who contemplate the retrogression of the Sotāpannas while the *Kvu.* very likely speaks of the other section, according to whom the Sotāpannas do not retrogress.
v2.c34.s3.46
There are in Vasumitra's treatise two other statements, which also relate to the Srotāpannas. They are,—
(i) When one enters into the *samyakatva-nyāma*,¹ one may be said to destroy all *saṃyojanas*.²
(ii) None of the *dharmāyatanas*³ can be known or understood: they can be attained (only by those Aryan *pudgalas* above the *darśanamārga*).
v2.c34.s3.47
¹ See above, p. 82.
v2.c34.s3.48
² The three *saṃyojanas* are *sīlabbataparāmāsa*, *vicikicchā*, *micchādiṭṭhi*.
v2.c34.s3.49
³ The Dharmāyatanas are *vedanā*, *saṃjñā*, and *saṃskārā*. Cf. *Abhi. Kośa*, p. 46.
v2.c34.s3.50
The *Kvu.* contributes no discussion on the above two points. The Theravādins also cannot but subscribe to these views.
v2.c34.s3.51
V (a). Do the *Aṭṭhamakas*⁴ have *anusaya*⁵ and *pariyuṭṭhāna*?
v2.c34.s3.52
⁴ The *aṭṭhamakas* are those who have just stepped into the Sotāpanna-hood, which is the eighth or the lowest stage in the fruits of sanctification.
v2.c34.s3.53
⁵ For the meaning of the term and its distinction from *pariyuṭṭhāna*, see p. 91, fn. 1.
v2.c34.s3.54
Relating to the Aṭṭhamakas, Vasumitra says that according to the Mahāsaṅghikas—
(i) In the eighth stage (*aṣṭamaka-bhūmi*) one can remain for a long time.
v2.c34.s3.55
In the *Kvu.* (III. 5) the identical problem is discussed in these words:
(i) *Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṃ pahīnan ti?*
v2.c34.s3.56
Masuda's comment on the first view seems to be wide of the mark, though he quotes 'Shu-chi as his authority. The discussion in the *Kathāvatthu* clears up the view thus:
v2.c34.s3.57
According to the *Andhakas*, an adept who is in the eighth stage i.e., *sotāpatti-maggaṭṭha* and not yet *sotāpanna* gets rid of *diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhāna*, *sīlabbata-p.* and *vicikicchā-p.* but not *diṭṭhi-anusaya*, *sīlabbata-a.*, and *vicikiccha-a.*, i.e., the *anusayas* may become active (*uppajissati*) if they receive an impulse. The Andhakas by drawing this distinction between *pariyuṭṭhāna* and *anusaya* hold that an *aṭṭhamaka* may not get rid of the three *anusayas* and consequently remain away from the *sotāpanna* stage for a long time.¹
v2.c34.s3.58
¹ *Aṭṭhamaka* puggalas have *saddhā* but not *saddhindriya*—Andhaka.
v2.c34.s3.59
The *Kathāvatthu* also discusses the following two allied views attributed to the *Pubbaseliyas* and the *Uttarāpathakas*:
v2.c34.s3.60
(i) *Diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropeyyā ti?* XII. 7 (Pubbaseliyas)
v2.c34.s3.61
(ii) *Diṭṭhisampannassa puggalassa pahīnā duggatī ti?* XII. 8 (Uttarāpathakas).
v2.c34.s3.62
By the first view the Pubbaseliyas mean that a person by having *sammādiṭṭhi* does not get rid of *dosa* (hatred), hence he can commit the sin of killing—a view wholly rejected by the Theravādins. By the second view the Uttarāpathakas assert that a person with *sammādiṭṭhi* cannot be reborn in a lower form of existence; the Theravādins point out that it may be so, but he may have *taṇhā* (desire) for objects and beings belonging to the lower forms of existences.
Linked texts (5)
- Kathāvatthu — Moggaliputta Tissa, Pāli
- Kīṭāgirisutta — Pāli
- Puggalapaññatti — Pāli
- Abhidharmakośa — Vasubandhu, Sanskrit
- Aṅguttaranikāya — Pāli