Abstract of the thesis entitled

The Origins and Development of the Theory of Four Stages to

Liberation in Theravāda Buddhism

A Study Based on Mainly Pāli Canonical and Commentarial Literature

Submitted by

Amrita Nanda

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at The University of Hong Kong.

in March 2017

Among the scholars who have theorized the model of development of four stages in

Indian Buddhism, I. B. Horner, George D. Bond and Peter Masefield have each

contributed to the understanding of the dynamics of the evolvement of this concept.

While Horner argues that arahatta became only dominant in the “monastic period”

of Buddhism and sotāpanno earlier, Bond theorizes that the stage of sotāpanno and

other stages developed as arahatta receded into the background of spiritual quest of

the early Saṅgha. Masefield, in contrast, contends that the failure of sāvakas to bring

others into arahatta results in the emergence of the four stages. While they each have

attempted to model such shifts in their own frameworks, the arguments each ignores

certain social factors that call for a revised understanding of the dynamics of the

evolvement of the four stages.

The main import of this dissertation is an investigation into the origins of the

theory of the four stages to liberation and its development from its original formation
  

in the Pāli Nikāyas to Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. The theory of

the four stages to liberation is a conceptual framework that is believed to be effective

in leading Buddhist practitioners to the state of arahatta. This study is based on the

following assumptions:

I. The theory of the four stages has no direct bearing on the spiritual attainment

of the Buddha and his early disciples.

II. The theory of four stages was developed as a response to different socio-

religious needs.

III. The theory of four stages to liberation did not remain static; rather over time

the theory of four stages went through a substantial transformation as it

evolved from its original formulation in the Nikāyas to its standardized

elaborate theory in the Abhidhamma and Pāli commentaries.

IV. The theory of four stages to liberation is a not a singular and a unilateral

theory but comprises a complex network of possibilities that take into

consideration various sets of religious and social conditions.

This dissertation first traces the original formation of concepts of stream-enterer,

once-returner and non-returner in the Pāli Nikāyas. Then it traces gradual

development of these concepts in the Pāli Nikāyas to Abhidhamma and the Pāli

commentarial literature. This dissertation attempts to locate the origins of the theory

of four stages in context of transforming Buddhism, from the original ascetic

movement to an institutionalized religion. It is argued that the theory of four stages

was developed as a structure to include those who were not ready to become
  

monastics, rather chose to lead a household life. This brings in a social dimension

into the discussion of religious phenomena and interrogates the possibility of

influence of extra-religious factors in shaping religious ideas. This dissertation

further demonstrates that the theory of four stages went through a substantial

development in the Abhidhamma and Pāli Commentarial literature. It is argued that

the decline of spiritual enthusiasm among monastics and exaltation of the attainment

of the four stages are causally connected.

 
The Origins and Development of the Theory of Four Stages to
Liberation in Theravāda Buddhism

A Study Based on Mainly Pāli Canonical and Commentarial

Literature

By

Amrita Nanda
B.A. Kelaniya; M.B.S. H.K.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at The University of Hong Kong

March 2017
   i  

Declaration

I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgement

is made, and it has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report

submitted to this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or other

qualifications.

Signed………………………………………………………

Amrita Nanda
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   ii  

 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Toshiichi Endo for his

encouragement and guidance throughout the research. His open-minded and modest

approach to the study of early Indian Buddhism and Pāli commentarial studies inspires

me a lot in this study. His encouragement and friendly attitude every time I visited him

strongly motivated me too to bring the study into completion.

I am deeply indebted to my teacher Ven. Professor K. L. Dhammajoti whose

financial and spiritual support made me what I am. His career as a Buddhist scholar and

work to uplift other fellow Buddhists is my main source of inspiration for my life and

Buddhist Studies. I would also like to thank Professor Guang Xing, my mentor, who

has been very supportive and kind throughout my study. I am also thankful to Dr.

Halkias for reading through my first draft and providing insightful comments. Thanks

must be extended to Professor G. A. Somaratne for providing helpful suggestions

whenever need arise, and Professor Y. Karunadasa for providing encouragement and

insightful advice at the initial stage of my study. I am also thankful to Ven. Sik Hin

Hung, the Director of the Centre of Buddhist Studies for providing an excellent

atmosphere at the Centre to carry out this study.

I am very grateful to Mr. Lau Ting Kwong (Andrew) and Chan Sun-Man Janis and

Venerable Dipananda (Dipen Barua) for proofreading the entire thesis with selfless

dedication and care. Both of them have provided a lot of comments and suggestions,

which helped me to make improvement in terms of the organization and presentation. I

   iii  

should also thank my friend Daniel Millet Gil for reading through the draft of few

chapters, providing some good comments and helping me to collect books and article

that were not available at HKU library. I should also thank Mr. Gao Mingyuan for

proofreading and Professor Frank Hoffman for his insightful advice.

I am very grateful to The University of Hong Kong for providing Postgraduate

Scholarship (PGS) during my four years study here, without which it would have been

impossible for me pursue any sort of postgraduate studies. I would like to express my

gratitude to Glorious Sun Group for providing me Glorious Sun Group Postgraduate

Scholarships in Buddhist Studies for my Master of Buddhist Studies. I would also like

to thank all academic and non-academic staff of the Centre of Buddhist Studies at the

University of Hong Kong, who have been always very nice and helpful. I would also

like to thank Ven. Professor Jinabodhi Mahathera, Ven. Tilokananda Mahathera, Ven.

Devamitra Mahathera for their encouragement in my study.

Last but not least, Jnan Nanda, Sree Dharma Rakkhit Sraman and Nagasena, Sapu

Barua, Sourab Barua, Sujit Barua, Dr. Jiajuan Xiong and many other friends and well-

wishers who have been very encouraging and helpful during my study in Hong Kong.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   i  

Declaration

I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgement

is made, and it has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report

submitted to this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or other

qualifications.

Signed………………………………………………………

Amrita Nanda
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   ii  

 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Toshiichi Endo for his

encouragement and guidance throughout the research. His open-minded and modest

approach to the study of early Indian Buddhism and Pāli commentarial studies inspires

me a lot in this study. His encouragement and friendly attitude every time I visited him

strongly motivated me too to bring the study into completion.

I am deeply indebted to my teacher Ven. Professor K. L. Dhammajoti whose

financial and spiritual support made me what I am. His career as a Buddhist scholar and

work to uplift other fellow Buddhists is my main source of inspiration for my life and

Buddhist Studies. I would also like to thank Professor Guang Xing, my mentor, who

has been very supportive and kind throughout my study. I am also thankful to Dr.

Halkias for reading through my first draft and providing insightful comments. Thanks

must be extended to Professor G. A. Somaratne for providing helpful suggestions

whenever need arise, and Professor Y. Karunadasa for providing encouragement and

insightful advice at the initial stage of my study. I am also thankful to Ven. Sik Hin

Hung, the Director of the Centre of Buddhist Studies for providing an excellent

atmosphere at the Centre to carry out this study.

I am very grateful to Mr. Lau Ting Kwong (Andrew) and Chan Sun-Man Janis and

Venerable Dipananda (Dipen Barua) for proofreading the entire thesis with selfless

dedication and care. Both of them have provided a lot of comments and suggestions,

which helped me to make improvement in terms of the organization and presentation. I

   iii  

should also thank my friend Daniel Millet Gil for reading through the draft of few

chapters, providing some good comments and helping me to collect books and article

that were not available at HKU library. I should also thank Mr. Gao Mingyuan for

proofreading and Professor Frank Hoffman for his insightful advice.

I am very grateful to The University of Hong Kong for providing Postgraduate

Scholarship (PGS) during my four years study here, without which it would have been

impossible for me pursue any sort of postgraduate studies. I would like to express my

gratitude to Glorious Sun Group for providing me Glorious Sun Group Postgraduate

Scholarships in Buddhist Studies for my Master of Buddhist Studies. I would also like

to thank all academic and non-academic staff of the Centre of Buddhist Studies at the

University of Hong Kong, who have been always very nice and helpful. I would also

like to thank Ven. Professor Jinabodhi Mahathera, Ven. Tilokananda Mahathera, Ven.

Devamitra Mahathera for their encouragement in my study.

Last but not least, Jnan Nanda, Sree Dharma Rakkhit Sraman and Nagasena, Sapu

Barua, Sourab Barua, Sujit Barua, Dr. Jiajuan Xiong and many other friends and well-

wishers who have been very encouraging and helpful during my study in Hong Kong.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   iv  

Table of Contents

Declaration i

Acknowledgements ii

Table of Contents iv

Abbreviations vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-31

1.1 Background, Rationale of the Study and Literature Review 1

1.2 Sources, Methodology and Scope of the Study 24

1.3 Definitions of Technical Terms 29

Chapter 2: The Evolution of the Stage of Stream-entry and

the Stage of Once-Return 32-114

2.1 Interrelationship between Sotāpatti and Dhammacakkhuṃ 33

2.2 Faith in the Three Jewels and Stage of Stream-entry 41

2.3 Insight of Stream-enterer 47

2.4 The Role of Jhānas in the Attainment of the Stage of Stream-entry 57

2.5 The Ethical Standard of Stream-enterer 79

2.6 Abandoning of the Three Fetters and Stream-enterer 83

2.7 The Sub-stages of the Stage of Stream-entry 89

2.8 The Question of Retrogression from the Stage of Stream-entry 98

2. 9 The Stage of Once-return 105

2.10 Conclusion 112

Chapter 3: The Evolution Stage of Non-return 115-165

3.1 The Theory of Two Stages to Nibbāna and the Stage of Non- return 115
   v  

3.2 The Stage of Non-return and the Five Fetters Pertaining to Lower Sphere 122

3.3 Attainment of Jhānas as Pre-requirement for the Stage of Non-return 127

3.4 The Classification of Non-returners 135

3.4.1 The Sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and Asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī:

The problem with interpretation of the term ‘Saṅkhāra’ 141

3.4.2 The Antarāparinibbāyī and Intermediate Existence (antarābhava) 146

3.5 Conclusion 164

Chapter 4: The Origins of the Theory of Four Stages to Arahatta 166-219

4.1 A General Survey of Scheme of Spiritual Stages in other

Contemporary Religions Of Early Buddhism 166

4.1.1 Theory of Four Stages in the Brahmanism 166

4.1.2 Theory of Fourteen Stages in Jainism 168

4.1.3 Theory of Three Stages in the Yoga Tradition 170

4.1.4 Eight Stages in the Indian Materialism 172

4.2 The Origins of the Concept of Stream-enterer 175

4.3 The Origins of the Stage of Non-returner 201

4.4 Formation of Four Stages as Idealized Stage on the Spiritual Path

for both Monastics and Laities 208

4.5 Conclusion 217

Chapter 5: Exaltation of the Four Stages in the Pāli Abhidhamma and

Commentarial Literature 220-267

5.1 Sequential Attainment of the Four Stages 220

   vi  

5.2 The Theory of Four Stages and Heterogeneous Path Schemes to

Liberation in Nikāyas 237

5.3 Four Samaṇas and the Four Stages: Stages Domain of Monastics 241

5.4 Elevation of the Four Stages to Peak Spiritual Experience 251

5.5 Conclusion 266

Chapter 6: Conclusion 268-286

Bibliography 287-312
   vii  

Abbreviations

AN Aṅguttara Nikāya
AK Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu
AKB Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu
AN-A Aṅguttara Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā (Manorathapūraṇī)
AN-ṭīkā Aṅguttara Nikāya ṭīkā
Bv Buddhavaṃsa
Bv-A Buddhavamsa Aṭṭhakathā (Manuratthavilāsinī)
CSCD Chaṭṭasaṅgāyana CD-ROM version 4
Dhp Dhammapada
Dhp-A Dhammapāda Aṭṭhakathā
Dhs Dhammasaṅgaṇī
Dhs-A Dhammasaṅgaṇī Aṭṭhakathā (Atthasālinī)
DN Dīgha Nikāya
DN-A Dīgha Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā (Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī)
DN-ṭīkā Dīgha Nikāya ṭīkā
Iti Itivuttaka
Iti-A Itivuttaka Aṭṭhakathā
Kv Kathāvatthu
Kv-A Kathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā
MN Majjhima Nikāya
MN-A Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā (Papañcasūdanī)
MN-ṭīkā Majjhima Nikāya ṭīkā
Pm Paṭisambhidāmagga
Pm-A Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā (Saddhammappakāsinī)
Pug Puggalapaññatti
Pug-A Puggalapaññatti Aṭṭhakthā
SN Saṃyutta Nikāya
SN-A Saṃyutta Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā (Sāratthappakāsinī)
SN-ṭīkā Saṃyutta Nikāya ṭīkā
   viii  

Sn Suttanipāta
Sn-A Suttanipāta Aṭṭhakthā (Paramatthajotikā II)
Tha Theragāthā
Thera-A Theragāthā Aṭṭhakthā (Paramatthadīpanī V)
Thī Therīgāthā
Therī-A Therīgāthā Aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī VI)
Ud Udāna
Udāna-A Udāna Aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī I)
Vbh Vibhaṅga
Vbh-A Vibhaṅga Aṭṭhakathā (Sammohavinodanī)
Vism Visuddhimagga
Vism-tīka Visuddhimagga Mahāṭīkā
 
 1  
 

Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.1 Background, Rationale of the Study and Literature Review

The study began by my intrigue of two points in Early Buddhism. Firstly, the

essence of Buddhist teaching is the suffering and its cessation; i. e. the attainment of

Nibbāna. The devise described to attain this state is meditation. To be successful in

one’s practice, it requires full-time devotion and commitment. In order to facilitate

this commitment, early Buddhism describes ascetic lifestyle, i.e. monastics

community. That is to detach oneself from mundane affairs in the family and society.

Early Buddhism views social affairs not only an obstruction to meditation but also a

source of developing craving that prolongs one’s saṃsāric journey. So the essence of

early Buddhism soteriology is to withdraw from mundane affairs in the world.

According to early Buddhism this liberation is to be attained in this very life, not

in some distant time and space. So the heart of the early Buddhist soteriology was

monasticism, which correlates with ascetic way of life. But when one looks at the

theory of the four stages to liberation, it shifts liberation to a distant time and space,

and in between many other mundane felicities are embedded. This dissertation aims

to investigate how this transformation took place.

Secondly, the discrepancy between the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of the

Saṃyuttanikāya and the Visuddhimagga with regards to the interpretation of the

 2  
 

stage stream-entry. In the process of investigating into this discrepancy, I have

realized that this matter is much more complex than I had anticipated at the

beginning. When I have surveyed the modern scholarly researches on this topic, I

have observed that quite a few modern scholars in Buddhist studies, such as Isaline

Blew Horner (1936), Kannimahara Sumangala (1981), Peter Masefield (1986), and

Peter Harvey (2013) have also pointed out the discrepancy, but there seems to be not

much discussion on how such a discrepancy developed in the history of Buddhism.

Thus, I have realized that limiting my study only to show the discrepancy is not

sufficient. I felt the need to expand the scope of my study to the origins and

development of the theory of the four stages to liberation from Nikāyas to Pāli

commentarial literature in order to understand the theory from a broader prospective.

To accomplish this task, I have felt a focus on the socio-religious background under

which this theory of the four stages to liberation developed is necessary to illustrate

the either explicit or implicit linkage. The development of religious thoughts cannot

be isolated from the social background in which they developed. I have noticed there

is a gap Buddhist academic research as there was no previous studies on how the

theory of four stages developed and what social and religious factors contributed to

its development.

The theory of the four stages to liberation refers to an exhaustive list of stages

that a Buddhist practitioner may pass through in his or her progress towards

liberation through various lifetimes and various cosmological realms depending on

an individual’s circumstances and commitment to spiritual practice.

 3  
 

The theory of the four stages holds a significant place in the Pāli Nikāyas. Its

importance is reflected in the inclusion of the theory of four stages in many

discourses in the Pāli Nikāyas. Theravāda Abhidhamma and Pāli exegetical literature

also assign a crucially important position of the theory in the doctrine of the

Theravāda soteriology. The Theravāda Buddhist soteriology is defined in terms of

progressive attainment of the four stages either in one lifetime or wider a spectrum of

time and space.

The theory of four stages to liberation is not a rigid structure, rather it has

evolved and transformed over time in response to different socio-religious factors. It

is a conceptual framework that is considered to be effective in transforming a

practitioner from the state of worldling to sainthood. It is not a singular and

unilateral, but a complex set of possibilities that take into account various conditions

and circumstances. Therefore, the study on the theory of four stages allows us to

trace development of Buddhist soteriology, sociology and cosmology.

The Kathāvatthu, the extant Sanskrit Buddhist literature and Āgamas preserved

in Chinese translation show that the theory of the four stages to liberation was given

significant place in almost all early Indian schools of Buddhist thoughts. The

Buddhist schools such as Mahāsaṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, Lokottaravāda and

Kaukkuṭika accepted the theory of the four stages to liberation (Masuda 1978:20-27).

The theory of four stages to liberation was also given a significant place in

soteriology of Sarvāstivāda (chapter six of AKB III; Dhammajoti 2010: 433-463).

The Prajñāpāramitā literature shows that the early Mahāyāna also accepted the four

stages to liberation of the Sāvakayāna (Dhammajoti 2013: 301-4). James Apple has
 4  
 

shown that the theory occupies an important place in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist

scholasticism, though in Tibetan Buddhism the four stages extended to twenty.1

Although the theory of the four stages to liberation predates sectarian Buddhism and

a trace of this theory is seen in several Indian Buddhist schools, it receives special

significance in Pāli Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. In these Pāli

literatures, the theory of the four stages has been given a significant place as

monolithic path to liberation and it still continues to occupy a pinnacle position in

Theravāda soteriology. This justifies the title of this thesis.

The four stages are described in terms of abandoning the list of ten fetters (dasa-

saṃyojanāni) in progressive order. In the first stage one abandons the first three

fetters. In the second stage one does not abandon any more fetters, but attenuates

greet, hatred and delusion. In the third stage one abandons the first five fetters. And

in the fourth stage, one abandons the last five fetters. The list of ten fetters is divided

into two, the first five fetters are known as fetters pertaining to lower existence

(orambhāgiya saṃyojānāni) and the last five are known fetters pertaining to higher

existence (uddhambhāgiya saṃyojānāni).

Apart from this standard description, the theory of the four stages has been

described in terms of many other doctrines in the Pāli Nikāyas. One very popular

description of the theory of the four stages is the scheme of the five faculties. The

four stages are described in terms of cultivation of the five faculties in progressive

order (SN V 193, 202, 205). In fact the scheme the four stages in relation to

                                                                                                                       
1
James Apple (2003), in his article Twenty Verities of Saṃgha: A Typology of Noble Beings (ārya) in
Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism, discusses the theory of four stages in Tibetan Buddhism.  
 5  
 

cultivation of the five faculties appears more often than the scheme of the four stages

with list of the ten fetters. The theory of the four stages also appears in the Nikāyas

with the scheme of the threefold training (tisikkhā). (AN I 233).

The Pāli Nikāyas contain several schemes of the four stages to liberation. The

standard version of the four stages appears in terms of abandoning the list of the ten

fetters in progressive order. For instance several Nikāya passages mention:

Here, oh! Monks, a monk having abandoned three fetters becomes a stream-
enterer, no more subject to lower rebirths, destined to perfect enlightenment.
Moreover, a monk having abandoned three fetters and by attenuating greed,
hatred and delusion becomes a once-returner. Having returned to this world
only once will make the end of suffering. Moreover, a monk having abandoned
the five fetters pertaining to lower existence becomes a spontaneous birth
being. He liberates there. He is not subject to turn back from that world.
Furthermore, a monk having abandoned outflowing, having realized liberation
of mind and liberation of wisdom through his own higher knowledge in this
very life, having attained it, he dwells in it. (DN I 18; II 200; III 251; MN I
490).
The standard version sometimes appears Just as the stream-enterer, the once-

returner, the non-returner and the arahat without mentioning the list of ten fetters

(SN III 168; V 200-202; AN V 85). Sometimes the list appears those who have

attained the four stages and the candidates for each of the stage. For instance many

discourses record:

The stream-enterer and one who has been practicing for the realization of the
fruit of stream-entry, the once-returner and the one who has been practicing for
the realization of the fruit of once-return, the non-returner and one who has
been practicing for the fruit of non-return, the arahat and one who has been
practicing for the fruit of arahatta (MN III 254).
These four pairs of people are defined as the community of eightfold noble disciples

(aṭṭhapurisapuggala-ariyasāvaka-saṅgho), and are codified as objects of veneration

in the Theravāda tradition. They described as worthy of respect and offering.

 6  
 

The origins of the theory of four stages to liberation is one of the main research

questions that motivated this study. The question is relevant because when one

surveys the Pāli Nikāyas, the theory of four stages to arahatta is absent in the

liberating experiences of the Buddha and his early disciples as recorded in the Pāli

Nikāyas. One would easily justify that the theory was not applicable to the Buddha

because this theory applies only to disciples, but it is surprising that there is not a

single case history in the description of arahatta of early disciples passing through

these four stages recorded in the Pāli Nikāyas. In the Theragāthā and the

Therīgāthā, which are considered as the descriptions of how early monks and nuns

went through the process of liberation, in these two texts, there is not a single record

of any disciple passing through these four stages to become an arahat. The four

stages were often described as fruit of asceticism. For instance, in the Dasuttara

sutta of DN, it is stated that practitioners of the Buddhist path should aim at realizing

the four stages of asceticism—the stages of the stream-entry, once-return, non-return

and arahatta2. The Mahāparinibbāṇa sutta of the same Nikāya mentions that where

these four stages are absent, that is not the dispensation of the Buddha. In other

words, it is claimed that the four stages are the exclusive doctrine of Buddhism, not

shared by any contemporary religious systems. It has been clearly asserted that other

religions are empty of these four ascetics (AN II 238).3 But one would be surprised

to notice, in the Sāmaññaphala sutta of the Dīghanikāya, which discusses

specifically the question of the stages of the Buddhist spiritual life, the theory of four

                                                                                                                       
2
katame cattāro dhammā sacchikatabbā? cattāri samaññaphala sotāpatti-phalam sakadāgāmi-
phalam, anāgāmi-phalam arahatta-phalam.
3
idh’eva bhikkhave samaṇo, idha dutiyo samaṇo, idha tatiyo samaṇo, idha catuttho samaṇo suññā
parappavādā samaṇehi aññe.
 7  
 

stages is conspicuously absent. This discourse elaborates the spiritual path from an

ordinary person to the attainment of the arahatta. There is no trace of the theory of

the four stages. If it has only one discourse, it is possible to assume that the theory

slipped by mistake in the editorial process. But the scheme in the Sāmaññaphala

sutta is repeated in many discourses in the Pāli Nikāyas, in particular in the first

section of the Dīghanikāya, all the discourses except the last discourse are identical

to the content of Sāmaññaphala sutta.4 In none of these discourses the theory of four

stages is mentioned. In addition to the Pāli version, there are six versions of the

discourse in Chinese translation (Macqeen 1988: 12-19). The contents of these

versions are similar in regard to the absence of the theory of four stages. The

Satipaṭṭhāna sutta is another discourse popular in the Nikāyas. The discourse

appears in both the Dīghanikāya and Majjhimanikāya, it contains the same in whole

or in part in many more discourses in the Nikāyas. In the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta only the

last two stages are mentioned. Further, most of the discourses that are considered to

be belonging to the earlier stratum of the Pāli canon, such as the Aṭṭhakavagga and

the Pārāyanavagga of the Suttanipāta and many discourses in the Nikāyas urge

practitioners to seek liberation as soon as possible. The attainment of liberation in

some distant time and space seems inconceivable in these discourses. Buddhist

monks and nuns are exhorted to renounce all sensual desire (kāmarāga), attachment

to becoming (bhavarāga) and to strive to attain liberation in this very life. This raises

the question why the Buddha and his early disciples followed one path to liberation

and prescribed a different path for others. The given situation raises the question of
                                                                                                                       
4
The Jāliya-sutta, the Mahāsīhanāda-sutta, the Subha-sutta, the Kevaddha-sutta, the Tevijja-sutta,
the Cakkavatti Sīhanāda-sutta, etc.   The content of this discourse is repeated in first eighteen
discourses of DN with slight variation.  
 8  
 

the authenticity of the Theravāda traditional claim that one should pass through the

four stages in the process of liberation

Why there is an oscillation in this soteriological goal? The immediate goal is

shifted back to a distant time and in between many mundane felicities such as births

in good human conditions, worldly prosperity, heavenly bliss are imbued. There is

no explicit answer to this question either in the Nikāyas or in subsequent Pāli

Buddhist literature. However, the present researcher believes any development to

the theory would necessarily leave behind some traces. Through analyzing these

traces in the texts proximate causes for such development can be deducted.

When I went through at modern Buddhist scholasticism, there seems to be a

conspicuous research gap with regard to this question. It appears that only a few

scholars such as Isaline Blew Horner (1936) and Peter Masefield (1986) have

observed the discrepancy. They offered some important discussion. Peter Masefield

in his book makes the following note:

When these two paths [supra-mundane and path of merit making] disappeared
is not known but we may surmise that if one sāvaka were incapable of
establishing another on the path then with odd exception of the
sattakkhattuparama returning for a maximum seven further births, it cannot
have been long after the Buddha’s parinibbāna (Masefield 1986:163). 5

                                                                                                                       
5
In this book, Peter Masefield discusses several thought provoking points on the theory of four stages
and the development of Buddhist history. In the first chapter he discusses the spiritual division of
Buddhists. He argues that ariya-sāvaka referred to one who is on Buddhist path, and puthujjana is
one who is not on Buddhist path. In the second chapter he discusses how right view arises, he gives
a long discussion on paratoghosa. In chapter three, he discusses schemata of the four paths and
four fruits. He asserts the four stages were alternative and discontinuous goal. They are to be
attained through the grace of the Buddha; therefore, he claims they are not attainable after passing
away of the Buddha. From a historical perspective, some of the hypothesizes seem to be weak and
most of the points remain as mere hypotheses rather than sustained argument.
 9  
 

Masefield claims that the concept of sattakkhattuparama came in when disciples

were incapable of guiding others on the path. So he concludes this theory developed

after the passing of the Buddha. Regrettably he has neither offered further argument

on this point nor cited any textual or other evidences to support his claim. Thus his

claim remains mere hypothesis rather than a sustained argument. He further claims

that four āśrama-dharmas of Brahmanism and the Kalpa-sūtra of Jainism might

have influenced Buddhism to formulate the theory of the four stages (Masefield

1986:126). He does not provide further illustration as to how they are related.

Though the striking point of resemblance between four āśrama-dharmas of

Brahmanism and the theory of the four stages in Buddhism cannot be overlooked, it

is too simplistic to assert without sufficient evidence that the theory of the four

stages developed because of the four āśrama-dharmas in Brahmanism. However, his

points lead one to look into other Indian religious thoughts that prevailed at that time,

to investigate possible influence of each other or whether the theory of the four

stages was common stock doctrine shared by contemporary religions.

Horner in her excellent studies on the subject of arahat has noted some important

points. She asserts:

It was in order that the majority should be able to look forward to ultimate
enlightenment and more especially to returning here but once more, or not all,
in either case waning utterly, that the concept of four ways was put forward.
(Horner 1936: 212).6

                                                                                                                       
6
In this book, Horner traces the history of the concept of Arahant from early Buddhism what she
terms as the Sakyan Buddhism, to monastic Buddhism. And various stages of the development of
the concept in history of Buddhist thought. She devotes one chapter on the four paths and four
fruits. In this chapter she has traces the development of the four stages; she points out certain
discrepancy in the theory of four stages such as sequential attainment, and the concept of
 10  
 

Furthermore, she argues the four stages are not sequential attainment. She opines that

the stage of stream-entry as original Buddhist goal and later the stage of arahatta in

this lifetime was developed by monastics:

Arahantship here and now is the offspring of monastic Buddhism. Now since
the ways imply bhava, becoming, I suggest that the schemes of the four ways
point to a time earlier than the formulated teaching of the arahantship, … the
original motive of the four ways was that fulfillment might be realized in some
future rebirths at an indefinitely long or short distance of time. (Horner 1936:
223).
She further goes on to state that in the earliest period of Buddhism, the concept of

saṃsāra was very optimistic, but when the notion of saṃsāra became pessimistic,

the stage of stream-entry was shifted to the bottom of the list of the four stages, and

stage of arahatta in this lifetime on the top of the scheme of four hierarchical stages.

Horner proposes radically different views, but she too did not provide sufficient

discussions on how she comes to the conclusion that the stage of liberation in this

lifetime is developed later while the stage of stream-entry is earlier. Despite her great

expertise in the field of Pāli Canon, she has not cited any reference to either

canonical or non-canonical reference to substantiate her view. Her view seems to be

contradictory to all textual evidence. Rupert Gethin opines that transition from one

stage to another stage on the spiritual path might have developed during the

Abhidhamma period:

The notion of stream-attainment, and so on, must always have served the
purpose in Buddhist thought of defining possible stages in the process of
mind’s turning way from view etc., beginning with the grosser manifestation
and continuing until the subtlest forms are left behind. Once there are stages,
there are points of transition between stages; the precise nature of these points
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
momentary path. Most of her points with regards to the development of the theory of four stages are
ahistorical and not sustained arguments. But her work is thought provoking in this area.
 11  
 

of transitions is the domain of the Abhidhamma, which defines them ever more
closely and subtly.(Gethin 2001: 224).
Gethin’s views require further examination in light of textual evidence, as his

opinion seems to reflect only Abhidhamma interpretation, the origins of the concept

of stream-enterer, once-returner and non-returner. George Bond hypothesizes that in

early Buddhism, the ideal of arahatta was supposed to be imitated by every follower.

The early Buddhist ideal was the attainment of the stage of arahatta here and now in

this very life. But due to the loftiness of achievement from the prospective of

ordinary worldlings, the arahat became an object of worship by these worldlings

instead. And this gradually led arahats to be regarded as a remote norm radically set

apart from the worldling. Bond asserts that this trend took place very early in the

history of Buddhism, it finally crystallized in the Pāli commentarial period. He

points out that in the Visuddhimagga, the attainment of the stage of arahatta is a

long and arduous journey. Only one in thousands can hope to even attain the lowest

stage of it, i.e. the stage of stream-entry. And among those who attain the first stage,

only one in thousands is capable of attaining the next stage etc. According to him,

this has created a long gulf between an arahat and a worldling. The attainment of the

stage of the arahatta became a hardly possible hope for the worldlings. So he

hypothesizes that in order to bridge this gulf, the Theravādins developed the theory

of the four stages to liberation. He further asserts that this theory offers hope to those

Buddhists who have surpassed the ordinary persons in spiritual attainment, but have

not yet been able to imitate fully the perfection of arahats. (Bond 1988:164).7

                                                                                                                       
7
Bond in this article traces the evolution of the concept of arahatta in Theravāda Buddhism. He
argues that originally the arahantship was attainable ideal to everyone, but gradually the ideal was
 12  
 

Bond’s opinion that the first stage merged when attainment of arahatta became a

distant goal to be attained seems to need revision in light of textual evidence. When

one examines the concept of stream-enterer recorded in the early Buddhist sources,

particularly in the Sotāpattisaṃyutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya, the stage of stream-

entry, which is associated mostly with laities emerged as the attainment of the stage

of the arahatta still remained as the ideal for monastics. It is only in a later period

that both attainments became the prerogatives of monastic members. Thus Bond’s

argument may need to be reexamined. In the same vein Manne hypothesizes that the

second and third stages came into existence as responses to soteriological questions

such as what happens to a practitioner if a practitioner comes very close to the

attainment of arahatta before death, but cannot attain it in this very life. So there was

a logical demand for the creation of these two stages. She further comments that

Buddhists wanted to prove that the Buddha’s teachings work with the theory of four

stages to liberation (Manne 1995a:95).8 This may be one aspect of the development

of the theory of four stages, but the evidence in the texts reveal a more complex

matrix of factors contributing to the creation of the theory of four stages.

Somaratne G.A. considers the doctrine of four stages as diverse ways of

presenting the dhamma by the Buddha according to the interest of the listeners:

Buddhism could introduce arahantship here and now for those who came to it
seeking no more rebirths. It could offer the stage of non-return for those who
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
exalted and became a very difficult and distant goal. And he asserts this has created vacuum for the
development of the theory of four stages.
8
In this article, Manne discusses the stream-enterer, the once-returner. The non-returner and the
arahat their classifications in the Nikāyas in relation to the scheme of ten fetters, five spiritual
faculties etc. she collects a lot of passages to show different ways of presentation of the four stages
in the Pāli Nikāyas. The article does not touch on the question of their historical development.
However, this article provides some important nucleus for present study.
 13  
 

came with the aspiration to have an experience in a higher world before

attaining the final goal. It could offer the stage of once-return for those who
would like to come back to this world one more time to have more experiences
as humans before attaining the supreme goal. Finally, it could offer the stage of
stream-entry for those who are not really tired of either world but would like to
have an assurance of attaining the supreme goal one day. (Somaratne 1999:
121,fn 2).9
His hypothesis that the different stages were taught according to different needs of

followers is credible, however he did not explain how such needs have developed.

And how the theory became a monolithic path to arahatta subsequently. This view

seems to be representing later stage of the development of the theory of four stages

in the Nikāyas. The earliest stratum of the passages in the Nikāyas such as the

Suttanipāta, the Sāmaññaphala sutta and many more discourses seem to show the

earliest Buddhist interest was not in accommodating such diverse needs, but an

emphasis on the liberation in this life. Pande Govind Chandra claims that the theory

of four stages cannot be part of the earliest Buddhist teaching:

About the theory of four spiritual stages, it may be observed that it could not
have formed part of the earliest gospel. This is clear from the fact that we find
in the Nikāyas as earlier non-technical use of the word Anāgāmin. Further, had
the theory of the maggas and the corresponding phalas been early we might
have expected some references to them in the Sāmaññaphala. Finally, there is
little positive evidence in favour of regarding the theory as early (Pande
2006:539)
His observation is creditable but he does not go beyond mere hypothesis. His book

does not discuss when and why this theory of four stages to liberation was developed.

                                                                                                                       
9
Somaratne, in this article discusses the list of ten fetters, their division into two; the higher fetters
and the lower fetters and question of intermediate existence. He demonstrates the inconsistency
between the list of ten fetters. He makes a sweeping comment that the four stages were taught to
suit different levels of audience. He shows some discrepancies in the scheme of four stages and
abandoning the list of ten fetters. He argues that in the Pāli Nikāyas, arahats are never mentioned as
those who have abandoned the five higher fetters rather those who have abandoned outflowing. He
further argues that the division of higher and lower fetters is not very consistent, as there are
passages in the Pāli canon which show three fold divisions—lower fetters, fetters relating to birth
and fetters relating to existence. By this he hypothesizes some form of intermediate existence.
 14  
 

The survey of modern Buddhist scholasticism reveals modern scholars have

different, often very contrasting, views on the origins of the theory of the four stages

to liberation. While I am fully cognizant of the weight of their opinions, I think

further study on the origins of the theory of four stages is desideratum to trace how

the theory of four stages developed and what the were social and religious factors

that contributed to its emergence.

Another question relates to whether the four stages are sequential attainments or

whether one can bypass some of the stages and become arahat directly. According to

the Pāli Abhidhamma and Pāli exegetical literature, the four stages are sequential

attainment. In the Paṭisambhidāmagga, singular path liberation is constructed by

connecting several schemes of the paths that are presented in the Nikāyas. The path

culminates with the attainment of the four stages in sequential and progressive order.

This is followed in the Vibhaṅga and the Dhammasaṅgani. The Abhidhamma model

has also influenced the Pāli commentarial literature. But in the Nikāyas there seems

to be not a single record that a practitioner passes through all the four stages. Several

passages encapsulated in the Pāli Nikāyas postulate that one can bypass some of the

stages. Sometimes the first two stages and sometimes even all first three stages are

bypassed and the practitioner attains arahatta directly. Moreover, there are passages

in the Pāli Nikāyas that explicitly demonstrate that non-returner attains Nibbāna after

leaving this world (AN IV 119-20). When one tries to understand the Nikāya

passages through the Abhidhamma model of sequential attainment, a theoretical

conflict arises. The conflict is, according to Nikāya, a non-returner refers to a person

who fails to attain liberation in this life, but he would attain Nibbāna without
 15  
 

returning to human conditions again, in the heavenly realms. Then how would a non-

returner become an arahat in this life? If the Abhidhamma model is accepted,

theoretically there cannot be any arahat in human form. Though some modern

scholars on Buddhist Studies have pointed out this discrepancy, previous studies on

the subject have not provided sufficient discussion particularly how the Pāli

commentators resolve this question.

There is an apparent discrepancy between the interpretation of the four stages in

the Pāli Nikāyas and the Pāli Commentaries. The Theravāda tradition, which sees the

four stages through the lens of Buddhaghosa, believes that four stages are the peak

spiritual experience one attains sequentially to become an arahat. Buddhaghosa in

the Visuddhimagga, has subsumed the four stages under the heading of purification

of knowledge and vision, which is the culmination of sevenfold stages of purification

that Buddhaghosa has followed to construct the Theravāda Soteriological path.

Buddhaghosa has interpreted through a simile that stream-enterers are close to the

attainment of Nibbāna (The Path of Purification, 786-7). Buddhaghosa might have

drawn the antecedent of his explanation from the Paṭisambhidāmagga, which

interprets that at the moment of the stage of stream-entry one’s thought becomes

outflow-free (anāsava), and noble eightfold path gets perfected:

At the moment of stream-entry path, all dhammas born, except for cognizance
originated materiality, are profitable, free from cankers, lead-out, lead to
dispersal, belong to the supra-mundane having Nibbāna as their (supporting)
object. (The Path of Discrimination 118; Pm I 116).10

                                                                                                                       
10
sotāpattimaggakkhaṇe jātā dhammā ṭhapetvā cittasamuṭṭhānaṃ rūpaṃ sabbe ‘va kusalā honti,
sabbe ‘va anāsavā honti, sabbe ‘va niyyanikā honti, sabbe ‘va apacayagāmino honti, sabbe ‘va
lokuttarā honti sabbe ‘va nibbānārammaṇā honti.
 16  
 

The state of outflow-free mind usually refers to the mind of an arahat. In the

Dhammasaṅgaṇī the four stages are defined as supra-mundane stage, which indicates

that stream-entry etc. are extremely high spiritual stages, almost not different from

arahatta itself. But the Pāli Nikāyas portray a different picture of the theory of four

stages. In the Mahāparinibbāna sutta of the Dīghanikāyas, it is recorded that the

Buddha told Venerable Ānanda that a noble disciple is one who is endowed with the

unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and he possesses morality

dear to noble ones, which are unbroken, without defect. If he wishes, he can declare

himself “ I have destroyed realm of hell, rebirth as animals, the ghost realm,

downfalls and rebirth in unfortunate existences. I am a stream-enterer, not subject to

falling into unfortunate existence and certain of perfect enlightenment”. (DN 11 93).

The last factor is defined as alignment of one’s life with the five precepts. For

instance, in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of the SN, it is mentioned that a noble disciple

who is endowed with seven good qualities, if he wishes, he himself can declare as a

stream-enterer (SN V 356).11 Here, the seven good qualities referred to the alignment

of one’s life with the five precepts, abstaining from slandering speech, harsh speech,

useless gossip and unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha (SN

V 356). In another passage in AN, it is mentioned one whose actions are restrained

by five precepts and endowed with faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the

Saṅgha, if he wishes, he can declare himself as stream-enterer (AN III 211).

Sometimes, the last factors are replaced with other factors such as generosity towards

good people (SNV 352). Sometimes even the last factor is omitted. In another
                                                                                                                       
11
yato kho gahapatayo ariyasāvako imehi sattehi sadhammehi samannāgato hoti so ākaṅkhāmo
attanā va attānaṃ vyākareyya khīṇanirayo ‘mhi khīṇatiracchāyoniko khīṇapittivasayo
khīṇāpāyaduggativinipāto sotāpanno’ham asmi avinipāto dhammo niyato sambodhiparāyaṇo.  
 17  
 

passage in the SN, despite some weakness in observing the last factor, one who has

gone for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, is a stream-enterer (SN

V 375). Furthermore, the Pāli Nikāyas record that once a lay follower by name

Dhammadinna approached to the Buddha, the Buddha taught him the dhamma. He

stated to the Buddha that what the Buddha taught him is very profound and supra-

mundane relating to emptiness (ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīra

gambhirathā lokottarā suññatapaṭisaṃyuttā), as a layperson, it is difficult to reflect

on those teachings while living at home with children and wives. The Buddha then

advised him to cultivate the four factors of stream-entry. And when he has these four

factors, he was declared as a stream-enterer (SN V 408). There are innumerable

passages which show that people are described as stream-enterers after their first

meeting with the Buddha or his disciples. In fact, there are incidents that imply

stream-enterers may not understand the doctrine that deals with non-soul and

dependent origination; sometimes even moral perfection is not required for the

attainment of stream-entry.

When I look into commentarial literature, I have observed the Pāli commentaries

encapsulate different and very often contradictory views regarding the question. For

instance, in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā, it is recorded that among seven crore

people living in the city of Sāvatthi, five crore were noble disciples (āriyasāvakas)

(Dhp-A I 5), which suggests that they were at least stream-enterers. I think it is naïve

to assume that about seventy percent of the population of Sāvatthi were saints; rather

it makes sense to assume they might have been Buddhist followers. Another passage

in the Vinaya mentions that a group of hired killers who went to kill the Buddha,
 18  
 

after listening to the Buddha, instead of killing the Buddha, all of them instantly

became stream-enterers (Vin II 192).

Kannimahara Sumangala Thera is of a similar opinion that the stage of stream-

entry is not a supra-mundane stage. He says but that a stream-enterer is an ordinary

intelligent Buddhist who is keen on the dhamma. Sometimes, even taking refuges is

not essential to be a stream-enterer. He further argues that the three fetters to be

abandoned by a stream-enterer are listed under the category of fetters that are to be

abandoned by understanding. According to him, this understanding does not refer to

the realization through wisdom, but is derived from listening to the dhamma. He

argues that some practitioners, seeing the dhamma through the eye of Buddhaghosa,

refrain from declaring the state of stream-entry, taking it to be a supra-mundane

state, thus fearing the breaching of one of the four Pārājika rules (Sumangala

1965:18).12 Rhys Davids asserts stream-enterer is simply an individual who has

converted to Buddhism (The Dialogue of the Buddha I 200). And Manne also agrees

with him (Manne 1995a: 95). Except the short article by Sumangala, not many

scholars paid attention to this issue except through few sweeping comments. No

previous studies have shown how such discrepancy developed and what religious

and social conditions contributed to the exaltation of the status of stream-enterer.

There is a dilemma as to what are the pre-requirements for attainment of the

stage of the stream-entry. The Theravāda tradition considers the stage of the stream-
                                                                                                                       
12
This is a very short article on the concept of stream-entry. He points out the discrepancy between
the Nikāya interpretation of the concept and the Pāli commentarial interpretation of concept. He
strongly asserts a stream-enterer originally simply referred to a Buddhist, it even does not require
any form of meditation practices, but Pāli commentators exalted stream-enterer to a spiritual saint.
The articles do not address the question how the concept of stream-enterer was developed and how
it went through several stages of development.
 19  
 

entry is a meditative attainment. One has to go through samatha and vipassanā

meditation to attain the stage of stream-entry.13 This view is largely based on the

Visuddhimagga. According to Visuddhimagga, one attains the stage of stream-entry

at the mastery of samatha and vipassanā meditation. In fact, the Visuddhimagga

presents the stage of stream-entry as the peak spiritual experience. This has led to

doubting the capacity of attaining the stage of stream-entry even by monastics in one

lifetime. In the Visuddhimagga, Theravāda soteriological path is defined as the

sevenfold purification. One goes through the sevenfold purification in progressive

order. According to this description, one attains the stage of the stream-entry in the

seventh stage of the sevenfold purification. The seventh stage is the purification of

knowledge and vision (ñāṇadassana-visuddhi), which is the culminate point of the

Buddhist Theravāda Buddhist soteriology as presented in the Visuddhimagga.

Furthermore, Buddhaghosa goes on to state that one almost attain Nibbāna at the

moment of the attainment of the stage of stream-entry (Vism 673). Based on the

Visuddhimagga, Theravāda tradition considers the stage of stream-entry as the supra-

mundane stage, which is, attained through meditation.

But when one observes the Pāli Nikāyas, there is no explicit evidence to conclude

that the attainment of the stage of the stream-entry requires meditation and

attainment of jhānas. The four jhānas appear in innumerable discourses in the

Nikāyas in the context of early Buddhist soteriology. However, it is conspicuously

absent in the context of the attainment of the stage of stream-entry. Very often even
                                                                                                                       
13
There is a controversy as to requirement of the samatha meditation. Some Theravāda masters think,
there is no requirement of samatha meditation; one can attain the stage of the stream-entry, the
stage of the arahatta only through vipassanā mediation. Clough (2012) in his book Early Indian
and Theravāda Buddhism: Soteriological Controversy and Diversity has given a long discussion on
this controversy.    
 20  
 

simple meditation remains absent in the contexts of attainment of stage of stream-

entry in the Pāli Nikāyas. There are several instances where the lay followers were

declared as stream-enterers after a first meeting with the Buddha or his disciples.

One may argue that they could have been practicing meditation before this point of

declaration, but when one observes certain instances critically, we cannot make such

inference. For instance, some hired killers were sent to kill the Buddha, but when

they listened to the teachings of the Buddha, instantly they became stream-enterers

(Vin II 192). In another instance the leper Suppabuddha had mistakenly thought a

crowd listening to the Buddha were assembled for a free food distribution and he

approached there with the hope of getting a meal. He received gradual instruction of

the Buddha and instantly became a stream-enterer (AN IV 213). It is difficult to

expect that the hired killers have practiced meditation earlier. There are many more

such instances recorded in the Nikāyas.

Though an exclusive study on the issue has not been done prior to this study,

modern scholars in Buddhist studies have shed some light on the issue. Gethin

asserts that although in the Nikāyas stream-enterer are not always presented in

relation to meditation, they are usually presented as having a sudden radical change

of heart after hearing the Buddha or his disciples. He thinks such sudden changes are

only possible with prior gradual practices (Gethin 2001:226). By this he infers that

meditation does play a role in the attainment of the stage of the stream-entry.

Bhikkhu Sujāto also concurs with Gethin and further argues that samādhi is a

requirement for the attainment of the stage of the stream-entry and once-return

(Sujato 2006:135).
 21  
 

On the other hand, Masefield thinks that the attainment of jhānas or meditation

practice is not a requirement for the attainment of the stage of the stream-entry and

once returns. His argues that stream-enterers and once-returners take birth in the

sensual real (kāmāvacara), therefore they have not gone beyond the fifth factor of

the noble eightfold path. He further states that many who became stream-enterers

through hearing the dhamma may not have practiced meditation (Masefield

1986:60). His second hypothesis is creditable but the first point that stream-enterers

and once-returners do not attain jhānas because they took rebirth in the sensual realm

is weak. The fact of taking birth in the sensual realm does not prove that they do not

attain jhānas. Anālayo proposes a similar point. He further states:

If stream-enterer and once returner attain jhānas, the concept of the once-
returner would be superfluous, since not a single once-returner would ever
return to this world (Bhikkhu Anālayo 2007: 81).
Bhikkhu Bodhi in his article “The Jhāna and Lay Disciples” discusses the question of

the relevance of meditation (jhāna) to attain four stages. He strongly asserts that

jhāna does not play an important role in the attainment of the first stage, but from

there to unfold the path to higher stages jhāna is essential (Bhikkhu Bodhi

2001:138). However he has not given sufficient discussion and evidence to prove his

view. Sumangala claims even general meditation is not required to become a

stream-enterer (Sumangala 1965:18). He also has not substantiated his claim with

sufficient textual evidence. Thus, though scholars have given some views and

sweeping comments, no comprehensive study on the issue has been done.

Manne opines that though it is not clear whether the faith in the Buddha, the

Dhamma and the Saṅgha is sufficient for one to become stream-enterer, she
 22  
 

hypothesizes sometimes it seems sufficient. Harvey on the other hand thinks that

mere faith is not sufficient to attain the stage of the stream-entry. He argues apart

from faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, understanding some

fundamental doctrine is essential. He further argues both samatha and vipassanā

meditations are required to attain the stage of stream-entry (Harvey 2013:42).

While fully aware of the weight of the arguments, I think, the issue required

further in-depth study to come to solid conclusion whether the meditation and

attainment of the jhānas are required to become a stream-enterer. This would fill

scholarly gap as well as provides a theoretical framework for Buddhist practitioners.

Another dilemma I wish to point out in this study is where does the

antarāparinibbāyī attain Nibbāna? This is a perennial question in the history of

Buddhist thoughts. A number of Buddhist schools have argued that the

antarāparinibbāyī attains Nibbāna in the intermediate existence (antarābhava).14

The Pāli Ābhidhammikas as well as Pāli commentators have refuted the concept of

intermediate existence. Hence, they have interpret that the antarāparinibbāyī attains

Nibbāna in the pure abode either immediately after the birth or before reaching the

middle of life span there (Vism 710; AN-A II 330).15

Modern scholars on Buddhist studies also have divergent, often contrasting view

on this question. Bodhi and Somaratne argue that the interpretation of the Pāli

commentators is not faithful to the Pāli Nikāya interpretation. (The Numerical

                                                                                                                       
14
A number of early Indian Buddhist schools such as Pūrvaśaila, Sammaitīya, Sarvāstivāda,
Vātsīputrīya and Mahīsāsaka have accepted this intermediate existence.
15
tattha antarāparinibbāyīti yattha katthaci suddhāvāsabhave upapajjitvā āyuvemajjhaṃ appatvāva
parinibbāyati.
 23  
 

Discourses of the Buddha 70-71; Somaratne 1999: 133). Lily De Silva also

hypothesizes that though Theravāda School traditionally rejects the concept of

intermediate existence, certain terms such as ‘seeking rebirth’ (sambhavesi) hints at

some kind of intermediate existence. (Lily De Silva 2004: 55-58).16 On the other

hand, Kalupahana Koyu Tamura (1961) and Anālayo (2008) defend the Theravāda

traditional view. The present study hopes to broaden the discussion by investigating

several concepts relating to it in the Pāli Nikāyas, Abhidhamma and Pāli

commentarial literature.

As shown above, a brief literature review reveals that though the theory of four

stages to liberation is central to Theravāda soteriology and inseparably connected

with several doctrinally important issues, it has not been subjected to a

comprehensive academic study yet. Though a few studies have devoted to the topics

in the form of relatively short articles, they do little justice to the complexity of the

subject or the sheer length of history of the theory of the four stages to liberation. To

the best of my knowledge, no dissertation, or long monograph has been dedicated to

investigate the origin and development of the theory of the four stages to liberation.

Although some differences between the Nikāya interpretation and Pāli commentarial

interpretation of the concept of stream-entry have been noted by some scholars, apart

from a credible, but short previous attempt by Horner in her article “The Four Ways

and Four Fruits”. The present work is the first thesis length study devoted to

discovering the original formation of the theory and its development in the Pāli
                                                                                                                       
16
It is a very short article published in Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu) vol. XXXII, ed, Sodo
Mori. In this article, she hypothesizes the acceptance of some form a intermediate existence in Pāli
Nikāyas. She bases her arguments on the twelve-fold dependent origination and distinction between
kāya and rūpa. But she does not give a long discussion on the hypothesis rather suggests further
studies are required to confirm it.  
 24  
 

Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. In sum my research questions invite

an exploration that as far as I know, has not been given sufficient attention by

modern scholars on Buddhist Studies.

My aim in this thesis is threefold; to uncover the origin of the theory of the four

stages to liberation, to trace its subsequent history, and to assess its significance in

the Theravāda Buddhist soteriology. I believe through a careful study, one can derive

some important socio-religious information, which are crucial in understanding

relationship between early Buddhist soteriology and socio-religious factors.

1.2 Sources, Methodology and Scope of the Study

The main source of this study is the Pāli Canon and Pāli commentarial literature. The

Pāli Nikāyas are perhaps the most important source to understand early Buddhism.

They are considered to be the oldest extant Buddhist scriptures. However, it does not

imply that Pāli Nikāyas have not gone through changes. The Pāli Nikāyas contain

divergent strands of materials of different periods, though most of the contents can

be safely ascribed to the Buddha and his early disciples. But overall, the Pāli Nikāyas

encapsulate early Buddhist teachings. The PTS edition was used, but occasionally

the Burmese digital version Chaṭṭasangāyāna CD-ROM 4 has been consulted. This

study also treats the English Translation of Pāli Canon published by PTS as well as

the translations of the Pāli Nikāyas by Bhikkhu Bodhi, published by Wisdom

publication as primary sources of study.

The followings assumptions regarding the theory of four stages to liberation

govern the method and content of this study:

 25  
 

a. The theory of four stages have no direct bearing on the spiritual attainment of the

Buddha and his early disciples, i.e. the four stages are not product of

enlightenment experience of the Buddha and his early disciples.

b. The theory of four stages was developed as a response to different socio-

religious needs. Therefore, in the mind of those who developed this elaborate

theory of four stages to liberation, the personal spiritual experience may not

have been an issue.

c. The theory of four stages to liberation did not remain static, rather over time, the

theory of four stages to liberation went through a substantial transformation as it

evolved from its original formulation in the Nikāyas to its standardized elaborate

theory in the Abhidhamma and Pāli commentaries.

The justification of these premises will gradually develop in the course of this thesis.

I want to only highlight my second premise concerning the relationship between the

origin of the four stages and socio-religious factors. All the evidence indicates that

the origin of the theory of four stages to liberation is closely related to socio-

religious history of Buddhism. Therefore, the history of the theory of four stages

should be located in context of socio-religious history of Buddhism. This aspect has

been neglected in previous studies of the topic.

In investigating the origin of the theory of four stages, the purpose and socio-

religious circumstances surrounding its origins, I primarily rely on the Pāli Nikāyas.

The main difficulty in studying the origin of the theory of four stages stems from the

sources because no extant Buddhist texts discuss the question of the origin of the
 26  
 

theory of four stages. And the Nikāyas are not primarily history books. The

compilers of the Nikāyas were soteriologically motivated, so their main concern was

presenting a soteriological path, not historical information.

On the other hand the Nikāyas are highly heterogeneous in contents. The Nikāyas

record heterogeneous descriptions of the theory of four stages. Different discourses

contain different interpretations. When different interpretations are given, one has

few ways to evaluate them:

a. All the interpretations are equally valid. They were taught to different

audiences based on their spiritual maturity.

b. These two were compiled or edited at different periods of time, so new

interpretations that were developed in that period are recorded in the texts.

While the traditional Buddhist scholars would prefer the first possibility, modern

critical scholars would argue for the second possibility. But given the difficulty of

dating the Nikāya texts, it is very difficult to clearly demarcate these strata of

doctrines in the Pāli Nikāyas. Therefore, I would argue that the standardized

interpretation of the theory of four stages is later than non-standardized descriptions

found in the Nikāyas. Taking the non-standardized descriptions and analyzing these

materials, I try to trace the original formation of the theory of four stages to

liberation.

In examining the development of the theory of four stages to liberation from its

original formation to the later standardized elaborate theory of Buddhist soteriology,

mainly I rely on the Pāli Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. The Pāli
 27  
 

Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature are important sources of information

on the development of Buddhist thoughts.

Though the origins of the Pāli commentarial literature is very difficult, if not

impossible, to trace, the tendency of composing commentaries on the discourse of

the Buddha is certainly very early among Buddhists. Buddhists monastics were

prompted to compose commentaries, as the Buddha delivered his discourses

according to the spiritual maturity of the listeners, hence sometimes they are very

brief. When others try to understand these discourses, there were needs for

commentaries to give authoritative interpretations on them. Though a number of

such commentaries composed on early discourses seem to have incorporated within

the Nikāyas. Commentaries, as a separate form of Buddhist literature, might have

developed after the compilation of Buddhist canonical literature.

Though the prime purpose of Pāli commentarial literature might have been to

explain the discourses, very often there is phrase-by-phrase clarification of those

concepts mentioned in the discourses. In the process of providing commentaries,

many new interpretation and ideas, often prompted by social and religious demands,

and sometimes influenced by philosophical and religious developments that were

taking place in India and her neighboring countries, came to be encapsulated in the

Pāli commentarial literature. Hence, the Pāli commentarial literature is a reliable

source of Buddhist Studies, particularly Theravāda Buddhist thoughts. Even if one

rejects certain interpretation of the Abhidhamma and Pāli exegetical literature, one

has to first understand their interpretation, Gethin very appropriately states:

 31  
 

resemblance to Abhidhamma, particularly when dealing with the four stages to

liberation, the description in the Paṭisaṃbhidāmagga is very different from the rest

of the discourses in the first four Nikāyas, but is very similar to Abhidhammic

description. My selection is also guided by previous studies, for instance A. K.

Warder in the introduction to translation of the Paṭisaṃbhidāmagga by Bhikkhu

Ñāṇamoli, has very convincingly proved the relationship between the Abhidhamma

and the Paṭisambhidāmagga (The Path of Discrimination: xxix-xxxiv).

Pāli commentarial literature—refers to Pāli commentaries and sub-commentaries

written on the Suttapiṭaka, Vinayapiṭaka and Abhidhammapiṭaka. It also includes the

Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa.
   32  
 

Chapter 2:
The Evolution of the Stage of Stream-entry and the Stage of
Once-Return
Contemporary Buddhists very often understand the stage of stream-entry as an

exalted state that has more of a religiously symbolic value than a practical one. As

recorded in the commentarial literature of the Theravāda, it is claimed that it is a

state where the practitioner undergoes paradigmatic spiritual change that

fundamentally alters his religious life once and forever. Besides the Theravāda, the

extant Sarvāstivāda literature also chronicles the Abhidharmic conception as one

who has gained insight into the supra-mundane path (AKB III 1861-2162;

Dhammajoti 2009: 433-464). That both Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda agree on

this is significant, it shows a common development within the history of Buddhism

where the stages of noble persons began to undergo shifts that drift away from the

Nikāya meanings. To understand the historical transformation of this important

concept one needs to clarify how the later tradition differs from the early Buddhists,

and to clarify an important doctrinal evolution of Buddhist history that has hitherto

not been comprehensively conducted. This chapter attempts to prove the

contemporary Theravāda understanding of stream-enterer as heavily filtered by the

commentarial interpretations, and that the concept has undergone substantial

elevation that renders it an almost unrealizable ideal within this life. To trace such

mutatory shifts, I would first investigate the interrelationship between the concepts of

dhammacakkhuṃ and the stage of stream entry in a myriad of discourses that equate
   33  
 

stream-entry with the opening of the dhammacakkhuṃ. Then the diversity of the

concept of stream-enterer as recorded in the four Nikāyas will be investigated,

followed by the Abhidhamma and Pāli Commentarial explanations of such notions.

2.1 Interrelationship between Sotāpatti and Dhammacakkhuṃ

A number of discourses show that the first stage of sainthood was the arising of the

vision into dhamma (dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi). But in the theory of four stages to

the attainment of liberation, the stage of dhammacakkhuṃ is strangely absent. A

number of discourses equate the stage of dhammacakkhuṃ with the stage of stream-

entry. This sub-section will examine the interrelation between dhammacakkhuṃ and

stage of stream-entry and the pre-requirements said to be necessary for the arising of

dhammacakkhuṃ and the attainment of stage of stream-entry.

The term dhammacakkhuṃ refers to vision of reality. The term dhamma is a very

broad term in Buddhism. It connotes many things such as reality, truth, phenomena

or simply the teaching of the Buddha. It is very often equated with the theory of

dependently co-arising (paṭiccasamuppāda). For instance, in the discourses it is

mentioned, “he who perceives theory of dependently co-arising, perceives dhamma.

And he who perceives dhamma, perceives theory of dependently co-arising.”(MN I

191).1 And the term cakkhuṃ connotes knowledge (ñāṇa), wisdom (paññā), or vision

(vijjā) (Vin I 11; SN V 422). So the arising of dhammacakkhuṃ suggests penetration

to the theory of dependent co-arising. Very often discourses define penetration of

whatever which is subject to arising, is also subject to cessation (yaṃ kiñci

                                                                                                                       
1
yo paṭiccasamuppādam passati so dhammaṃ passati, yo dhammaṃ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṃ
passati.
   34  
 

samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhammaṃ). (Vin I 12, 40; DN II 288-89;

MN I 380). This dhammacakkhuṃ is defined as dustless (virajaṃ) and stainless

(vītimalaṃ) (Vin I 11; DN I 86, 110; II 288; SN IV 47; AN IV 186). In the

Abhidharmasamuccaya of Asaṅga, the dhammacakkhuṃ (Skt dharmacakṣuṃ) is

defined as penetration of four noble truths (Abhidharmasamuccaya 66-67, cited in

Encyclopedia of Buddhism I 478). And Asaṅga further define the dhammacakkhuṃ

as the path of insight (darśanamārga) (Abhidharmasamuccaya, 67). It is also defined

as the path of purification (mārgavisuddhi) and abandoning through full penetration

of truth (parijñayā prahāṇena, Abhidharmasamuccaya, 67). Anālayo has pointed out

that the Pāli equivalents of the two terms darśana and parijñā are dassana and

pariññā. They connote realization of truth and abandoning of defilments through

realization of truth respectively (Encyclopedia of Buddhism I 479). In the Nikāyas,

penetration of the theory of dependent co-arisiing is equated with seeing Nibbāna

itself. Buddhaghosa further elaborates that one who sees the theory of dependent co-

arising, sees four noble truths and Nibbāna (Vism 697). He further states that vision

is a synonym for realization (dassana-sacchikiriyā) (Vism 697).

The early Buddhist records show that many of the early disciples of the Buddha

went through two stages to liberation. According to these records the first stage of

spiritual break through is known as ‘arising of dhammacakkhuṃ’ (dhammacakkhuṃ

udapādi). The discourses show that frequently, a conversation either with the

Buddha or his early disciples could lead to dhammacakkhu arising in the

interlocutors. The Dhammacakkappavattana sutta of the SN records the first such

experience in the dispensation of the Buddha. Among the five earliest disciples,
   35  
 

Kondañña was able to penetrate the doctrine taught by the Buddha. His penetration is

marked as “dustless and stainless vision into dhamma arose” (SN V 467).2 It is

further said that later, on a subsequent occasion the Buddha gave them another

discourse on the theme of the nature of soullessness (anattalakkhaṇa), by hearing

this discourse all five of them became arahats. Their achievement is marked as

‘destruction of out-flowing (āsavākkhaya) (SN III 68; Vin I 14).3 These two passages

show that arising of the dhammacakkhuṃ is not equal to attainment of the stage of

arahatta. The record of Yasa also shows that. According to the account of early

Buddhist history recorded in the Mahāvagga section of Vinaya pitaka, it is reported

that a son of a wealthy family being disgusted with life left home and met the

Buddha. Upon reception of Buddha’s instructions, it is recorded that instantly the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him; later on he became an arahant (Vin I 17-20). The

process of liberation of Sāriputta follows a similar pattern. As recorded in several

occasions in the Pāli canonical and non-canonical literature, when Sāriputta saw

Assaji, a disciple of the Buddha, he was pleased and asked for short discourse on the

path he was following (Vin I 39). In response, Assaji uttered a two-line verse which

summarized the doctrine of dependent co-arising, “whatever phenomena appears,

they have their causes and conditions; their causes and together with their cessation

are explained by the great recluse (the Buddha)” (Vin I 39).4 This short verse was

sufficient for Sāriputta to penetrate the truth and hence it is mentioned the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him. This dhammacakkhuṃ is defined as the

                                                                                                                       
2
virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi.
3
imasmiṃ ca pana veyyākarāṇaṃ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anupādāya āsavehi
cittāni vimucciṃsū .
4
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā, tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha, tesañ ca yo nirodho evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo.  
   32  
 

Chapter 2:
The Evolution of the Stage of Stream-entry and the Stage of
Once-Return
Contemporary Buddhists very often understand the stage of stream-entry as an

exalted state that has more of a religiously symbolic value than a practical one. As

recorded in the commentarial literature of the Theravāda, it is claimed that it is a

state where the practitioner undergoes paradigmatic spiritual change that

fundamentally alters his religious life once and forever. Besides the Theravāda, the

extant Sarvāstivāda literature also chronicles the Abhidharmic conception as one

who has gained insight into the supra-mundane path (AKB III 1861-2162;

Dhammajoti 2009: 433-464). That both Theravāda and the Sarvāstivāda agree on

this is significant, it shows a common development within the history of Buddhism

where the stages of noble persons began to undergo shifts that drift away from the

Nikāya meanings. To understand the historical transformation of this important

concept one needs to clarify how the later tradition differs from the early Buddhists,

and to clarify an important doctrinal evolution of Buddhist history that has hitherto

not been comprehensively conducted. This chapter attempts to prove the

contemporary Theravāda understanding of stream-enterer as heavily filtered by the

commentarial interpretations, and that the concept has undergone substantial

elevation that renders it an almost unrealizable ideal within this life. To trace such

mutatory shifts, I would first investigate the interrelationship between the concepts of

dhammacakkhuṃ and the stage of stream entry in a myriad of discourses that equate
   33  
 

stream-entry with the opening of the dhammacakkhuṃ. Then the diversity of the

concept of stream-enterer as recorded in the four Nikāyas will be investigated,

followed by the Abhidhamma and Pāli Commentarial explanations of such notions.

2.1 Interrelationship between Sotāpatti and Dhammacakkhuṃ

A number of discourses show that the first stage of sainthood was the arising of the

vision into dhamma (dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi). But in the theory of four stages to

the attainment of liberation, the stage of dhammacakkhuṃ is strangely absent. A

number of discourses equate the stage of dhammacakkhuṃ with the stage of stream-

entry. This sub-section will examine the interrelation between dhammacakkhuṃ and

stage of stream-entry and the pre-requirements said to be necessary for the arising of

dhammacakkhuṃ and the attainment of stage of stream-entry.

The term dhammacakkhuṃ refers to vision of reality. The term dhamma is a very

broad term in Buddhism. It connotes many things such as reality, truth, phenomena

or simply the teaching of the Buddha. It is very often equated with the theory of

dependently co-arising (paṭiccasamuppāda). For instance, in the discourses it is

mentioned, “he who perceives theory of dependently co-arising, perceives dhamma.

And he who perceives dhamma, perceives theory of dependently co-arising.”(MN I

191).1 And the term cakkhuṃ connotes knowledge (ñāṇa), wisdom (paññā), or vision

(vijjā) (Vin I 11; SN V 422). So the arising of dhammacakkhuṃ suggests penetration

to the theory of dependent co-arising. Very often discourses define penetration of

whatever which is subject to arising, is also subject to cessation (yaṃ kiñci

                                                                                                                       
1
yo paṭiccasamuppādam passati so dhammaṃ passati, yo dhammaṃ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṃ
passati.
   34  
 

samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhammaṃ). (Vin I 12, 40; DN II 288-89;

MN I 380). This dhammacakkhuṃ is defined as dustless (virajaṃ) and stainless

(vītimalaṃ) (Vin I 11; DN I 86, 110; II 288; SN IV 47; AN IV 186). In the

Abhidharmasamuccaya of Asaṅga, the dhammacakkhuṃ (Skt dharmacakṣuṃ) is

defined as penetration of four noble truths (Abhidharmasamuccaya 66-67, cited in

Encyclopedia of Buddhism I 478). And Asaṅga further define the dhammacakkhuṃ

as the path of insight (darśanamārga) (Abhidharmasamuccaya, 67). It is also defined

as the path of purification (mārgavisuddhi) and abandoning through full penetration

of truth (parijñayā prahāṇena, Abhidharmasamuccaya, 67). Anālayo has pointed out

that the Pāli equivalents of the two terms darśana and parijñā are dassana and

pariññā. They connote realization of truth and abandoning of defilments through

realization of truth respectively (Encyclopedia of Buddhism I 479). In the Nikāyas,

penetration of the theory of dependent co-arisiing is equated with seeing Nibbāna

itself. Buddhaghosa further elaborates that one who sees the theory of dependent co-

arising, sees four noble truths and Nibbāna (Vism 697). He further states that vision

is a synonym for realization (dassana-sacchikiriyā) (Vism 697).

The early Buddhist records show that many of the early disciples of the Buddha

went through two stages to liberation. According to these records the first stage of

spiritual break through is known as ‘arising of dhammacakkhuṃ’ (dhammacakkhuṃ

udapādi). The discourses show that frequently, a conversation either with the

Buddha or his early disciples could lead to dhammacakkhu arising in the

interlocutors. The Dhammacakkappavattana sutta of the SN records the first such

experience in the dispensation of the Buddha. Among the five earliest disciples,
   35  
 

Kondañña was able to penetrate the doctrine taught by the Buddha. His penetration is

marked as “dustless and stainless vision into dhamma arose” (SN V 467).2 It is

further said that later, on a subsequent occasion the Buddha gave them another

discourse on the theme of the nature of soullessness (anattalakkhaṇa), by hearing

this discourse all five of them became arahats. Their achievement is marked as

‘destruction of out-flowing (āsavākkhaya) (SN III 68; Vin I 14).3 These two passages

show that arising of the dhammacakkhuṃ is not equal to attainment of the stage of

arahatta. The record of Yasa also shows that. According to the account of early

Buddhist history recorded in the Mahāvagga section of Vinaya pitaka, it is reported

that a son of a wealthy family being disgusted with life left home and met the

Buddha. Upon reception of Buddha’s instructions, it is recorded that instantly the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him; later on he became an arahant (Vin I 17-20). The

process of liberation of Sāriputta follows a similar pattern. As recorded in several

occasions in the Pāli canonical and non-canonical literature, when Sāriputta saw

Assaji, a disciple of the Buddha, he was pleased and asked for short discourse on the

path he was following (Vin I 39). In response, Assaji uttered a two-line verse which

summarized the doctrine of dependent co-arising, “whatever phenomena appears,

they have their causes and conditions; their causes and together with their cessation

are explained by the great recluse (the Buddha)” (Vin I 39).4 This short verse was

sufficient for Sāriputta to penetrate the truth and hence it is mentioned the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him. This dhammacakkhuṃ is defined as the

                                                                                                                       
2
virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi.
3
imasmiṃ ca pana veyyākarāṇaṃ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anupādāya āsavehi
cittāni vimucciṃsū .
4
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā, tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha, tesañ ca yo nirodho evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo.  
   36  
 

comprehension of the doctrine of dependent co-arising. Then Sāriputta went to the

Buddha and got ordained. The Anupada sutta of MN records the process he

underwent after ordination. According to the discourse, he strived hard for two

weeks, successively mastered four lower rūpajjhānas, four arūpajjhānas, and the

cessation of perception and sensation. With insight he penetrated into the nature of

each of those states, and on listening to another discourse on the nature of sensation,

final liberation occurred to him and his mind was liberated from all out-flowing (Tha

995-96). Another great disciple of the Buddha, Moggallana, hearing the same stanza

from the mouth of his friend Sāriputta, the vision of dhamma instantly arose in him.

After further rounds of spiritual struggle, the sutta records that he became an

arahant. Apart from the above-mentioned awakening experience, large numbers of

early disciples recorded in the verses of early monks and nuns went through a stage

of spiritual break-through before final liberation. In most cases initial penetration of

truth is known as arising of dhammacakkhuṃ.

Besides these portraitures of the major disciples, a thorough investigation of

Nikāyas show that almost everyone who came into contact with the Buddha gained

dhammacakkhuṃ at the end of gradual discourse or sometimes a short discourse.

What is the exact implication of this arising of dhammacakkhuṃ? The Vinaya

passage defines who has gained dhammacakkhuṃ is the one who has seen the

dhamma (diṭṭhadhamma), one who is in possession of dhamma (pattadhamma), one

who has penetration of dhamma (pariyogāḷhadhamma), one who has gone beyond

doubts (tiṇṇavicikicchā) and one who has gone beyond uncertainity

(vigatakathaṅkathā), and he is self-confident, independent in the dispensation of

   37  
 

teacher (vesārajjappatto aparapaccayo satthusāsane) (Vin I 12). All these

interpretations connote one who gained dhammacakkhuṃ has some insight into

Buddhist doctrine. Texts interpret that with the gaining of dhammacakkhuṃ, one

transits from worldly being (puthujjana) to noble being (ariya-puggala). Anālayo

defines it as a radical change in one’s attitude towards the world and phenomenal

existence (Encyclopedia of Budhdism I 479).

In early discourses in the Nikāyas and the Vinaya Piṭaka only two stages were

mentioned; the first, arising of the dhammacakkhuṃ, second, freeing the mind from

all outflowing (Vin I 14)5. There is no mention of any intermediate stage between

these two in any passage. When the theory of of four stages was established, there

was tendency to supersede dhammacakkhuṃ with the stage of stream-entry. For

instance, Pāli Nikāyas show some attempts to equate dhammacakkhuṃ with the stage

of stream-entry. Abandonment of first three fetters is used to describe both gaining of

the dhammacakkhuṃ and stage of stream-entry. It is said when one gains

dhammacakkhum, three fetters—self view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), doubts (vicikicchā) and

attachment to rituals and vows (sīlabbataparāmāsa) are abandoned (MN I 9) similar

passages are also seen in AN and the Kv, equation of dhammacakkhuṃ with the

attainment of first three fetters as “when dustless and stainless vision of dhamma

arises to noble disciples, together with arising of vision (dassanuppāda), three

                                                                                                                       
5
āsavehi cittāni vimucciṃsu.
   38  
 

fetters—self-view, doubts, and attachment to rituals and vows are abandoned.” (AN

I 242).6

In the Milindapañha, dhammacakkuṃ and stage of stream-entry have identical

meaning. Pāli commentators superseded dhammacakkuṃ with stage of stream-entry

For instance, in case of Yasa who said to have gained dhammacakkhuṃ in the

Vinaya (Vin I 16), the commentary to Jātaka states he was established in the stage of

stream-entry ( J-A I 82). Similarly Aññakoṇḍañña and Sāriputta who were said to

have gained dhammacakkhuṃ in the Vinaya and Nikāya, (Vin I 11; SN V 420-24,

Story of Aññākoṇḍañña Vin I 40; Jātaka I 85 Story of Sāriputta), commentaries say

they were established in the stage of stream-entry (Ap-A 87 story of Aññākoṇḍañña,

(ibid 90, story of Sāriputta). Thus, gradually, the concept of dhammacakkhuṃ is

completely superseded by stream-entry.

The question is, how to correlate the two stages with the newly developed four

stages. If commentators correlate dhammacakkhuṃ with the stage of stream-entry,

then how to account for the two intermediate stages? This was a dilemma before the

Pāli commentators and commentators have chronicled heterogeneous interpretations.

While above cited passages of commentary show attempts to equate the gaining of

dhammacakkhuṃ with the establishment of the stage of stream-entry, other

commentrial passages tried to correlate dhammacakkhuṃ with any of the first three

stages. For instance, the commentary to SN states, “the dhammacakkhum means

7
three lower paths and stages (SN-A II 354). And the commentary to

                                                                                                                       
6
evam evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, yato ariyasāvakassa virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi saha
dassanuppādā, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa tīṇi saṃyojanāni pahīyanti – sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā,
sīlabbataparāmāso.
7
dhammacakkhuṃ nāma heṭṭhimā tayo maggā tīṇi ca phalāni.
   39  
 

Dhammacakkappavattana sutta also provides a similar interpretation, but says, in the

context of Kondaññā, that it refers to the first path (SN-A III 298).8 The commentary

to Dhammasaṅganī states that arising of dhammacakkhuṃ refers to the knowledge of

the three lower paths (Dhs-A 306). 9 The same idea is expressed in several

commentarial passages (Bv-A 33).10 The controversy is recorded in the commentary.

The commentary to Mahāvagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka states:

The dhammacakkhuṃ arose means for some path of stream-entry, for some
path of once return, for some of non-return. All these three paths are referred as
dhammacakkhu (Vin-A V 971).11

The question is whether one goes through all three stages or directly becomes non-

returner. Since Theravāda tradition asserts sequential attainment, so Theravāda

tradition states one goes through the first three stages. This raises the question, how

one could attain all three stages in such a short time? This led Ābhidhammikas to

interpret four stages as momentary paths. (See more on this question in chapter 5).

Thus, all textual evidences slant toward the conclusion that the concept of

dhammacakkhuṃ is earlier than the theory of four paths and four stages. When the

theory of four stages was developed, there was tendency to equate dhammacakkhuṃ

with the stage of stream-entry. But the link between stream-entry and the

dhammacakkhuṃ seems tenuous given all the available evidence in the discourses.

There seems to be a qualitative difference between gaining of dhammacakkhuṃ and

attainment of stage of stream-entry. For instance, gaining of dhammacakkhuṃ

                                                                                                                       
8
dhammacakkhunti aññattha tayo maggā tīṇi ca phalāni dhammacakkhu nāma honti, idha
paṭhamamaggova.
9
heṭṭhimā maggattayasaṅkhātaṃ ñāṇaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ nāma.
10
dhammacakkhuṃ nāma heṭṭhimā tayo maggā tīṇi ca phalāni, yaṃ; DN-A 237 dhammacakkhu
nāma tiṇṇam maggānam etaṃ adhivacanaṃ.
11
dhammacakkhuṃ udapādīti kesañci sotāpattimaggo kesañci sakadāgāmimaggo, kesañci
anāgāmimaggo udapādi. tayopi hi ete maggā dhammacakkhūti vuccanti.    
   40  
 

connotes some spiritual insight into the nature of phenomena, i.e., dependent co-

arising (paṭiccasamuppāda), while the stage of stream-entry connotes more religious

elements such as faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha. And there are

rare instances, where both the arising of dhammacakkhuṃ and the attainment of

stream-entry are used in same discourse. The Sakkapañha sutta of DN, in the middle

of the discourse records the Sakka himself claims to be a stream-enterer; “Venerable

Sir, I am disciple of Fortunate one, a stream-enterer, not subject to retrogression to

lower existences, destined to enlightenment” (DN II 284).12 But at the end of the

discourse, it is again declared that dhammacakkhuṃ arose in Sakka, and he

comprehended ‘all phenomena subject to arising, they are subject to cessation’ (yaṃ

kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhammaṃ). This indicates the

dhammacakkhuṃ and the stage of stream-entry were not identical at least when this

discourse was compiled. These successive steps at shifting of the dhammacakkhuṃ

to stream-entry would suggest deeper underlying changes caused by perhaps the

need to respond to the social demands, and perhaps, by the gradual

institutionalization of the religion. Such topics will be taken up later in later chapters,

but at present it suffices to note a general trend within the development of Buddhism

itself.

Taking all the circumstances under which dhammacakkhuṃ is described in the

commentarial literature and the various definitions in the Abhidhamma literature, we

can discern an important shift and an expansion of the analysis of the opening of the

dhammacakkhuṃ. From the earliest absence of any reference to the concept of

                                                                                                                       
12
 ahaṃ kho pana bhante, bhagavato sāvako sotāpanno avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparayaṇoti  
   41  
 

sotāpanna in the opening of the dhammacakkhuṃ description, to the shift towards

the definition of the four factors of stream-enterer—the unshakable faith in the

Buddha, the unshakable faith in the Dhamma, the unshakable faith in the Saṅgha and

abiding with virtues dear to noble ones; and then the merging of these two lines of

definition in the AN, we can see the gradual emergence of this concept from its

embryonic stage towards a more all-embracing definition that synthesizes previous

attempts at the definition of dhammacakkhuṃ. More importantly the term sotāpanna

began to be used as a description of this intermediate stage of arahatta. This shift

from the insight into the impersonal natural law of causality to the inclusion of the

figure of Buddha and the Saṅgha together as part of the unshakable faiths evidences

a gradual emphasis on the system of religious establishment instead of purely on

doctrinal teachings. The important implications and the underlying causes of this

probable line of development will be taken up later in chapter 4 when reasons behind

the development of the four stages are discussed. An interesting observation would

link up the previous lines of evolution of the concept from the notion of fetters to the

account of the first stage. There is an obvious similarity between the first fetter,

personality-belief (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), and the insight of the theory of dependent co-

arising (paṭiccasamuppāda), as well as that of the second fetter, doubt (vicikicchā),

with the unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. The four

factors of stream-enterer provide a probable bridge between these early concepts

with the much later scheme of interpretating the four stages. Such scheme will

predominate the later discussion among Buddhists on the concept of stream-enterer.

This will be the theme of the ensuing subsection.

   42  
 

2.2 Faith in the Three Jewels and Stage of Stream-entry

The earliest instances of the four factors of stream-enterer and the opening of

dhammacakkhuṃ, mark the earliest attempts at defining the entry to the stage of

arahatta. Seeing the Nikāyas as a whole, such notion became the embryonic nucleus

where further lines of enquiry diverges into a heterogeneous body of texts, all unified

by the common theme of either direct insight into the Buddhist spiritual realizations

or the confirmed faith in the Triple Gem.

In contrast to the emphasis on cognitive insight into casuality in the concept of

dhammacakkhuṃ, the emphasis on religious elements such as the faith in the Buddha,

the Dhamma and the Saṅgha is predominant in the concept of establishing the stage

of stream-entry. The standard passage of the requirement for the attainment of the

stage of stream-entry could be seen in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta, where the concept of

four factors of stream-enterer is introduced. Various discourses in the SN reiterate

four factors as necessary preconditions for establishing in the stage of stream-entry.

Although the standard description enumerates the four factors, sundry variations are

observed regarding the fourth factor. Sometimes, the last factor is totally omitted or

replaced by other factors. In one instance, the last factor is replaced by generosity

towards virtuous people (SN V351-52). In another instance, the Sākyan Mahānāma,

approached Venerable Godha and asked by how many factors makes one a stream-

enterer, the latter answered only first three factors. It is said; at this juncture

Mahānāma was little puzzled because previously, he learnt four factors. So he went

straight to the Buddha for clarification, the Buddha did not give any explicit answer

to this, rather he praised the faith of Mahānāma (SN V 372). This point is further
   43  
 

reinforced in another passage. In that passage, Sarakāṇi, a Sākyan layman, was

declared a stream-enterer after his death. This has raised some criticism from

different quarters of society, for in their views Sarakāṇi was weak in abiding in

morality. This was reported to the Buddha, the Buddha declared that whosoever went

for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha for a long time was

undoubtedly a stream-enterer (SN V 375). This variability regarding the fourth

factor poses questions on the validity of the fourth factor, showing that there was not

definitive delineation of the fourth factor. But the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN

consistenly emphasizes the necessity of having unshakable faith in the Buddha, the

Dhamma and the Saṅgha. It is to be noted that in this section, there is no mention of

abandoning three fetters or comprehending Buddhist doctrines such as the theory of

dependent co-arising, four noble truths or five aggregates. The description of the

stream-enterer in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN seems earlier than the standard

description of stream-enterer in the Nikāyas. In fact, thedescription of stream-enterer

in this section most likely predates the development of the theory of four stages. If

other stages were defined by the time of the compilation of this section, there might

have been reference to them. When the four stages were developed, there was

tendency to systematize these stages, by correlating four stages with abandoning of

the list of ten fetters. Thus the standard description of the stream-enterer came to be

defined in relation to abandoning the list of first three fetters, and there was tendency

to omit four factors of stream-entry from the standard description. This trend is quite

obvious when one looks at Abhidhamma description of stream-enterer. In the

Abhidhamma description of stream-enterer, abandoning of the first three fetters was

   44  
 

emphasized and four factors of stream-entry are omitted altogether. The trend is

noticeable in the Visuddhimagga of the Buddhaghosa, Vimuttimagga of the Upatissa,

Abhidharmakośa and Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ of Vasubandhu.

The original prototype of the concept of stream-enterer seems to associate more

with the faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, rather than abandoning

three fetters in the standard description of the concept. My hypothesis is further

supported by the fact that the description of stream-enterer in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta

corresponds exactly to the description of stream-enterer in the Sotāpatti-saṃyukta in

the Saṃyuktāgama preserved in Chinese translation. Except for a slight variation in

the stories, the description of stream-enterer is very similar. Furthermore, when one

examines all circumstances under which one was declared as a stream-enterer, it is

obviously clear that the originally the concept stream-enterer was decribed in terms

of possessing faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. This is sufficient to

draw a tentative conclusion that at least some compilers of the Nikāya Buddhism was

of the view that the fourth factor can be optional, while the first three are indelible

factors to be a stream-enterer.

A large number of passages in Pāli commentaries also demonastrate that stream-

enterer is one who places unshakable and firm faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and

the Saṅgha. The stream-enterer is defined as one who stands unshakably and

immovably (DN-A III 864). 13 This passage further states that stream-enterer

possesses unshakable faith; he never speaks of the Buddha as not Buddha, the

                                                                                                                       
13
niviṭṭhā ti abhiniviṭṭhā acala-ṭṭhitā.
   45  
 

Dhamma as not Dhamma, and the Saṅgha as not Saṅgha. A beautiful simile is drawn

to illustrate this point:

A person by name Surambaṭṭha listened to a discourse given by the Buddha on

the impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-soullessness nature of the conditioned
forces, thus became a stream-enterer and returned home. In the meanwhile
Marā (a mythological figure, a personfication of evil thoughts) approached to
him in disguise of the Buddha with thirty-two marks of great man. And spoke
to Surambhaṭṭha that five aggregates, which were taught to him as
impermanent, unsatisfactory and without eternal soul, actually are permanent,
satisfactory and possess an eternal soul. He thought, the Buddha would not
speak anything contradictory; hence he was not convinced and rebuked the
Marā as evil one (DN-A III 864).
In the commentary to Sampasādaniya sutta, a distinction between a worldling and

stream-enterer is shown based on the faith in the Buddha. It states: “faith in the

virtues of Buddha of a stream-enterer is greater than all worldings” (DN-A III

875).14 The stream-enterer transcends all doubts with regards to the Buddha, the

Dhamma and the Saṅgha. Doubting the Buddha is defined as twofold, doubts with

regards to physical marks of the Buddha, and doubts with regards to virtues. The

physical marks referred to thirty two great marks of a great man and suspecting his

virtues, suspicion whether the Buddha is omniscent or not, whether he possesses

knowledge of past, present and future. And suspecting the Dhamma is of twofold;

suspecting theory and practices. Theory refers to whether three baskets (tipiṭaka) are

the words of the Buddha or not, whether the eighty-four thousand parts of Dhamma

are spoken by the Buddha or not. And with regards to practice, doubting regarding

practice of insight, whether it will bring to liberation. And suspecting the Saṅgha

means doubting whether eightfold noble disciple exists in the Saṅgha (DN-A III

1030-36).

                                                                                                                       
14
sabbalokiyamahājanassa eko sotāpannānaṃ buddha-guṇe mahantato saddahati.
   46  
 

Notwithstanding the chronology of the details of the description of the factors

above, the identification of stream-enterer with these more religiously inclined

factors constitute a different line of interpreting the stream-enterer experience within

the early Saṅgha. The need for confirmed confidence into the Buddha, Dhamma and

Saṅgha does not require the level of spiritual insight that was prescribed by the

dhammacakkhuṃ or the previous insight path, and is definitely a more faith—based

confidence that calls more to the emotional needs of the practitioner rather than

intellectual ones. The four factors of a stream-enterer prescribe alongside the

practical conditions conducive to such attainments, including “associaton with good

people, listening to true dhamma, proper mental application and practice in

accordance with dhamma” (SN V 347). Besides the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN; the

Mahāparinibbāna sutta and Saṅgīti sutta of the DN also contains such reference to

this scheme.

The original concept of stream-enterer would be defined as one who has resolute

faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. These three are constitutive of

Buddhism as religion. Buddhist goal of attainment of liberation is beyond the scope

of logic and rationality. It can be attained through interlecctual understanding. It

requires wisdom. This wosdom derives through self-exepreince of phenomena. This

wisdom cannot be gained in over a day, it requires streaneous effort over a long

period of time. Perior to attainment of the ability to very the authecity of the

Buddhism teachings, it is essential that one convinced of of the genuineness of the

Buddha’s discovery and authencity of the Buddha wisdom and transformative power

of the dhamma. If one’s faith is weak, then one cannot starts the path.
   47  
 

However, this faith is not a blind faith. In order to abandon the doubts, one has to

have some intellectual understanding of the Buddhist teachings and theory of

liberation. Thus, abandoining of the three fetters come to support the growth of this

faith. The first fetter, the self-view refers to an intellectual understanding of the

Budhdist doctrine of soullessness. Through this intellectual understanding, one is

convinced that none of the five aggregates that an individual is constitutive of, is

eternal or soul. They are impermanent and subject to constant change. The

abandoning of the second fetter, the doubts, reaffirms one’s faith in the Buddha, the

Dhamma, and the Saṅgha. And the abandoning of the third fetter, the attachment to

rituals and vows, once agains, reaffairs one’s faith in the capability of the Dhamma

in leading a person to liberation, This understanding helps to abandons preblexity

regarding the path that leads to liberation. Thus, the faith is not just emotional

conviction; it also includes some intellectual understanding of the some

founadmental Buddhist doctrine. This faith is within Buddhist conceptual

framework. It is about the autencity of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha. By

this conviction, one becomes a member of Buddhist community.

2.3 Insight of Stream-enterer

In the previous section, I have pointed out that there is a qualitative distinction

between gaining dhammacakkhuṃ and establishment in the stage of stream-entry.

While the former emphasizes on the cognitive insight into theory of dependent co-

arising, the latter emphasizes on religious affiliation. Later on there was a tendency

to merge these two lines of thought. Thus, Nikāyas show the twin lines of

development of concept of stream-enterer, the insight line, and the religious line.
   48  
 

Earlier definitions of dhammacakkhu as discussed in the previous section, involve

the tying of direct insight into dependent co-arising, clearly shown in the

enlightenment experience of both Sāriputta and Moggallana. Similar description is

also seen for stream-enterer. For instance, passages in the SN show a plurality of this

theme of attainment of insight, such as the conditioned nature of the five aggregates,

comprehension of the Four Noble Truths, and other doctrinal categories. For

example, in the Nidāna-saṃyutta, stream-enterer is explained as a practitioner who

truly comprehends (yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti) aging and death. He who further

comprehends birth, existence, clinging, craving, sensation, volition, mental

formation, and consciousness is one entered into the stream of dhamma

(dhammasotaṃ samāpanno), and is a noble disciple who stands before the door of

deathlessness. In this passage, although the term sotāpanna is not mentioned, it is

explicit enough to be understood that it refers to the same stage. Another example in

the Khandhaka-saṃyutta, where it is recorded that stream-enterer is one who

comprehends five aggregates, their origin, cessation, gratification, the danger in them

and has the ability to overcome them (SN III 160-1). The interesting thing to observe

is that in the next short discourse, it is explained that one becomes an arahat by

realizing the five aggregates, their origin, their cessation, their gratification, danger

in them and the ability to overcome (SN III 161). In the same section, it is further

explained that one arrives at the stage of stream-entry through proper mental

application towards the five aggregates of grasping as impermanent, unsatisfactory

and without soul (SN III 167). It is further stated that by continuous proper mental

application, one develops successive stages of awakening. In the Diṭṭhi-saṃyutta,

   49  
 

stream-enterer is defined as one who abandons perplexity with regard to six cases

and abandons doubts with regards to unsatisfactoriness, the origin of

unsatisfactoriness, cessation of unsatisfactoriness, and the way leading to cessation

of unsatisfactoriness ( SN III 203). Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed out that six places

referred to the five aggregates and the tetrad of sense objects taken collectively as

one (The Connetcted Discourses of the Buddha, 1095, fn. 251). The same point

almost with same wording is repeated in several short discourses in the Nidāna-

saṃyutta of SN. Furthermore, in the Dhammakathika-vagga, again it is recorded that

proper attention to five aggregates of grasping as impermanent, unsatisfactory,

disease and tumor leads one to the stage of stream-entry (SN III 167). Another

passage records that stream-enterer is defined as:

One who knows truly the gratification, the danger, and escape of the five
spiritual faculties is a stream-enterer, who is not subjected to nether world, and
destined to full awakening ( SN V 193).15
What all these passages show is a development along the line of attainment of

spiritual insight from the earlier concept of arising of dhammacakkhuṃ and the direct

perception of dependent co-arising, to a stage where various doctrinal topics related

to enlightenment, including the insight into the conditioned nature of five aggregates,

                                                                                                                       
15
This passage is abstruse for in several places five spiritual faculties are to be developed for the
awakening. In several passages the whole of Buddhist practices are based on five spiritual faculties:

One who has completed and fulfilled these five spiritual faculties, is an arahat. If they are
weaker than that in some one, he is practicing for the stage arahantship. In whom, the
development of the five faculties are still weaker he is a non-returner, in whom still weaker
than that he is a practisicing for stage of non-return. If still weaker, he is once-returner, further
weaker, he is practicing for stage once return, if they are still weaker, he is a stream-enterer,
and further weaker, he is practicing for the stage of stream-entry. In whom, they are totally
absent, he is an outsider who stands on the side of worldlings (SN V 202).

Therefore, it is more likely case that in this passage referring to five faculties might have been
intended for the five sense faculties, but due to some textual corruption in the process of edition,
five spiritual faculties might have been mentioned.  
   50  
 

the sense faculties, the four noble truth, are all assemblage as the hallmark of

spiritual attainment of stream-enterer. This evidences a probable period away from

the earliest stage of Buddhism when the various spiritual doctrines began to be

systematized into the framework of the experience of enlightenment. However, given

the heterogeneous nature of the bodies of texts relating to stream-enterer in the SN,

the unifying factor of all these differences is the overriding concern of the attainment

of spiritual insight, and this evinces a line of continuity from the earlier

interpretation.

There were dual lines of development of insight and religious faith reflected in

the pre-stream-entry schemes that are considered to lead up to this stage. The

Nikāyas record the scheme of dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī as pathways where

practitioners could lead up the first stage of awakening, representing the duality that

one sees between faith-based religious pursuit as well as intellect-based ones. This

dichotomy is chronicled as the last two in the list of sevenfold classification of noble

persons, and the records of several short discourses in SN show that dhammānusāri

and saddhānusāri are types of pre-stages to the stage of stream-entry. In some other

passages it is assured that dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī will not pass away

without being stream-enterers. The scheme succinctly summarizes and serves as

evidence that the two schemes are already in the mind of the early Buddhists who

theorized about the pre-stages of stage of stream-entry, reflecting the attainments that

one sees in the faith-based and intellect-based stream-entry attainment. A full

discussion of the implication of the two schemes will be included in the latter part of

this chapter.
   51  
 

In the Pāli commentarial period more doctrinal elements came to be clustered

with stage of the stream-enterer. Gradually from the simple teaching of generosity to

doctrine of kamma, the doctrine of dependent co-arising, the doctrine of four noble

truths, eightfold noble paths, the Nibbāna, and Buddhist meditations came to be

clustered with the concept of stream-enterer. In the commentary to the Brahmajāla

sutta, a distinction is drawn between worldlings and stream-enterers. It says samaṇa

and brāhmaṇa, because of not understanding the true nature of conditioned

phenomena, are entangled in views, shaken by views and trembled by views, in

contrast, the stream-enterers are not shaken and trembled by views because they have

proper vision (DN-A I 124).16The doctrine of views is essential in theoretical and

practical dimensions of Buddhism. In theoretical dimension, understanding the views

makes a demarcation line between Buddhist view of worldlings and beings from

other contemporary religious and philosophical systems. Hence, in the Brahmajāla

sutta, the first discourse in the Dīghanikāya all existing religious and philosophical

views are collected. The views are numerically listed as sixty two. They are

classified into two main groups; the eternalist (sassata-diṭṭhi), which states the

eternal existence of self within an individual and eternal existence of ultimate

substance of the world. And nihilists (uccheda-diṭṭhi), which state that there is no

continuation of human existence after death (DN-A I 124).17 They arise due to

improper attention to either past or future. Thus they are grouped into eighteen views

relating to past (pubbantānudiṭṭhi), fourty four relating to future (aparantānudiṭṭhi).

The Buddha presented his doctrine in contrast to these two opposing views. Hence,
                                                                                                                       
16
na sotāpannassa dassanaṃ iva niccalan ti dasseti.
17
ettāvatā sabbā pi dvāsaṭṭhi diṭṭhiyo kathitā honti yāsaṃ satt’eva uccheda-diṭṭhiyo sesā sassata-
diṭṭhiyo.  
   52  
 

the Buddhist doctrine is known as middle doctrine (majjhimadhamma). In practical

dimension, analysis of views helps to start the Buddhist path to liberation.

Buddhism demarcates a worldling from a noble discisiple based on the holdling

of notion of self. A worldling is defined as someone who grasps one of the five

aggregates or sum total of the five aggregates as soul. He comes to such mistaken

view due to not listening to the spiritual teachers (aparatoghosa) and not paying

proper attention to the phenomena (ayonisomanasikara). The stream-enterer in

constrast to the worldling is one who has transcended views because he listens to

spiritual masters so he is known as the listener (sāvaka), as well he possesses critical

observation (yonisomanasikāra). The Buddhist path to liberation starts with right

views, and abandonment of speculative views, which distracts one’s meditation.

Furthermore, in Buddhist psychology the tendency of holding a view is deeply

rooted in human mind. It springs from craving. Even Buddhist meditation should be

guided by right view, for if not guided by right view, meditative experiences can also

give rise to views (MN I 435-36, 350-52). The views can give rise to conceit due to

which one extols oneself and disparages others. It leads to dogmatism, and it can be

the source of all troubles and disputes (Aṭṭhakavagga of Suttanipāta). It binds one

into saṃsāra, and causes to accumulate unwholesome kamma that leads one to

unfortunate existence. It is a blockage to spiritual path because it does not allow

receptivity of the mind to arise, which is essential for spiritual path.

The stream-enterer is defined as one who has transcended views (MN-A I 73-74).

The stream-enterer does not hold any of the five aggregates as self (attā), because he

understands their true nature in terms of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and

   53  
 

soullessness. Hence, it is defined that the path stream-entry separates one from the

views (DN-A III 1032),18 a out-flowing related to views (MN-A I 74) In other

passages it is explained that stream-enterer is one who comprehends the doctrine of

dependent co-arising. In the commentary to the Mahānidānasutta of the

Dighanikāya, the stream-enterer is defined as one who comprehends the doctrine of

dependent co-arising clearly (DN-A II 492).19

In another passage in SN, stream-enterer is defined as one who possesses

knowledge of dhamma (dhamme ñāṇa) and knowledge of inference (anvaye ñāṇa)

(SN II 58), which commentaries explain as knowledge of causality. In another

passage, it is stated that stream-enterers clearly perceived noble law (ariya ñāya) (SN

II 70), which commentaries define as wisdom of insight meditation (SN-A II 73).

Since stream-enterers have clear understanding of the five aggregates, the building

blocks of the beings and the world, he is freed from all mental proliferation, the

stream-enterer is defined as free of proliferation (papañca). The mental proliferation

is of three types, proliferation based on attachment, proliferation based on conceit

and proliferation based on views. The proliferation based on attachment is of eight

hundred types relating to discursive thoughts and investigation. Proliferation related

to conceit is of nine types and proliferation to views is relating to sixty-two views

(DN-A III 721). It is further stated that all views and proliferation are based on

wrongly grasping the five aggregates. The worldlings due to improper grasping of

five aggregates hold views that consider what is impermanent as permanent, ete., this

gives rises to views of one’s existence. Then there comes attachment to one’s

                                                                                                                       
18
sotāpattimaggo diṭṭhiyogavisaññogo nāma.
19
sotāpannañca nāma paccayākāro uttānako viya hutvā upaṭṭhāti, ayañca āyasmā sotāpanno.
   54  
 

existence and identity in the existence. Then there arises view of self-indentity or

soul. Thus, all sixty-two possible views collected in the Brahmajāla sutta, are based

on wrongly grasping the five aggregates with craving for the five aggregates. Since

stream-enterers abandons all views, the undue notion of self-conceit does not arise in

the stream-enterers (MN-A I 184). However, instead of the term ‘māna’, here

‘adhimāna’ is used. The term ‘māna’ is as one of the higher fetters to be eradicated

by arahats; hence commentators may have selected the term ‘adhimāna’ to indicate

grosser level of conceit. The prefix ‘adhi’ conveys sense of exceeding, over etc. (Pāli

English Dictionary 27), hence, stream-enterers carry subtle forms of self-conceit

until arahatta. In the Majjhimanikāya, one who perceives five aggregates as

impermanent, suffering, disease, tumor, dart, misery, affliction, alien, disintergrating,

empty and soulless is a stream-enterer (MN I 435). A similar message in the

Saṃyuttanikāya tells of a virtuous bhikkhu who gains stage of stream-entry while

paying proper attention to the five aggregates as impermanent, unsatisfactory and

soulless (SN III 167). In the Okkanti-saṃyutta of the SN, it is explained that a

stream-enterer knows and perceives, six internal bases, six external bases, six types

of consciousness, and five aggregates as impermanent, subject to change

(vipariṇāmiṃ) and becomes otherwise (aññatthābhāvin) (SN III 225-28). Thus,

stream-enterer is defined as one who knows the four noble truths as they are

(yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti). Hence, both the Nikāyas and Pāli commentarial literature

define stream-enterer as ‘one endowed with views (right views) (diṭṭhisampanno)

(AN-A II 1).
   55  
 

In summary, the insight of stream-enterer is described as a different dimension of

the doctrine of soullessness (anattā). Buddhism recognizes the grasping of notion of

permanent soul as the primary cause of suffering. This notion of the soul germinates

from the function of the five aggregates in an individual. A large number of

discourses repeat that the worldling is one who takes either one of the five aggregates

or all of them as eternal soul (attā). It is because the worldlings lack listening

(paratoghosa) and uncritical observation (ayonisomanasikāra). That the notion of

self-view is constructed. Once the notion of eternal soul is built, the worldling wants

to maintain personality identity. The personality identity is built either upon one of

the five aggregates or a combination of all of them. When the personality identity is

built, one wants to establish his/ her relationship with the external world. Thus, the

doctrine of soullessness covers an entire gamut of reality. The desire for the fine

form realm (rūpaloka), formless realm (arūpaloka), desire for existence

(bhavataṅkhā), desire for extinction (vibhavataṅkhā) etc. rest on the notion of soul.

Motilal Pandit very precisely explains:

It is grasping of the notional self that is seen as the main cause of suffering in
the world. A Buddhist, thus, reaches his ultimate goal only upon the
elimination of the clinging to this self. The emptiness of self, is thus equated
with nirvāna itself (Motilal 2004: 14).
Now the question arises whether a stream-enterer has intellectual conviction of the

doctrine of soullessness or he has actual experience of reality and thereby realizes

soullessness. It is easy to establish a theoretical understanding of the no soul

doctrine, but very difficult to actualize this understanding. When one truly

experiences this understanding, then one is liberated. When one carefully observes

the case histories of stream-enterers recorded in the Nikāyas it is difficult to conclude

   56  
 

that stream-enterers possess that level of spiritual attainment. For instance, a Sakyan

layman, Sarakāṇi, after his death, was declared a stream-enterer. This raised some

criticism from different quarters of society, for in their view, Sarakāṇi was weak in

abiding in morality. This was reported to the Buddha, the Buddha declared that

whosoever goes for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha for a long

time is undoubtedly a stream-enterer (AN IV 375). Another passage in MN defines

stream-enterer as:

A lay follower, who is clothed in white, enjoys sensual pleasure, he practices

the teachings, accepts the advice, gone beyond doubt, free from perplexity,
attained intrepidity, and independent of others in the dispensation of the
teacher. (MN I 491).20
In another sutta, Anathapiṇḍika, a wealthy householder and great supporter of the

Buddha was said to have attained the stage of the stream-entry at the first meeting

with the Buddha (Vin II 157). Later on, on his deathbed when Sariputta taught him

the doctrine on the three interlocking characteristics—impermanence,

unsatisfactoriness and non-soul, he regretted that despite being close to the Buddha

and his disciples, he had never heard such a doctrine. To this, Sariputta replied that

such doctrines are not taught to lay followers (MN I 143). This is strong evidence

that shows realization of doctrine of anatta was not requirement for stream-enterers

in early period. Yet another instance, a lay follower, Dhammadinna was instructed

on the profound supramundane doctrine related to emptiness, he stated that it was

difficult to reflect on such doctrine while living at home with wives and children and

enjoying all lay man’s enjoyment. Then the Buddha instructed him on the four

                                                                                                                       
20
Here, though the term sotāpanno is not mentioned, but reading of the sutta easily implies that it
refers to a sotāpanna.
   57  
 

factors of stream-enterer, Dhammadinna then said to the Buddha that he already

possessed them. And thereby he was declared as stream-enterer (SN V 408).

The given case history of stream-enterers in the early Buddhist discourses that

seem to predate the standardized version of stream-enterer suggests that stream-

enterers are not required to experience of the the doctrine of soullessness, but only

some theoretical understanding of the doctrine of the soullessness. This shows their

in the effectiveness of theteaching of the Buddha. This faith is based on the

intellectual understanding of the Buddhist doctrines. Thus, a stream-enterer is one

who is emotionally and intellectually convinced in the authenticity of the Buddha’s

enlightenment, authencity of the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. The faith, which

embodies religious sentiment, only can be fragile, but when it is supplemented with

intellectual conviction, it is firm and steadfast. This leads to the conclusion that

originally a stream-enterer refers to an individual who accepts Buddhism with some

emotional and intellectual conviction.

2.4 The Role of Jhānas in the Attainment of the Stage of Stream-entry

Throughout these Nikāya descriptions of stream-enterer, there is a conspicuous

paucity of reference into the jhānic requirements for such initial attainments of Noble

Persons, which contrasts with the later commentarial period where the importance of

dry insight dominated the discussions of commentators. The lack of reference to any

samatha terms in these descriptions could potentially be a precursor for such later

developments. This section will examine other references to stream-enterer in the

Nikāyas to trace further lines of development subsequent to the initial use of the term.

Antecedent to these, the discussion of the requirements of rebirth as well as the

   58  
 

requirements of meditative attainments are investigated to ascertain what the Nikāya

interpretations say about such doctrines.

The conspicuous absence of the reference to jhānic attainments among all these

previous attempts at theorizing sotāpanno would illuminate a very important

contemporary debate among scholars as to the role of jhāna in the attainment of this

first stage of enlightenment. The chorus of doubts regarding the necessity of jhānas

in stream enterer would challenge the centrality and historicity of such schemes in

the Pāli commentarial literature, with a few espousing the meditative lines. Along the

affirmative side, Rupert Gethin hints that jhānas are a pre-requirement for the state

of stream-enterer. He acknowledges that in many instances this spiritual break-

through is presented as a sudden radical change of heart rather than a gradual process

of meditation, nevertheless, he thinks such radical transformation was prompted by

some kind of previous meditation practice (Gethin 2001: 348). He further argues

that the description of the state of mind as well (kalla), soft (mudu), free from

hindrances (vinīvaraṇa), joyful (ladagga) indicates association of jhānas with

stream-entry path (Gethin 2001: 348). Bhikkhu Sujato in his book ‘ A Swift Pairs of

Messengers’ has done a good study on the role of jhānas in the Buddhist soteriology.

He concurs with Gethin and strongly argues jhānas is an inseparable element of

Buddhist practices from the very beginning. Hence, he claims that samādhi is a

requirement for the stream-enterer and once-returner (Sujato 2012: 135). Kheminda

also assertes that four-form sphere jhānas are necessary requirements for the path of

stream-entry (Kheminda 1965: 19-21).

   59  
 

In the other camp, Kannimahara Sumangala Thera strongly asserts that not only

jhānas, even meditation in general is not required for the attainment of the stage of

stream-entry. He further argues that three fetters abandoned through the stage of

stream-entry are abandoned through listening to the dhamma. He asserts that

Buddhist practitioners waste their time in trying to attain the stage of stream-entry

through meditation by following the Buddhaghosa (Sumangala 1981: 18). Peter

Masefield also thinks that stream-enterers and once returners do not attain jhānas,

hence they return to the realm of sensuality. He thinks they have not attained

anything beyond fifth factors of noble eightfold path (Masefield 1986: 95). By this,

he assumes that they do not practice meditation at all. Bhikkhu Bodhi is also in

agreement with Anālayo when he says that there are no strong canonical evidences to

show that jhānas are essential for the first two stages, but for non-returners without

doubt, it is an essential element (Bodhi 2001: 138). The ensuing discussion will draw

evidence from the discussions on stream-enterer within the Nikāyas and will provide

the early Buddhist perspective on the role of the meditative insights in attaimment of

stage of stream-entry.

On critically examining the four factors conducive to stream-entry path

(sotāpattiya-aṅgāni)—association with good people (sappurisasaṃseva), listening to

true dhamma (saddhammasavana), proper mental application (yonisomanasikāro)

and practicing in accordance with dhamma (dhammānudhammapaṭipatti) (DN III

227; SN V 347), within the Nikāyas, there is no attempt to include jhāna as a

prerequisite for sotāpanno. In one instance, they are presented as practices conducive

to the increase of wisdom:

   60  
 

Monks, there are four things conducive to development of wisdom. What are
four? Association with good people, listening to true dhamma, proper attention
and practice in accordance with dhamma (AN II 245) 21
And in yet another occasion they are described as factors helpful for human beings:
Oh monks! There are four things helpful for human beings. What are four,
association with good people, listening to true dhamma, proper attention, and
practice in accordance with dhamma (AN II 245). 22
In the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the four factors are described as factors for the stage of

stream-entry, stage of once-return, stage of non-return and for the development of

wisdom (Pm II 189). Of the four factors, the first two are obviously explicit that no

meditative element is associated with them, not to mention any jhānic elements. The

factor of association with good people means associating with spiritually advanced

people, developing friendship with spiritually advanced people known as spiritual

friends (kalyāṇamitta), who are capable of inspiring and guiding one on the spiritual

path. In SN, the Buddha states that the whole of spiritual life depends on good

friendship (SN V 2-3). The next factor is listening to true dhamma; here true

dhamma refers to Buddhist doctrine. The last two factors of the first list deserve a

careful investigation. The third factor, proper mental application (yoniso

manasikāra) is an important term in Buddhist philosophy, epistimology and

soteriology. Yoniso derives from yoni, meaning origin, foundation, or womb, as such

yoniso in ablative case connotes origin or foundation. Manasikāra is a combination

of two parts, manasi and kara. Mana means mind, manasi is locative case, which

means with regards to mind. Kara is from root kṛ means to do, to apply. The Pāli

                                                                                                                       
21
cattārome, bhikkhave, dhammā paññāvuddhiyā saṃvattanti. katame cattāro? sappurisasaṃsevo,
saddhammasavanaṃ, yonisomanasikāro, dhammānudhammappaṭipatti – ime kho, bhikkhave,
cattāro dhammā paññāvuddhiyā saṃvattantī’ti.
22
cattārome, bhikkhave, dhammā manussabhūtassa bahukārā honti. Katame cattāro?
sappurisasaṃsevo, saddhammasavanaṃ, yonisomanasikāro, dhammānudhammappaṭipatti – ime
kho, bhikkhave, cattāro dhammā manussabhūtassa bahukārā hontī’ti.  
   61  
 

English Dictionary defined this as ‘fixing one’s attention with a purpose or

throughly proper attention’ (Pāli English Dictionary, 560). While Nyanatiloka

defines it it as ‘thorough attention or wise consideration”(The Buddhist Dictionary,

244), Franklin Edgerton defines as ‘fundamentally, thoroughly, from the ground up,

fundamental mental comprehension’ (Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, 448),

and Dhammajoti explains it as ‘proper mental application or systematic mental

application’ (Dhammajoti 2015: 414) The antonym is ‘ayonisomanasikāra’ which

means improper mental application. There are several discourses showing that

improper attention is the root of unwholesome thoughts (SN V 91)23, while improper

attention is the root of wholesome thoughts. In another passage of the same Nikāya,

it is stated “oh! I do not see any other factors so conducive to development of seven

factors of awakening than the proper attention’ (SN V 79).24 In the AN, it is stated

there is no other thing so helpful as proper attention in order to abandon doubts (AN

I 4).25 And another passage in the same Nikāya, it is stated when one pays proper

attention, delusion disappears and unarisen delusion will not arise (AN I 201).26 It is

                                                                                                                       
23
ye keci, bhikkhave, dhammā kusalā kusalabhāgiyā kusalapakkhikā, sabbe te
yonisomanasikāramūlakā yonisomanasikārasamosaraṇā;yonisomanasikāro tesaṃ dhammānaṃ
aggamakkhāyati. Yonisomanasikārasampannassetaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno pāṭikaṅkhaṃ – satta
bojjhaṅge bhāvessati, satta bojjhaṅge bahulīkarissati.
24
ajjhattikaṃ, bhikkhave, aṅganti karitvā nāññaṃ ekaṅgampi samanupassāmi sattannaṃ
bojjhaṅgānaṃ uppādāya, yathayidaṃ – bhikkhave, yonisomanasikāro.
yonisomanasikārasampannassetaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno pāṭikaṅkhaṃ – satta bojjhaṅge
bhāvessati, satta bojjhaṅge bahulīkarissati. kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
yonisomanasikārasampanno satta bojjhaṅge bhāveti, satta bojjhaṅge bahulīkaroti? idha,
bhikkhave, bhikkhu satisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ…pe… upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ
bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ. evaṃ kho, bhikkhave,
bhikkhu yonisomanasikārasampanno satta bojjhaṅge bhāveti, satta bojjhaṅge bahulīkarotī’ti
25
nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yena anuppannā vā vicikicchā
nuppajjati uppannā vā vicikicchā pahīyati yathayidaṃ, bhikkhave, yonisomanasikāro. yoniso,
bhikkhave, manasi karoto anuppannā ceva vicikicchā nuppajjati uppannā ca vicikicchā
pahīyatī’’ti.
26
ko panāvuso, hetu ko paccayo yena anuppanno ceva moho nuppajjati uppanno ca moho
pahīyatī’ti? ‘Yonisomanasikāro tissa vacanīyaṃ. Tassa yoniso manasi karoto anuppanno ceva
   62  
 

also stated that there is no single factor as beneficial as proper attention (AN I 14).27

It further says there are no other factors as proper mental application for the arising

of unarisen right view (AN I 14).28 In another passage, it is explained:

Associating with good people leads to the fulfillment of hearing true dhamma,
hearing true dhamma give arises to faith, fulfillment of faith leads to proper
attention. Fulfillment of proper attention leads to fulfillment of mindfulness and
clear comprehension. (AN V 113) 29
The commentarial literature also defines proper attention as proper mental

application with regards to phenomena as impermanent, unsatisfactory and without

soul. In SN, it is stated one becomes stream-enterer through proper mental

application with regards to five aggregates, and he progresses until arahatta through

proper mental application towards the five aggregates. In several Nikāya passages,

proper attention and hearing others’ voices (paratoghosa) are considered as source of

arising of right view (sammādiṭṭhi) (MN I 294). In contrast, improper mental

application is taken as source of all wrong views (MN I 7-12). In the Vibhaṅga,

ayonisomanasikāra is defined as four topsy-turvy (vipallāsa) of views—

impermanent as permanent, unsatisfactory as satisfactory, non-soul as soul, foul as

beautiful ( Vbh 373). In Mahāvedalla sutta, it is explained how proper mental

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
moho nuppajjati uppanno ca moho pahīyati. Ayaṃ kho, āvuso, hetu ayaṃ paccayo yena
anuppanno vā moho nuppajjati uppanno ca moho pahīyatī’ti.
27
nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yo evaṃ mahato atthāya saṃvattati
yathayidaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikāro. yonisomanasikāro, bhikkhave, mahato atthāya
saṃvattatī’ti.
28
nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yo evaṃ mahato atthāya saṃvattati
yathayidaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikāro. yonisomanasikāro, bhikkhave, mahato atthāya
saṃvattatī’ti.
29
iti kho, bhikkhave, sappurisasaṃsevo paripūro saddhammassavanaṃ paripūreti,
saddhammassavanaṃ paripūraṃ saddhaṃ paripūreti, saddhā paripūrā yonisomanasikāraṃ
paripūreti, yonisomanasikāro paripūro satisampajaññaṃ paripūreti, satisampajaññaṃ paripūraṃ
indriyasaṃvaraṃ paripūreti, indriyasaṃvaro paripūro tīṇi sucaritāni paripūreti, tīṇi sucaritāni
paripūrāni cattāro satipaṭṭhāne paripūrenti, cattāro satipaṭṭhānā paripūrā satta bojjhaṅge
paripūrenti, satta bojjhaṅgā paripūrā vijjāvimuttiṃ paripūrenti; evametissā vijjāvimuttiyā āhāro
hoti, evañca pāripūri.
   63  
 

application brings one to the stage of stream-entry. According to this discourse,

proper mental application fuels mindfulness. Mindfulness in turn matures awakening

factors and this in turn brings about the four factors of stream-enterer (MN I 294).

As far as Nikāyas are concerned, there seems to be no concrete evidence to suggest

that yonisomanasikāra contains jhānic element, or even meditative element.

According to Bhikkhu Thanissaro, proper mental application is essentially the ability

to frame one’s understanding of the experience of right view, or framing the right

questions for obtaining insight into unsatisfactoriness and its cessation (Thanissaro

2011: 19). It is possible to argue either way. However, commentarial literature

considers this as meditative element, but not jhānic. As such, the several case studies

cited above show that proper mental application appears through the subduing of

mental hindrances (nivaraṇa), and when the mind is well concentrated, soft and

malleable. And this state of mind is created through jhānas. Hence, it is reasonable to

infer that jhānas are required for the proper mental application. However, though

infrequent, certain passages show hindrances can be subdued outside the context of

jhānas. For instance, in the Saṅgīti sutta of the DN, it is explained how spiritual path

starts and how it matures gradually. It states:

One hears the dhamma, and he grasps it properly both spirit and letter of
teaching. At this moment joy arises in him. From joy there is rapture (pīti), and
by virtue of rapture, his senses become calmed and from calmness of mind
there is happiness, and on account of happiness mind is established,.. (DN III
441)
What this passage indicates is that meditation or jhānas are not essential at the initial

level of spiritual journey. This passage continues to show that samādhi is essential

for the full liberative insight.

   64  
 

When one turns to the fourth factor of stream-enterer; the four factors of stream-

enterer occur much more frequently in Nikāyas as shown above. For instance, the

Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN, which I have already cited in (§ 2.2,), repeatedly defines

stream-enterer in terms of possessing four factors of stream-enterer. This is the same

in the sotāpatti-saṃyukta of Saṃyukta Āgama preserved in Chinese.30 Of the four,

the first three—unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha,

remained unchanged while the fourth factors—unshakable faith in the morality dear

to noble ones went through several amendments within the Nikāya Buddhism.

Sometimes it is replaced with generosity towards virtuous s people (SN V 351-52).

Basing one’s observation on four factors of stream-enterer, there seems no way to

hypothesize that either jhānas or even meditation in general has any role to play in

gaining the stage of stream-entry.

One has to investigate other related concepts such as saddhānusārī,

dhammānusāri, saddhāvimutta, diṭṭhippatta and kāyasakkhi to gain a wider

perspective on the question whether jhānas play any role in the attainment of stage of

stream-entry. In the Pāli Nikāyas, side by side with four pairs of spiritual typology,

another method of classification of spiritual typologies is seen. This is sevenfold

classification—liberated from both sides (ubhatobhāgavimutto), liberated through

wisdom (paññāvimutto), body-witness (kāyasakkhī), attainment of view

(diṭṭhippatto), liberated through faith (saddhāvimutto), dhamma-follower

(dhammānusāri) and faith-follower (saddhānusārī) (MN I 477). On quite a few

                                                                                                                       
30
I compared several passages from Nikāyas with Āgamas passages with the help of Mr. Andew Lau.
I particularly went through every passage on stream-entry in Saṃyukta-āgama with him. They seem
parallel to Nikāya version except few divergences in the names and places, which are minute
important for my study.
   65  
 

occasions, sevenfold spiritual typology is described as worthy of veneration,

salutation, gift and incomparable field of merits (DN III 253-54; AN IV 10). In AN,

sometimes the list become tenfold spiritual typologists, with addition of the Buddha

and Pacceka-Buddha on the top and gotrabhū in the bottom of the list (AN V 23).

Within the Nikāya Buddhism, no explicit attempt to correlate seven-fold with noble

eightfold disciple is observable, except in Paṭisambhidāmagga. But some nucleus of

correlation is observable, for instance, in the SN the distinction among the

dhammānusārī, saddhānusāri and stream-enterer is shown (SN III 225). In the

Puggalasutta of the Tikanipāta of AN, a question was raised as to among

kāyasakkhi, diṭṭhipatta and saddhāvimutta, who is supreme. Three monks had three

different opinions, so finally they approached the Buddha. The Buddha responded

that it is not easy to draw such conclusion, as any one of them can be candidate for

the stage of arahatta, while the other two can be either once-returners or non-

returners. Here, interestingly, stream-enterer is absent, and the reason was not clear

from the discourse. The commentary interprets that stream-entry is included. Several

short discourses in SN show that dhammānusāri are kinds of practiotiners prior to

the stage stream-entry (SN V 200-2004). Here, spiritual typologies are classified in

terms of progressive development of the five spiritual faculties. The dhammānusāri

and saddhānusāri are always presented to as before the stream-enterers, which

suggests some kind of pre-stages to stream-enterer. While sometimes they are

mentioned after the four stages (SN V 200), sometimes, non-returners are replaced

by five sub-divisions of non-returners (SN V 201), while at other times, stream-

enterer is replaced by three sub-classes of stream-enterers (SN V 204). The passages

   66  
 

are explicit enough to suggest that saddhānusārī and dhammānusārī are kind of

proto-stages to stage stream-entry, but implicit as regards to the question whether

they are candidates for the stage of stream-entry. In some other passages it is assured

that dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī would not pass away without becoming

stream-enterers.

In the Kitāgiri sutta, dhammānusāri is defined as one who has yet not

experienced any of the eight liberations through body, which are peaceful,

immaterial and transcending form, neither he has destroyed any outflows (āsavas)

through wisdom, however, they accept the teaching taught by the Buddha through

some understanding. Furthermore, he has developed five spiritual faculties to some

level, but the fifth faculty, i.e wisdom is dominant in him (MN I 479). And

saddhānusāri has neither experienced any of the eight liberations through body, nor

has abandoned any out-flowing (āsavas) by seeing penetration through wisdom,

however, he has love and faith for the Buddha, furthermore, he possess the five

spiritual faculties, the faculty of faith being predomiant (MN I 479). In the Okkanti-

saṃyutta of Khanda-vagga of SN, a clear distinction is made regarding spiritual

insight among the stream-enterer, and dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī. According

to the discourse, one who accepts through faith, the six sense faculties—eye, ear,

nose, tongue, body and mind as impermanent, subject to change and otherwise, then

he is a faith follower, one who has entered the course of righteousness, has

transcended the lineage of worldlings, and enters the plane of good people. He is

incapable of doing any deeds by virtue of which he will be reborn in hellish realm, in

the realm of animal, or in the realm of ghost; furthermore, he is incapable of passing

   67  
 

away without being stream-enterer (SN III 225-26).31 For the dhammānusāri, the

same is repeated except instead of accepting through faith, for dhammānusāri, it is

stated as ‘one who accepts them as impermanent, subject to change and otherwise

through some degree of understanding’ (SN III 225-26).32 On the other hand, stream-

enterer is one who knows and sees these (six sense faculties) as impermanent, subject

to change and otherwise. The same criterion of distinction of the three spiritual

typologies is repeated with regards to different objects such as five aggregates,

elements, craving, volition etc.

Thus, though four Pāli Nikāyas explictly do not state dhammānusārī and

saddhānusārī as candidates for the stage of stream-entry, it is sufficiently obvious

that they are two pre-stages to the stage of stream-entry, and they are practising for

the stage of stream-entry. These two pre-stages suggest that at least for the gaining

stage of stream-entry neither jhānas nor even meditation is required. And any

Buddhists possessing a receptive attitude towards the teaching of the Buddha can be

categorised as a noble person, on the path of stream-entry.

The above-cited passage from Okkanti-saṃyutta of Khandaka-vagga of SN

suggests that stream-enterer does possess deeper penetration of Buddhist doctrine

than dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī. They know and see in terms of impermanent,

unsatisfactory and non-soul. How he comes to this knowledge is not explicit within

                                                                                                                       
31
cakkhuṃ bhikkhave aniccaṃ viparinaṃ aññathābhāvi, yo bhikkhave ime dhamme evaṃ saddhahati
adhimuccati ayaṃ vuccati saddhānusāri, okkanto sammattaniyāmaṃ sappurisabhūmiṃ okkanto
vītivatto puthujjanabhūmiṃ/ abhabba taṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ yaṃ kammaṃ katvā nirayaṃa
tiracchānayoniṃ vā pettivisayaṃ vā uppaeyya, abhabbo ca tāva kālṃ kātuṃ yavā na
sotāpattiphalaṃ sacchikaroti. The same is repeated for other sense-faculties.
32
yassa kho bhikkhave ime dhammā evaṃ paññāya mattaso nijjhānaṃ khamanti, ayaṃ vuccati
saddhānusāri.    
   68  
 

the four Nikāyas. In the above-cited passage, for the terms jānāti and passati, it is not

easy to conclude whether they are self-experient knowledge or theoretical

understanding. In another discourse in the same Nikāya, a distinction between

knowledge of stream-enterer and an arahat is given. Stream-enterer is defined as one

who knows truly the five aggregates, their origin, danger and escape from them. The

arahat is defined as one who had experienced them already (SN III 160-1). For the

stream-enterer the term ‘yathābhūtaṃ pajānati’ is used while in relation to arahat

‘yathābhūtaṃ viditvā’ is used. The question whether ‘yathābhūtaṃ pajānati’

involves meditation has to be made clear. The phrase ‘yathābhūtaṃ pajānati’ means

knowing truly or knowing as they are, often referred to wisdom. This wisdom is

more likely an experiential knowledge rather than theoretical understanding. I think

it is hard to draw a clear demarcation between the two phrases; hence, it is possible

to argue that wisdom of stream-enterer is experiential. Stream-enterer may have

meditative experience.

It has already been shown that in the Nikāyas, another three spiritual

typologies—diṭṭhipatta, saddhāvimutta and kāyasakkhi also relate to stream-enterer.

The Kitāgiri sutta defines that as one who have not experienced any of the eight

liberations, but have seen through wisdom, some out-flowings are destroyed, he

further has reviewed and investigated the teaching of the Buddha through wisdom.

And saddhāvimutta is one who have not experienced any of the eight liberations, but

destroyed some out-flowings having seen through wisdom, and further more, his

faith in the Buddha became rooted, planted and unshakeable. And the kāyasakkhi is

one having experienced eight liberations and some of his out-flowings are destroyed
   69  
 

having seen through wisdom (MN I 478). The Nikāyas do not clearly say how

wisdom arose in them; whether it is through meditative experience or some other

ways. Jhānic elements are also not seen, except for kāyasakkhin.

Those who like to argue that the stage stream-entry requires attainment of jhānas

might argue that in Nikāya passages stream (sota) is defined as the noble eightfold

path and stream-enterer is defined as one who is endowed with noble eightfold path

(SN V 347). The noble eight-fold path contains right mindfulness and right

concentration, which comes under the aggregate of concentration when noble

eightfold path is summarized as threefold training. The aggregates of concentration

include four jhānas (DN III 313). Based on this, one can infer that stream-entry

includes jhānas. Furthermore, there are passages that discuss the relationship

between the doctrines of threefold trainings and theory of four stages and five

spiritual faculties (MN I 55). According to the passage on the co-relationship

between doctrine of threefold trainings and the theory of four stages, jhānas are not

necessary requirement for the stream-enterers and the once-returners for they are said

to be perfect only in morality and they are required to develop only some level of

samādhi and paññā (AN I 233-4). It is not easy to make precise measurement as to

how much concentration and wisdom is required, but the overall contexts may seem

to suggest that they may practice certain preliminary level of meditation and have

some theoretical right understanding of the Buddhist doctrine.

There are passages hinting that stream-enterer does not necessarily realize

Buddhist doctrine through self-experience, rather he develops a receptive attitude

towards them. For instance, a person who abandons doubts with regards to six things
   70  
 

and four noble truths is defined as a stream-enterer (SN III 203). The discourse does

not specify what the six things are, but in MN, they are explained as form, sensation,

mental formation, consciousness and mental activity which are impermanent,

unsatisfactory and subject to change (MN I 135)33. There is a long passage that

strongly indicates that stream-enterer do not require jhāna. I quote the whole passage

for proper understanding:

Oh! Monks, just the autumn sun arises in the cloud free sky, disperses all the
darkness, in the same manner, when dustless, stainless vision of dhamma
occurs to noble disciple, his/ her three fold fetters—view of self identity,
suspicious mentality, attachment to rituals and vows, are put aside. Further he
abandons covetousness and ill will. Then aloof from sense desire and evil
mentality, abides I first jhāna which is with initial thought and investigation.
And consists of joy and pleasure born of detachment…(AN I 242 ).

One starts jhāna after attainment of the stage of stream-entry. According to this

passage, he does not even abandon five hindrances before the attainment of stage of

stream-entry. However, there are several passages, which show that abandoning five

hindrances is required (AN III 63; MN I 323). Abandoning five hindrances does not

require jhānas. According to a passage in Itivuttaka, the five hindrances can be

overcome during walking meditation, which is considered as not conducive to

attainment of jhānas (Iti 118). And another passage in the SN further clarifies that

five hindrances can be put aside outside the context of meditation, while listening to

dhamma (SN V 95). But for full awakening, jhānas play a significant role within

Nikāya Buddhism. For example, a passage in the Indriyasaṃyutta of SN states that in

order to abandon five fetters higher realms, one has to develop four jhānas; “oh!

Monks, in order to abandon completely and fully with higher knowledge the five
                                                                                                                       
33
yaṃ pidaṃ diṭṭhaṃ viññātaṃ pattaṃ.
   71  
 

higher fetters, one needs to develop these four jhānas.” (SN V 310).34 This seems to

indicate that the development of jhānas may not be necessary to abandoned lower

fetters.

In order to understand the requirement for the stage of stream-enterer, historical

cases study is helpful. It has already been shown in (§2.3.) that throughout Sotāpatti-

saṃyutta of SN, it is been repeatedly emphasized that faith in the Buddha, the

Dhamma, and the Saṅgha and abiding in morality are sufficient for one to be a

stream-enterer. Sometimes, the last factors are totally omitted or replaced by other

factors. This suggests mere faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha is

sufficient to be a stream-enterer. This is further consolidated in another passage; the

Sakyan Mahānāma approached the Buddha and asked how does a noble disciple gain

stage of stream-enterer and comprehend teaching and dwelling abiding them.35 The

Buddha is said to have explained that when one recollects the Buddha, one’s mind is

set on the Buddha. When one’s mind is set on the Buddha, one gains inspiration in

the dhamma, joy connected with dhamma. When the mind is joyful, rapture arises;

when rapture arises body becomes tranquil. With tranquil mind, one experiences

bliss, when one is blissful, mind gets concentrated. This is repeated with regards to

other three factors of stream-enterer (AN V 328-29). This passage hints that at least

some Buddhists considered spiritual perfection was possible without the meditation.

Thus, the qualities and pre-conditions listed in the discourses as essential for the

realization of the path of stream-entry or stage of stream-entry do not stipulate the

                                                                                                                       
34
imesaṃ kho bhikkhave pañcannaṃ uddhaṃbhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ abhiññāya pariññāya
parikkhāya pahānāya ime cattāro jhānā bhavetabbā ti.
35
The passage does not clarify which stage Mahānāma referred to, but commentary to the discourse,
stated that Mahānāma was referring to the fruit of stream-entry.
   72  
 

necessity of jhānas or even meditation itself. In Aṅguttaranikāya, it is reported that

a drunken layman, after listening to a gradual discourse, at the end of discourse, the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him (AN IV 213). In the Udāna, it is stated that a leper by

the name of Suppabuddha, mistaking a crowd gathered to listen to Buddha, for

distributing food went there. He listened to dhamma, at the end of the discourse; the

dhammacakkhuṃ arose in him (Ud 49). And king Bimbisāra and a large crowd of

Brahmins and government officials who went to welcome the Buddha, hearing a

discourse on gradual training which culminates with the doctrine of four noble truths,

instantly gained dhammacakkhuṃ (Vin I 37).36 In most cases, we see the gaining of

the dhammacakkhuṃ instantly after hearing Buddha’s discourse while remaining in

the same seat (tasmiṃ yeva āsane) giving no space for meditation. In the case of the

first five monks, Sāriputta and Moggalana, they had previous training in meditation.

However, there are many instances where the listeners were not meditators, like

parents of Yasa and his fifty-four friends, and the story of the leper Suppa Buddha

mentioned above. In Majjhimanikāya, there is another record that a Jain follower

became a stream-enterer immediately after listening to a discourse given by the

Buddha (MN I 380; AN IV 186). He may not have attained any jhānas before

because even their leader was incapable of attaining second jhāna (SN IV 298). In

the Vinaya, it is recorded that several hired killers who went to kill the Buddha, after

                                                                                                                       
36
atha kho bhagavā tesaṃ dvādasanahutānaṃ māgadhikānaṃ brāhmaṇagahapatikānaṃ cetasā
cetoparivitakkamaññāya anupubbiṃ kathaṃ kathesi, seyyathidaṃ – dānakathaṃ sīlakathaṃ
saggakathaṃ kāmānaṃ ādīnavaṃ okāraṃ saṃkilesaṃ nekkhamme ānisaṃsaṃ pakāsesi. yadā te
bhagavā aññāsi kallacitte muducitte vinīvaraṇacitte udaggacitte pasannacitte, atha yā buddhānaṃ
sāmukkaṃsikā dhammadesanā, taṃ pakāsesi – dukkhaṃ, samudayaṃ, nirodhaṃ, maggaṃ.
seyyathāpi nāma suddhaṃ vatthaṃ apagatakāḷakaṃ sammadeva rajanaṃ paṭiggaṇheyya,
evameva ekādasanahutānaṃ māgadhikānaṃ brāhmaṇagahapatikānaṃ bimbisārappamukhānaṃ
tasmiṃ yeva āsane virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi – yaṃ kiñci
samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhammanti. ekanahutaṃ upāsakattaṃ paṭivedesi.
   73  
 

hearing a discourse became stream-enterers (Vin I 12). There are many passages that

state that after a discourse, sometimes, a very large number of people gained stage of

stream-entry.

In the Dhammasaṅgaṇī four paths are understood as four jhānas. They are called

as supramundane jhānas. The concept of supramundane jhānas is a new

development of Ābhidhammikas. It is not found in the Nikāyas. In Nikāyas, four

jhānas occur in innumerable discourses as indelible element of Buddhist paths, but

there is not a single reference to supramundane jhānas. This new development of the

concept might have been prompted by the concept of ‘noble right concentration’

(ariya sammā samādhi) occurring in a few Nikāya passages (DN II 122; III 287, 27;

AN III 124). Bhikkhu Brahmāli convincingly argues that in the Nikāyas, this is not

explicitly defined as supramundane. It can be mundane connected to ordinary right

view or supramundane connected to stream-enterer, hence it is impossible to

consider this ‘noble right–concentration’ to be parallel to supramundane jhānas in

the Abhidhamma (Brahmali 2007: 79). In the Abhidhamma, the supramundane

jhānas is understood as momentary thought experiences. Hence, the four paths and

four stages came to be defined as momentary thought experiences. The canonical

Abhidhamma texts do not provide much information on the concept of

supramundane jhānas. The Dhs simply defined four paths in terms of four jhānas.

They are defined as follows:

When supra-mundane jhāna is produced, which is leading towards diminution

(niyyānikaṃ apacayagāmiṃ) in order to gain first stage one gone beyond the
views, secluded from the sensual desire, aloof from unwholesome thoughts,
enters and abides in the first jhāna with thinking and investigation… difficulty
in progress and sluggish intuition. Then there is contact, sensation, perception,
   74  
 

volition, thoughts, thinking, investigation, zest, bliss, unification of thoughts,

faculty of faith, faculty of vigour, faculty of mindfulness, faculty of
concentration, and faculty of wisdom, faculty of mind, faculty of gladness,
faculty of life vitality, faculty of I-shall-come to know-unknown, proper view,
proper intention, proper speech, proper action, proper livelihood, proper
vigour, proper mindfulness, proper concentration, the power of faith, power of
vigour, power of mindfulness, power of concentration, insight, consciousness,
the fear of blame, disinterestedness, absence of hatred, dullness, covetousness
and malice, (A Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics 74).
Thus, according to Abhidhamma interpretation, the stage of stream-entry is gained

through meditation. It is not just preliminary stage of meditation according to

Paṭisambhidāmagga; one requires having mastery over both samatha and vipassanā

meditation to attain the stage of stream-entry (see more § 6.4).

Pāli commentators inherited the Abhidhamma tradition, and they apperceive the

stage of stream-entry through the lens of the Ābhidhammikas. As a consequence,

large number of Pāli commentarial passages interpret the stage stream-entry as

associated with meditation, particularly related to insight meditation (vipassanā). In

the Papañcasudani, it is stated that through reflecting on the three characteristics of

conditioned phenomena in the insight meditation, one gains path of stream-entry

(MN-A I 73).37And in that very moment he comprehends four truths simultaneously

(MN-A I 73).38 In another instance, it is recorded that a young monk, having listened

to a discourse on the suffering in hell and nature of samsāric existence, being

terrified about suffering, instantly requested for an object of meditation. Having

taken the object of meditation, soon he became stream-enterer (MN-A IV 238). In

the commentary to Pātālasutta, stream-enterer is defined as insight practitioner:

                                                                                                                       
37
evaṃ tīṇi lakkhaṇāni āropetvā paṭipātiyā vipassanaṃ pavattento sotāpattimaggaṃ pāpuṇāti.
38
tasmiṃ khaṇe cattāri saccāni ekapaṭivedhen’ eva paṭivijjhati, ekābhisamayena abhisameti.
   75  
 

In this discourse, noble disciple is a stream-enterer, here, stream-enterer is

practice (dhūra), serious insight practitioner, a practitioner who having not
followed the feeling arisen through sharp intelligence, able to establish (SN-A
III 76).39
The path is gained through knowledge of insight with meditation on kasiṇa (AN-A II

270).40But, another passage of the same text, states that the meditation of kasiṇa is

capable of producing only either four jhānas or four meditative attainments

(arūpajjhāna). Only the insight meditation leads one to the path of stream-entry…

path of arahatta (AN-A II 270).41 This is further consolidated that stream-enterer

and once-returner are defined as ‘dry-visioners’ (sukkhavipassako), those who

practice only insight without jhānas. It is further stated that they attain momentary

jhānas, which is defined as concentration of dry-visioners (AN-A III 132).42 The

concept sukkhavipassaka is a commentarial development. This usually refers to

arahats who attained Nibbāna without jhānas, but here, it is referred to stream-

enterer. However, another passage of the same commentary gives a completely

contradictory interpretation. According to this passage, a stream-enterer can develop

jhānas and having gone to the realm of Brahma would live there experiencing only

                                                                                                                       
39
imasmiṃ sutte ariyasāvakoti sotāpanno. sotāpanno hi ettha dhuraṃ, balavavipassako na
tikkhabuddhi uppannaṃ vedanaṃ ananuvattitvā patiṭṭhātuṃ samattho yogāvacaropi vaṭṭati.  
40
idaṃ dukkhanti ettakaṃ dukkhaṃ, na ito uddhaṃ dukkhaṃ atthi. ayaṃ dukkhasamudayoti ettako
dukkhasamudayo, na ito uddhaṃ dukkhasamudayo atthīti. sesapadadvayepi eseva nayo. evamettha
catūhi saccehi sotāpattimaggo kathito. kasiṇaparikamma vipassanāñāṇāni pana
maggasannissitānevahonti
41
yenākārenesa kasiṇabhāvanaṃ āraddho paṭhamajjhānaṃ vā…pe… catutthajjhānaṃ vā aṭṭha vā
samāpattiyo nibbattessatī’’ti jānāti. pubbabhāgena jānāti nāma paṭhamavipassanāya
āraddhāyayeva jānāti, ‘‘yenākārena esa vipassanaṃ āraddho sotāpattimaggaṃ vā
nibbattessati…pe… arahattamaggaṃ vā nibbattessatī’’ti jānāti
42
paṭhamo lokiyamahājano, dutiyo sukkhavipassako sotāpanno ca sakadāgāmī ca, tatiyo anāgāmī. so
hi yasmā taṅkhaṇikampi upapattinimittakaṃ jhānaṃ paṭilabhatiyeva, tasmā sukkhavipassakopi
samādhismiṃ paripūrakārīyeva. catuttho khīṇāsavoyeva. so hi sabbesaṃ sīlādipaccanīkānaṃ
pahīnattā sabbattha paripūrakārī nāma.
   76  
 

happiness among six heavenly realms of sensual realms (AN-A V 37).43 There is no

scope to consider this jhānas as momentary. But large numbers of passages insist

that the path of stream-enterer is connected with insight meditation rather than

concentrative method (samatha).

Pāli commentators seem to agree that the stage of stream-entry is attained

through meditation. The question is what type of meditation. In Nikāyas, Buddhist

meditation is a combination of concentration (samatha) and insight (vipassanā).

They are not presented as two exclusive system of meditation. Insight is often

preceded by concentration. However, gradually, within the Buddhist tradition

emphasis on the latter is discernible. In its peak development, samatha, which

includes jhānas, is totally left out and established into a system of only insight,

which is known as dry-insight path (sukkhavipassaka-yāna). The commentarial

passages seem to connect the path of stream-entry with exclusive insight meditation.

In doing these, it seems Buddhaghosa and Dhammapāla, two great commentators,

were in agreement. As an attempt to connect stream-entry to insight meditation, the

fourth factor of stream-entry path is defined as inight meditation“practice in

accordance with dhamma means endowed with practice of noble dhamma, practising

insight dhamma”(SN-A III 253). 44 In the Manurathapūraṇī, stream-enterers and

once-returners are described as dry-vision practitioners (sukkhavipassako). The

passage is interesting in that it classifies people into six classes, of them only stream-

enterers and once-returners are mentioned as dry-vision practitioners, while the non-

                                                                                                                       
43
apaṇṇakaṃ vā sotāpannoti avirādhitaṃ ekaṃsena sotāpanno vā hoti. sopi jhānaṃ nibbatteti,
brahmalokaṃ vā gantvā chasu vā kāmasaggesu ekantasukhappaṭisaṃvedī hutvā vihareyya.  
44
dhammānudhamma-paṭipannā ti ariyassa dhammassa anudhamma-bhūtaṃ vipassanā dhammaṃ
paṭipannā.
   77  
 

returners are not defined as dry-vision practitioners (AN-A III 115).45 In another

passage, the sattakkhattu-pāramo is defined as dry-vision practitioner (SN-A III

494).46 In a commentary to Puggalapaññatti, stream-enterers, once-returners, and

even non-returners are defined dry-vision practitioners, while an arahat is said to

gain eightfold liberations (Pug-A 179).47 In the Commentary to Paṭisambhidāmagga,

the path of stream-entry is gained through meditation on the appearance and

disappearance of phenomena, which is insight. And it emphasizes that without

insight meditation, it is impossible to attain stage of stream-enterer (Pm-A I 268). In

the Mahāvagga-ṭīkā, the path of stream-enterer is defined as faculty of insight. In

the subcommentary to Aṅguttaranikāya, the dry-vision practitioner is defined as one

who meditates fixing on the four elements as object of meditation (AN-ṭīkā II 37).48

Thus, though Pāli commentators accepted that jhānas might not be a necessary

requirement for the stage of stream-entry, howvever, they all insisted that meditation,

i.e. vipassanā, as a necessary requirement for the stage of stream-entry. A number of

passages in the Pāli commentaries that describe how certain people became stream-

enterers makes if there is any role of meditation in the attainment of stage of stream-

entry inconclusive. For instance, in the commentary to Aggañña-sutta, it is stated

that Visakhā, with five hundred girls, seeing the Buddha from behind on the road

while he was going to Bhaddiya city, instantly became stream-enterers (DN-A III

                                                                                                                       
45
paṭhamo lokiyamahājano, dutiyo sukkhavipassako sotāpanno ca sakadāgāmi ca, tatiyo anāgāmi..
46
sattukkhattuparamo ti idam idh’ aṭṭhakavokiṇṇasukkhavipassakassāti yo imasiṃ kāmabhāve ṭhito
manussa devevasena vokiṇṇabhavūpapattiko sukkhavipassako ca.
47
sukhavipassakāpana sotāpanna, sakadāgāmi anāgāmi aṭṭha samapaṭṭi labhino ca khīṇāsavā.
48
sukkhavipassako yebhuyyena catudhātuvavaṭṭhāna mukkhena kammaṭṭhānā bhinivesī hoti iti āha
sukhavipassakassa dhātukammaṭṭhanikabhikkhunoti.
   78  
 

859).49 In another place, it is stated that she was just seven years old then (AN-A I

406). Commentaries further mentions that Nakulapitā at the first sight of the Buddha

became stream-enterer (AN-A III 95). Sumana-rajakumārī with five hundred girls at

the end of a discourse became stream-enterers ( AN-A III 241). In the commentary to

Theragāthā and Therīgathā, there are many stories that show stream-entry stage was

gained without any form of meditation at all. For instance, Sopaka, a seven year old

child, while tied in the cemetery, hearing a stanza uttered by the Buddha, became

stream-enterer (Tha-A II 201).50 And again it further says that through seeing the

Buddha one gains path of stream-enterer (AN-A I 118). 51 Often, on hearing the

words of the Buddha, one gains the path of stream-entry (AN-A I 118).52 Such

stories are innumerable in the Nikāya and commentarial literature. The way these

stories are told, it is quite difficult to precisely conclude how they attained the stage

of stream-entry within such a short time. What role meditation plays in their

attainment? Sometimes, it is rational to think that those practitioners, who became

stream-enterers immediately, might have practised some kind of meditation or

jhānas before, meeting the Buddha or hearing a discourse as Cousins asserted

(Cousins, 1994-96: 56). Some stories such as hired killers cited above, makes it

difficult to postulate the role of meditation in the attainment of the stage of stream-

entry. Thus, all available references slant to the conclusion that some stream-

enterers might have gained the stream-entry through meditation or jhānic experience,
                                                                                                                       
49
sā yadā bhagavā bhaddiyanagaraṃ agamāsi tadā pañcahi dārikāsatehi saddhiṃ bhagavato
paccuggamanaṃ gatā paṭhama dassanamhi yeva sotāpannā ahosi.
50
dārako buddhānubhāvena chinna-bandhano gāthā pariyosāne sotāpanno hutvā gandhakuṭi
pamukho aṭṭhāsi.
51
aparo pana puthujjanakalyāṇako ānandatthero viya dasabalaṃ dassanāya labhitvā taṃ dassanaṃ
vaḍḍhetvā sotāpattimaggaṃ pāpeti.
52
aparo pana puthujjanakalyāṇako ānandatthero viya tathāgatassa vacanaṃ sotuṃ labhitvā taṃ
savanaṃ vaḍḍhetvā sotāpattimaggaṃ pāpeti.
   79  
 

but it is not a necessary requirement for the stage of stream entry and the stage of

once-return.

2.5 The Ethical Standard of Stream-enterer

The ethical alignment within the developed scheme of the four factors of stream-

enterer interestingly coincides with some passages directly relating to ethical

observation of lay followers. The SN records an instance where the notion of seven

true dhammas is used to define the stage of stream-entry. The seven true dhammas

include ethical observations like the purity of body—not killing, not stealing, abstain

from unethical sexual relationship, abstain from falsehood, abstain from slandering,

abstain from harsh speech, and abstain from useless gossip. In another discourse, the

Buddha asserts that any lay followers whose actions are restrained by five precepts

and who possess the ability to attain four pleasant visible dwelling if they so wish

can declare as stream-enterers (AN III 211). In the Ratana sutta of Sn, it is stated that

a stream-enterer is incapable of committing six crimes, which are killing one’s

parents, killing an arahat, causing a schism in the Saṅgha, wounding a Buddha and

holding wrong views. Further more, whatever evil a stream-enterer commits either

physically, verbally or mentally, he is incapable of concealing it (Sn I 10-12). This

passage reveals that a stream-enterer can commit certain crimes, but he is honest to

confess it. In another passage, the fourth factor is explained:

Furthermore, oh! Monks, a noble disciple dwells at home with a mind free from
stain of selfishness, generous, give with open-hand, delighting in
relinquishment, practice charity, rejoices in giving and sharing (SN V 391).
   80  
 

In the AN, it is recorded that there are five types of miserliness—miserliness with

regards to dwellings, miserliness with regards to families, miserliness with regards to

gains, miserliness with regards to praise and miserliness with regards to dhamma.

Without abandoning these five types of miserliness, one is incapable of becoming a

stream-enterer (The Nummerical Discourse of the Buddha 839-40). Stream-enterers

do not have malice towards the Buddhas (MN III 284),53 which implies stream-

enterers may still have malice towards others. Another passage in the Pāli

commentaries further says, noble disciples do not have fraudulence and deceitfulness

(MN-A III 358).54

In the commentary to the Mahāparinibbāna sutta, it is explictly pointed out that

stream-enterer is not satisfied with his own achievement, but he persuades and

encourages others to take up insight meditation and to attain the stage of stream-
55
entry (DN-A II 589). In some passages, it is mentioned that stream-enterers

abandoned six fetters—self-view, doubts, attachment to rites and rituals, jealousy

and misery (DN-A III 785). The last two in the list seem to have been inserted in

later period to emphasize the altruism of stream-enterer. In Saṃyuttanikāya, the

fourth factor of stream-enterer is substituted by the generosity towards virtuous

people (SN V 352).56 Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga, attempt to correlate the

                                                                                                                       
53
sotāpannassa ca nāma tathāgataṃ ārabbha āghāto natthi.
54
ariyasāvakassa pana saṭho māyāviti nāmaṃ natthi.
55
sammā vihareyyunti ettha sotāpanno attano adhigataṭṭhānaṃ aññassa kathetvā taṃ sotāpannaṃ
karonto sammā viharati nāma. esa nayo sakadāgāmiādīsu. sotāpattimaggaṭṭho aññampi
sotāpattimaggaṭṭhaṃ karonto sammā viharati nāma. esa nayo sesamaggaṭṭhesu.
sotāpattimaggatthāya āraddhavipassako attano paguṇaṃ kammaṭṭhānaṃ kathetvā aññampi
sotāpattimaggatthāya āraddhavipassakaṃ karonto sammā viharati nāma. Esa nayo
sesamaggatthāya āraddhavipassakesu.  
56
yaṃ kho pana kiñci kule deyyadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ appaṭivibhattaṃ sīlavantehi
kalyāṇadhammehi.
   81  
 

three-fold training with the four stages, explained that stream-enterers and once-

returners have perfected morality (Path of Purification 14). But there are evidences

in the Nikāyas that stream-enterers can breach some minor precepts. For instance, the

story of Sakaraṇi which I have cited in (§2.2) suggests moral perfection is not a

necessary requirement for the attainment of stage of stream-entry.

In a large number of Nikāya passages, stream-enterer is presented with the

scheme of the ten fetters as having abandoned only first three fetters, which means

stream-enterer does not weaken the greed and hatred which are 4th and 5th the list of

ten fetters. So stream enterers continue to enjoy sensual pleasure; however, a stream-

enterer is incapable of commiting any gross crimes that would lead to rebirth in the

state of misery. Bhikkhu Thanissaro has summarized that stream-enterer has deep

faith in the doctrine of kamma, sympathy and compassion for others arise from that

faith in the karma. Hence, though stream-enterers may breach minor moral

principles, they adhere to basic moral principles (Thanissaro 2012: 7)

The Sarvāstivāda tradition maintains that stream-enterers are free from all

unwholesomeness (pāpa), Pāli commentarial literature, particularly

Paṭisambhidāmagga and Visuddhimagga also maintain identical interpretation.57 On

the other hand, the Mahāsaṃghikas and Mahīśāsakas maintain the view that stream-

enterer are still subject to commit all types of evils except five gravest offences

(pañcānantaryāni)—matricide (matṛghāta), murdering an arahat (arhadvadha),

patricide (pitṛghāta), causing schism in the saṅgha (saṃghabheda), and causing

                                                                                                                       
57
In Paṭisambhidāmagga it is mentioned that at the moment of stream-entry, one’s thoughts become
outflow free (anasāva), while in Visuddhimagga it is mentioned at the moment of stream-entry, and
one’s consciousness object becomes the Nibbāna. These interpretaions suggests, stream-enter goes
beyond all evils (pāpa).  
   82  
 

bloodshed from the Buddha with bad intention (tathāgatasyāntike

duṣṭacittarudhirotipādana) (Masuda 1978: 28). All evils is defined as tenfold evil

action (dasa-akusala-kamma)— killing (prāṇātipata), taking what is not given

(adattādāna), sexual misconduct (kāmamithyācāra), untrue speech (mṛṣāvāda),

slander (pāruṣya), harsh speech (paiśunya), frivolous talk (sambhinnapralāpa),

covetousness (abhidhyāya), malice (vyāpāda) and wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi)

(Masuda 1978: 28). Similar interpretation is observable for instance in the

Sāmaññaphala sutta, where it is reported that king Ajātasattu was unable to gain

dhammacakkhuṃ beacause he killed his father. “If not for killing his father, the

righteous king, he (Ajātasattu) would have gained vision of dhamma while seated in

this very seat.” (DN I 86).58 The commentary further states that one who commits

one or more of the five gravest crimes is not able to gain the vision of dhamma (DN-

A I 237).

The Nikāya evidence supports the hypothesis that stream-enterers are not morally

perfect. They continue to enjoy all mundane pleasures. At certain times, they can slip

away from moral standard, but they maintian honesty and do not hide their moral

imperfection to claim they are morally perfect. However, they would never commit

any gruesome acts such as killing parents etc., the ethical standard outlined in the

Nikāyas as well as Mahāsaṃghika, Mahāśāsaka tradition is not too demanding, any

lay Buddhist followers can easily meet the standard. Pāli commentarial in general,

                                                                                                                       
58
atha kho bhagavā acirapakkantassa rañño māgadhassa ajātasattussa vedehiputtassa bhikkhū
āmantesi –‘‘khatāyaṃ, bhikkhave, rājā. upahatāyaṃ, bhikkhave, rājā. sacāyaṃ, bhikkhave, rājā
pitaraṃ dhammikaṃ dhammarājānaṃ jīvitā na voropessatha, imasmiññeva āsane virajaṃ
vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ uppajjissathā’’ti
   83  
 

except Paṭisambhidāmagga and Visuddhimagga, also agree with the Nikāyas, with

regards to ethical standard.

The juxtaposition of ethics with stream-entry is parallel within the scheme of the

four factors, with the inclusion of the element of faith in the morality dear to noble

ones as a corollary of such developments mentioned above. The strong connection

between these factors of stream-enterer and lay Buddhist practices is evident, and

could parallel few other delineations of stream enterer where such material and social

pursuits and fruits, apart from religious elements, came to be associated with, as in

the Nandaka Sutta where it is stated that an individual who is endowed with four

factors of stream-enterer can enjoy long life, either in human world or divine world,

endowed with beauty, happiness, fame and sovereigty, whether celestial or human

(SN V 390). Yet in another passage it is stated he is endowed with great wealth and

great fame (AN III 402). The linkage between attainment of stage of stream-entry

and more mundane ethical and worldly gains would indicate that, given this

requirement, the early saṅgha seems not to have safeguarded the spiritual attainment

as the unique prerogative of monastics. The dissonance of this definition with the

ideal of renunciant would likely suggest the probability of the relative lateness of the

concept of loftiness of stream-entry, which certainly contradicts the mundane criteria

listed.

2.6 Abandoning of the Three Fetters and Stream-enterer

From the dichotomy of the two lines of attainment of stream-enterer, there is an

attempt of union of these two lines as the scheme of fetters was developing within
   84  
 

the early saṅgha in the spiritual checklist of entanglements that a practitioner should

abandon on their path towards enlightenment. The standard description of stream-

enterer is abandoning the first three fetters of a list of ten fetters. In a numerous

passages, both in Pāli Nikāyas literature, stream-enterer is described as one who has

destroyed the first three fetters. As far as abandoning of defilement is concerned,

Dhs is in agreement with the Nikāyas. The four paths are distinguished in terms of

abandonment of the fetters. The path of stream-enterer is for the sake of abandoning

views (diṭṭhigatānaṃ pahanāya), the path of once-returner is for the sake of

weakening sensual desire and aversion (kāma-rāga vyāpadānaṃ patanūbhāvaya),

the path of non-returner is for the sake of abandoning sensual desire and aversion

(kāma-rāga vyāpādānaṃ anavasesa pahanāya) and path of arahatta is for the sake

of abandoning desire for form and formless realms, as well as conceit, restlessness

and ignorance (rūparāga-arūparāgamāna uddhacca avijjāya anavasesapahanāya)

(Dhs I 74-5) Here, four factors conducive to stream-entry and four factors of stream-

enterer are not given significant place.

A striking parallel could be drawn between the first three factors and the factors

of stream-entry, where the contrasting side of the confirmed confidence in the three

jewels evinces this removal of spiritual doubts that obstructs one along the path

towards enlightenment. The intriguing phenomenon is the confluence of these two

previously divergent schemes of intellect-based and faith-based stream-entry

requirements, The subsequent harmonization of these schemes would suggest a

merging of duality into a unfied scheme of fetter that embraces both the religious as

well as the insight dimension of the concept of stream-entry among the early
   85  
 

Buddhists. As such, combined with Hirakawa and Hwang’s proposal of the late

origin of the theory of fetters as an explanation of the Four Noble Persons, it would

not be unreasonable to conclude that fetters is a later attempt at theorizing the stage

of stream-entry, and as such, the vestiges of the previous theoretical schemes could

be discerned as a relatively late construction.

The drawing up of the list of three fetters each represents a distinct dimension of

doctrinal emphasis on the development of the concept of stream-entry. The first

fetter, the self-identity-view; this is one of the most central doctrines of Buddhism. It

is intertwined with all philosophical doctrines of the Buddha. It is directly

intertwined with the doctrine of the non-soul (anattā). The doctrine of the non-soul is

in turn directly linked to the doctrine of the dependent co-arising. The doctrine of

dependent co-arising is directly intertwined with the doctrine of three interlocking

characteristics—impermanence, suffering and non-soullessness. Philosophically

Buddhism can be distinguished from all other religious and philosophical systems

through the theory of non-soul (anattā). Steven Collins very appropriately asserts

that the doctrine of non-soul separated Buddhism from Brahmanism and provides

Buddhists their own distinct identity and integrity in Indian religious milieu (Collins

1982:183). According to Buddhist teachings, belief in ego and the self-desire to

possess, lie in self-view. Buddhism views the attachment to self-view as the primary

cause of suffering and the reason for wandering in the saṃsāra. The self-view is

sustained by ignorance. So the whole of Buddhist teaching is directed towards

dispelling this ignorance whereby self-view is rooted out. The total elimination of

this view leads one to the state of spiritual perfection. The true realization of non-
   86  
 

existence of self can greatly transform the whole psychological outlook of an

individual. When an individual realizes the doctrine of non-soul, i.e all five

aggregates that constitute the whole cosmos and its beings are impermanent,

suffering and without essence, he cannot have any attachment, hatred and delusion,

sense of possession, which is virtually the attainment of Nibbāna. Logically, there

cannot be even attachment to form and formless world. The form and formless world

are also constituted by the combination of one or more factors of the five aggregates.

And further, attachment is a subjective matter, one attaches to form or formless

world, because he has a concept of self; because of self view, one wants to identify

one’s existence in higher forms, and wants to continue to hold them. When one truly

realizes the doctrine of non-soul, there cannot be any such subjective emotion.

The question is whether stream-enterer goes through such experiences. It is easy

to establish non-existence of self at a theoretical level, but it is extremely difficult to

establish it at an experiential level. Gombrich says the doctrine of non-soul is a mere

ontological statement; it does not make any change on the followers (Gombrich

2006:65). When one looks at the description of stream-enterers given in the Pāli

Nikāyas, they did not seem to have experienced such spiritual transformation. There

are many passages that suggest stream-enterers might not have experienced non-self

at all. For instance, Anathapiṇḍika, a wealthy householder and great supporter of the

Buddha was said to have attained stage of stream-entry at the first meeting with the

Buddha (Vin II 157). Later on, on his deathbed when Sariputta, taught him the

doctrine on the three interlocking characteristics—impermanence, unsatisfactoriness

and non-soul, he regretted that that despite being close to the Buddha and his
   87  
 

disciples, he had never heard such a doctrine. To this, Sariputta replied that such

doctrines are not taught to lay followers (MN I 143). This is strong evidence which

shows the realization of the doctrine of anatta was not a prequisite for stream-

enterers in the early period.

According to theory of four stages in relation to abandoning of the list of ten

fetters, stream-enterers are yet to abandon sensual desire, aversion and delusion. As I

have discussed above many of the early stream-enterers may not necessarily have

practiced meditation or attained jhānas. Hence such experience of spiritual

transformation might not have been expected at the level of stream-enterer. I think,

when it is said that stream-enterers abandon self-views, more likely it implies

stream-enterers abandon self-view at an intellectual level. It is an intellectual

conviction that five aggregates are without self or soul, rather than the true

experience of it. This theoretical acceptance is considered as right view (sammā-

diṭṭhi), which is the starting point of Buddhist path.

The abandonment of the second fetter reaffirms the faith in the Buddha, the

Dhamma and Saṅgha. The second fetter is repetition of the four factors of stream-

enterers. The repetition suggests that four factors of stream-entry and the list of three

fetters which a stream-enterer needs to abandon might have developed independently

and later they are put together. The repetition also shows an emphasis was put on the

faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha without any reservation. It is

important to a follower of Buddhism to have receptive attitude towards the Buddha,

the Dhamma, and the monastic Saṅgha members which constitutive of Buddhism as

religion.
   88  
 

The abandomnent of the third fetter ensures Buddhist followers abide by

Buddhist path. The abandoning of attachment rituals and vows does not imply that a

Buddhist does not engage in any religious ceremonies or rituals. The religious vows

and ceremonies are externalization of one’s insight devotion, and faith towards the

religious tradition, which is essential on a spiritual journey. Faith has been repeatedly

emphasized in Buddhist practice. The abandoning of attachment to vows and rituals

has to be understood in its proper historical context. This does not discourage

Buddhist followers from engaging in religious rituals and ceremonies, rather this

might have been directed to non-Buddhist rituals and vows that were practiced by

other religious groups at the time of the Buddha. This might have been developed

particularly to distinguish Buddhist followers from Jain followers. The abandonment

of sīlabbataparāmāsa is in direct contrast to Jain practice.

Thus, the abandoning of three fetters by stream-enterers characterized the attitude

and practice of a Buddhist follower. The eradication of the first fetter (sakkāyadiṭṭhi)

represents removal of the intellectual obstacles to Buddhist practices. The removal of

the second fetter (sīlabbataparāmāsa) represents removal of unhealthy emotion,

which refers to non-Buddhist rituals and vows. The removal of the third fetter

(vicikicchā) represents removal of state of uncertainty, indecision and non-receptive

attitude towards Buddhist teachings and making up one’s mind to accept the

Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha; and commit oneself to it wholeheartedly.

This leads to the conclusion that the version of stream-enterer with four factors of

stream-enterer (sotāpattiyāṅgāni) pre-dates the stream-enterer with insight. All the

case histories that we have cited above show that most of the stream-enterers did not
   89  
 

have insight into Buddhist doctrine or nature of reality, there might have been some

stream-enterers who had some theoretical insight into Buddhist doctrine, but not true

realization. Stream-enterers were rather those who accepted Buddhist doctrines and

had established faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, in other words,

stream-enterers were more religiously inclined than insight based. My investigation

reveals that stream-enterer preserved in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN would be the

earliest version of stream-enterer, and later on other doctrinal elements were

clustered with the concepts. Finally, the standard version emerged with three fetters

and four factors of stream-enterer.

2.7 The Sub-stages of the Stage of Stream-entry

The concept of stream-enterer which appears in the Nikāyas and corresponding

Āgama Buddhism, promises that one would attain enlightenment with a maximum of

seven lives (sattakkhattuparam). Within Pāli Buddhist literature, there is no clear

definition determining seven births. The AKB attempts to answer this question. It

says that it is in the nature of the path that in the course of seven births, a stream-

enterer is necessarily spiritually matured (saṃtatiparipāka) (AKB III 356;

Dhammajoti 2009: 458). There is controversy as to whether seven births occur only

in human realms, or across human realm and a realm of deities. Or seven times in the

two realms, i.e. fourteen births. In the AK, and AKB different views regarding this

point are chronicled. In some schools of Buddhist thought, it is seven rebirths in

human realm and seven in the realm of deities.This is attributed to Mahīśāsaka in the

Pāli commentaries (Pug-A 196, AKB III 2107, note 394). They interpreted the sutta

statement ‘maximum seven lives among human beings and among gods’ as
   90  
 

maximum seven lives in both realms respectively (Bingenheimer 2010: 26). The

Sarvāstivāda holds the view, one is reborn seven times in the human existence, seven

times in intermediate existence (antarābhava), seven times in the realm of gods,

seven times in each of two realms of gods—i.e., 28 existences (Kv 5). But Theravāda

tradition interpreted it as maximum of seven rebiths, a mixture among humans and

gods. If the rebirths in the pure-abode by non-returner are taken into consideration,

then definitely Theravāda calculation has some problem. When they are counting

seven, they seem not to have considered the births of the non-returners, but birth

prior to the stage of non-returner.

Despite the controversy on the actual numbers of births one may have to go

through before final liberation among different Buddhist schools, the numerical

number seven is accepted by everyone. Why number seven is selected is a question

naturally arises. However, neither Pāli Literature, nor Sanskrit Buddhist Literature

could enlighten us on this point. Richard Gombrich has pointed out that the number

seven is sacred to Brahmanism. He has pointed out a number of lists with number

seven in Brahaminism in the Rg-veda, such as seven heavens, seven suns, seven

horses etc. (Gombrich 1975: 118). In the absence of any clear textual evidence,

linking two traditions might be arbitary, though it is possible that Brahmanism

influenced Buddhism in choosing number seven.

The stream-enterer is defined as one who will take maximum seven lives before

the finally awakening. The term maximum seven lives leaves open-space to develop

the concept further. Introducing to two sub-divisions namely; kolaṃkola and ekabījī,

within the Pāli Nikāyas, quickly filled up the space. Thus, within the Pāli Nikāya, the
   91  
 

concept of stream-enterer has been classified into three. All of these three are said to

have abandoned three fetters, and possess four factors of stream-enterer. Then the

question arises, what is the mechanism to classify the concept into three. In the Pāli

Nikāyas, the mechanism is the number of rebirths each has to undergo before final

liberation. It is stated that kolaṃkola has to undergo either two or three, or sometimes

maximum six rebirths before attainment of arahatta, while ekabījī has just one more

existence to go before attainment of arahatta. What makes the difference in the

number of births for three classes of stream-enterers are not clearly spelt out within

the Nikāyas. Furthermore Nikāyas do not provide any explanation for selecting such

unusual terminologies. The commentaries tried to explain the terminologies, the term

‘kūla’ usually referred to family, or rather good family as in the case of term

‘kūlaputta’ sons of good families, which usually applied to Buddhist monks. In this

context, ‘kūla’ referred to existence (SN-A III 238).59 But another passage defined

this term exactly in terms of rebirth rather than existence, it says ‘since the

realization of the stage of stream-entry, one does not born among the low family, but

in high and wealthy family, hence the term kulamkola is used (Ekabīji sutta vaṇṇanā,

mahāvagga-ṭīka, CSCD 4).60Another ṭīka passage provides a similar explanation,

Kūlaṃkola: term kūla here referred to high family or lineage. Going from
family to family is known as kūlaṃkola. Staring from the point of realization of
the fruit of stream-entry, there is no possibility to reborn among the low or
indignified families, but among great wealthy familes. Here, term kula is only

                                                                                                                       
59
kūlānīti bhavā veditabbā.
60
sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyato paṭṭhāya hi nīcakule uppatti nāma natthi, mahābhogesu kulesu eva
nibbattatīti attho. kevalopi hi kūla-saddo mahābhogakulameva vadati.
   92  
 

referred to noble family, same as kūlaputta (AN-ṭīka,

61
dutiyasikkhāsuttavaṇṇanā, CSCD, 4).
This etymological interpretation does not seem to convey the original meaning of the

term for several reasons; first of all, in that case, starting from the path of stream-

enterer, all should be known as kulaṃkola, not only one class of stream-enterer.

Secondly, the so-called low family was a socially perjorative term referring to a

certain class of human beings, introduced by Brahmanism, while Brahmins

themselves claiming to high or noble family. The Buddha was against this

perjorative division of human kind, but here, this shows it was creeping back into

Buddhism, during the time of ṭīka-period, which could be after five century A. D.

Another interpretation is “born in great wealthy family,” the Buddhists in the early

period never judged people in terms of material possessions, only spiritual and moral

achievement.

The etymological definition of the term ‘ekabījī’ is also quite confusing. Bījī is

defined as aggregate (khanda) “ here, one seed referred to aggregate, stream-

enterer, he who has just one seed of agreegate, one self-existence, he is known as

one-seeder” (AN-ṭīka, Ekabīji sutta vaṇṇanā, CSCD, 4).62It is further defined as

‘rebirth consciousness’ (paṭisandhiviññaṇā) (AN-ṭīka, dutiya sikkhāsuttavaṇṇanā,

CSCD, 4).63 This interpretation of the sub-commentaries is problematic as the term

khanda usually refers to the building blocks of material and mental phenomena. They

are basically five (pañcakkhandā). A single aggregate does not signify one birth.
                                                                                                                       
61
uḷārakulavacano vā ettha kulasaddo, kulato kulaṃ gacchatīti kolaṃkolo.
sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyato paṭṭhāya hi nīcakule uppatti nāma natthi, mahābhogakulesu eva
nibbattatīti attho. kevalo hi kulasaddo mahākulameva vadati ‘‘kulaputto’’tiādīsu viya.
62
ekabīji etha khandha bījaṃ nāma kathitaṃ, yassa hi sotapannassa ekaṃ khandabījaṃ atthi, ekaṃ
attabhavaggahanaṃ so ekabījī nāma.
63
ekabījī etha khanadhabījaṃ nāma kathitaṃ khandhabījanti ca paṭisandhiviññāṇaṃ vuccati.
   93  
 

Secondly, defining it as rebirth-conciousness is also problematic in this context. The

understanding of the sub-commentators may not fully convey the meaning of these

terms in the Nikāyas.

The more important question the commentators and sub-commentators tried to

resolve was what the implicit mechanism is behind the division of these three classes

of stream-enterers, for all of them are said to have abandonded an equal number of

fetters and possess the same four factors of stream-entry. In the absence of any

specific interpretation in the Nikāyas, Pāli commentators tried out several

interpretations to solve this issue. One of the most acceptable interpretations to

commentators and sub-commentators is the development of insight. It is explained:

In whom, the insight for the three higher paths is strong, is known as ekabīji, in
whom, they are still weaker than that is a kolaṃkola, and in whom they are still
weaker is a sattakkhattuparamo (SN-A III 237).
In the Milinda pañha, a post-canonical text, ekabījī is defined as a sharp intellect

person, one who is capable of comprehending condensed instruction, the kolaṃkola

as ‘one who is endowed with clear-mind, capable of comprehending something with

little explanation, and sattukkhattumparamo is one who comprehends through

inference. 64 It is again difficult to reconcile this explanation with the Nikāya

interpretation, for this explanation is meant to say the sattakkhattuparama does not

have direct realization, but only inference knowledge. It is difficult to trace the

precise reasons for such a classification; one probable explanation would be the

remnant of karmic residues. The concept of stream-entry is closely related to the

doctrine of karma. Masefield has rightly pointed out in the Buddhist texts, among the
                                                                                                                       
64
ugghaṭitaññū ekabījī hoti, vipañcitaññu kolaṃkola hoti, neyyo sattakkhattuparamo hoti, idaṃ
nibbedhabhāgiyaṃ suttaṃ.
   94  
 

six benefits of gaining the stage of stream entry the last two are related to the

doctrine of karma. i.e guarantee that no fresh karma is generated that leads to births

in lower realms and the annihilation of the majority of the accumulated karma. A

number of similes are employed to show a contrast between the destruction of

accumulated karma and remaining karmic residue as a result of gaining the stage of

stream-entry. In one passage, it is related that in the moment one gains the right

vision (stream-entry path), greater parts of dukkha are completely destroyed, the

remaining is infinitely small, does not amount to one-hundred-thousandth of what is

destroyed (SN II 134; V, 458). The remaining karmic fruit is further compared to

little dust on the tip of the Buddha’s fingernail, while what is destroyed is compared

to the whole earth. Or what is remained is compared to few drops of water from the

confluence of the rivers of Gaṅga, Yamunā, Acirvati, Sarabhū and Mahī, while what

is destroyed is compared to water in those rivers. This same doctrine of karmic

residues to be abandoned might be behind the difference in three classes of stream-

enterer; however authors of commentaries and sub-commentaries did not take this

point into consideration. What was the original motive behind the development of

two sub-divisions of stream-enterer is really hard to deduce in the absence of any

clear clues either in the commentaries or the sub-commentaries. The definition of

kolaṃkola seems to be more social and material-benefit-oriented than spiritual. This

might give hint to how social factors were influencing Buddhists to redefine spiritual

values and goals. The concept of ekabījī is an equally ambiguous term. It is

appropiate to classify it under the second stage than the first stage. In the Sanskrit

tradition, they have done exactly this (AKB III 1947).

   95  
 

The classification of stream-enterer continued further in the commentaries and

sub-commentaries. The Pāli Nikāyas recognize two gates to the path of stream-entry;

the faith-domain pursuant and the understanding-domain pursuant. One, who is of

faith nature, can pursue Buddhist teachings based on faith. At the moment of stream-

entry path, this type of followers is known as ‘faith-followers’ (saddhānusārī). This

is a follower, who has not yet abandoned any defilement, but has sufficient faith in

the Buddha, thus he faithfully accepts the Buddha’s teachings as true. It is said he is

sure to gain stage of stream-entry before passing away. When a faith follower

succeed in gaining the stage of stream-entry, he is known as ‘one liberated through

faith’ (saddhāvimutta). The saddhāvimutta is classified into three—ekabījī,

kolaṃkola and sattakkhattuparamo. Furthermore, each of these three is classified

into four based on the mode of practice (dukkhāpaṭipadādivasena). On the other

hand, those of intellectual type by nature, start the path through understanding. At

the moment of path of stream-entry they are known as dhamma-followers, and at the

moment of stage of stream-entry, they are known as ‘one endowed with view’

(diṭṭhipatta). However, in one text, instead of diṭṭhipatta, ‘liberated through wisdom’

(paññāvimutta) is used (SN-A III 237-38). The paññāvimutta is generally accepted

as an arahat. I think this is a textual corruption, for it appears just once, and no other

text defined stream-enterer as paññāvimutta. Again the diṭṭhipatta is divided into

three—ekabījī, kolaṃkola and sattakkhattuparama. Further, each of these three is

classified into four in accordance with their practice. Thus, in the commentaries and

sub-commentaries, there is a list of 24 types of stream-enterers, but neither

commentarial nor sub-commentarial passages made any attempt to explain these

   96  
 

twenty-four typologies of stream-enterers in detail. There is another class of stream-

enterers, those who do not come back to the human world anymore after becoming

stream-enterers. They have a maximum of seven births in the heavens and one

rebirth in the pure abode and can attain Nibbāna from there. The classification of

stream-enterer is further extended in the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa. Here, for

the first time, we have a new concept known as ‘Lesser stream-enterer’

(cūḷasotāpanna). In the Path of Purification, Naṇamoli translated as follows:

When a man practising insight has become possessed of this knowledge, he has
found comfort in the Buddha’s dispensation, he has found a foothold, he is
certain of his destiny, he is called a ‘Lesser stream-enterer. (The Path of
Purification 703).
Buddhaghosa has not given any further explanation to this new concept. He has not

provided us with any explanation regarding abandonment of any fetters, possessing

any of the four factors of stream-enterer etc. And also there is no assurance as to how

long one takes to become stream-enterer or attain full awakening after being a lesser

stream-enterer. In the Visuddhimagga definition of spiritual path in terms of

sevenfold purification, the lesser stream enterer arrives at the fourth stage, i.e

purification of doubts. The commentary to the Visuddhimagga did not give adequate

explanation for us to understand why such a new concept was developed. The

commentary tries to explain several terminologies associated with this concept, for

example, what is the meaning of finding comfort in the Buddhist dispensation etc.

Below I translate the whole passage:

The one who has purified doubts, an insight practitioner without retrogression
being endowed with mundane moralities, concentration and wisdom, but has
not understood the higher paths yet. He is bending towards good existences,
which means his existences are certain. He is known as ‘Lesser-stream-
   97  
 

enterer’, freed from unfortunate existence, and lower existences. And through
the purification of doubts, through the seeing of names and forms (aggregates)
with their causes, having destroyed the views, abandoning theories of non-
causality and wrong causalities, having known dhammas with their causes,
established in the dispensation. By analyzing names and forms, knows truth of
suffering, he knows truth of cause of suffering through the knowledge of nature
of phenomena, later on through mental application (meditation) on
impermanence, he comprehends truth of cessation and truth of path. Thus
through mundane knowledge, he understood four noble truths, not subjected to
unfortunate existences, and sure to attain the stage of stream-entry. Thus, he is
a lesser stream enterer (Vism-mahāṭīkā, CSCD, 4).
As such the sub-commentaries elaborated the concept in much greater depth than in

the Visuddhimagga, but still the lesser stream-enterer is a worldling. He has not

reached the stage of noble person. And he has neither abandoned any fetter nor

possessed any of the four factors of stream-enterer. The authors of other sub-

commentaries seemed to have ignored this perhaps because they did not find it

agreeable.

In some sub-commentarial passages, good worldling (kalyāṇa-putthujjāna) is

also classified as one who is on the path of stream-entry (DN-ṭīka CSCD 4).65 Both

commentarial texts and sub-commentarial texts confirm that this person has yet to

abandon any defilement; hence he is classified under worldling. However, he is

considered as noble (Pm-A II 505),66 a trainee (Cūḷaniddesapāli CSCD 4).67 These

two terms usually refer to one who has gained at least the path of stream-enterer.

While in early Buddhist texts, spiritually advanced people are not usually divided

into two— worldlings, those who do not practise Buddhist path, nor have any

regards for spiritual people, particularly, the Buddha, the dhamma and the saṅgha,

and noble persons who are of complete opposite nature, and very often they are
                                                                                                                       
65
puthujjanakalyāṇopi hi heṭṭhā vuttalakkhaṇo sotāpattiphalasacchikiyāya pāṭipanno nāma.
66
puthujjanakalyāṇako va ariyo vā.
67
kalyāṇaputhujjano bhikkhu sekho vā bhikkhu.    
   98  
 

interpreted as those who have gained at least the path of stream-entry. In

commentarial and sub-commentarial passages, worldling (puthujjana) is further

classified into two—blind worldling (andha puthujjano), and good worldling

(kalyāṇeko puthujjano).

2.8 The Question of Retrogression from the Stage of Stream-entry

The Pāli Nikāyas defined the stream-enterer as one whose destiny is fixed and he is

assured of gaining full awakening. A passage in the Aṅguttaranikāya assures that

however negligent a stream-enterer can be in his practice, he is destined to get full

awakening within a maximum of seven life times (AN I 233). Another passage in

the same Nikāya includes a list of benefits of stream-enterer, one of which is not

subject to retrogression (AN III 438)68. Most of the Indian Buddhist schools of

thought agreed that stream-enterers are not subject to retrogress. Kathāvatthu, which

records several sectarian views, shows that many schools such as Sarvāstivāda held

the views that certain types of arahats were subject to retrogression, but not stream-

enterers. The view of the Sarvāstivāda is reaffirmed by the Sarvāstivāda sources

preserved in Chinese and in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of Vasubandhu. According

to Theravāda tradition, all the four stages are non-retrogressible, but according to

Sarvāstivāda, one can retrogress from other the three higher stages, but not from the

first stage (AKB 374 cited in Dhammajoti 2009: 460). However, Mahāsaṃghika and

Mahīśāsaka held opposite views. According to them, stream-enterers are subject to

retrogression (vinivartana) because they have not yet abandoned all passions and

they have not cultivated all virtues (Masuda 1978: 26-27). But arahats are not

                                                                                                                       
68
sotāpanno aparihāna dhammo.
   99  
 

subject to retrogression because they have already abandoned all passions.

According to Mahāsaṃghika, and Mahīśāsaka, once-returners and non-returners are

also subject to retrogression (Masuda 1978: 26-27). Below table summarizes the

views of different Buddhist schools on the retrogession of stream-enterers69:

Schools Stream- Once- Non- Arahants

Enterers Returners Returners
Sarvāstivāda Not Subject to Subject to Subject to
subject to retrogression retrogression retrogression
retrogression
Mahāsaṃghika Subject to Subject to Subject to Not
& Mahīśāsaka retrogression retrogression retrogression subject to
retrogression
Sautrāntika Not Subject to Subject to Not
subject to retrogression retrogression subject to
retrogression retrogression
Theravāda Not Not Not Not
subject to subject to subject to subject to
retrogression retrogression retrogression retrogression

Very unexpectedly, the Mahāsaṃghika’s view is not recorded in the Kathāvatthu,

and Theravāda did not give any counter arugment to this view. It is difficult to

understand why Mahāsaṃghika’s view is not recorded in the Kathāvatthu,

considering the importance of this school. Mahāsaṃghika is one of the earliest

Buddhist schools. It is believed that Buddhist saṅgha first split into two,

Sthaviravāda (Theravāda) and Mahāsaṃghika also, doctrinally also Mahāsaṃghika

was an important school, for it is believed that many of the late Mahāyāna doctrines

were originally initiated by Mahāsaṃghika. The absence of this point could have two

                                                                                                                       
69
Table is copied from Masuda (1967: 27) with little modification, the View of Theravāda is absent in
Masuda’s table, I have added it.    
  100  
 

possibilities, either the present Kathāvatthu is not a complete one, part of it might

have been lost, or the then Theravādins agreed to their views, hence they did not

refute it.

This controversy is dealt with in great length in the Sarvāstivāda sources. They

have provided detailed explanations as to why a stream-enterer cannot retogress

while the other three can. The same kind of treatment is not seen in the Theravāda

tradition, either in the canonical or commentarial literature. We have to look into

Theravāda commentarial and sub-commentarial literature to see whether later

commentators were faithful to early Buddhist texts or they have deviated from it and

held different views.

In the Kathāvatthu, it is recorded that Sarvāstivāda and some other schools held

the view that samayavimutta is a kind of arahant, and are subject to retrogression,

while another class of arahat is known as asamayavimutta and they are not subject to

retrogression. Theravādins rejected such division of arahats, for Theravādins, time is

irrelevant for the realization of enlightenment. All arahats are completely liberated

from all cankers; hence there is no scope of retrogression (Kv 88-93). In the

Puggalapaññatti, the spiritual topologist is classified as temporarily liberated

(samayavimutta) and permanently liberated (asamayavimutta). Both these terms are

not new to Abhidhamma. And they defined samayavimutta is one who has gained

eight-fold liberations from time to time, having seen through wisdom, some of the

outflowing (āsavas) are destroyed (Pug 11). However he is still a worldling, for it is

mentioned that all spiritually noble individuals (ariyapuggala) are asamayavimutta.

Pāli commentators interpreted the samayavimutto as stream-enterer, once-returner

  101  
 

and non-returner (Pug-A 179)70 while asamayavimutta is interpreted as dry-vision

arahat. But in the Nikāyas, samayavimutta is defined as subject to retrogression:

Oh! Monks, there are five factors conducive to retrogression of samayavimutta.

What are they? They are; rejoicing in activites, rejoicing in speaking, rejoicing
in sleeping, rejoicing in being social and not reviewing the mind that is
liberated (AN III 173).
This has created an obvious contradiction, on the one hand stream-enterer etc., are

interpreted as not subject to retrogress. For instance, in the commentary to the

Kathāvatthu, it is asserted that one can retrogress only from the mundane meditative

attainments; there is no retrogression from state of the arahatta or from the fruits of

recluseship (Kv-A 37).71 But samayavimutta is still subject to retrogression. The

identification of stream-enterer etc. with samayavimutta means stream-enterers etc.,

are also subject to retrogression. On the other hand, according to Theravāda doctrinal

views, worldlings are capable of eliminating out-flowings, they can only suppress

them. The elimination of out-flowings or fetters occurs with arising of supramundane

path, i. e. path of stream-entry.

Hence, many commentators could not accept the interpretation that samaya-

vimuttas are stream-enterers. According to commentary to Kathāvatthu, samaya-

vimutta is not a noble individual, but one who has mastered the jhānas. According to

the commentary, all noble individuals are asamaya-vimuttas (Kv-A 39).72 However,

the commentary does not answer the question as to how he destroys defilements,

while still a worldling. It is not certain whether the compiler of commentary to

                                                                                                                       
70
 samayavimutto ti pana tiṇṇaṃ sotāpannaṃ sakadāgāmī anāgāmīnaṃ yeva’ etaṃ nāmaṃ ti
veditabbaṃ.  
71
parihāniṃ nāma lokiyasamāpattiyā va icchanti, na arahattādīhi sāmaññaphalehi.
72
sakasamaye pana avasippatto jhānalābhī samayavimutto, vasippatto jhānalābhī c’eva sabbe va
ariyapuggalā ariye vimokkhe asamayavimuttā ti sanniṭṭhānaṃ.
  102  
 

Kathāvatthu held the view that certain defilements can be abandoned through

worldly path, which the Sarvāstivāda tradition accepts. According to Sarvāstivāda

tradition, certain defilements can be destroyed through worldly path; hence one

bypasses the first two stages and directly attains the stage of non-returner (AKB III

1947). But Theravāda tradition in general does not accept such an interpretation;

therefore the sub-sub-commentary to the Puggalapaññatti does not accept the

interpretation of the commentary. It has defined samayavimutta as worldling (Pug-

anuṭīka CSCD 4).73 It further explains that the out-flowings refer to out-flowings

relating to views (ekaccehi āsavehi vimuttoti diṭṭhāsavādīhi samucchedavimuttiyā

vimutto), however, it has interpreted the destruction of some of the out-flowings to

mean suppression of some of the out-flowings (Pug-anuṭīka CSCD 4).74 Such an

interpretion of the term ‘destruction of some fetters’ has no footing either in the Pāli

Nikāyas, or in the commentaries. According to this interpretation, saddhāvimutta,

diṭṭhipatta and kāyasakkhī can also be worldlings, which is not acceptable to Pāli

Nikāyas and commentaries.

Another pair of terms one needs to pay attention to in order to understand

retrogression of stream-enterers are ‘kuppa-dhamma and akuppa-dhamma’. These

two terms appear in the Puggalapaññatti referring to two spiritual typologies. In

Puggalapaññatti, kuppa-dhamma is defined as an individual who gains four

rūpajjhānas and four arūpajjhānas. But he does not get into them as he desires

without difficulties, and he is not able to get out from them as he desires without

                                                                                                                       
73
so ti [samayavimutto] jhānalābhī putthujjano.
74
tato eva sātisayena, ekaccehi kāmāsavehi vimutto vikkhambhanavasenāti attho. so eva
ekaccasamayavimokkhalābhī yathāvutto samayavimutto asamayavimokkhavisesassa vasena
samayavimokkhapaññattiyā adhippetattā.
  103  
 

difficulties, and not able to stay in them as long as he wishes to stay. And it is

possible for indolence to overcome him, thus there is the possibility of retrogression

(Designation of human types 17) and akuppa-dhamma is defined as an individual

who gains rūpajjhānas and arūpajjhānas, and he is able to get into them and get out

of them, as he desires. And he can stay in them, as long as he desires. There is no

possibility of negligence to overcome, hence no retrogression. It further states that all

noble disciples are of akuppa nature (Designation of human types 17-18). However,

the commentary to Puggalapaññatti interprets these two terms differently. According

to commentarial interpretation, Kuppa-dhamma refers to worldling, stream-enterers

and once-returners who possess eight meditative attainments (Pug-A 181).75 As to

the reason for their retrogression, the commentary explains that their concentration,

insight are not well established. When meditative attainment is absent, there is

retrogression. He has not overcome five grave offences, and is subject to five

negliences (Pug-A 181).76 In contrast to Kuppa dhamma, there is akuppadhamma,

the akuppadhamma is defined as non-returners and arahats who are endowed with

eight meditative attainments. Their concentration and insight are complete and well

established; hence there is no possibility for neglience to be overcome when

performing activities or other activities. Therefore, there is no retrogression for them

(Pug-A 181). 77 According to Abhidhammātikā pāli, kuppadhamma refers to

                                                                                                                       
75
kuppadhammo idaṃ pana aṭṭha-samāpattilabhino puthujjanassa sotāpannass sakadāgāmino ti
tiṇṇaṃ puggalānaṃ nāmaṃ.
76
etesaṃ hi samādhipāripanthikā vipassanā paripanthikā ca dhammā na suvikkhaṃbhitā na
suvikkhālitā tena tesaṃ samāpatti nassati parihāyati.
77
akuppadhammo ti idaṃ pana aṭṭhasamāpattibhino anāgāmino c’eva khīṇāsavassa cāti dvinnaṃ
puggalānaṃ nāmaṃ. tesaṃ hi samādhipanthikā vipassāparipanthika ca dhammā suvikkhālitā
suvikkhambhitā. tena tesaṃ bhassa saṅgiṇi kiccena vā aññena vā yena kenaci attano anurūpena
pamādena vītināmento nam samāpatti na kuppati, na nassati.
  104  
 

worldling, and two trainees—stream-enterers and once-returnees who attain eight

meditative attainments (Abhidhammāṭikāpāli, CSCD, 4).78

Another pair of spiritual typologies are: subject to retrogression (parihāna-

dhamma) and not subject to retrogression (aparihāna-dhamma). The

Puggalapaññatti defines parihāna-dhamma exactly the same as kuppa-dhamma

(Pug-A 182).79 One attains either four rūpajjhānas or four arūpaajjhānas. One is

neither able to get into them or get out of them, nor able to abide in them as desired.

Those without retrogressible nature are exactly the opposite, it is said all noble ones

are of the nature of non-retrogressible (aparihāna-dhamma). But interpretation of

kuppa-dhamma, parihāna-dhamma in the commentary to Puggalapaññatti would

imply stream-enterer and once-returner are of the nature of retrogression, while non-

returners and arahats are of the nature of non-retrogression. The commentary to the

Itivuttaka also defined kuppa-dhamma and akuppa-dhamma exactly the same as

commentary to the Puggalapaññatti. And also the interpretation of parihāna-

dhamma and aparihānadhamma are completely in agreement with Puggalapaññatti

commentary. Thus, despite the Theravāda refutation of retrogression from the stage

of stream-entry etc., a critical examination of the explanation of samaya-vimutta,

kuppa-dhamma and parihāniya-dhamma in the commentary of Itivuttaka and

Puggalapaññatti would suggest that stream-enterers and once-returners can

retrogress while non-returners and arahats do not retrogress. Another point is that in

the Aṅguttaranikāya, it is stated that a trainee may retrogress due to possessing of

                                                                                                                       
78
avasibhāvā aṭṭhasamāpattilābhī pana puthujjana, sotāpannasakadāgāmino dve sekhā,
aṭṭhasamāpattiṃ sandhaya kuppadhammo nāma.
79
parihānadhamma-aparihānadhamma-niddesāpi-kuppadhammākuppadhamma-niddesa-vasen’ eva
veditabbā.
  109  
 

one attained fruit of once-returner among the celestial beings, he would realize
arahatta having been born among human beings. If he is unable to make it, he
would definitely realize it after having returned to realm of celestial beings
(DN-A II 543).88
The interpretation of the Pāli exegetical literature in some sense is arbitrary and to

some extent contradictory. The first problem is, according to Pāli exegetical

literature, once-returner has two more births. This is contradictory to the

etymological meaning of the term ‘sakideva’. Pāli commentarial seems to justify

their interpretation, by interpreting it as one birth in human realm and one birth in the

realm of celestial beings. But this is a contradictory statement for the phrase ‘idaṃ

lokaṃ’ is defined as sensual realm. The sensual realm does not refer to only human

realm, it includes celestial realms as well, so two births in two different realms do

not the justify interpretation of the term once-returner. In Pāli Buddhist literature,

this discrepancy has never been resolved satisfactorily. Sanskrit Buddhist literature

seems more rational and consistent in this regard because they classify one-seeder as

candidate for non-returner.

When one turns to standard description of four noble persons in terms of

abandoning the list of ten fetters, there seems no distinction between stream-enterer

and once-returner. Both have abandoned the first three fetters, but once-returner

further attenuated greed, hatred and delusion. The greed, hatred and delusion are

recognized as the basic obstacles to liberation, from which all negative emotions

spring forth; hence they are defined as three roots of all unwholesome actions. From

these three, defilements like anger, hostility, envy, selfishness, arrogance, pride etc.,
                                                                                                                       
88
sace hi manussesu sakadāgāmi-phalaṃ patto devesu nibbattitvā arahattaṃ sacchikaroti, ice etaṃ
kusalaṃ asakkanto puna avassaṃ manussalokaṃ āgantvā sakkhikaroti, devesu sakadāgāmiphalaṃ
patto pi sace manussesu nibbattitvā arahattaṃ sacchikaroti, iccetam kusalaṃ asakkonto puna
avassaṃ devaloaṃ gantvā sacchikaroti.    
  110  
 

spring. Therefore, it is difficult to concede that spiritual progress is possible without

attenuating them. A careful observation of the concept of stream-enterer implies that

stream-enterer also attenuates greed, hatred and delusion. If one looks at the three

fetters said to be abandoned by stream-enterer, the self-identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi)

is directly rooted at the delusion. It is due to ignorance of reality of phenomena that

gives rise to self-view. The eradication of self-identity-view theoretically reduces a

great extent delusion as well as greed and hatred. The greed and hatred are also

closely connected with self-identity view. The other two fetters are connected to

delusion or ignorance. Hence, theoretically stream-enterer should also attenuate three

roots of unwholesomeness. The difference in degree of attenuation of them between

stream-enter and a once-returner has never been discussed in Buddhist literature.

This inconsistency seems to suggest that originally gap the between the stage of

stream-enterer and non-returner might have been very narrow, almost

indistinguishable. The concept of once-returner might have developed as a sub-stage

of the stage of stream-entry. There are some passages in Pāli Nikāyas which seem to

postulate this possibility, for instance in AN, the once-returner is presented as one of

the sub-stage of the stream-enterer. In this particular passage, instead of three sub-

stages, four sub-stages of stream-enterers are mentioned, and the last is a once-

returner:

Having destroyed three fetters, he will become one who has a maximum seven
times; having wandered maximum seven times among humans and celestial
beings, makes end of suffering. Having destroyed three fetters , one becomes
one who travels from clan to clan; having wandered two or three clans, makes
end of suffering. Having destroyed three fetters , one becomes one-seeder;
having born just once in the human state, makes end suffering. Having
destroyed three fetters, attenuated greed, hatred and delusion, becomes once-
  111  
 

returner, having come to this world only once, makes end of suffering (AN I
233)
By pointing out this passage, Joy Manne opined “this passage points to a time when

these two attainments were not yet clearly differentiated into separate discrete stage

of attainment.”(Manne 1995a: 49). Her opinion seems to make good sense. There

are many other passages that show the difference between the stage of stream-entry

and the stage of once return is almost not distinguishable. For instance, in a number

of passages in the Nikāyas, when four stages are explained with relation to three-fold

training, the stream-enterers and once-returners are classified under the same

category. They are explained as those who have completed training in morality

(sīlesu paripūrakārī, AN II 231-232). In another instance, when the Buddha was

asked, among three individuals—saddhāvimutta, diṭṭhipatta, and kāyasakkhi, who is

supreme, the Buddha is said to have stated that one of them would be on the path to

arahatta, while the other two would be either non-returner or once-returner. The

commentary to the discourse mentions that stream-enterer is also included; but it is

not mentioned because they wanted to show the best of them only. This

commentarial passage also indicates that stream-enterer and once-returner has no big

gap, rather, it indicates once-returner as a sub-stage of the stage of stream-entry.

Gradually, at a later period this stage is come to be recognized as a distinct stage.

This is further supported by the fact that none of the canonical passages has shown

any particular interest in the stage of once-return. This stage has no sub-division, and

apart from being listed in the standard version of four stages, there are no further

details of this stage recorded. Then the question naturally appears, why this stage

was developed. One possible reason would be since stream-enterer is defined as a

  112  
 

maximum seven times rebirths, other sub-stages naturally are desideratum. So once-

returner might have developed to fill this gap. But this leads to another question, why

is this particular sub-stage taken out and made into a distinct stage. It is not easy to

give any definte answer to this question. It may be because Buddhism was influenced

by four stages of life in the Brahmanism. The question is further dealt with in chapter

4.

2.10 Conclusion

The earliest mechanism to recognize someone’s spiritual breakthrough might have

been the arising of dhammacakkhuṃ. The arising of dhammacakkhuṃ is spiritual

breakthrough in an individual, often through comprehending the doctrine of

dependent co-arising. The texts are sufficiently clear that the arising of the

dhammacakkhuṃ marks to some level comprehension of the doctrine of dependent

co-arising. Gradually, the concept of dhammacakkhuṃ is replaced by the concept of

stage of stream-entry. Perhaps, at the earliest period, the concept of stage stream-

entry did not evolve to replace the concept of dhammacakkhuṃ. The two words

might have represented two different spiritual dimensions; dhammacakkhuṃ was

more towards cognitive transformation of the listeners due to the comprehension of

the doctrine of the dependent origination and the stage stream-entry might have been

represented more emotional and religious dimensions. But gradually

dhammacakkhuṃ is superseded by the concept of stage of stream-entry. In the

commentaries, there is controversy whether dhammacakkhuṃ and stage of stream-

entry represent the same stage or different stages. The commentaries chronicle

different views.
  113  
 

The pre-requirements for the attainment of the stage of stream-entry went

through several stages of development in the Pāli Nikāyas themselves, later on in the

Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. In this discussion, I have cast down

the views of some modern scholars who claimed that jhānas as pre-conditions for the

attainment of the stage of stream-entry. Rather I proposed that as insofar as Pāli

Nikāyas are concerned, neither the practice of meditation nor the attainment of

jhānas seems to be a necessary pre-condition for the attainment of the stage of

stream-entry.But the Abhidhamma and some Pāli commentarial literature interpret

the stage of stream-entry as a meditative attainment. I have further argued that the

ethical standard postulated for the stream-enterer in the Pāli Nikāyas seems to be

simple and easily attainable even by a lay Buddhist follower. Stream-enterers can

breach minor moral precepts, as long as they display honesty to reveal their

wrongdoing, and they do not commit any of the five grave crimes (garuka-kamma).

The important pre-requirement for the attainment of the stage of stream-entry is the

faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. Furthermore, in this chapter, I

have argued that experiential insight seems not to be a necessary pre-requirement for

the attainment of the stage of stream-entry. Stream-enterers may have some

theoretical comprehension of some fundamental Buddhist doctrines, such as the

doctrine of non-soullessness, the doctrine of dependent co-arising and the doctrine of

the four noble truths. However, as far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, this is also

not a necessary pre-condition for the attainment of the stage of stream-entry. But in

the Abhidhamma and subsequently in the Pāli commentarial literature, many more

doctrinal elements were crystalized in the attainment of the stage of stream-entry.

  114  
 

And according to the Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentarial literature, a stream-

enterer is necessarily required to have experiential insight into the Buddhist

doctrines.

Regarding the question of retrogression from the stage of stream-entry, the

Theravāda tradition along with the Sarvāstivāda, and the Sautrāntika schools of

Buddhist thought held the view that there is no retrogression from the stage of

stream-entry. Only the Mahāsaṃghika and the Mahīśāsaka schools of Buddhist

thought held the opposite view. However, a careful examination of the concept in the

Pāli commentaries reveals discrepant views with regards to the question of

retrogression. The discussion also reveals that stage of once return might have been a

sub-stage of stream-entry in the early period. The distinction between the two stages

is very subtle. In many passages, they are classified as one category. But later, it

might have been singled out as a distinct stage to form the theory of the four stages

to arahatta.
  115  
 

Chapter 3:
The Evolution of the Stage of Non-return

The concept of the non-returner has undergone transformation from its original

formation in the Vedic literature to Pāli commentarial literature. The selective

adaptation of the Brāhmanical terms in the thought-world of early Buddhist disciples

would speak of a nuanced picture of interreligious assimilation and interpenetration.

The development of the concept would entail a simultaneous development in

cosmology that anticipates the later Mahāyana development. This chapter traces the

original formation of the concept to its development in the Nikāyas, Abhidhamma and

Pāli commentarial literature.

3.1 The Theory of the Two Stages of Nibbāna and the Stage of
Non-return

A number of discourses, using very similar terms, mention that if one takes up

Buddhist practice, he would gain one of the two stages, either realization of the goal in

this very life or if there remains upādi then the state of non-return (DN II 314; MN I

62, 63, 481; SN V 129, 181, 236, 313, AN III 82, 142; V 108; Iti 39,40,41).1 The

earliest distinction between the two stages is based on exhaustion and remnant of

upādi. He who has completely exhausted upādi is an arahat and in whom there is

remnant of upādi, he is a of non-returner.

Now the question is, what is this upādi? The term upādi is quite an ambiguous

term in Buddhist literature. In the early discourses, there is no clear definition of the
                                                                                                                       
1
Dvinnaṃ phalānaṃ aññataraṃ pātikaṅkhaṃ, diṭṭhe va dhamme aṇṇā, sati vā upādise anāgāmitā.    

 
 
  116  
 

term. Pāli Abhidhamma also does not shed any light on this ambiguity. The later

Buddhist tradition constructed the theory of two stages of Nibbāna—Nibbāna with

upādi (sopādisesanibbānadhātu), and Nibbāna without upādi

(anupādisesanibbānadhātu). Pāli commentaries interpret the first as the complete

cessation of defilements (kilesaparininibbāna) and the second as the complete

cessation of aggregates (khandhaparinibbāna). (Tha-A I 46; Dhp-A II 163).

Buddhaghosa explained, citing the life of the Buddha, that the Buddha attained the

first stage of Nibbāna with his enlightenment and he attained the second stage of

Nibbāna when he passed away at the age of eighty (Vism 438). If one reads the early

passages in the Nikāyas dealing with the state of arahatta and the state of non-return

through the lens of the commentarial interpretation of upādi, then one has to admit

both arahats and non-returners are liberated. The distinction between them is the non-

returners have the five aggregates the arahat do not possess the five aggregates. The

Nettippakaraṇa and the Peṭakopadesa2 explains the two stages of Nibbāna in terms of

possessing and not possessing five aggregates. The Nettippakaraṇa explains:

When ends the craving, this is sphere of Nibbāna with upādi, and the breaking of
body (death) is called sphere of Nibbāna without upādi. (Nett 38).3
The Peṭakopadesa explains the two stages of Nibbāna as follows:

Here, a monk has done his duties. This is the sphere of Nibbāna with upādi.
With the end of lifespan and end of life vitality, his suffering ceases. No further
suffering arises. When there is cessation of these aggregates, elements and

                                                                                                                       
2
These two texts considered as canonical texts by the Burmese tradition, but Sril Lankan tradition
considers them as independent text. Scholars generally agree that these two texts were composed
before the Pāli commentaries.
3
yā nittaṇhātā ayaṃ saupādisesānibbānadhātu, bhedā kāyassa ayam anupādisesānibbānadhātu.

 
 
  117  
 

faculties, there is no further obtaining of aggregate, element and faculty, no

further existence, this is Nibbāna without upādi. (Peṭakopadesa 124).4
The Itivuttaka explains upādi as five faculties:

Oh! Monks, what is the sphere of Nibbāna with upādi? Here a monk, who one is
an arahat, destroyed the outflowing, lived [the spiritual life], done what has to
be done, laid down the burden, attained the highest goal, destroyed the fetters of
existence, truly liberated. He has five faculties, on account of which he feels
pleasant and unpleasant, and experiences pain and sorrow. But his greed, hatred
and delusion have been destroyed. This is element of Nibbāna with upādi. And
what is Nibbāna without upādi? Here, oh! Monks, a monk who is arahat, he has
destroyed the outflowing, lived [spiritual life] done what has to be done, laid
down the burden, attained the highest goal, his fetter for existence has been
destroyed. Here, all his feelings are not rejoicing [do not rejoice in feeling], will
become cold. Oh! Monks, this is called sphere of Nibbāna without upādi.( Iti
38).5
A number of scholars have challenged the commentarial interpretation of the term

upādi and convincingly argue with sufficient textual evidence that there is textual

evidence to prove upādi refers to either clinging or attachment. Among them

Hermann oldenberg (1882), Lovejoy (1898), Masefiled (1979) Huzita Kaudazu (1988)

and Hwang (2006) have discussed several aspects and argue that upādi refers to

attachment. Lovejoy in the article ‘The Buddhistic technical terms upādāna and

upādisesa’ demonstrate that upādi, upādhi and upādāna are often used synonymously

in the Nikāyas (Lovejoy 1898:126-136). He has very convincingly argued that as far

as the Nikāyas literature is concerned, there is no scope to take upādi as aggregate, but

                                                                                                                       
4
ettāvatā bhiikhu katakicco bhavati, esā sopādisesānibbānātu. tassa āyupariyādānā jīvitindryassa
uparodhā idañca dukkhaṃ nirujjhati, aññañca dukkhaṃ na uppajati, tattha so imesaṃ khandhānaṃ
dhātu-āyatanānaṃ nirodho vūoasamo añesaṇca khandhadhātu-āyatanānaṃ appaṭisandhi
apātubhāvo ayaṃ anupādisesanibbānadhātu.    
5
katamā bhikkhave saupādisesa nibbānadhātu? idha bhikkhu arahaṃ hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā
katakaraṇīya ohitabhāra anuppattasadattho parikhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññāvimutto. tassa
tiṭṭhento pañcindriyāni yesaṃ avighātattā manāpāmanāpaṃ pacanubhoti sukhadukkhaṃ
paṭisaṃvediyati. tassa yo rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhāyo ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave saupādisesa
nibbānadhātu. katamā ca bhikkhave anupādisesā nibbānadhātu? idha bhikkhave bhikkhuṃ arahaṃ
hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīya ohitabhāra anuppattasadattho parikhīṇabhavasaṃyojano
sammadaññāvimutto. tassa idheva bhikkhave sabba vediyitāni anabhinanditāni sītibhavissati, ayaṃ
vuccati bhikkhave anupādisesā nibbānadhātu.

 
 
  118  
 

it refers to attachment or clinging. Huzita argues that there is no canonical evidence to

support the view that upādi refers to aggregates (Huzita 1988: 8). Hwang takes more

careful notes on the term upādi. He argues that the term upādi has two different

dimensions,on the one hand it means grasping, attachment, clinging, etc. (Hwang

2006:16). on the other hand fit refers to fuel, supply, i.e. remnant of karmic residuum:

Upādi in this passage [related to non-returners] cannot be understood in its

objective sense, as in the context of the two nirvāṇa theory, but is to be
understood in its subjective sense as in the context of the four noble persons.
(Hwang 2006: 30-31).
Hwang cites extensive textual evidence to support his conclusion. However, he does

not clarify why upādi cannot be understood from objective sense in regards to non-

returners. His argument seems to be based on later passages that describe non-

returners as not having abandoned attachment completely.

Masefield argues that upādi in the discourses refers to karmic residuum. He

concludes that there is no gap between the stage of arahatta and the stage of non-

return. Both have perfected in terms of the path, but non-returners have some karmic

residuum remained, so there are future births for them:

Nor is it suggested in such passages that the fruit of the state of non-return was
thought inferior to, or a stage on the way to the attainment of the fruit of aññā in
these conditions. Rather they are both said to be fruits of the Brāhmacariya,
implying that in either case the goal was thought to have been won; and that
some attained aññā in these conditions whilst others attained parinibbāna in a
subsequent birth in the Brāhmaloka would seem to depend solely upon the
presence of this remnant of upādi, this residue (of kamma) requiring further birth
for its expiation. (Masefield 1979: 221).
His view seems to have some support in the Visuddhimagga. In the Visuddhimagga

Buddhaghosa defines two stages of Nibbāna as follows:

 
 
  119  
 

The Buddhas’ goal is one and has no plurality. But this [single goal, nibbāna,] is
firstly called with result of past clinging left since it is made known together with
the [aggregates resulting from past] clinging still remaining [during the
Arahant’s life], being thus made known in terms of stilling of defilements and
remaining [result of past] clinging that are present in one who has reached it by
means of development. But [secondly, it is called without result of past clinging
left ] since after the last consciousness of the arahant, who has abandoned
arousing [future aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving result in
future [existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence, and those
already arisen have disappeared. So the [result of past] clinging that remained is
non-existent; and it is in terms of this non-existence, in the sense that there is no
[result of past] clinging here, that [same goal is called] without result of past
clinging left. (Vism 432, translated by Ñāṇamoli in The Path of Purification 580-
81).
Buddhaghosa also seems to understand upādi as remnant of past clinging, and it is a

kind of defilements caused by past kamma. Ñāṇamoli in his translation of the

Khuddakapātha, The Minor Readings, comments on the term upādi. Ñāṇamoli

remarks that upādi refers to residue of the clinging left. He goes on to say originally

the term was used in Indian medical science referring to residue of poison left after the

treatment of a person pierced by a poisoned arrow. Later Buddhist adopted the term to

refer to residue of defilements left after even becoming an arahat. But this will fade

away with death. He cites the Sunakkhatta-sutta of MN to substantiate his

interpretation. In this discourse, the Buddha gives an analogy of a person pierced by

poisoned arrow, a person pierced by a poisoned arrow goes to a doctor, and the doctor

removes the poison from the wound. Even though the poison is removed, there is

possibility of some residue of poison left him. Therefore, the doctor may prescribe

certain suitable food, cleaning the wound and not exposing the wound to wind. If the

patient follows the prescription, he would be cured, otherwise it may get worse (The

Minor Readings 214-15). Ñāṇamoli’s interpretation seems based on Buddhaghosa’s

interpretation of the term, but it differs from Buddhaghosa’s interpretation in one

 
 
  120  
 

important aspect. While Buddhaghosa says the residue will pass away automatically

with death, Ñāṇamoli’s interpretation suggests that after attaining Nibbāna with upādi,

still he may need to make some effort to remove the upādi. Masefield’s view seems to

be very close to Buddhaghosa’s. The difference is only that Buddhaghosa says the

residuum will disappear with death, while Masefield believes one may take birth in the

Brāhmaloka to exhaust this past kammic residuum. Whatever minor differences there

may be, if Pāli commentarial interpretation of upādi is accepted, then, logically one

has to accept that sopādisesānibbāna means attainment of the stage of non-return,

while anupādisesānibbāna means attainment of arahatta.

Though in the Pāli Buddhist literature, there is no textual evidence to equate

sopādisesānibbāna with the stage of non-return anupādisesānibbāna arahatta in this

life, Hwang points out that a passage in the Ekottarāgama contains such view. He

translates the passage from Chinese as follow:

There are two nirvana elements. What are two? They are nirvana with a
remainder of clinging and nirvana without a remainder of clinging. How is it
called nirvana with a remainder of clinging? A monk, by destroying the five
lower fetters, that is to say one who has attained nirvana in the intermediate state
(antarāparinirvāyin) does not return to that world [of desire]. That is why it is
called nirvana with a remainder of clinging. How is it called nirvana without a
remainder of clinging? A monk, by destroying impurity and accomplishing
purity, witness himself [in this very life] the liberation through mind
(cetovimukti) and liberation through wisdom (prajñāvimukti) and himself
delighted. He really knows ‘birth is destroyed, the holy life is fulfilled, and there
is no more birth [in this world]. That is why it is called nirvana without a
remainder of clinging. (EA, TD259a, cited and translated by Hwang 2006:31).
Here are no parallel of this passage in the Pāli Aṅguttaranikāya, nor there is any

discussion on this passage in Pāli Abhidhamma or Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. Hwang

thinks this interpretation belongs to Mahāsaṃghika school (Hwang 2006: 32). So with

this single passage, it is not possible to establish the idea that sopādisesanibbāna is

 
 
  121  
 

equals to attainment of the stage of arahatta. However, logically it is possible to argue

that in the early part of Buddhism, the stage of non-returner equivalent to the to stage

of non-return because in later tradition the distinction between two stages of Nibbāna

is in upādi, similar to early Buddhist discourses, the yardstick to distinguish the stage

of arahatta and state of non-returner (anāgāmitā) is upādi. The Abhidhamma and Pāli

commentarial literature do not shed much light in solving the dilemma, whether

sopādisesanibbāna is equal to attainment of the state of non-returner. Neither

Ābhidhammikas, nor Pāli commentators discuss this apparent dilemma. Therefore, it is

very difficult to make any concrete conclusion on the issue.

The issue becomes more complicated when one observes that in a number of

discourses, the demarcation between the stage of arahatta and the stage of non-return

is based on the extinction of attachment to desires. The arahat is one who has made

complete extinction of all desire and lust; non-returner is in whom certain attachment

to desire still remains. However, the non-returner is also defined as one who has

attachment to the dhamma, one who rejoices in the dhamma (MN I 437). And a non-

returner has desire for the dhamma (dhamma-rāga). The discourses say certain

outflowing is abandoned due to delight in the dhamma, attachment to the dhamma.

Now the question is whether the chanda and dhamma-rāga are equal to upādi

mentioned in early passages. Sometimes, the term chanda is employed in a positive

sense. The term is mostly associated with sensual desire, desire desire for existence

(bhava-chanda) (Theragāthā-Therigāthā II 14). Chanda, when combined with rāga, is

almost always negative. The term chanda-rāga is defined as greed, hatred, and

aversion (DN I 25, rāga, dosa and paṭigha. But sometimes the term is used to refer to

 
 
  122  
 

desire for spiritual striving, or zeal for wholesome dhamma (AN I 229; III 441), or as

a desire to cultivate good dhamma (MN I 174).6

When one critically examines concepts of non-returner possessing chanda-rāga, it

seems to suggest that non-returner possesses some kind of greed, hatred and delusion.

Therefore, it cannot be equal to arahatta as suggested by our earlier examination of

non-returner with regards to upādi. The variation in the interpretation of non-returner

suggests gradual transformation of concept of non-returner within the Nikāyas.

3.2 The Stage of Non-return and the Five Fetters Pertaining to

Lower Sphere

The concept of non-returner went through transformation within the Nikāyas. While

in early discourses the concept seems to be very close to an arahat, gradually the

concept starts to recedes and forms the as penultimate stage to arahatta. Finally the

concept was standardized with abandoning of five fetters pertaining to lower sphere.

Before, the standardized version was developed, the stage of non-return has been

defined in association with many others doctrinal concepts.

In many passages in the Nikāyas the concept of non-returner is explained in terms

of the development of the five spiritual faculties. In some instances, all four stages of

liberation are defined in terms of the development of the five spiritual faculties. In the

Mahāvagga of the Saṃyuttanikāya, it is recorded that in one whose five spiritual

faculties are perfected, he is an arahat. In whom they are weaker than that, he is a non-

returner. Still weaker is a once-returner, and continues until the faith-follower (SN V

                                                                                                                       
6
kusalānam dhammānaṃ uppādāya chandaṃ janeti vāyamati viriyaṃ ārabhati.

 
 
  123  
 

200). In the same section, the five types of non-returners are also included (SN V 2001,

215, 216, 217).7 In the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the four stages are described in relation to

the threefold training (tisso sikkhā)— training with regard to morality (adhisīla),

training with regard to mind (adhicitta) and training with regard to wisdom

(adhipaññā); the stream enterer and once returner are only perfected in training

regarding morality, the non-returners are perfected in training regarding the morality

and training regarding the mind, the arahats are perfected in all threefold training (AN

I 233). In another discourse, non-returners are defined as those who do not fully know

the Buddhist dispensation (DN II 255).8 Yet in the Saṅkhāruppatti sutta of MN, pre-

conditions for the non-returners are the development of faith, morality, learning (suta),

generosity and wisdom. In the Khandha-saṃyutta, the path to realization of the stage

of non-return is explained as proper mental application towards the five aggregates of

grasping as impermanent, unsatisfactory, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery,

as affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty and as without soul. In certain

passages in the Nikāyas, stream-enterers and once-returners are also defined as non-

returners. It is stated that:

When someone cultivates the meditative attainment up to infinitive of space, if

he relishes it, desires it, and find satisfaction in it. If he is firm in it, focuses in it,
often dwells in it, if he does not lose it at the time of death, he will be reborn
among gods of the pure abode (suddhāvāsa). If he is a worldling, he will return
to this realm after the exhaustion of life span there, but if he is a noble disciple,
he will not return. He will attain final liberation there. (MN, I, 267)
                                                                                                                       
7
The five spiritual faculties play a significant role in the Pāli Nikāyas. This concept is also seen in the
Yogasūtra of Patañjali. In this discourse, spiritual practitioners are also divided into three: sharp
faculties (tīvrasaṃvegānāmasannaḥ), medium faculties (madhyā) and weak faculties (mṛdu), based
on the development of the five spiritual faculties (Madan 2001: 200). In Buddhism, the five spiritual
faculties are also defined in a similar sense. Joy Manne asserts that the five faculties are important
within the Buddhist thought before the development of the four stages. When the four stages were
developed, they came to be connected to the four stages, as well as sub-stages (Manne 1995a: 51).
8
ye na sabbena sabbaṃ sāsanaṃ ājānanti.

 
 
  124  
 

A similar interpretation is also given with regard to the development of the four

sublime states (brahma-vihārā). In another passage, the concept of non-returner and

returner is distinguished in relation to the mode of practicing generosity, here

Venerable Sāriputta explained to a group of lay followers that if one gives a gift, with

expectations, with a bound mind, looking for rewards, although that person will be

reborn among the gods after his death, after the exhaustion of that karma, psychic

potency, glory, he would come back to the state of human beings. On the other hand,

one who practices generosity without expectations, without a bound mind, without

looking for rewards, after death he is reborn among the gods of Brahmā’s company.

Having exhausted that karma, psychic potency, glory and authority, he does not return

back to the state of human beings anymore (AN IV 62-63). This divergent

interpretation of non-returner would suggest that until that time, there was no standard

description of non-returner. The implication that non-return as the penultimate state to

sainthood was established, but standard description of the concept was not yet

available.

Gradually, towards the second stage of the development of the descriptive qualities

of the concept, this divergence is superseded by a standardized version of the concept.

According to the standard version, the four stages are distinguished in relation to the

stereotypical list of ten fetters. The stream-enterers abandon the first three fetters;

once-returners abandon none but weaken the fourth 4th and the fifth 5th. The non-

returners abandon the five fetters pertaining to the lower sphere

(orambhāgiyānisaṃyojanāni SN V 159). The other five fetters known as fetters

related to higher sphere (uddhaṃbhāgiyānisaṃyojanāni) are abandoned by arahats.

 
 
  125  
 

When this standardized version of non-returner in relation to the list of ten higher and

lower fetters developed is not clear within Buddhist literature. Hwang opines that this

development took place in the Abhidhamma and he further states that the four stages

are explained only in relation to fetters first in the Dhammasaṅganī, and later it was

copied in the Puggalapaññatti and also the Dharmaskanda, a Sarvāstivāda

Abhidharma text, now available in Chinese translation only (Hwang 2006: 27). In the

Pāli Nikāyas, non-returner is defined as one who abandons the five lower fetters, while

the Dhammasaṅgaṇī presents non-returner as one who has abandoned the sensual

desire and ill-will without remainder (kāmarāgavyāpādānaṃ anavesasapphānāya).

The five lower fetters include these two, hence there is no substantial difference in

them.

The juxtaposition of the scheme of fetters and the notion of noble persons

coincides with a doctrinal development of the concept of fetter reflected in the early

discourses. The concept of fetters is a very archaic religious concept shared by most

Pan-Indian ancient religions. The concept is seen in the early Buddhist texts, such as

the Aṭṭhakavagga and the Pārāṇayanavagga of the Suttanipāta. It is often used

synonymously with bondage (gantha), craving (taṇhā), etc. The implication is what

fetters us, prevents us from gaining enlightenment. In the Pārāyanavagga of the

Suttanipāta, delight is taken as fetter of the world. When Udaya questions the Buddha,

as to how the world is fetter (kiṃsu saṃyojano loko), the Buddha responded that joy is

in world is fetter (nandīsaṃyojano loko, Sn 215). There are several versions of fetters.

There is a version of fetters with seven fetters; here the listing is also slightly different

 
 
  126  
 

from the standard version (AN IV 7).9 In another list of sevenfold fetter, the list is

slightly different from the above lists; here envy and miserliness are included (AN IV

9). Sometimes, in the list of ten, some factors are different. Even in the

Dhammasaṅganī the ten fetters in the list are slightly different from the standard list

(Dhs 197).10

This divergence in the numbers of fetters in different lists would imply a gradual

development of the list of fetters. The list of factors seems to have developed

independent of the four stages. In later period, two lines of thought are mingled

together to form a standardized Buddhist path to liberation. I can prudently conclude

that this standard version of the four stages with tenfold fetter might have developed

towards the late Pāli Nikāya period or early Abhidhamma period. With this

development, the concept of non-return is standardized with the abandoning of five

lower fetters. Somaratne has noted that there are some flaws in the standard version

also. He points out that once-returner is defined as one who has abandoned the first

three fetters and has weakened greed (rāga), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha), hence

logically the fourth, fifth and sixth should be greed, hatred and delusion, but in the

standard list the fourth and the fifth are sensual pleasure and ill will respectively. The

ignorance (avijjā), which is synonymous to delusion, is shifted to the last place.

Therefore, non-returners may have weakened ignorance and all other fetters, but in the

standard list ignorance is never mentioned (Somaratne 1999:143). I think this is a

minor issue, though theoretically there seems to be some discrepancy, but there is not
                                                                                                                       
9
Fetter of greed, the fetter of aversion, the fetter of views, the fetter of doubt, the fetter of conceit, the
fetter of lust for existence and fetter of ignorance.
10
Ten fetters are: kāmarāgasaññojanaṃ, paṭighasaññojanaṃ, mānasaññojanaṃ, diṭṭhisaññojanaṃ,
vicikicchā sīlabbata, bhavasaññojanaṃ, issasaññojanaṃ, macchariyasaññojanaṃ and
avijjāsaññojanaṃ.

 
 
  127  
 

much contradiction because stream-enterers also abandon self-view, which is part of

delusion or ignorance. The self-view sustains on ignorance, so there is no discrepancy

to say that a once-returner has weakened delusion.

3.3 Attainment of Jhānas as Pre-requirement for the Stage of

Non-return

While in the earliest phase of Buddhism, meditation is part of the daily experiences of

the early disciples, theoretical discussion on the nature and function of meditative

absorptions soon gained importance in the early discussions on Buddhism. This sub-

chapter aims to investigate the pre-requirements for the stage of non-return. My main

focus will be on whether one needs jhānas to become a non-returner.

The Pāli Nikāyas do not specify the requirement of jhānas and samāpattis for the

attainment of the stage of non-return. Hence, one has to examine several concepts

related to it. One of the reasoning adopted by Venerable Analayo to argue that non-

returner requires jhānas was based on the fact that non-returners are reborn in the

realm of form (rūpadhātu/rūpāvacara). He states; “Judging from this, the

development of concentration up to the level of absorption appears to be required for

the realization of non-return” (Analayo 2007: 655).

This is a powerful argument as a number of discourses define non-returners as

those who do not return to the realm of sensuality (kāmāvacara). The Pāli Nikāyas

explicitly state that non-returners are individuals who are unable to reach arahatta in

the human life, after death they are reborn in the pure-abode (suddhāvāsa) which is

located in the realm of form; and they attain final liberation in that realm without

 
 
  128  
 

returning to the sensual realm. The Indian cosmologists constructed the realm of form

and formless according to meditative attainment. The Nikāyas seem to have inherited

this tradition. Thus jhānas are classified into four jhānas relating to realm of form

(rūpajjhāna) and four jhānas relating to formless realm (arūpajjhāna). In the Nikāyas

rūpa and arūpa do not necessarily refer to actual cosmological realms, but state of

meditative attainment. One can experience them in meditation without being born into

those realms. Sometimes they are known together as eight samāpatti and can be

attained through concentration. The question whether actual cosmological realms were

formed before meditative attainments or meditative attainment was formed in line with

cosmological realm, is a big question, which requires an extensive study that I cannot

afford to give here. They might have been originally meditative attainments; and

subsequently cosmological realms were constructed to answer the soteriological

question as to what happens when meditators passed away without attaining final

liberation. But with the complexity of the question, it is not easy to make any precise

statement on this. Suffice to say that the two sets of jhānas and two sets of

cosmological realms are correlated. The corresponding cosmological realm perhaps is

so named because jhānas are prior requirements for birth in these realms. In several

discourses, it is explicitly mentioned that practitioners who are skilled in attaining

jhānas may be reborn in Brāhmaloka after death, if they fail to achieve arahatta

before death (DN II 185-196; AN II 26-28). Even worldlings can be reborn in

Brāhmaloka, if they are skilled in attaining jhānas. A passage in the Aṅguttaranikāya

while elucidating the concept of return and non-return, states:

Oh! monks, a person having transcended the signs of form, transcends the sign
of aversion, not paying attentions different signs, he attains the state of infinity

 
 
  129  
 

of space. He desires it, relishes it, and finds satisfaction in it. If he is resolute in
it, he often dwells in it and if not lost when he is dying, he is reborn among
companionship with the deities of the base of the infinity of space. Oh! Monks,
lifespan in the realm of infinite of span is twenty hundred thousand kappa. A
worlding would remain there all his life and when he has completed the entire
life span of those devas, he goes to hell, to animal realm or to sphere of afflicted
spirits. But a disciple of the blessed one remains there all his life, and when he
has completed the entire life span, he attains final Nibbāna in that very same
existence. (AN I 267).
The passage states that requirement for rebirth in Brāhmaloka is skill in attaining

jhānas, and not anything to do with abandonment of fetters. The only distinction

between abandonment of defilements and non-abandonment of defilement is that those

who have abandoned fetters do not retrogress from Brāhmaloka, while worldlings who

have not abandoned defilements, will retrogress after the end of life span in

Brāhmaloka. This postulates all non-returners have attained at least the first four

jhānas. This is in accordance with the etymological definition of non-returners ‘as one

who does not return to human conditions again from Brāhmaloka’. As I have shown

above, one does not define non-returner simply by virtue of abandonment of five

lowers fetters, but as one who does not return to human conditions from Brāhmaloka.

The above captioned passage shows that even stream-enterers and once-returners are

also non-returners if they are skilled in attaining the jhānas. Thus, jhānas play an

important role in qualifying the stage of non-return, and is established as a necessary

meditative prerequisite for the attainment of the stage of non-return as the concept

developed.

My hypothesis is further substantiated by the Nikāya references that non-returner

perfects in morality and concentration (AN I 233).11 In several passages in the

                                                                                                                       
11
sīlesu paripūkāri and samādhism paripūkāri.

 
 
  130  
 

Nikāyas, samādhi is interpreted as four jhānas (SN V 198, 219). In some passages

samādhi includes both rūpajjhānas and four arūpajjhānas (DN I 73).12 The Pāli

commentarial literature is also in agreement with this interpretation (AN-A III 236).

Thus, the four arūpajjhānas might be optional, but four rūpajjhāna seem mandatory

requirements for the stage of non-return because non-returners appear in realm of

form after death. There are passages in the Nikāyas, which imply that a worldling can

be reborn in the realm of form if one cultivates jhānas. It is further supported by the

Nikāya references that the stage of non-return and arahatta is predicted for those

who practice meditation. In the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta, it is stated one who

practices Satipaṭṭhāna, would gain either arahatta in this very life, and if he fails to

attain arahatta before death, he would become non-returner (SN V 314). Similar

assurance is given to those who practice meditation in breathing in and out. There are

several passages in the Nikāyas that mention non-returners attaining jhānas. For

instance, in the Mahāmāluṅkyaputta sutta, the path to the stage of arahatta and the

stage of non-return is described as insight preceded by jhānas. The insight is

explained as insight into each of jhānic attainment including the attainment of four

arūpajjhānas (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, 540). Similar

interpretation is seen in several other discourses (The Middle Length Discourses of

the Buddha, 899). Several passages in the Nikāyas and Pāli commentarial literature

infer that non-returners not only attain four rūpajjhāna, but also attain four

arūpajjhānas (SN IV 293). One of the important points to note is that non-returner

and arahats are capable of attaining cessation of ideation and sensation (saññavedita-
                                                                                                                       
12
Karunaratne Upali in his article on “Jhāna” in the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism Vol. II 50-55, has
given a succinct account of jhānas in the Pāli Nikāyas. Therefore, I avoid giving details account of it
here.

 
 
  131  
 

nirodha), also known as attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti). The attainment

of this stage requires mandatory skill to attain four jhānas relating to the form realm

and four jhānas relating to the formless realm. A passage in the AN describes non-

returner as ‘one who dwells attaining liberation of mind which is calm’ (AN I 64).13

The term cetovimuttiṃ is synonymous with nirodhasamāpatti (AN II 87, 89-91). The

Visuddhimagga also maintains that only non-returners and arahats who have skill in

eight samāpatti are capable of attaining this state. Why other meditators cannot attain

this state is not clear, perhaps because it is self-explanatory that by the time one

comes to this attainment, they have abandoned fetters which arahats and non-

returners need to abandon. Furthermore, in the Mahāmālunkyaputta sutta of MN, the

path to abandon five lower fetters is clearly enumerated. The path is explained as

subduing five hindrances, attainment of jhānas followed by insight (MN I 436).

The onset of the development of Abhidhamma rapidly devised the scheme of

supra-mundane jhānas as a theoretical addition to the scheme of jhānas. The

Dhammasaṅgaṇī and the Vibhaṅga define four paths as supra-mundane jhānas

(lokuttarajjhāna). This is Abhidhammic development of the concept; it is not explicit

whether the supra-mundane jhānas is identical to mundane jhānas. From the

presentation, the implication is quite clear that the nature of the jhānas is the same.

The only difference is through mundane jhānas one suppresses the defilements, but

with supra-mundane jhānas, defilements are abandoned. The Pāli commentarial

literature explain that while four jhānas relate to realm of form and four jhānas relate

to the formless realm are developed through cultivation of concentration (samathā

                                                                                                                       
13
so aññataraṃ santaṃ cetovimuttiṃ upasampajja viharati.

 
 
  132  
 

bhāvanā), the supra-mundane jhānas are developed through cultivation of insight

(vipassanā bhāvanā). The question would be whether the supra-mundane jhānas are

capable of producing rebirths in the form and formless realms. The answer seems to be

negative. It is possible that Ābhidhammikas formulated the supra-mundane jhānas in

similar form with rūpajjhānas and arūpajjhānas. Since it is accepted those who attains

rūpajjhānas and arūpajjhānas would be reborn in corresponding cosmological realms

after death, Ābhidhammikas might have tried to convey similar consequence that those

engage in supra-mundane jhānas would be reborn in supra-mundane states after death,

i. e. Nibbāna. Then the question would arise, if one attains one of the first three stages,

but fails to attain arahatta, then where would he be reborn after death? This point is

not very clear in the canonical Abhidhamma, we have to investigate the Pāli exegetical

literature to find an answer.

The commentarial literature developed two distinct paths to enlightenment; the

vehicle of concentration (samathayāna) and the vehicle of insight (vipassanāyāna). In

the Pāli exegetical literature, both vehicles are recognized as valid paths to

enlightenment. The samathayāna is defined as consisting of insight preceded by

concentration, i.e. jhānas and samāpatti (Vism-mahāṭīkā II 350),14 while the vehicle of

insight is defined as ‘vehicle of dry-insight’ (sukkhavipassakayāna), or ‘pure-insight

vehicle’ (suddhavipassakayāna). The one who practices in the vehicle of dry-insight is

known as ‘dry-insight-practitioner (sukkhavipassayāniko), or ‘pure-insight practitioner’

(suddhavipassanāyaniko). The sub-commentary to the Sumaṅgalivilāsini defines

sukkhavipassaka as:
                                                                                                                       
14
Samathova yānam samathayānaṃ, taṃ etassa atthīti samathayāniko, jhāne,jhāna-upācare vā
paṭṭhāya vipassanaṃ anuyuñjantassa etam nāmaṃ.

 
 
  133  
 

The one whose insight is dry, rough or inmost because of the lack of the moisture
of serenity meditation is a dry-insight practitioner. (DN-ṭīkā II 152; I 345).15

The commentary to the Visuddhimagga, defines ‘pure-insight’ practitioner as “one

who does not gain jhānas.” (The Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīkā 474.)16 Such commentarial

development of the concept of meditative attainments would pose far-fetching

influence on later meditative practices in Theravada tradition. For example, taking

these commentarial interpretation, Ledi Sayādaw, a monk of the 20th century,

vigorously promoted ‘the vehicle of only insight’. He defines the pure-insight vehicle

as “not mixing insight with jhānas of concentration practices” (The Anudīparīpāthā,

63).17 From this, the implication is quite clear that dry-insight practitioners do not

attain jhānas. This commentarial emphasis on dry insight would beg the question as to

whether a dry-insight practitioner needs to pass through the stage of non-return. The

answer seems quite explicit that according to the Pāli exegetical literature, one passes

through all four stages (see chapter 5 for more details). Then the question arises, how

does one become a non-returner without jhānas?

According to the Nikāyas, a non-returner without jhānas is incapable of births in

the Brāhmaloka. Then where will he be reborn? It is recognized in the commentary

that with non-returner path thought (anāgāmimaggacitta), one can abandon fetters, but

non-returner fruit thought (anāgāmiphalacitta) is not capable of bringing forth birth in

the realm of form (AN-A III 132). Secondly, discourses emphatically state non-

returners are perfected in morality and concentration, but according to the Pāli

                                                                                                                       
15
sukkhavipassako ti samathabhāvanāsinehābhāva sukkha lūkhā asinidhā vā vipassanā etasāti
sukkhavipassako;
16
ajhānalābhi suddhavipassanāyānikova sukkhavipassako.
17
suddhaṃ vipassanāyānaṃ yesam te suddhavipassanāyānikā suddham iti samathajjhānena
asammissaṃ.

 
 
  134  
 

exegetical literature interpretation of non-returners, some non-returners may not be

perfect in concentration. Some Pāli commentators notice these problems, but they tried

to give alternative interpretations of these concepts. In the commentary to the

Theragāthā, it is said that dry-insight-practitioner attains momentary concentration

(khaṇika samādhi); it further defines dry-insight arahat as:

Those who having established only in the momentary concentration, started

insight, and realized the highest path; they from the inception and in the middle
without connecting (mixing) with factors of jhānas, which are born of
concentration, they are known as dry-insight practitioners. (Tha-A III 208)18
The passage does not elucidate whether this momentary concentration is equivalent to

any jhānas. The obvious conclusion is, it is not equivalent to jhānas, for jhānas require

deep level of concentration practices. This only means that sukkhavipassaka attains

some form of samādhi, which cannot be the samādhi mentioned in the discourses. By

this, the passage might have tried to give an explanation how a non-returner in the

scheme of sukkhavipassaka fulfills samādhi. But the question still remains, where this

non-returner will be reborn. Another passage in the Manuratapūraṇi tries to solve this

dilemma. It says that if a dry-insight practitioner attains the stage of non-return, but

yet could not attain arahatta before death, he would necessarily obtain jhānas related

to realm of form at least for a moment before death. This momentary jhānas would

enable him to be reborn in the realm of form (AN-A III 132). The passage further says

that dry-insight vehicle as “having practiced insight first, cultivates equipoise of mind.

                                                                                                                       
18
ye pana khaṇika-samādhi-matte ṭhatvā vipassanaṃ paṭṭhapetvā adhigata agga-maggā, te ādito
antarantarā ca samādhijena jhānāṅgena vipassanābhantara paṭisandhānam abhāvā sukkah
vipassanā etesan ti sukkhavipassakā nāma.

 
 
  135  
 

It means originally attains insight, having stood on insight, develops samādhi”. (AN-A

III 143)19

The Papañcasūdanī further clarify that there are two alternative paths to arahatta.

It says some can develop the path of insight preceded by samādhi, while some other

can practice samādhi preceded by insight. Thus, the commentarial tradition in general

agrees that the path consists of both samādhi and vipassanā, it is a matter of which

precedes which. The sub-commentary to the Manurathapūraṇi states that dry-insight

practitioners gain the highest fruit with prior practice of jhānas, but it does not say

that he does not attain jhānas at the moment of supra-mundane paths (AN-ṭīkā II 98-

99).20 Thus, it seems that jhānas are recognized as a necessary condition for the stage

of non-return. But the Pāli exegetical literature is highly inconsistent when it comes to

the definition of dry-insight practitioners, while some commentaries define them as

completely without jhānas, However, the majority agrees that sukkhavipassaka attains

jhānas, the difference is either vipassanā is preceded by samātha, or samātha

preceded by vipassanā.

3.4 The Classification of Non-returners

With the establishment of non-returner as one of the four types of noble persons, the

next doctrinal development of the stage of non-return would later come to a stage

where the stage is further subdivided into five taxonomical categories, as specification

of the stage itself underwent more theorization. Such increased division among the
                                                                                                                       
19
vipassanaṃ pubbaṅgamaṃ purecārikaṃ katvā samathaṃ bhāveti, pakatīyā vipassanālabhī
vipassanāya ṭhatvā samādhi uppadeti attho.
20
pubbabhāge jhānasinehābhāvena kevalāya vipassanāya ṭhatvā aggaphalappattā sukkhavipassakā
nāma, maggakkhaṇe pana jhānasineha natthīti na vattabba.    

 
 
  136  
 

stage of non-return is also reflected in Sanskrit Buddhist texts, and seems to be a pan-

Buddhist phenomenon that transcends sectarian boundaries. With such an introduction

to the subdivisions, however, there is a paucity of precise definition of such terms, and

there are also doctrinal inconsistencies, despite attempts to define these subdivisions to

conceptualize the diversities of the stage of non-return. Though unified by the

abandonment of the five lower fetters, as stated in the previous sections, the

incoherence of meanings of the terms shows a lack of consensus as to how the stage of

non-return is developed, and the lack of doctrinal consistency may suggest the initial

stages of the theorization of the concept did not go through rigorous standardization.

The following paragraphs aim to scrutinize classification of the non-returners and

some internal conceptual contradictions as the definitions themselves reveal.

The diversity of non-returners may testify to the fact that as the stage is developed,

non-returner escaped homogeneous categorization as a number of avenues are

attributed to this newly developed concept, and the condensation into one single

definition of non-returner would have oversimplified the spiritual picture that Buddhist

disciples at that time had. These classifications are:

i. Antarāparinibbāyī,

ii. Upahaccaparinibbāyī,

iii. Sasankhāraparinibbāyī,

iv. Asankhāraparinibbāyī,

v. Uddhaṃsotākiniṭṭhāgāmī, (DN III 237; SN V 201, 202; AN I 233; IV. 13, 145,

380).

 
 
  137  
 

Sometimes, the number of classifications become seven by further classifying

antarāparinibbāyī into three (AN IV 70-71). This classification is basically

stereotypical, and the motivation behind the classification is obscure. No logical

explanation for the classification is discernible within the Nikāyas. In terms of spiritual

achievement there is no hierarchical difference among the five categories of non-

returners. In the stereotypical description, it is said that all five types of non-returners

have abandoned the five lower fetters, but they are yet to abandon the five higher

fetters. There are some non-stereotypical descriptions, particularly in the

Saṃyuttanikāya, where non-returner is defined with achievements other than the five

lower fetters. For instance, in the Bojjhaṅga Saṃyutta, the five types of non-returners

are defined by the development of the five spiritual faculties (SN V 205). In such a

given situation, it is a legitimate question to ask how the five categories of the non-

returners are distinguished. The stereotypical description of the five lower and the five

higher fetters cannot resolve this question. In other words, the doctrine of

classification is incompatible with the schemes of five higher and lower fetters. If all

non-returners have abandoned the five lower fetters, there is no point to make this

distinction. However, this apparent dilemma escaped the attention of both Pāli

commentators and modern scholars in the subject area. My observation of the

commentarial passages shows that not a single passage in the commentaries tries to

bridge this gap in terms of the coherency of the doctrine of the five categories of the

non-returners and the schemes of five lower and higher fetters. An isolated passage in

the Aṅguttaranikāya attempts to explain the reasons behind the differences among the

five categories of non-returners. This passage mentions there are four types of persons;

 
 
  138  
 

the first category, are those who have not yet abandoned the lower fetters

(orambhāgayāni-saṃyojanāni), the fetters for rebirth (upapatti-pātilābhiyāni-

saṃyojanāni), and the fetters for obtaining existence (bhavapaṭilabhiyāni-

saṃyojanāni), (AN II 133-34). The second category is, those who have abandoned the

five lower fetters, but have not yet abandoned the fetters for birth and the fetters for

existence. The third category is, those who have abandoned the lower fetters, the

fetters for births, but not the fetters for existence. The last category is, those who have

abandoned all three categories of fetters. The discourse goes on to explain these four

categories of persons; the first category is identified with once-returner. The second

category is those bound for upstream, heading towards the highest realm

(uddhaṃsotaakaniṭṭhagāmi). The third category is identified with those who attained

Nibbāna in the interval. The last category is arahats (AN II 133-34). A commentarial

interpretation on the classification of fetters and non-returners is a desideratum.

However, commentaries remained silent on the issue except defining uppatti as

intermediate (AN-A III 130-31). In another passage of SN, the distinction among the

five categories of the non-returner is in the development of the five spiritual faculties.

The passage runs as:

Oh! monks, in whom these five faculties are completely developed he is an

arahat. in whom, they are weaker than that, he is one who attains Nibbāna in
the interval, in whom they are further weaker, he is one who attains Nibbāna
upon landing, in whom they are further weaker, he is one who attains Nibbāna
without exertion; in whom they are further weaker, he is one who attains
Nibbāna with exertion; in whom they are further weaker, he is one who is bound
upstream, heading towards the Akaniṭṭha realm (SN V 205).

Thus, the classification of non-returner as well as stream enterers as shown in chapter

2, seem not to be compatible with the scheme of tenfold fetters. Hence, some early

 
 
  139  
 

Pāli redactors have tried to find a solution outside the scheme of tenfold fetters. They

put forward the five spiritual faculties, which make more precise. Some tried to

classify fetters into three rather than the stereotypical two. However, this is not the

mainstream of Theravāda view. The Sanskrit Buddhist literature such as the

Abhidharmakośa and the Abhidharmakośa-bhāsyaṃ contain more materials on the

classification of non-returner. In AKB, this point is raised and three points were

proposed to make the distinction among the categories of non-returner. They are

karma, defilements (kleśa) and spiritual faculties

(tadviśeṣaḥpunaḥkarmakleśendriyaviśaṣataḥ). From the point of view of karma, they

are accumulated in the form of potential seeds that are to be manifested either in the

intermediate existence (abhinirvṛttivedanīyakarman), or in some immediate existences

(upapadya) or in some any future existence (aparaparyāya). For remaining

defilements, there are three categories, weak, medium and strong. The development of

faculties is also in three levels, namely, weak, medium and strong (AKB III 1954).

The distinction in terms of remnants of karmic residuum seems more logical. But it

would imply that non-returners are perfect in abandoning defilements; they have only

got to wait a few more births to exhaust remnant karmic residuum. However, such

view was not adopted in the Nikāyas.

In the Pāli Nikāyas the five categories of non-returner are presented in a

stereotypical manner, they are never defined or explained in details. On a few

occasions in the Aṅguttaranikāya, they are just defined with a simile. In one discourse

in AN, antarāprinibbāyī further classified into three, so the discourse enumerates

 
 
  140  
 

seven types non-returners instead of usual five. And this discourse describes the seven

types of non-returners as follows:

i. When an iron bowl has been heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off
and would extinguish. In similar manner, a monk who is practicing as it may
not be, and it may not be mine. It will not, it will not be mine. I am
abandoning what exists, and what has come to be. So he attains equipoise. He
rejoices neither in existence nor in birth. He perceives the higher peaceful
state through proper vision, but yet has not realized in all aspects (not realized
completely). His latent conceit has not been rooted out completely, his latent
attachment to existence has not been rooted out completely, and his ignorance
has not been abandoned completely. With complete abandonment of five
fetters pertain to lower sphere, he becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
ii. when an iron bowl is heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and would extinguish. In similar manner a monk who is practicing as it may
not be …with complete abandonment of the five fetters pertain to lower
sphere, becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
iii. When an iron bowl is heated all day and is stuck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and be extinguished just before it lands on the ground.” In similar manner, a
monk who is practicing…. with complete abandonment of the five fetters
pertaining to lower sphere, becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
iv. when an iron bowl is heated all the day and is stuck, a chip may be produced
and fly up, landing on the ground it may extinguish. In similar manner a
monk who is practicing …. With complete abandonment of the five fetters
pertaining to lower sphere, becomes an upahaccaparinibbāyī.
v. when an iron bowl is heated whole day and is stuck a chip may fly off, rise up,
and fall on either small pile of straw or small pile of woods. There it may
produce a fire and smoke. Having produced fire and smoke when that small
pile of straw or pile of woods exhausted, and if it gets no more fuel, it may
extinguish. In the similar manner, a monk who is practicing… with complete
abandonment of the five fetters pertaining to lower sphere, becomes an
asasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī..
vi. when an iron bowl is heated whole day and is stuck a chip may fly off, rise
up, and fall on either large pile straw or large pile of woods. There it may
produce a fire and smoke. Having produced fire and smoke when that small
pile of straw or pile of woods exhausted, and if it gets no more fuel, it may
extinguish. In the similar manner, a monk who is practicing… with complete
abandonment of the five fetters pertaining to lower sphere, becomes a
sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī.
vii. when an iron bowl is heated whole day and is stuck a chip may fly off, rise
up, and fall on either huge pile straw or huge pile of woods. There it may

 
 
  141  
 

produce a fire and smoke. Having produced fire and smoke when that huge
pile of straw or pile of woods exhausted, it would burn up a woods or forest
until it reaches the edge of a field, the edge of a stone mountain, the edge of a
water, or some garden, and then if it get no more fuel, it may extinguish.
(AN IV 70).
What the similes are meant to convey is not clear in the Nikāyas. The Nikāyas simply

present the classification as a stereotypical description. There are no attempts made to

explain these classifications. The literalism of the simile seems to convey the sense

that the antarāparinibbāyī does not have further existences. This is also confirmed by

an important but an isolated passage in the Aṅguttaranikāya.

3.4.1 The Sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and Asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī:

The problem with interpretation of the term ‘Saṅkhāra’

The Pāli Nikāyas has not clarified the terms like upahaccaparinibbāyī, sasaṅkhāra and

asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī. The list of the five categories of non-returner can be classified

into two broader categories; one category is mentioned in accordance with the location

where they will attain liberation—antarāparinibbāyī, upahaccaparinibbāyī and

uddhaṃsota-akaniṭṭhāgāmi. The other category is the way they will attain liberation—

sasaṅkhārāparinibbāyī and asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī. The Nikāyas do not clarify where

the second category of non-returner will attain arahatta. The Nikāyas do not disclose

anything about what is meant by these two terms. The term is multivalent in Pan-

Indian religious philosophy. Stcherbatsky says:

The word and conception saṃskāra performs a conspicuous part in all Indian
philosophical systems. It usually means some latent mysterious power, which
later on reveals itself in some potent fact. (Stcherbatsky 1923:18)
Horner, in her comments on the term says “this is one of the most difficult terms in

Buddhist metaphysics, in which the blending of the subjective-objective view of the

 
 
  142  
 

world and of happening, peculiar to the East.” (The Collection of the Middle Length

Sayings I XXIV). She further identifies four different applications of the concept in

the Nikāyas—i. as one of the five aggregates, ii. as one of the links of the twelvefold

dependent arising, iii. as a sort of activity associated with body, speech and mind, iv.

as properties associated with life span. (The Collection of the Middle Length Sayings I

xxiv-xxv). She has missed out the association with Nibbāna which has been pointed

out by and Mathieu Boisvert. He has pointed the five applications, which are very

similar to Horner’s observation except he added an association of the term with

Nibbāna as sasaṅkhāra and asaṅkhāra (Mathieu 1995: 91-103). My interest lies in the

last point, the application of saṅkhāra with regard to Nibbāna.

In several passages in the Nikāyas the term saṅkhāra is associated with volition,

which is closely related to kamma. In the Samyuttanikāya, the term saṅkhāra is

defined as volition (SN III 60). In the Aṅguttaranikāya, volition (cetanā) is defined as

kamma (AN III 415).21 In another passage it is clarified that saṅkhāra is a karmic

impulse that keeps the life in the saṃsāra moving (AN I 111). In this context, the term

is abhisaṅkhāra instead of saṅkhāra. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ, the term

abhisaṃskāra is used instead of saṅkhāra (AKB I 358-9). In several instances

saṅkhāra and abhisaṅkhāra are used interchangeably (DN I 18; SN III 87). Padmasiri

de Silva has pointed out that saṅkhāra is often used as in the Nikāyas to imply volition

or kamma (Padmasiri 1994: 117). Mathieu Boisvert thinks abhisaṅkhāra is a synonym

for volition and refers to the dynamism and momentum of aspect of kamma (Mathieu

1995: 96). Even in early Abhidhamma texts like the Vibhaṅga the term is associated

with the doctrine of kamma. It is stated that saṅkhāras are threefold, meritorious, non-
                                                                                                                       
21
cetanāhaṃbhikkhave kammaṃvadām icetayitvā kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācāya manasā.

 
 
  143  
 

meritorious and unmovable (Vbh 135). The meritorious saṅkhāra (puññābhisaṅkhāra)

is defined as wholesome volition relating to sensual sphere and form sphere deriving

from generosity, morality and meditation. The non-meritorious saṅkhāra

(apuññābhisaṅkhāra) is defined as unwholesome volition relating to sensual sphere

and form sphere. An unmovable saṅkhāra (āñeñjābhisaṅkhāra) is defined as

wholesome volition relating to formless sphere (Vbh 135). It says that saṅkhāra is

responsible for saṃsāric existence. Here the term bhavasaṅkhāra is used (AN IV 312).

I believe these are sufficient to show that saṅkhāra is closely related to karmic

residues. The canonical Abhidhamma also supports this. The Puggalapaññātti defines

asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as one pursues the noble path without saṅkhāra in order to

abandon fetters relating to higher paths. And sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī is one who

pursues the noble path with saṅkhāra in order to abandon fetters relating to higher

paths (Pug, 17). The text has not spelt out what exactly saṅkhāra refers to. If saṅkhāra

referred to karmic residuum. The two states of Nibbāna described in the late Pāli

Buddhist Literature—sa-upādisesanibbāna and anupādisesanibbāna should be

synonyms for the sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī.

However, Nikāyas also contains divergent interpretations of the two terms. For

instance, an isolated passage in the Nikāyas explains two terms as:

Oh! Monks, how person becomes sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life? Here,
a monk dwells contemplating on the impurities of the body. [He] perceives the
repulsiveness of food. [He] non-delighting in the entire world, contemplates on
the impermanence in all conditioned phenomena. He has well established the
perception of death internally. He dwells relaying upon these five trainee
powers—the power of faith, the power of moral shame, the power of moral
dread, the power of energy, and the power of wisdom. The five [spiritual]
faculties manifest in him dominantly—the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness,
concentration and wisdom. Due to the dominance of this five faculties, he

 
 
  144  
 

becomes sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life. This is how a person becomes

a sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life.
And how a person becomes a sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī after death? Here, a monk
dwells contemplating on the impurities of the body. [He] perceives the
repulsiveness of food. [He] non-delighting in the entire world, contemplates on
the impermanence in all conditioned phenomena. He has well established the
perception of death internally. He dwells relaying on these five trainee powers—
the power of faith, the power of moral shame, the power of moral dread, the
power of energy, and the power of wisdom. The five [spiritual] faculties
manifest in him feebly—the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness,
concentration and wisdom. Due to feeble nature of these five, he becomes a
sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī after death. This is how a person sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī
after death.
And how person becomes asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life? Here, a monk
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states and attains
until the fourth jhāna and dwell [there]. He dwells relaying on these five trainee
powers—the power of faith… and wisdom. These five faculties manifest in him
dominantly—the faculty of faith… and wisdom. Due to the dominance of these
five faculties he becomes asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life. This is how a
person becomes asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī in this very life.
And how a person becomes asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī after death? Here, a monk
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states attains until
fourth jhāna and he dwells [there]. He dwells relaying on these five trainee
powers—the power of faith… and wisdom. These five faculties arise in him
feebly—the faculty of faith… and wisdom. Due to feeble nature of these
faculties, he becomes asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī after death. This is how a person
asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī after death. (AN II 156).
According to this passage, the distinction between the two stages is the attainment of

jhānas. The commentary also affirms this. In the Manūrathapūrani the

sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī is defined as dry insight practitioner (sukkhavipassaka) and the

asasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as practitioners of concentration (samathayānikā). This

passage suggests that some non-returners do not attain jhānas. This is an unusual

passage and appears only once in the Nikāyas.

The Pāli commentarial literature defines saṅkhāra as effort. For instance, the

Sārātthapakāsini defines asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as attaining Nibbāna without effort,

without wearisome, with pleasure (asaṅkhārena appayogena akilamanto, SN-A III

 
 
  145  
 

1030; AN-A II 350) and sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as attaining Nibbāna with effort, with

wearisome, and with difficulty. Most of the Pāli commentators are univocal on this

point. There is not much deviation from this point. Even the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ maintains a similar view (AKB III 1948).

Taking the commentarial view, Mathieu defines asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as attaining

Nibbāna without conscious striving. Hence he quotes the story of the Bāhiya

Dāruciriya as a good illustration of asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī, “this story exemplifies the

unexpected attainment of Nibbāna—a realization devoid of proximate consciousness

striving” (Mathieu 1995: 101). The explanation seems not convincing, for how can

there be attainment of Nibbāna without conscious effort. Nibbāna is something to be

gained through practice and effort and with full mindfulness. If one attains Nibbāna

without effort and practice, the abandoning of the five higher fetters is spurious. On

the one hand the commentaries maintain that a non-returner has to abandon the five

higher fetters, on the other hand it defines asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī as attainment of

Nibbāna without effort, which implies without practices. This is contradictory. These

two polar opposite views are hard to reconcile. However, commentators have not

given any critical consideration on this discrepancy. Why commentators prefer to

interpret saṅkhāra as exertion is not clear. The classification of the non-returners into

further categories thus testifies to the attempt, with varied degree of success, of later

Buddhist disciples to formulate a more nuanced understanding of the diversity of the

stage. The doctrinal inconsistencies reveal that such doctrine may not have gone

through systematic scrutiny that formulates a coherent set of ideas.

 
 
  146  
 

3.4.2 The Antarāparinibbāyī and Intermediate existence (antarābhava)

One category of non-returners, the antarāparinibbayī deserves our special attention

in this subsection. The Nikāyas have not clearly defined the concept of

antarāparinibbāyī. Hence later Buddhist thinkers had to rely on implicit and

scattered facts in the Nikāyas and reconstruct a logical explanation of this concept,

which is only implicit in the Nikāyas. The question of intermediate existence

(antarābhava) has caused huge philosophical debates among Indian Buddhist

schools (Kv, 361-66; AKB, III, 1948-1956). A number of early Indian Buddhist

schools such as Pūrvaśaila, Sammitīya, Sarvāstivāda, Vātsīputrīya and Mahīsāsaka

have accepted this concept of intermediate existence. However, Theravāda and

Mahāsaṅghika repudiate the concept of intermediate existence. This concept has

instigated arguments and counter arguments throughout the history of Buddhist

thoughts. This sub-section will argue that despite Theravādin official denial of the

concept, the Pāli Nikāyas infer some form of intermediate existence. This section will

further show that Theravādin repudiation of the theory is not cogent because there

are many discrepancies relating to this concept which were neither addressed by the

Theravāda Abhidhamma, nor by the Pāli Commentarial literature.

The terms “intermediate existence” (antarābhava) and “intermediate being”

(antarābhava-satta) are not traceable in the Pāli Nikāyas. The word intermediate

(antarā) has been used on several occasions in different contexts. The Pāli Nikāyas do

not mention this concept. The silence itself is conspicuous and the reason behind such

silence is desideratum. One possible explanation would be that the concept of

intermediate existence has not yet been developed in the pan-Indian religious

 
 
  147  
 

philosophy. Alex Wayman and Bryan Jare Cuevas assert that the term “intermediate

being” or “intermediate state” does not appear in old Vedic literature. However Alex

Wayman has pointed out , “My investigation indicates that the old Upaniṣad and the

old Buddhist scriptures both present the rival theories of “intermediate state” and

“intermediate being” (Wayman 1974: 236). Bryan Jare Cuevas also draws a similar

conclusion that although the term itself was not in the old Vedic literature, an implicit

reference to an intermediate being known as gandharva was there. According to

Cuevas, the concept of intermediate being or intermediate existence is an invention of

the Buddhists, who might have drawn their materials from the Vedic and Upaniṣadic

theory of postmortem transition (Cuevas 1996: 291). The concept of attaining Nibbāna

in the interval (antarāparinibbāyī) frequently occurs in the Nikāyas. From available

sources of Nikāya Buddhism, it is difficult to come to a precise conclusion as to what

antarāparinibbāyī refers to. This term appears in the stereotypical description of types

of non-returners, it does not stand alone in the Nikāyas. It is intriguing to observe that

despite the term appearing several times in the Nikāyas, its exact meaning is never

spelt out. The absence of its interpretation could be for the following reasons: early

Buddhists were familiar with the concept, hence there was no need to spell out its

implication, or the stereotypical list of classes of non-returners as a whole is a later

development, and it crept into Nikayas in the process of recension of the Buddhist

texts. The second possibility seems more probable.

In the absence of a similar concept in the Vedic and Upaniṣad doctrine, it is

implausible that early Buddhists were familiar with the implication of this concept. In

the Nikāyas, only one attempt is made to explain the five types of non-returners, also

 
 
  148  
 

through the simile of ‘heated iron chip’. According to the simile, the

antarāparinibbānayī is defined as:

i. When an iron bowl has been heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off
and would extinguish. In similar manner, a monk who is practicing as’ it may
not be, and it may not be mine. It will not, it will not be mine. I am
abandoning what exists, and what has come to be. So he attains equipoise. He
rejoices neither in existence nor in birth. He perceives the higher peaceful
state through proper vision, but yet has not realized in all aspects (not realized
completely). His latent conceit has not been rooted out completely, his latent
attachment to existence has not been rooted out completely, and his ignorance
has not been abandoned completely. With complete abandonment of five
fetters pertain to lower sphere, he becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
ii. When an iron bowl is heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and would extinguish. In similar manner a monk who is practicing, as it may
not be with complete abandonment of the five fetters pertain to lower sphere,
becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
iii. When an iron bowl is heated all day and is stuck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and be extinguished just before it lands on the ground.” In similar manner, a
monk who is practicing…. with complete abandonment of the five fetters
pertaining to lower sphere, becomes an antarāparinibbāyī. (AN IV 70).
The similes are always open to divergent interpretations. The same is true for the

history of Buddhist thought. During the Abhidhamma period, this simile has led

Buddhist schools to huge philosophical debates. The Kathāvatthu records that a

number of Buddhist schools took the simile as implying intermediate existence, an

existence between death and new birth (The Point of Controversy, 212-13). The

commentary to the Kathāvatthu identifies those schools as Pubbaseliya (Pūrvaśaila),

and Sammitīya (Kv-A, 105). Sanskrit Buddhist literature records that Sarvāstivāda,

Vātsīputriya and Mahīśāsaka accepted the intermediate existence, while the

Theravāda and the Mahāsaṃghika rejected the concept of intermediate existence

(Wayman 1974: 227; Masuda 1978: 31). Mahāyāna, which is an offshoot of

Mahāsaṃghika, maintains an indefinite position. According to Mahāyāna, those who

 
 
  149  
 

do a lot of good karma and those who do a lot of unwholesome karma, have no

intermediate existence, the rests go through intermediate existence (Masuda 1978: 32).

Theravādin repudiation of the concept of intermediate existence in the Kathāvatthu

was on the basis that Nikāyas mentioned threefold sphere of the cosmos—the sphere

of sensuality, the sphere of form and the sphere of formless. There is no space for

intermediate existence (Kv 212-13). The author of the Kathāvatthu might have

understood the word antarā very literarily, stated if there is an intermediate existence,

it should be intermediate between two of the three existences, and it has raised the

question that between which two existences the intermediate existence exists (The

Points of Controversy, 212). Another point raised by the Theravādins was, which

kamma leads to birth in the intermediate existence. In line of this argument, the

Theravāda Abhidhamma interprets the concept of antarāparinibbāyī as one who

attains Nibbāna before exhaustion of half of the life span in the Brahma world (The

Points of Controversy, 212). In the Puggalapaññātti it is defined as “either

immediately after his birth, or before reaching the middle of this span of life, brings

forth the noble path in order to abandon fetters for higher paths.” (Pug, 16).

This has been taken up by the commentarial literature. The Pug-A defines

antarāparinibbāyī as “one who either as soon as born or simultaneously with birth, or

before reaching middle of life span, attains arahatta; and antarāparinibbāyī are

threefold” (Pug-A, 198).22 The Pāli commentators have raised several objections to

repudiate the concept of intermediate existence. And the author of the Kathavatthu-

                                                                                                                       
22
antarāparinibbāyiniddese upannaṃ vā samantarā ti upapannasamantarā vā hutvā appattaṃ vā
vemajjhaṃ āyuppamāṇaṃ ti āyuppamāṇavemajjhaṃ appattaṃ vā hutvā ariyamaggaṃ sañjanetīti pi
attho veditabbo. evaṃ tayo antarāparinibbāyino siddhā honti.

 
 
  150  
 

Aṭṭhakathā states that some Buddhist schools such as Pubbaseliya and Sammitiya

wrongly grasping the term antarāparinibbāyī endorse an intermediate existence (Kv-A

105).23 The Pāli commentators have argued that the Pāli Nikāyas mention only three

existences—the existence of sensuality (kāmabhava), the existence of form

(rūpabhava) and the formless existence (arūpabhava). If there is an intermediate

existence, it should be included within these three existences. They therefore raised

that question under which realms the intermediate existence is included. They asked if

there was an intermediate existence, where was antarābhava?. Furthermore, if there

was an intermediate existence, it should be between the boundaries of any of the two

existences of these three realms (Kv-A 105). 24 Furthermore, if there is such an

existence, there should be corresponding kamma to be reborn there. Furthermore, if

beings were born in the intermediate existence, they should go through birth, decay

and death and following the death there is rebirth. Thus, there is a univocal protest

against the concept of intermediate existence in the Pāli commentaries as well as sub-

commentaries. Theravāda doctrinal standpoint is that there is no gap between death

and new birth (tesaṃ antarikā natthi: Vism 604).

But those who held the theory of intermediate existence, held the view that there is

no particular karma to appear in the intermediate existence; they are born in the

intermediate existence, by the virtue of karma by which they will arise in

corresponding existence. Therefore, there is no such a contradiction. Among the

schools that accepted intermediate existence, the Sarvāstivāda took the strongest

                                                                                                                       
23
suttapadaṃ ayonigahetvā antarābhanāma atthi.
24
yadi te antarābhavo nāma koci bhavo atthi. imesaṃ bhavānaṃ antarā dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ sīmantarikā
viya bhaveyyā it codetum āraddhaṃ.

 
 
  151  
 

stance on intermediate existence and intermediate being. Both the Abhidharmakośa

and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ are very specific on this. The Abhidharmakośa

insists that there is an intermediate existence between death and new birth. Beings do

not take a new birth as soon as they die. They spend a certain period of time in the

intermediate existence. They are named as gandharva as they survive on smell

(gandha) (gandhaṃavaratigacchatibhoktamitigandharvaḥ, AK 279; cited in Sukomal

Chaudhuri 1976:131). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ has established the concept of

intermediate existence, and based their argument on three factors:

1. References of seven existences in the Saptabhāvasūtra.25

2. The reference to the term gandharva as one of the three conditions for

conceiving a child.26

3. The reference of antarāparinirvāyin in the canonical texts (MVS 309b15) .

Vasubandhi in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ argues that there is no contradiction

between the three realms and the intermediate existence. For this argument they have

cited in the Nikāyas/Āgamas, very often the five existences (gati) are subsumed within

three realms. 27 Hence, according to the Sarvāstivāda, intermediate existence is a

rebirth state, not a realm. It has further cited saptabhāvasūtra, which mentions seven

planes of existence. They are the five gatis plus the state of action (karmabhava) and

intermediate being (AKB II 946). As to the mode of births, intermediate beings are

described as apparitional beings (upapādukāsattvā). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ

differentiates between birth and arising. According to it, intermediate beings are not
                                                                                                                       
25
This discourse is not found in the Pāli version of the Canon.
26
This concept is also found in the Āśvalāyanasūtra of the Madhyamāgama and in corresponding Pāli
version of the Āssalāyana sutta, MN II 157.
27
Five gatis—hell destiny, animal destiny, ghost (preta) destiny , human destiny, and destiny of gods.

 
 
  148  
 

through the simile of ‘heated iron chip’. According to the simile, the

antarāparinibbānayī is defined as:

i. When an iron bowl has been heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off
and would extinguish. In similar manner, a monk who is practicing as’ it may
not be, and it may not be mine. It will not, it will not be mine. I am
abandoning what exists, and what has come to be. So he attains equipoise. He
rejoices neither in existence nor in birth. He perceives the higher peaceful
state through proper vision, but yet has not realized in all aspects (not realized
completely). His latent conceit has not been rooted out completely, his latent
attachment to existence has not been rooted out completely, and his ignorance
has not been abandoned completely. With complete abandonment of five
fetters pertain to lower sphere, he becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
ii. When an iron bowl is heated all day and is struck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and would extinguish. In similar manner a monk who is practicing, as it may
not be with complete abandonment of the five fetters pertain to lower sphere,
becomes an antarāparinibbāyī.
iii. When an iron bowl is heated all day and is stuck, a chip may fly off, rise up,
and be extinguished just before it lands on the ground.” In similar manner, a
monk who is practicing…. with complete abandonment of the five fetters
pertaining to lower sphere, becomes an antarāparinibbāyī. (AN IV 70).
The similes are always open to divergent interpretations. The same is true for the

history of Buddhist thought. During the Abhidhamma period, this simile has led

Buddhist schools to huge philosophical debates. The Kathāvatthu records that a

number of Buddhist schools took the simile as implying intermediate existence, an

existence between death and new birth (The Point of Controversy, 212-13). The

commentary to the Kathāvatthu identifies those schools as Pubbaseliya (Pūrvaśaila),

and Sammitīya (Kv-A, 105). Sanskrit Buddhist literature records that Sarvāstivāda,

Vātsīputriya and Mahīśāsaka accepted the intermediate existence, while the

Theravāda and the Mahāsaṃghika rejected the concept of intermediate existence

(Wayman 1974: 227; Masuda 1978: 31). Mahāyāna, which is an offshoot of

Mahāsaṃghika, maintains an indefinite position. According to Mahāyāna, those who

 
 
  149  
 

do a lot of good karma and those who do a lot of unwholesome karma, have no

intermediate existence, the rests go through intermediate existence (Masuda 1978: 32).

Theravādin repudiation of the concept of intermediate existence in the Kathāvatthu

was on the basis that Nikāyas mentioned threefold sphere of the cosmos—the sphere

of sensuality, the sphere of form and the sphere of formless. There is no space for

intermediate existence (Kv 212-13). The author of the Kathāvatthu might have

understood the word antarā very literarily, stated if there is an intermediate existence,

it should be intermediate between two of the three existences, and it has raised the

question that between which two existences the intermediate existence exists (The

Points of Controversy, 212). Another point raised by the Theravādins was, which

kamma leads to birth in the intermediate existence. In line of this argument, the

Theravāda Abhidhamma interprets the concept of antarāparinibbāyī as one who

attains Nibbāna before exhaustion of half of the life span in the Brahma world (The

Points of Controversy, 212). In the Puggalapaññātti it is defined as “either

immediately after his birth, or before reaching the middle of this span of life, brings

forth the noble path in order to abandon fetters for higher paths.” (Pug, 16).

This has been taken up by the commentarial literature. The Pug-A defines

antarāparinibbāyī as “one who either as soon as born or simultaneously with birth, or

before reaching middle of life span, attains arahatta; and antarāparinibbāyī are

threefold” (Pug-A, 198).22 The Pāli commentators have raised several objections to

repudiate the concept of intermediate existence. And the author of the Kathavatthu-

                                                                                                                       
22
antarāparinibbāyiniddese upannaṃ vā samantarā ti upapannasamantarā vā hutvā appattaṃ vā
vemajjhaṃ āyuppamāṇaṃ ti āyuppamāṇavemajjhaṃ appattaṃ vā hutvā ariyamaggaṃ sañjanetīti pi
attho veditabbo. evaṃ tayo antarāparinibbāyino siddhā honti.

 
 
  150  
 

Aṭṭhakathā states that some Buddhist schools such as Pubbaseliya and Sammitiya

wrongly grasping the term antarāparinibbāyī endorse an intermediate existence (Kv-A

105).23 The Pāli commentators have argued that the Pāli Nikāyas mention only three

existences—the existence of sensuality (kāmabhava), the existence of form

(rūpabhava) and the formless existence (arūpabhava). If there is an intermediate

existence, it should be included within these three existences. They therefore raised

that question under which realms the intermediate existence is included. They asked if

there was an intermediate existence, where was antarābhava?. Furthermore, if there

was an intermediate existence, it should be between the boundaries of any of the two

existences of these three realms (Kv-A 105). 24 Furthermore, if there is such an

existence, there should be corresponding kamma to be reborn there. Furthermore, if

beings were born in the intermediate existence, they should go through birth, decay

and death and following the death there is rebirth. Thus, there is a univocal protest

against the concept of intermediate existence in the Pāli commentaries as well as sub-

commentaries. Theravāda doctrinal standpoint is that there is no gap between death

and new birth (tesaṃ antarikā natthi: Vism 604).

But those who held the theory of intermediate existence, held the view that there is

no particular karma to appear in the intermediate existence; they are born in the

intermediate existence, by the virtue of karma by which they will arise in

corresponding existence. Therefore, there is no such a contradiction. Among the

schools that accepted intermediate existence, the Sarvāstivāda took the strongest

                                                                                                                       
23
suttapadaṃ ayonigahetvā antarābhanāma atthi.
24
yadi te antarābhavo nāma koci bhavo atthi. imesaṃ bhavānaṃ antarā dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ sīmantarikā
viya bhaveyyā it codetum āraddhaṃ.

 
 
  151  
 

stance on intermediate existence and intermediate being. Both the Abhidharmakośa

and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ are very specific on this. The Abhidharmakośa

insists that there is an intermediate existence between death and new birth. Beings do

not take a new birth as soon as they die. They spend a certain period of time in the

intermediate existence. They are named as gandharva as they survive on smell

(gandha) (gandhaṃavaratigacchatibhoktamitigandharvaḥ, AK 279; cited in Sukomal

Chaudhuri 1976:131). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ has established the concept of

intermediate existence, and based their argument on three factors:

1. References of seven existences in the Saptabhāvasūtra.25

2. The reference to the term gandharva as one of the three conditions for

conceiving a child.26

3. The reference of antarāparinirvāyin in the canonical texts (MVS 309b15) .

Vasubandhi in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ argues that there is no contradiction

between the three realms and the intermediate existence. For this argument they have

cited in the Nikāyas/Āgamas, very often the five existences (gati) are subsumed within

three realms. 27 Hence, according to the Sarvāstivāda, intermediate existence is a

rebirth state, not a realm. It has further cited saptabhāvasūtra, which mentions seven

planes of existence. They are the five gatis plus the state of action (karmabhava) and

intermediate being (AKB II 946). As to the mode of births, intermediate beings are

described as apparitional beings (upapādukāsattvā). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ

differentiates between birth and arising. According to it, intermediate beings are not
                                                                                                                       
25
This discourse is not found in the Pāli version of the Canon.
26
This concept is also found in the Āśvalāyanasūtra of the Madhyamāgama and in corresponding Pāli
version of the Āssalāyana sutta, MN II 157.
27
Five gatis—hell destiny, animal destiny, ghost (preta) destiny , human destiny, and destiny of gods.

 
 
  156  
 

gandhabba was not used, instead yaka-piṇḍa was used. Again Wijesekera in another

well-written research article on the Philosophical import of the Vedic Yakṣa and Pāli

Yakkha, has pointed out that the term yakṣa in Vedic literatures refers to a

macrocosmic soul (ātman) (Wijesekera 1994: 134). Perhaps for this reason, it was

rejected in Buddhist literature. Perhaps for the same purpose Pāli commentators have

shown reticent attitude towards the concept of gandhabba. This reticence is quite

noticeable in The Path of Purification by Buddhaghosa of the 5th century A.D.

Although the text deals with conception, life after death, it maintains a discreet silence

on the term gandhabba. Wijesekera has rightly observed that Buddhaghosa’s motive

for silence in this text is patent. It is because obviously that Buddhaghosa was of the

view that this term would imply a sense of soul in Brahmanism (Wijesekera 1994:

192). The Milindapañha discusses the concept of gandhabba, but provides no new

information about the concept except reinstating the Nikāya position that some divine

beings entered into the mother’s womb (Milindapañha 123).

Then this begs the question of how the Pāli Nikāyas and the Pāli commentaries

interpret conception and life process without gandhabba? In some discourses, the

concept of gandhabba is superseded by consciousness (viññāṇa). In Dīghanikāya, it is

stated that if consciousness does not enter into the mother’s womb or if having entered

and again leaves the mother’s womb, conception will not be successful (DN I 63).

Thus, despite the change of terms, there seems to be no substantial change in the

implication of the concept. In some discourses, this consciousness is defined as

saṃvattanikavaññāṇa consciousness that evolves in next (into next life.) (MN II 262).

In the Pāyāsi sutta, it is defined as saṃsāric consciousness (DN II 325). And in

 
 
  152  
 

born, as they have not arrived at the destinations they are supposed to arrive. It is a

state between death and birth (AKB II 957). It disagrees with the interpretation of
28
antarāparinirvāyin as one who attains Nirvāṇa upon being born. The

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ argues that intermediate beings are not born in the

intermediate existence, but are caused by arising (upapadyamāna) (AKB II 964). The

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ further questions if antarāparinirvāyin obtains Nirvāna

upon being born, then what is the difference between the first and second categories of

non-returners? The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ defines the second category as ‘one who

attains nirvāna upon being born’ (upapadyaparinirvāyin.) As to the form of being in

intermediate existence, it says that they get forms in accordance with the destinies of

existence they are supposed to be born in the future (pūrvakālabhava). In other words

they possess the form of future existence. They possess complete sense faculties. They

also possess certain psychic powers such as divine eyes, by which they are capable of

seeing their own class of beings, they can move in the space freely. Nothing obstructs

them. As to the duration of life span of the intermediate beings, the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ records divergent opinions. Some masters propose that

there are fixed rules; they can stay as long as they cannot find necessary conditions to

be reborn. According to Venerable Vasumitra, they can exist only for seven days. If

they are unable to find necessary conditions for rebirth after seven days, they have to

die and re-arise there again (AKB II 969). Some other masters say they can live there

for seven weeks. The Vaibhāṣikas state that intermediate beings are beings looking for

birth (saṃbhava), which last for a short period of time. If they do not find necessary

conditions, karma of previous actions will bring about necessary conditions.

                                                                                                                       
28
This is repudiation of the view of Theravādin in the Pug 16 and the Kv 363-66.

 
 
  153  
 

The question is why the concept “intermediate being” is so controversial among

Buddhist schools. The proponents of the concept of intermediate being think that

without the concept of intermediate existence, the concept of antarāparinibbāyī cannot

be explained satisfactorily and furthermore, there are discourses that mention of beings

looking for birth (sambhavesi) and the concept of gandhabba, these concepts cannot

be explained without the concept of intermediate being. On the other hand, those

who repudiate the concept might have thought that the concept of intermediate being

would produce some form of soul theory. This is equally dangerous for Buddhist

soteriology founded on the basis of non-soul theory.

This controversy among Buddhist schools leads me to a critical investigation of the

concept in the Nikāyas. One of the arguments put forward by the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ to establish the theory of intermediate existence is the

concept of gandharva or gandhabba in Pāli. The term is popular in the Nikāyas but it

interplays with several ideas. Popularly the term referred to a class of celestial beings.

In the Mahānidāna sutta of the Dīghanikāya, gandhabba appears in the list of beings

(DN II 57).29 In the Janavasabha sutta, it is referred to as a class of celestial beings.

The discourse assures that those who go for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and

the Saṅgha, after death they will appear either among the company of gods of

parinimmitavasavatti, or gods of nimānavatti, or gods of Tusita, or among gods of

yāma, if not at least among the gandhabbas (DN II 212). In the Saṃyuttanikāya, a

class of gods is named gandhabbakāyikā, who sustain on the fragrance of roots, sap

and flowers (SN III 250). In the Pañcasika sutta, gandhabbas are defined as celestial

                                                                                                                       
29
The list includes deva, yakkha, bhūta, manussa and gandhabba.

 
 
  154  
 

musicians (DN II 264). In the Aṅguttaranikāya, they are a type of gods that can travel

through space (AN II 39). Thus, a number of discourses consider gandhabbas as a

class of celestial beings.

The second usage of gandhabba is one of the three necessary conditions for

conceiving a child. This occurs only twice in the Nikāyas, but it is interesting for our

study here. First it occurs in the Mahātaṅhāsaṅkhaya sutta of the Majjhimanikāya.

The discourse asserts that three conditions are necessary for successful conception.

They are; union of parents, the mother should be in the right period, and presence of

gandhabba. If any of the three conditions is not met, then conceiving will be

unsuccessful. Or if gandhabba enters and again leaves, conception will also be

unsuccessful (MN I 265). The second occurrence is in the Āssalāyana sutta of the

same Nikāya. Here, in order to refute the validity of the caste system, the Buddha

argued that it is impossible to determine the caste of gandhabba (MN II 157). These

two occurrences are sufficiently explicit that gandhabba is a necessary condition for a

woman to conceive. However, the Nikāyas do not give any further details about this

concept. Quite unexpectedly, the Pāli Abhidhamma while repudiating the concept of

intermediate existence has not made any comment on the concept of gandhabba.

Instead of responding to the points raised by the proponents of the concept, the Pāli

Abhidhamma responded by introducing bhavaṅgacitta.

The commentary to the Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya sutta defines gandhabba as a being

about to enter into a womb (paccuppatthito hoti) driven by kamma. He does not keep

standing by to observe the union of parents. It moves through space in that time (MN-

 
 
  155  
 

A III 310).30 With regard to the second occurrence, the commentary kept silent (MN-

A III 412).31 The conscious silence postulates that it has not repeated the concept as it

has been done above with regard to the Taṇhāsaṅkhaya sutta. The concept of

gandhabba remained convoluted in both the Pāli Abhidhamma and the Pāli

commentarial literature. Wijesekera in his well-researched article compared the origin

of the concept between how it was used in Vedic texts and early Buddhist texts

(Wijesekera 1994: 175-212). Bryan Jare Cuevas cites evidence to show that the

concept of gandharva was developed in Vedic literature. He argues that early

Buddhists borrowed the concept from them (Cuevas 1996: 263-302). However, it

seems that the concept is normative since the early period of Buddhism. This trend is

observable in the Nikāyas. In the Pāli Nikāyas, the concept only has a marginal value.

It has been mentioned only twice, and without any detailed explanation. And the

concept is superseded by other concepts, which I will discuss below. Later Buddhist

redactors also have shown reticent.

The Abhidhamma or its commentaries have not clarified the concept eloquently.

The concept is also imprecise in the Pāli commentaries. There is a passage in the

Sāratthapakāsinī that shows that the concept was not accepted by Pāli redactors. The

passage repudiates gandhabba entering into the womb of a mother. It says

Puggalavādins proposed such theory. It argues that if such a being enters into the

womb of a mother, it would eat and drink and expand in one night, but discourses

teaches the gradual growth of fetus (kalala) (SN-A I 300). However, here the term

                                                                                                                       
30
gandhabbo ti tatrūpakasatto paccupaṭṭhito hoti na mātāpitunnaṃ sannipātaṃ olokayamāno samīpe
ṭhito nāma hoti, kammayantayantito pana eko satto tasmiṃ okāse nibbattanako hoti ti ayaṃ ettha
adhippāyo.
31
imaṃ gandhabbapañhaṃ puṭṭhā na sampāyissanti.

 
 
  156  
 

gandhabba was not used, instead yaka-piṇḍa was used. Again Wijesekera in another

well-written research article on the Philosophical import of the Vedic Yakṣa and Pāli

Yakkha, has pointed out that the term yakṣa in Vedic literatures refers to a

macrocosmic soul (ātman) (Wijesekera 1994: 134). Perhaps for this reason, it was

rejected in Buddhist literature. Perhaps for the same purpose Pāli commentators have

shown reticent attitude towards the concept of gandhabba. This reticence is quite

noticeable in The Path of Purification by Buddhaghosa of the 5th century A.D.

Although the text deals with conception, life after death, it maintains a discreet silence

on the term gandhabba. Wijesekera has rightly observed that Buddhaghosa’s motive

for silence in this text is patent. It is because obviously that Buddhaghosa was of the

view that this term would imply a sense of soul in Brahmanism (Wijesekera 1994:

192). The Milindapañha discusses the concept of gandhabba, but provides no new

information about the concept except reinstating the Nikāya position that some divine

beings entered into the mother’s womb (Milindapañha 123).

Then this begs the question of how the Pāli Nikāyas and the Pāli commentaries

interpret conception and life process without gandhabba? In some discourses, the

concept of gandhabba is superseded by consciousness (viññāṇa). In Dīghanikāya, it is

stated that if consciousness does not enter into the mother’s womb or if having entered

and again leaves the mother’s womb, conception will not be successful (DN I 63).

Thus, despite the change of terms, there seems to be no substantial change in the

implication of the concept. In some discourses, this consciousness is defined as

saṃvattanikavaññāṇa consciousness that evolves in next (into next life.) (MN II 262).

In the Pāyāsi sutta, it is defined as saṃsāric consciousness (DN II 325). And in

 
 
  157  
 

another discourse in SN, it is defined as seed (bīja) of birth (SN III 54). Wijesekera

has cogently stated that this consciousness was regarded as the surviving factors of

death, which enters into womb after womb (Wijesekera 1994: 193).

In the Abhidhamma, this consciousness is known as linking-consciousness

(paṭisandhi-viññāṇa), which links death and birth of a being. Buddhaghosa in the

Visuddhimagga has given a fairly detailed account. Thus, though the term gandhabba

has been superseded by different terms such as consciousness, rebirth linking

consciousness in the Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries, they postulate a similar

idea that there is some form of postmortem being that travels from one life to another

life. This does not equate the concept of soul (ātma) in Vedic philosophy. The Vedic

notion of metaphysical soul is eternal and irrevocable, while Buddhist concept of

consciousness is within the hallmark of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and without

eternal and unchanging substances. Many modern scholars have pointed out this

distinction. The question is whether the new arising is the same as new birth or is it an

intermediate existence between death and birth. The Abhidharmakośa and  

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ define the new arising, not as a proper birth but as an

intermediate existence between death and new birth. According to the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ, beings in intermediate existence cannot be defined as born

for they have not yet arrived at the destination they are bound to arrive (AKB II

1137). 32 The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ based its argument for acceptance of

intermediate existence on the first two types of non-returner. It asserts that the first

type of non-returner is defined as ‘one attains Nirvāṇa in the intermediate existence’

(antarāparinivāyin), the second type is defined as ‘one attains Nirvāṇa after being
                                                                                                                       
32
mṛtyūpapattibhavayor antarābhava iha yaḥ/ gaṃyadeśanūpetatvān na opanno’ntarābhāva.

 
 
  158  
 

born’ (upapadyaparinirvāyin). The Pāli tradition defines the two types of non-

returners as those who attain Nibbāna either simultaneously with birth, or before

reaching the middle of the life span (Pug-A 198).33 And the second category is, those

who having passed the middle of life span and attain Nibbāna before death (Pug-A

198). 34 Hence, there is no space for intermediate existence, but Sarvāstivāda

understands the first category, as mere arising in the intermediate existence, and the

second category as reborn. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ makes a distinction between

born and arising, but the Pāli tradition does not maintain such a distinction. However,

a careful reading of Pāli literature would postulate that the Pāli Nikāyas also concedes

to such a distinction. A distinction between arising and bhava is postulated in a

passage in AN. This passage classifies fetters into three categories—the lower fetters,

the fetters for rebirth and the fetters for existence (orambhāgiya saṃyojana,

upapattipaṭilābhiyāni samyojaṇa, and bhavapaṭilābhiyāni saṃyojana, respectively,

AN II 133-34), instead of two stereotypical classifications into the lower and higher.

This is a most instructive passage in the Nikāyas. According to this passage, the

antarāparinibbāyī has abandoned the lower fetters, which are fetters of obtaining

rebirth, but not the fetters of obtaining existence. The fifth group of non-returners has

abandoned the lower fetters, but not the fetters of rebirth and existence. The arahats

are free from all the three categories of fetters. The passage explicitly postulates that

antarāparinibbāyī has no rebirth but an existence. Hence, it agrees with the AKB

argument that intermediate existence is just existence, not a rebirth. This is supported

                                                                                                                       
33
antarāparinibbāyiniddese upapannaṃ vā samanatarā ti upapanasamantarā vā hutvā appattaṃ vā
vemajjhaṃ āyuppamānaṃ ti āyuppamāṇavemajjhaṃ appattaṃ vā hutvā ariyamaggaṃ sañjanetīti pi
atho veditabbo.
34
upahacca-parinibbāyiniddese atikkamitvā vemajjhaṃ āyuppamāna vemajjhaṃ atikkamitvā upahacca
vā kālakiriyan ti upagantvā kālakiriyaṃ āyukkha āsanne ṭhatvā ti attho.

 
 
  159  
 

by the simile of “chip of hot iron” in the Aṅguttaranikāya. The simile is that the iron

chip that may fly off and extinguish, or the iron chip may fly off, rise up and

extinguish, or fly off, rise up and extinguish before falling on the ground. When this

simile is understood in the context of five kinds of non-returners, it is more likely that

falling on the ground implies rebirth. Therefore the implication is that

antarāparinibbāyī attains Nibbāna before taking rebirth. The upahaccaparinibbānayī

is explained as the iron chip flies off, rises up, falls on the ground and extinguishes.

This seems to imply that he attains liberation just after rebirth. (AN IV 70). Peter

Harvey, referring to discourse in the Saṃyuttanikāya, says:

Five types of non-returners in order of listing them after one has become arahant
at the time of dying, clearly this implies that the order represents a decreasing
speed of the spiritual attainment. This certainly makes it likely that the first of
the five types of non-returners attains nibbāna in between death and rebirth.
(Harvey 1995:100).
Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on the discourse:

There seems no legitimate reason, based on a sutta, to deny the possibility that
certain non-returners, following their death in human form, enter an intermediate
state and attain final nibbāna in that state itself, thereby circumventing the need
to take another rebirth. (The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: 1701 note
829).
Kalupahana and Koyu Tamura interpret gandhabba as death consciousness (cuti-citta)

of the dying person. And they further state that gandhabba serves as object of rebirth

consciousness (paṭisandhi-citta) (‘Antarābhava’ in Encyclopedia of Buddhism ed. G.P.

Malalasekera I 731). However, they fail to substantiate their interpretation with any

evidence from early Buddhist discourses. Ānalayo argues that early Buddhist

discourses do not uphold the concept of gandhabba as necessary factors for birth. He

says the Buddha used this concept in the Āssalayāna sutta to refer to the concept in the

 
 
  160  
 

Brāhmanic system as he was speaking to a Brahmin (Ānalayo 2008: 96). Ānalayo’s

arguments is not very convincing because firstly, he bypassed the same concept, which

appears in the Mahātaṇhāsankhaya sutta. There, the Buddha was not discussing with

Brahmins, rather it was a dialogue between the Buddha and monks. In this passage, the

presence of gandhabba is stated as one of the necessary conditions for conception:

Oh! Monks, when three factors come together, the conception of embryo takes
place. Here, there is union of the mother and father, the mother is in season and
there is present of gandhabba. Through the coming together of these three
factors, the conception of embryo takes places. (MN I 266).
Ānalayo has also kept silent on the term sambhavesī, a being seeking for rebirth that
occurs in the Karaṇīyamatta sutta of Khuddakanikāya and few more passages in the
Nikāyas, a kind of being seeking for rebirth. In the Sammādiṭṭhi sutta, there are four
types of foods for beings that are born (bhūta) and beings seeking for rebirths
(sambhavesī) (MN I 48). It is repeated in several discourses in the Nikāya. The Pāli
commentarial literature interprets the difference as follows:

Seeking for rebirths means those who seek for, look for the birth to born. And
among four types of beings, the beings born through eggs, as long as they are
inside the egg shells, shells are not broken, so long they are known as looking for
rebirth. When they come out having broken the eggshells, they are called born
being (bhūta). With regards to moisture born beings and spontaneous born
beings, in the thought moment, they are called seeking for rebirths, starting from
second thought moments; they are known as born beings. Those who are born
through deportment (womb born beings), those who have yet not received
another womb, so long they are beings seeking for rebirths, and thereafter known
as born beings (SN-A II 23). 35
The commentarial interpretation of sambhavesi as first thought moment for the

spontaneous being is strange. It is difficult to accept that the Nikāyas passage was

concerned about foods for one thought moment beings. This strange and awkward

                                                                                                                       
35
ye sambhavaṃ jātim nibbattiṃ esanti gavesanti. tattha catūsu yonīsu aṇḍajalābīja satta yāva
aṇḍakosaṃ vatthikosañca na bhindanti, tāva saṃbhavesino nāma aṇḍakosam vatthikosañca
bhinditvā bahi nikkatā bhūtā nāma. saṃsedajā opapātikā ca paṭhamacittakkhaṇe saṃbhavesino
nāma, dutiyacittakkhaṇato pabhuti bhūtā nāma. yena vā iriyāpathena jāyanti, yāva tato aññaṃ na
pāpuṇanti, tāva sambhavesino, tato paraṃ bhūtā nāma.  

 
 
  161  
 

interpretation by Pāli commentators suggests real tension about the concept of

intermediate existence. Another Nikāya passage in the Saṃyuttanikāya also lends

strong support for the existence of intermediate being. The passage states:

Vaccha, when this body is laid down, and yet the being has not been reborn in
another body. I call it is fuelled by craving. Because at that time, craving is its
fuel. (SN IV 400).36
This passage itself refers to a person who has died but not yet reborn into another new

form. This is one of direct support for the acceptance of intermediate being. Thus,

although Pāli Ābhidhammikas and commentators are reluctant to accept intermediate

beings, the Pāli Nikāyas, as Peter Harvey and Bhikkhu Bodhi argue, infer intermediate

existence.

The question is why Theravāda redactors have so much resistance in accepting

intermediate existence. It may be because of the dilemma later Buddhists faced in

defining that consciousness. In early Buddhist discourses six types of consciousness

are described, namely, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,

tongue consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness. According to the

Abhidhamma, consciousness cannot arise without an object. It further says

consciousness always co-exists with nāma-rūpa (Comprehensive Manual of

Abhidhamma 29). And the Theravāda Abhidhamma further asserts that each of these

six types of consciousness has physical bases (vatthu ) as object. The physical bases

for the first five types of consciousness is obvious, but the question remains what is

the physical base for mind-consciousness (mano-viññāna), Pāli commentators

proposed that mano-viññāṇa also has physical base as object, i.e. heart base (hadaya-
                                                                                                                       
36
yasmiṃ kho vaccha samaye imañca kāyaṃ nikkhipati satto ca aññataraṃ kāyaṃ anuppanno hoti.
taṃ ahaṃ taṇhupādānaṃ vadāmi. taṇhā hissa vaccha tasmiṃ samaye upādānaṃ hoti tī

 
 
  162  
 

vatthu) (Karunadasa 2010: 79). But the problem is at the moment of death; all the

physical bases cease to exist. If Buddhist tradition maintains that there is a gap

between death and new life, one needs to explain how the consciousness exists in that

period without physical bases, and what is the nature of that consciousness, as it

cannot be classified under the six types of consciousness. And if the tradition fails to

maintain that consciousness exists in that interval period, then the continuity of the

person in the Samsāric process cannot be established. If the continuity of the

samasaric process cannot be established, then one cannot maintain the doctrine of

moral responsibility (kamma). Furthermore, Theravāda redactors might be over-

concerned with the doctrine of non-soul. They seem to have a fear that the acceptance

of the intermediate existence would concede to the existence of soul. In later Buddhist

history, the soul and non-soul doctrines became hotly debated doctrines even within

Buddhist schools. The Pāli Nikāyas repudiated the metaphysical absolute unchanging

soul theory of Vedic religious philosophy, but later Buddhist redactors over

emphasized the concepts of soul and non-soul. So it is more likely in order to avoid

this problem, Theravāda commentators denied an existence between death and birth

(antarābhava). Several Buddhist schools of thought developed different concepts to

find a solution to this dilemma. For instance, the Pudgalavādins introduced the concept

of Pudgala to explain continuity and moral responsibilities of actions throughout the

saṃsāric fare (Kv VIII). Most of other Buddhist schools repudiate this concept as in

their view it would imply some form of soul theory. Some Buddhist schools are very

rigorous in repudiating this theory. The Yogācāra School has developed the concept of

 
 
  163  
 

store-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāṇa) to resolve this issue (Sthiramati’s

Trimśikāvijñptibhāṣyaṃ, 112-20 ).

The Theravāda doctrinal standard point is that there is no gap between death and

new birth (Vism 604).37 According to the Theravāda tradition, the last moment of the

consciousness of a dying person is known as ‘cuti’ falling (cavana), the next moment

of the consciousness is known as rebirth linking (paṭisandhi), and it links with the new

arising. In this theory, the question of consciousness existing independent of physical

bases does not arise. In some discourses in the Nikāyas, the nature of this

consciousness is explained. For instance, in quite a few discourses in the Nikāyas, it is

explained that this consciousness consists of six elements, and during its entrance to

the mother’s womb, there is nāma-rūpa (AN I 196; SN II 298; III 231; DN III

247). 38 All these six elements are marked by three hallmarks of impermanence,

unsatisfactoriness and non-soul. Hence, it is the very opposite of the metaphysical

unchanging soul of the Upaniṣad (The Bṛhadayak Upaniṣad 3.5.1, 9.26, The

Chāndayoga Upaniṣad. 8.1.5. 1-3; cited by Wijesekara 1994: 200). Thomas says the

concept of gandhabba in early Buddhism is connected to viññāṇa (Thomas 1988:

104). The consciousness is one of the five aggregates marked by three hallmarks.

Spiro Melford has rightly stated:

The gandhabba is composed of personality factors; this implies the mutual

dependence of such components, and thus there not being a self. The gandhabba
is not a pseudo-self, but can be seen as a genuine empirical self as found between
lives. It is though, no metaphysical self; all its components are inevitably
impermanent, dukkha and not self. (Melford 1970: 107).

                                                                                                                       
37
tesaṃ antarikā natthi.
38
 channaṃ bhikkhave dhātūnaṃ upādāya gabbhassāvakkhanti hoti, okkantiyā sati nāma rūpa  

 
 
  164  
 

Despite rejection of the the intermediate existence by the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and the

Pāli commentators, the Pāli Nikāyas lend strong support to the intermediate being.

And in repudiating the concept of intermediate being, the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and the

Pāli commentators are not coherent in their arguments. There is therefore discrepancy

between literary sources of Theravāda Buddhism and popular practice among

Theravāda Buddhists. Rita Langer has observed that there is apparent discrepancy

between Theravāda doctrines of instant rebirth, and popular practices and belief that

there is a liminal period of seven days after death (Langer 2007: 82). She says her

interviews with people in Sri Lanka, who include Buddhist monks; many of them

believe the consciousness of the departed ones wander in the space for a period of

seven days. Some define this consciousness as gandhabba, some define it as

antarābhava, yet some define it as bhūta or preta (Langer 2007: 83). Based on this

belief there is religious practice of offering alms and other requirements to members of

Buddhist monastic orders on the seventh day after the death of a person. This is widely

practiced across Theravāda Buddhist communities.

3.5 Conclusion

My discussion leads to the conclusion that the stage of non-return was very close to

the stage of arahatta. The yardstick to distinguish the two stages was based on the

exhaustion and remaining of upādi. When one observes these two stages through the

Pāli commentarial interpretation of term upādi and two stages of Nibbāna, logically it

implies that the state of non-returner is equal to attainment of sopādhisesanibbāna and

stage of arahatta is equal to attainment of anupādisesanibbāna. My examination of

the concept of upādi reveals that the commentarial interpretation of upādi as the five

 
 
  165  
 

aggregates is untenable so far as Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, rather Nikāya evidence

support that upādi is a very subtle form of attachment, and it does not affect the

attainment of liberation.

Gradually, concept of non-return is receded from its original position and formed

as a penultimate stage to liberation. Before the concept was standardized, the concept

of non-returner has been explained in terms of many doctrinal concepts such as

comprehension of the five aggregates, development of the three trainings, development

of the five spiritual faculties, which suggest the list of five fetters pertaining to lower

sphere and stage of non-returner developed independent of each other. Later on they

were put together.

This discussion demonstrates attainment of jhānas is a necessary requirement for

the attainment of the stage of non-return. Therefore, this chapter shows there is some

discrepancy in Pāli commentaries regarding the concept of dry-vision arahat path and

acceptance of the four stages as sequential attainment.

With regards to classification of non-returners, the discussion shows classification

of non-returners is not clear and coherent. I demonstrated that Pāli commentarial

interpretation the sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī is not very

convincing. Further I argue the term saṅkhāra in this context may refer to karmic

residuum. This discussion further reveals that although the concept of intermediate

existence is repudiated in the Theravāda Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries, a

careful observation of the Nikāyas suggests that some form of intermediate existence

is discernible.

 
 
   166  

Chapter 4:
The Origins of the Theory of Four Stages to Arahatta

Buddhism is a term to denote the vast array of social and cultural phenomena
that have clustered in the course of time around the teaching of a figure called
the Buddha.
(Dutt 1924:3).

The origins of the theory of four stages has to be understood in its proper historical

context. The Buddhist thoughts and spiritual values, like all other religious values,

were developed in response to social and cultural demands in the locations Buddhism

grew and expanded. Lamotte recognized this when he said that ‘transformation

occurred in the Buddha’s teaching, largely as the result of lay pressure’ (Lamotte

1988: 712-13, Cited in Ray 1994: 21-22).

This chapter aims to examine the development of the origins of the theory of four

stages to arahatta in specific social and religious contexts. This chapter investigates

how Buddhism was transformed from an ascetic movement to a communal religion

and the chapter argues that the theory of four stages was developed in response to

different social and religious demands that arose in the process of this transformation.

4.1 A General Survey of the Scheme of Spiritual Stages in other

Contemporary Religions of Early Buddhism
4.1.1 The Theory of Four Stages in Brahmanism

Masefield hypothesizes that the four āśrama dharmas of Brahmanism might have

influenced Buddhists in formulating this theory (Masefield 1996: 126). Although it

is difficult to make such assertive claim in the absence of any substantial textual
   167  

evidence, one cannot overlook the similarity between the four āśrama-dharmas of

Brahmanism and the four stages to arahatta in Buddhism. The four āśrama-dharmas

are celibacy (brahmācārī), household (gṛihastha), entering into forest (vānaprastha)

and renunciation (sannasi) (Sharma 1997:28).1 Some texts mention only three stages,

for instance, in the Baudhāyana, an Upaniṣadic text, the third stage is omitted (The

Baudhāyana II 6 28). In a similar manner, the Manusmṛti, another Vedic text, also

mentions only three stages (The Manusmṛti II 230). Benimadhab Barua opines that

originally, there were only the three stages, not four. He further argues that the three

stages were not developed either in the Baudhāyana nor the Manusmṛti, but they

were borrowed from some ancient sources (Barua 1998: 241). It is to be noted that

originally at least some Buddhists also held the view of the three stages, once-

returner was subsumed as a sub-stage of the stream-enterer, only later it was

recognized as a separate stage (see more in §2.6). In Brahmanism, the four āśrama

dharmas are structured in an ascending order, one starts with learning, then proceeds

to enjoyment of sensual pleasures, and gradually attenuate sensual pleasures and

finally transcends the sensual pleasures. In MN, it is Gaṇaka, a Brahmin

Mathematician who told the Buddha that four āśrama dharmas were gradual training

(anupabba-sikkhā) like mathematicians counting number (MN III 1). The

                                                                                                                       
1
There are differences in naming these stages, for instance, in the Vasiṣṭha, (VII, P. 2) they are named
as the celibacy (brahmacārī), the household life (gṛistha), entering into the forest (vānaprastha) and
the life of wandering (parivrājaka). The Yājñavalkya (The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, II, 5.1)
names as the learning (pāṇḍitya), the younghood (bālya), the stage of sage (muni) and the stage of
Brahmin (brāhmaṇa). The Āpastamba (The Āpasthama, II, 9.21.1) names as the household life
(gārhasthyam), teacher of a family (ācārya-kulaṃ), one who observes silence (maunaṃ) and
entering into the forest (vānaprasthyaṃ). The Goautama (Baudhāyana, II, 6. II, p.12) names as the
celibacy (brahmanacārī), the household life (gṛihastha), the monk life (bhikṣu) and hermit
(vaikhāna)The Manu (The Manu. V.137) names as the celibacy (brahmanacārī), the household life
(gṛihastha) entering into forest (vānaprastha and ascetic (yati). Cited in B.M Barua (1921/1998),
p. 240 footnote.
   168  

Yājñavalkya, another Brahmin, explains that in the early stage of life, one engages

with Vedic scholarship, after accomplishing one starts family life and begets children

to serve family lineage and human race. Then at the third stage, one abandons

sensual desires, and starts to contemplate on the reality of phenomena, at the fourth

stage; one’s mind attaches to nothing, but itself, the inner realization, i.e. the soul.

Benimadhab Barua remarks that by this, it is possible for a man to enjoy all sensual

pleasures and perform all functions and duties in life (Barua 1921 reprinted 1998:

252). This was the set of ideal for the first three higher classes of Indian hierarchical

society. They are known as noble (ārya). They were not meant for the last class, i.e.

sudra, who were considered as outcastes (anārya). They were never in the history of

Brahmanism described as sequential stage mandatory for everyone. It is noteworthy

to mention Buddhism defines one who is at least on the path to first stage as noble

(āriya), and those who are outside the community of these four stages are known as

worldlings (puthujjana), they are also defined as outsiders (bāhiya). Buddhism

provides spiritual values to these terms and did not accept these terms according to a

hierarchically classified society.

4.1.2 The Theory of the Fourteen Stages in Jainism

Another religion that Buddhism has great similarity with was Jainism. These two

religions; Buddhism and Jainism were closely related and they borrowed from each

other in their history. Herman Jacobi remarks:

Two sects which have so much in common could not, it was thought, have been
independent from each other, but one sect must needs have grown out of, or
branched off from the other. (Jacobi 1884: X)
   169  

Many may not agree with his remark, but without doubt all would agree that the

two individual traditions share many things in common. In this paper, I have no

scope to trace their histories. What I want to highlight is that in the Kalpa sūtra of

Jainism, a system of four stages is recorded. The discourse states:

Of those Nirgrantha monks who follow Ākāranga sūtra… the conduct of

sthaviras in the rainy season, some will reach perfection, be freed from all pains
in that same life, some in the next life, some in the third birth; none will have to
undergo more than seven or eight births. (Jacobi 1884: 310-11).
The fourth stage of Jainism is known as the right view (samyak-darśana) in the 14

stages of the Jaina path to purification (guṇasthāna).It is strikingly similar in its

content and even in wording. It is stated only when one reaches the stage of right

view, one can truly be called a Jaina. It is defined as only second to the Jaina concept

of perfection (jinatvā, or kevalañāṇa). Upon the attainment of the stage of right view,

one immediately eliminates a large amount of accumulated past karmas, future

karmas are very much limited in both quantity and intensity. Hence, with this

attainment one is free from births in lower realms and animal realms. Furthermore, it

is assured that one who attains right view would realize perfection (jinahood) either

in this life, or within a maximum of four lives (Jaini 2001:141-56). This implies that

some kind of borrowing might have taken place between Jainism and Buddhism, but

the question is who borrowed from whom. The precise answer to the question is

difficult for a number of reasons; first, the texts of Jainism were written down in the

5th century A.D.,2 long after the Buddhist texts were written down. In the long oral

tradition much later development might have been be added into the texts. Barth has

                                                                                                                       
2
Scholars generally agree that the Jaina texts were written down either in 454 or in 467 A.D. during
the council of Valabhi See more Hermann Jacobi’s (1879) “Introduction”; and (1884) introduction
   170  

stated that Jaina tradition is formed of vague recollection in imitation of the Buddhist

tradition (Barth 1880: 90, cited and translated into English in Jacobi 1879: xxvi).

But Hermann Jacobi has argued that the Jainese texts were composed either towards

the 3rd century B.C. or beginning of the 4th century B.C., and they preserved texts

orally (Jacobi 1884:xliii). There are no reasons to believe that much later material

crept into their texts. Prediction that some attained perfection in this life, and others

within maximum seven or eight lives occurred in the Kalpa-sūtra, which is

traditionally believed to be composed by Bhadrabahu who lived around a hundred

years after the Jina Mahāvira’s death, by this time Buddhists might have already

developed this doctrine. Rupert Gethin has pointed out that the details of the stage of

right view are found only in Jaina exegetical literature. The significance is given to

the four stages in canonical texts of these two religions, it seems possible that Jaina

borrowed the concept from Buddhists. However, in the absence of solid evidence, it

is difficult to come to any conclusive statement as to whether Buddhists emulated

some existing system or they created it on their own.

4.1.3 The Theory of the Three Stages in the Yoga Tradition

The four stages are frequently presented in the Nikāyas in terms of development of

the five spiritual faculties. It is interesting to see that a similar presentation of

spiritual path is seen in the Patañjali sūtra of the Yoga tradition of India. Spiritual

practice in this sūtra consists of cultivation of five (spiritual) faculties, which are the

same in Buddhist texts.3 And practitioners are classified into three categories based

on the development of the five faculties—weak (mṛdu), medium (madhya) and

                                                                                                                       
3
Faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom (śraddhā vīrya, smṛti, samādhi, prajñā). See
more (Agrawal 2001: 225).
   171  

excessive (adhimātra.) 4 The sūtra further mentions that the five faculties are

cultivated for the sake of abandoning defilements and cultivating concentration

(samādhibhāvanārthaḥ kleśatanūkaraṇarthaśca) (Agrawal 2001:225). Defilements

are classified into five—ignorance, self-view, greed, aversion and attachment

(avidyāsmitārāgadveṣābhiniveśābhiniveśāḥ pañcakleśāḥ). Again the difficult

question is who borrowed from whom. Several scholars believe that the Yoga-

tradition predates Buddhism. They assume that Yoga developed in around sixth

century to fifth century B.C, from śramaṇa movement (Ninian 1964: 27-32, 75;

Belvarkar & Sampradaya 927, Reprinted 1974: 81, 303-409). When it comes to

Yoga sūtra of Patañjali, scholars are heterogeneous in their views; Radhakrishnan

and Moore have hypothesized that it was composed in the 2nd century B.C.

(Dasgupta, 1924: 453) Philip A. Maas (Philip 2010:157-172) dates it 400 C.E.

(Philip 2010:157-172). Edwin Bryant observes the text cannot be placed before the

1st or the 2nd century A.D, neither can it be placed as late as the 4th century A.D.

(Bryant 2009: XXXIV). Michele Desmarais has examined all hypotheses on the

dating of the texts, and concluded that there is paucity of textual evidences, but later

datings are more acceptable to many scholars (Michele 2008: 16-17). I cannot

entertain discussions on the dating of Yoga sūtra further, considering the scope of my

study. Because of the paucity of the evidences, it is difficult to arrive at a precise date

of the texts, though it seems the text belongs to post Nikāyas. Several scholars have

pointed out that Buddhism and Jainism influenced Patañjali; Robert Thurman thinks

Patañjali was influenced by Buddhist monastic system to formulate yoga sūtra

(Robert 1984: 34). His view is supported by Karel Werner who further states:
                                                                                                                       
4
mṛdumadhyādhimātratvāttato’ pi viśeṣah/
   172  

Patanjali’s system is unthinkable without Buddhism. As far as its terminology

goes there is much in the Yoga sutras that remind us Buddhist formulation from
the Pāli Canon and even more so from the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma and from
Sautrāntika. (Werner 1994: 26)
Werner further states in another book that the whole of Patañjali sūtra is the

elaboration and summarization of the Buddhist teachings (Werner 1998:131). David

Gordon White is also in agreement with the view above and states that the language

of the Yoga sūtra is closer to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit than classical Sanskrit of

other Hindu texts (White 2014: 10). He concludes that all historical evidence implies

that Yoga philosophy was influenced by early Buddhism and Jainism (White 2014:

19). But there are also scholars who are not in agreement with this view; they

highlighted some difference between Buddhism and the Yoga sūtra of Patañjali.

However, certain difference between the two systems does not disprove that one

influenced the other. There are no sufficient evidence to prove Buddhism was

influenced by the Yoga sūtra of Patañjali, but most scholars’ finding seems to

indicate the other way round. It is fair to say that, given the two systems, Yoga and

Buddhism grew in the same milieu and at the same time that they influence each

other. It is not mutually exclusive.

4.1.4 The Eight Stages in Indian Materialism

Another religion that existed side by side with Buddhism was Materialism or

Naturalism. It was one of the influential religious thoughts in the Pre-Buddhist and

contemporary Buddhist period. In the Sāmaññaphala sutta, Makkhali Gosala is

recognized as one of those teachers who held such doctrine known as pariṇāmavāda.

He was more a naturalist, who believed every being is destined (niyati/niyai) to be

liberated one day after completion of their given numbers of birth in saṃsāra. He
   173  

taught the eight stages that a person goes through before liberation. They are: tender

stage (manda-bhūmi), playful stage (khiḍḍā-bhūmi), trial-stage (vīmaṃsā-bhūmi),

crept-stage (ujngta-bhūmi), stage of learning (sekha-bhūmi), stage of ascetic

(samaṇa-bhūmi), stage of perfection (jina-bhūmi), and stage of accomplishment

(paṇṇaka-bhūmi), (Dialogue of the Buddha II 72; Barua 1998: 314) . These eight

stages represent a process of biological and spiritual evolution of a person in

saṃsāra (samsāra-suddhi). And Barua believes that by passing through these stages

in samsāra, one would make an end of suffering (sandhāvitvā samsāritvā dukkhassa

antaṃ karissati, DN I 54). Barua remarks:

It is not difficult to understand that Gosala’s doctrine of eight developmental

stages of man was a physical antecedent of the Buddha’s doctrine of eight
higher spiritual ranks (aṭṭhapurisapuggalā). In the Gosala’s division an infant
is placed in the lowest stage of the development while in Buddha’s division the
lowest rank is filled by a sotāpanna…. The contrast between the two doctrines
is important historically as indicating a transition from a biological division to a
moral or spiritual one. (Barua 1921/1998:314)

The view of Barua is not very convincing, for eight stages in Makkhali Ghosala’s

teaching and the four paths and the four stages in Buddhism seem to refer to different

concepts. While the former represents both biological and spiritual stages of an

individual, and together, they do not cover anything more than one lifetime, Buddhist

stages are purely spiritual transformation of an individual and it covers wider space

and time. Some similarity can however be observed, particularly, when one looks at

the statement like ‘not subject to fall retrogression to lower existence, destined to full

enlightenment (avinipāta-dhammo niyato sambodhi-parāyano). In this stock phrase

the term niyati, or prakrit form niyai (Sūyagaḍaṅga I.I.2.3, cited in Barua 1998: 316

fn) which indicates sense of destiny or fate, is quite peculiar, the term is employed by
   174  

Makkhali Gosala to refer to his deterministic theory of liberation known as theory of

transformation (pariṇāmavāda). According to his theory, every sentient being in the

universe is destined to attain liberation in the course of natural evolution. The

maximum period of evolution is calculated as eighty four thousand mahākalpas

(Barua 1998:317). He explains every being from the tiniest to the largest in size

would have gone through the eight stages in the course of samsāra a maximum of

84,000 mahākalpas would make an end of suffering.

The employment of the term niyati in the formula of a declaration of stream-

enterer has never been satisfactorily explained in the Pāli Nikāyas. While on the one

hand, Buddhists were critical about the term in other religious thoughts; on the other

hand, they employ the same term with similar implications. This apparent

contradiction seems to have escaped even the eyes of Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli

commentators. In the sub-commentary to SN, the question is raised, if one was pre-

destined to enlightenment at the stage of stream-enterer, then he does not need to

make efforts for the three higher paths. He would attain them without effort and

assertion. If one were pre-destined due to past cause at the stage of stream-entry, he

would attain liberation without doing anything, just passing through seven births,

which would indicate that the fundamental defilements (mūlabhūta kilesā) are

already abandoned at the stage of stream-entry (SN-ṭika CSCD 4). 5 The sub-

                                                                                                                       
5
yadi pubbahetuniyamato sotāpanno ca niyatoti sotāpattimaggato uddhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ maggānaṃ
upanissayabhāvato pubbahetukiccaṃ natthīti sotāpattimaggassa upanissayabhāvo āpajjati. Yadi
tassapi pubbahetu upanissaya siyā, tāva niyamato sotāpattimagguppattito pubbe eva niyamito,
yāvañca akaniṭṭham tassa pubbahetu nāma, ahetukatā āpanna, iccassa ahetu appaccayā nipphatti
pāpuṇāti. kiñca hetu ce? niyamato sotāpanna ca niyatoti paṭhamamaggādhigameneva anukkamena
upari tiṇṇaṃ maggānaṃ kiccāni nipphajjanti, evaṃ sattakkhattuparamatādi niyame sati
sattamabhavādito uddhaṃ pavattatāya dukkhassa mūlabhūtā kilesā paṭhamamagganeva khīṇāti
upari tayo maggā akicca siyuṃ. …
   180  

renunciant life in order to gain the spiritual ideal.8 The Buddha changed his mode of

instructions according to the receptivity of his audience. Since the earliest disciples

were already exposed to an ascetic way of life, he did not have to guide them

gradually, training them in the ascetic way of life. He had to only tune their

cognitive process in the right way. Hence, listening to a discourse was sufficient for

them to gain liberation.

With people who had no prior training, but were only inspired to leave home and

join the order, the Buddhist community had to formulate a systematic path to

liberation known as the gradual path for them to follow. The path is well described in

the Sāmaññaphala sutta of DN. The Sāmaññaphala sutta is one of the early

discourses, which teaches the gradual path. This discourse is the most popular

discourse within the Nikāyas. It has been repeated with slight variation and

illustrated with different stories in 18 discourses in DN itself. In fact, in the first

section of DN, almost every discourse contains this discourse except one. Bhikkhu

Bodhi observes that the gradual path first appears in the Sāmaññaphala sutta and the

same gradual path is reiterated again and again throughout the Nikāya with minor

variations. (Bodhi 1998: 2)

Graeme Macqueen (1988) has done a very thorough study on the discourse in his

book A Study of the Śrāmaṇyaphala-Sūtra. He has compared the contents and

background settings of seven versions of the Sāmaññaphala sutta, and has shown

that the contents and background settings of all seven versions are quite similar,

                                                                                                                       
8
Max Weber (1968: 58) has asserted that the charismatic personality of the saints was central to the
earliest Buddhist tradition.
   181  

which implies that the discourse belongs to an early phase of Buddhism. 9

Frauwallner asserts that the path scheme in the Sāmaññaphala sutta is the oldest and

thoroughly agrees with the path scheme in Yoga:

To summarize, in short the Buddhist way of deliverance, which the old

canonical text described represent a good example of the typical Yoga way of
his time; but at the same time, it shows many original and instructive features.
(Frauwallner 1984:137)
Bhikkhu Bodhi by investigating the background story of the discourse agrees with

Frauwallner and states: “the Sāmaññaphala sutta must have been spoken by the

Buddha during the very last years of his life.” (Bodhi 1998:5). However, it does not

imply that the discourse remained unchanged.10 An interesting point to note is that

despite editorial processes, the doctrine of the four stages is not mentioned in the

discourse. All the versions agree that it was delivered to Ajātasattu in response to his

question to reveal the fruit of ascetic life. Then the Buddha relates a number of

mundane fruits such as receiving respect and honour in society, culminating in the

attainment of the arahatta. Despite slightest variations in descriptions, all versions

agree that the path is listening to the dhamma, generating faith in the Buddha and the

dhamma, leaving household life, observing morality and restraint of the senses,

abandoning the five hindrances, attainment of the four jhānas, attainment of the six

higher knowledge, and finally realization of the Four Noble Truths and abandonment

of outflowing (Macqueen 1988: 169-82). In none of the seven extant versions there

is mention of attaining the four stages. One possible reason would be by the time this
                                                                                                                       
9
All the seven versions of the discourse preserved one in Pāli, one in Sanskrit, four in Chinese
translation and one in Tibetan translation. Another one in the Gandhari version was discovered in
Afghanistan yet to be published, despite certain variation in content, are concordant that the
discourse was given to King Ajātasattu. See more (Macqeen, 1988: 12-19).
10
Pande (1995), Schmithausen (1981), Bronkhorst (1986), Macqueen (1988) have shown that the
discourse went through several editorial process.  
   182  

discourse was compiled, the four stages had not yet come into existence. Govinda

Chandra Pande holds a similar this view. He asserts that the theory of four stages

may not belong to the earliest phase of Buddhism. He argues that if they were

doctrines of the earliest phase of Buddhism, there would have been some references

to them in the Sāmaññaphala sutta (Pande 1995: 539). His observation seems valid.

If the theory of four stages to the arahatta were developed by the time this discourse

was compiled, it would beg the question why the four stages were not included in

this discourse. The discourse further shows that until the compilation of the

Sāmaññaphala sutta, liberation was to be gained within one lifetime. There was no

mention of births in the heavenly realms, or liberation to be gained in some future

subsequent lives. In this discourse, there is no trace of the list of ten fetters, which

became closely clustered, with the theory of four stages in subsequent time.

Liberation is solely concerned with freeing the mind from outflowing of sensuality

(kāmāsava), outflowing of becoming (bhavāsava) and outflowing of ignorance

(avijjāsavā). There is no mention of attachment to rūpaloka and arūpaloka, though it

is possible to argue that these two are subsumed under bhavāsava. This gradual path

requires total cut off from social affairs and requires renunciation of family life. And

the gradual path is not extended beyond this life, but complete liberation is to be

attained within this life. Bhikkhu Bodhi has described the situation:

The Buddha insisted that ultimate goal of his teaching was the extinction of
suffering in this very life, and for this reason, he constantly urged the bhikkhus
not to remain satisfied with any partial achievement, but to pass on towards the
final goal. (The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha 52).
   183  

The earliest Buddhists looked upon family and social ties as bondage to spiritual path.

The household life and all social ties were incompatible with spiritual goals. The

Buddhist path for liberation is result-oriented, and requires full-time dedication to the

practices. Steven Collins has pointed out the earliest Buddhist attitude towards

social ties; “Life in house is treated as symbol for indulgence in the sensual pleasure,

which is obstruction to spiritual progress” (Collins 1982: 167). Furthermore, there

are numerous occasions in the Pāli Canon that elucidate that sensual desire

(kāmāsava/kāmataṇhā) is one of the central obstacles for spiritual path. The

Buddhist spiritual path was open to anyone who chose to meet the requirement,

irrespective of difference in castes, ethnicity or nationality. Steven Collins describes

the necessity of permanent abandonment of household life as follows:

Buddhist soteriology is immediately applicable and relevant for anyone

anywhere, but in so far as the ultimate attainment Nirvāṇa requires a life of
permanent celibacy. (Collins 1998: 33-34).
The earliest Buddhists understood that in order to attain liberation, it is necessary to

leave mundane affairs, because what is central to the soteriological path was

meditation, which requires both psychological and physical separation from all

mundane affairs (Gombrich 2006: 75). This also requires a complete cut-off of

family and social ties both physically and psychologically. Thus, the earliest phase of

Buddhism was a religion for people who renounced social ties and mundane affairs.

Their mode of livelihood was basically wandering and survival through acceptance

of alms. There was no permanent residence for them. Their immediate goal was

liberation from saṃsāra, hence, they were not concerned about social and family

affairs. They relied on society only for their minimum needs, such as food and robes.
   184  

The earliest form of Buddhism was attractive to only a small section of people in

the society. It was not a religion for the general masses because few could meet the

requirements to follow the Buddhist path. Although the Buddhist path was open to

anyone, it is mainly for those who earnestly sought liberation and were able to meet

the requirements—to renounce family, wives, children, wealth and social interactions

and all mundane affairs. In other words, the earliest doctrine and practice were not

meant for everyone, it was not a religion of the common masses, but a religion for a

small group of people, mainly from elite class of the society who were born into

wealth and were educated, who were aware of the pitfalls of material comforts and

dedicated to the attainment of complete liberation from suffering. Steven Collins in

his book Nirvāṇa and other Buddhist Felicities, has made an excellent study of how

other felicities developed in the history of Buddhist thought. He demonstrates the

conflict between the ascetic quest and ongoing demands of ordinary people in society.

He contends:

Ascetic quest for Nirvaṇa could only ever be a matter of immediate concern for
a minority, it was quantitatively marginal, in the gamut of imagined felicities as
actual practice, but it was qualitatively central. (Collins 1998: 93).
Renunciation as principle was incompatible with the psychological expectation of

great majority of the people. There was a wide gap between the requirement of the

earliest Buddhist movement and the general aspiration of people. In other words,

they were two complete opposite lines of expectation. Collins puts it in the following

words:

Asceticism as a way of life cannot be implemented consistently and universally

in any society, agrarian or the other… majority of the people cannot adopt it as
an actual lifestyle. It is a minority option. (Collins 1998: 32).
   185  

The most immediate and important goal of the majority of people might have been

mundane success in this life or future existence, either in the human realm or in the

realm of gods, there seem more lucrative than the possibility of complete liberation

from samsāra. Melford Spiro states:

As seems most probable early Buddhism appealed primarily to a cultural

stratum of urban, world-weary intelligentsia, it would hardly have perdured as
the religion of an unsophisticated peasantry without undergoing important
change. (Spiro 1970: 66).
On the other hand, at the time of the Buddha, there were many other groups of

ascetic movements in India apart from Buddhists, and withdrawal from social ties for

spiritual quest was a common practice in societies where Buddhism emerged. Indian

society has always been upholding the value of generosity towards religious

people. The common masses were ready to give to ascetics who withdrew from

society, irrespective of their ‘religious beliefs, because they believed they could get

merits through offerings. Earliest Buddhist ascetics had to engage with society as

they depended on society for their minimum material support. In return for their

material support, ascetics often delivered some short discourses regarding rewards of

generosity and some simple ethical codes, which householders accepted

wholeheartedly. But this acceptance of discourse did not to mean they were affiliated

to any particular religion.

Buddhists from early on understood the importance of sustainability and

propagation of Buddha’s teachings. A few individuals’ efforts cannot ensure the

sustainability of a religion. It requires institution and community; small group monks

and nuns cannot accomplish this task alone. Propagation and sustainability of a
   186  

religion requires financial support and sufficient human resources. It requires the

support and strong involvement of the lay community. It was not easy to accomplish

this. Buddhism just like other soteriological religions faced big challenges in

attracting lay people because of the schism between aims of soteriological religions

and expectation of general people in the society. While Buddhism required the

withdrawal from society and mundane affairs, lay community’s expectation was

prosperity in mundane affairs. This incompatibility is acknowledged in Buddhist

texts, in the story of the Buddha’s reticent attitude to propagate his dhamma after his

enlightenment. The Buddha described his dhamma as against the general expectation

of the people (paṭisoto mama dhammo). And this dhamma is to be understood by few

intelligent elite (paññavato mama dhammo, na dupaññā). Buddhists realized that

their ambition was incompatible with the psychological expectation of the majority

of people of that time.

On the other hand, competition for followers was high. Brahmanism as an

institution was already well-established and asserted strong influence in religious,

social, economic and political life of the people. In the hierarchical social structure,

Brahmins occupied a pinnacle place. Brahmanism was formed as communal religion.

Some scholars assert that Brahmanism was not a strong religion in the geographical

area where Buddhism developed. But several encounters of Buddhists and Brahmins

recorded in the Nikāyas suggest that Brahmanism had strong influence in the

geographical area where Buddhism emerged. Gombrich asserts that many Buddhist

teachings in the Nikāyas are presented in the model of the Vedic literature

(Gombrich 1988: 20-46). Many Buddhist teachings developed either as responses to

   184  

The earliest form of Buddhism was attractive to only a small section of people in

the society. It was not a religion for the general masses because few could meet the

requirements to follow the Buddhist path. Although the Buddhist path was open to

anyone, it is mainly for those who earnestly sought liberation and were able to meet

the requirements—to renounce family, wives, children, wealth and social interactions

and all mundane affairs. In other words, the earliest doctrine and practice were not

meant for everyone, it was not a religion of the common masses, but a religion for a

small group of people, mainly from elite class of the society who were born into

wealth and were educated, who were aware of the pitfalls of material comforts and

dedicated to the attainment of complete liberation from suffering. Steven Collins in

his book Nirvāṇa and other Buddhist Felicities, has made an excellent study of how

other felicities developed in the history of Buddhist thought. He demonstrates the

conflict between the ascetic quest and ongoing demands of ordinary people in society.

He contends:

Ascetic quest for Nirvaṇa could only ever be a matter of immediate concern for
a minority, it was quantitatively marginal, in the gamut of imagined felicities as
actual practice, but it was qualitatively central. (Collins 1998: 93).
Renunciation as principle was incompatible with the psychological expectation of

great majority of the people. There was a wide gap between the requirement of the

earliest Buddhist movement and the general aspiration of people. In other words,

they were two complete opposite lines of expectation. Collins puts it in the following

words:

Asceticism as a way of life cannot be implemented consistently and universally

in any society, agrarian or the other… majority of the people cannot adopt it as
an actual lifestyle. It is a minority option. (Collins 1998: 32).
   188  

but I cannot afford to delve into this question here. Among them, Jainism deserves

study because Jainism still remains as a living tradition and a they have a distinct

religious community in India. Both Jainism and Buddhism started as soteriological

religions. Jainism seems also to be concerned about sustainability of their religion.

Jaina texts record teachings for lay followers known as ‘practices of disciples’

(śrāvakācāra). It is recorded in Uvāsagadasāo that a wealthy layman by the name of

Ānanda was convinced of the teachings of Jinamahāvira. But he acknowledged that

he was unable to renounce worldly affairs to follow the path of Jaina monks. Rather

he declared that he would accept the twelve vows of laypersons, and further declared

that he would not practice any other religions except Jainism (Norman 1991: 33).

This passage suggests that for Jaina there was already a set of practice for lay

followers and a concept of being affiliated to their religion. Whether this passage

existed in early Jainism or it was a later insertion is difficult to resolve, considering

the nature of Jain literature. Their canon was composed much latter than Buddhism.

The twelve stages are found in much later Jaina text.. Norman asserts that these were

later insertions. He further argues that there are no discourses in the Jaina Canon

regarding layman. He writes; ‘we might guess that at an earlier date the Jain rules

for layman were not so stereotyped. That was certainly the case for Buddhist layman’

(Norman 1991: 33). However, we can safely assume there was competition for

followers between Buddhism and Jainism.

The Buddha and his early disciples enjoyed support from the lay community, but

that support and requisites provision did not mean that they were followers of

Buddhism. Buddhists were concerned about the sustainability of the dhamma. A

   189  

religion could not be sustainable in the hands of individual without an institution, and

so there was a need to create a community. A community of monks and nuns was

thought to be important for the sustainability and propagation of Buddhism as an

institutionalized religion, but without a lay community it was not possible to sustain

a monastic community. Therefore, Buddhists wanted to create a strong community of

lay Buddhists (upāsaka-upāsika), who would not only provide requisites and food

for monks, but also pledge their affiliation to Buddhist religion and actively involve

in Buddhist activities. In order to meet this aim, Buddhists were compelled to make

their teachings appealing to common people and provide a theoretical explanation

about their soteriological possibilities. As Etienne Lamotte points out, ‘we would

search in vain for the transcendent quality which would attract crowds to the support

of a personality so lacking in lustre and dynamism’ (Lamotte 1946: 40, cited in

Bailey et. all 2003:14). Buddhists had to compromise with the expectations of the

common masses in order to make Buddhism appealing to common people. Moreover,

it was not an easy task to build a community in India amidst several prevailing

religions. Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey list the following five

conditions which are necessary to form a community:

i. A common culture belief practice and common interest.

ii. These should be significantly different from culture, belief, practice and interest
that prevailed in particular society.
iii. Be conscious of an identity.
iv. Effective as a collectivity in social, political and economic life.
v. Ability to continue the institution (Caroline 1991: 6-7).
It was likely that early Buddhists were compelled to make Buddhist teachings

appealing to common people, who did not want to renounce mundane affairs, so
   185  

The most immediate and important goal of the majority of people might have been

mundane success in this life or future existence, either in the human realm or in the

realm of gods, there seem more lucrative than the possibility of complete liberation

from samsāra. Melford Spiro states:

As seems most probable early Buddhism appealed primarily to a cultural

stratum of urban, world-weary intelligentsia, it would hardly have perdured as
the religion of an unsophisticated peasantry without undergoing important
change. (Spiro 1970: 66).
On the other hand, at the time of the Buddha, there were many other groups of

ascetic movements in India apart from Buddhists, and withdrawal from social ties for

spiritual quest was a common practice in societies where Buddhism emerged. Indian

society has always been upholding the value of generosity towards religious

people. The common masses were ready to give to ascetics who withdrew from

society, irrespective of their ‘religious beliefs, because they believed they could get

merits through offerings. Earliest Buddhist ascetics had to engage with society as

they depended on society for their minimum material support. In return for their

material support, ascetics often delivered some short discourses regarding rewards of

generosity and some simple ethical codes, which householders accepted

wholeheartedly. But this acceptance of discourse did not to mean they were affiliated

to any particular religion.

Buddhists from early on understood the importance of sustainability and

propagation of Buddha’s teachings. A few individuals’ efforts cannot ensure the

sustainability of a religion. It requires institution and community; small group monks

and nuns cannot accomplish this task alone. Propagation and sustainability of a
   191  

liquor, wine, and intoxicants, which are cause for heedlessness, in that way, a
lay follower is virtuous. (AN IV 220).12
When one looks at the section of the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN, which I argue in

chapter two that the section contains the original prototype of stream-enterer, the

requirement mentioned for one to be a lay follower in above quoted is not different

from the requirement mentioned for one to be a stream-enterer. For instance, Sakyan

Mahānāma approached Venerable Godha and asked by how many factors, one

becomes a stream-enterer, the latter answered only the first three factors. It is said; at

this juncture Mahānāma was puzzled because previously, he had learnt the four

factors. So he approached the Buddha to clarify, the Buddha did not give any explicit

answer, rather he praised the faith of Mahānāma (AN IV 372). This is further

consolidated in another passage. In this passage, a Sakyan layman, Sarakāṇi, was

declared a stream-enterer after his death. This raised some criticism from different

quarters of society, for in their views, Sarakāṇi was weak in abiding in morality. This

was reported to the Buddha, the Buddha declared that whosoever goes for refuge in

the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha for a long time is undoubtedly a stream-

enterer (AN IV 375). (See more §2.2 and §2.5). The Sotāpatti-saṃyutta of SN

usually emphasizes two aspects of stream-enterer; possessing four factors of stream-

entry, and as consequence of possessing four factors of stream-enterers, one would

not go to lower existence (apāya), would not face misfortune (vinipāta), and are

assured of liberation (niyato sambodhiparāyaṇo). The first aspect represents the

requirement for attainment of the stage of stream-entry, while the second aspect the

                                                                                                                       
12
yato kho Mahānāma upāsako pānātipātā paṭivirato hoti, adinnādānā paṭivirato hoti kāmesu
micchācārā paṭivirato hoti musāvādā paṭivirato hoti surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā paṭivirato hoti,
ettāvatā kho mahānāma upāsako sīlavā hoti.
   186  

religion requires financial support and sufficient human resources. It requires the

support and strong involvement of the lay community. It was not easy to accomplish

this. Buddhism just like other soteriological religions faced big challenges in

attracting lay people because of the schism between aims of soteriological religions

and expectation of general people in the society. While Buddhism required the

withdrawal from society and mundane affairs, lay community’s expectation was

prosperity in mundane affairs. This incompatibility is acknowledged in Buddhist

texts, in the story of the Buddha’s reticent attitude to propagate his dhamma after his

enlightenment. The Buddha described his dhamma as against the general expectation

of the people (paṭisoto mama dhammo). And this dhamma is to be understood by few

intelligent elite (paññavato mama dhammo, na dupaññā). Buddhists realized that

their ambition was incompatible with the psychological expectation of the majority

of people of that time.

On the other hand, competition for followers was high. Brahmanism as an

institution was already well-established and asserted strong influence in religious,

social, economic and political life of the people. In the hierarchical social structure,

Brahmins occupied a pinnacle place. Brahmanism was formed as communal religion.

Some scholars assert that Brahmanism was not a strong religion in the geographical

area where Buddhism developed. But several encounters of Buddhists and Brahmins

recorded in the Nikāyas suggest that Brahmanism had strong influence in the

geographical area where Buddhism emerged. Gombrich asserts that many Buddhist

teachings in the Nikāyas are presented in the model of the Vedic literature

(Gombrich 1988: 20-46). Many Buddhist teachings developed either as responses to

   193  

the stage of stream-entry (DN-tīka CSCD version 4).14 The commentary to the

Paṭisambhidāmagga defines worldling as one who has not yet abandoned

defilements, but he practices morality (Pm-A II 506).15 Yet another passage records

‘a lay devotee, who has arrived at certainty regarding the Blessed one is a stream-

enterer (DN-A III 941),16 and his faith in the Buddha is not shaken by words of

others (DN-A III 1025).17 Yet another passage quite explicitly mentions, a wise lay

devotee is known as stream-enterer (SN-A III 291).18 These cited passages imply that

originally, the stage of stream-entry was developed exclusively for laities. Laities,

who have gone for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha

wholeheartedly, and developed receptive attitude towards the teaching of the Buddha,

would have been defined as stream-enterers. This stage might have not been taught

to the monastics. Monastics were directed towards a different soteriological goal.

Thus, a two-type model of Buddhism developed, one model emphasizing

renunciation of mundane affairs, the other model allows one to be happy and

successful in mundane affairs. Reginald Ray has defined them as a two-tiered model

of Buddhism, i.e. Buddhism of renounced monks and nuns, and Buddhism of lay

male and female followers. The monks and nuns upheld the upper tier, having

renounced all social ties and mundane affairs, and were fully committed to liberation

from saṃsāra as soon as possible, while lay male and female followers upheld the

                                                                                                                       
14
tadetam sammattaniyāmokkamanavasena nippariyāyato apāyavinimuttake sandhāya vuttaṃ,
tadanupapattivasena pana pariyāyato apāyavinimuttakam kālyāṇaputhujjanampi yathānusiṭṭhaṃ
paṭipjjamāne ti padena dassetīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tathā hesa dakkhiṇavibhaṅgasuttādisu
sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyāya paṭipannabhāvena vuttoti.    
15
tattha puthujjano ca so kilesānaṃ asamucchinnattā, kalyāṇo ca sīladipaṭipatti puthujjanakalyāṇo.
16
so bhagavati niṭṭhaṅgato upāsako sotāpanno.
17
sotāpanno hi catūhi vātehi indakhīlo viya parappavādehi akampiyo.
18
sappañño upāsakoti sotāpanno adhippeto.
   194  

lower tier, continue to live in society with all mundane affairs, they established faith

in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, and support Buddhist activities. These

two distinct forms of Buddhism seem to be very ancient, believed to have started in

the early part of Buddhist history. Ray attributes it to date in the lifetime of the

Buddha himself:

Both of these lifestyles, we are told, were instigated by the Buddha himself and
have provided primarily elements of the Buddhist community throughout its
Indian history. (Reginal 1994:15)
Melford Spiro has defined two forms of Buddhism as Nibbānic Buddhism and

kammatic Buddhism. He defines them as:

Nibbānic Buddhism is truly an ideology of radical salvation. It rejects

everything within the spatiotemporal world (saṃsāra) as a possible goal of
salvation.... And it demands the renunciant of the lokiya, the socio-cultural
world, as the arena within which one can best strive for the attainment of
salvation. In contrast they (followers of kammatic Buddhism) view suffering as
a temporary state, the result of their present position in saṃsāra, hence they
aspire to another form of saṃsāric existence, which yields great pleasure.
These range from earthly existence of a wealthy human being to the heavenly
existence of a blissful deva. (Spiro 1982:66-67)
The Buddha did not seem to have given any serious doctrinal discourses to lay

followers. Two complete distinct forms of teachings were given to the two groups of

disciples; to the monks and nuns, abandonment of all mundane affairs is often

emphasized, as we are inherently bound to suffering and immediate escape from

saṃsāra. Household life was considered as a bondage to path to liberation as it

caused defilements (Sn 273, 1003, 207). On the other hand, for lay followers,

Buddhism taught the way to earn wealth, to enjoy wealth in a righteous manner, to

be successful in mundane affairs, and to enjoy heavenly bliss after death. These are

two contrasting paths. Manne Joy thinks the four stages were formed to prove

Buddhist teachings work for everybody (Manne 1995a:102). The Buddhists might
   195  

have wanted to prove that everyone who took up Buddhist practices gained

something, and there was nothing to lose. By this Buddhists wanted to provide

incentive to accept Buddhist teachings. Such an intention is reflected in many

passages in the Nikāyas. There are numerous discourses in the Nikāyas that report

destinies of large numbers of people after their death in terms of four stages. In the

Janavasabha sutta, the intention for such declaration is documented. It states that

such declaration caused many good people and politicians to develop faith in

Buddhist teachings. In the Naḷakapāna sutta of MN, it is stated such declaration was

not employed to defraud, nor for the purpose of cajoling people, nor for the purpose

of material gain, honor or frame, but for the purpose of causing people to develop

enthusiasm and inspiration in Buddhist teachings (MN I 465). This suggests the stage

of stream-entry was developed for the purpose of inspiring people to embrace

Buddhist faith. This was essential to propagate Buddhism, as I have already

discussed above, the Buddhist path to liberation was too demanding, a great majority

of people could not meet the demands. This fact is acknowledged in the Nikāyas, for

instance, once lay follower Dhammadinna went to meet the Buddha, the Buddha

taught him about emptiness, immediately he said he dwelt at home with children and

wife, enjoying all mundane pleasures, hence he could not reflect on such profound

doctrine. The Buddha then taught him four factors of stream-entry (SN V 408). This

was not just a view of one particular person; rather it portrays the views of the

majority of people in the society where Buddhism developed.

The Sāmaññaphala sutta is significant in proving that originally the stage of

stream-entry might only have been meant for lay followers. In the dialogue between
   196  

the Buddha and the king, there was no mention of any of the four stages. The Pāli

version mentions that when the king left, the Buddha addressed the monk and said

that if the king had not killed his father, he would have gain dhammacakkhu on the

very seat that he was seated (DN I 86).19 In chapter 2, I have shown that the arising

of dhammacakkhuṃ is equated with attainment of stream-entry. And another version

of the Sāmaññaphala sutta extant in Chinese translation, it is mentioned that if the

king had not killed his father, he would have been a stream-enterer and members of

the four pairs of Noble Persons (Macqueen 1988: 89). This version suggests that

compiler of this discourse already knew the four paths and the four stages. These

four pairs of Noble Persons are absent in all other extant versions of the discourse.

These versions all agree about the attainment of dhammacakkhuṃ, one version in

Chinese translation asserts that the king in fact had attained dhammacakkhuṃ and

would not retrogress from it (Macqueen 1988: 68). Another version in Chinese

translation states that if the king had not killed his father, he would have realized the

Four Noble Truths (Macqueen 1988: 89). Here though dhammacakkhuṃ is not

mentioned, but as already demonstrated in chapter 2, realization of the Four Noble

Truths is equal to gaining of dhammacakkhuṃ. The question is if the theory of four

stages was already developed by the time of the Sāmaññaphala sutta was compiled,

then why would the Buddha not mention it when he was explaining the fruits of

ascetic life in the discourse. The Sāmaññaphala sutta explains spiritual path from an

ordinary worldling to attainment of arahatta without any mention of the first three

stages. The absence of the first three stages is significant because the title of the

                                                                                                                       
19
sacāyaṃ bhikkhave rājā pitaraṃ dhammikaṃ dhammarājānaṃ jīvitā na voropessatha imasmiṃ
yeva āsane virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ uppajjissathāti.
   197  

discourse is the fruit of asceticism (sāmaññaphala). Among the eight extant versions

of the discourse, six versions are entitled as the “fruit of ascetic life” (sāmaññaphala)

(Macqueen 1988: 12-18). It is more likely that at least the stage of stream-entry was

already in existence. One may argue that this part was later inserted, then there raises

a question why it is not inserted in between the dialogue of the Buddha and the king,

where the Buddha expounded the fruits of mendicant life. It is more likely that the

stage of stream-entry was meant only for lay followers, not monastic members. The

king questioned about fruits of life of monks and nuns under the Buddha, hence, it

might be out of scope to mention the first stage in the discourse. The first stage is

mentioned at the end of the discourse, it is mentioned in relation to the king, not

monks and nuns. The discourse shows, until the compilation of this discourse, there

were two distinct spiritual paths, one for mendicant monks and nuns, and the other

for lay Buddhists. Monks and nuns strived for liberation in this very life, while lay

followers aimed at attaining any of the first three stages and hoped for liberation in

some future births. Thus two distinct soteriological ideals developed.

The formulation of the concept of the attainment of the stage of stream-entry

catered for people’s psychological fear. While people might have strong emotional

attachments to mundane affairs and the world, they held even stronger fear of rebirth

into lower realms. Indian people for a long time were familiar with the concepts of

karma and its retribution, birth after death and about existence of hells beings, spirits,

ghosts and hungry ghosts. The Indian mentality and thinking were greatly influenced

by these concepts; these are concepts that have been prevailing in Indian society

since a very long time with Brahmanism as well as other religions belonging to
   198  

Śramaṇa groups. Psychological fear of rebirth into lower realms was based on the

concept of karma. The doctrine of karma was common vocabulary in Indian society

before the emergence of Buddhism. According to this doctrine, human beings have

been evolving in the cycle of saṃsāra since innumerable periods, and have

accumulated large series of karma, of which they had no conscious knowledge. It

was recognized to be the hidden cause for suffering. It was because of karma that

one travelled from one existence to another. Buddhism also teaches that human

beings are production of their own karma. Hence, to remove the psychological fear, it

was necessary to assure them that by attainment of this stage of stream-entry the

previously accumulated karma (bad karma) would be nullified. This is discernible in

the formula of the attainment of the stream-entry. With the attainment of this stage

one was assured of not going to unfortunate existences as hell beings, hungry ghost

(preta), and animal realm. Not only that, the Buddhist texts further mention stream-

enterers are ensured of enjoying many pleasures in the heavens and coming to human

existences, and in human world one would enjoy beauty, happiness, long life, wealth

and social reputation (SN V 276).

The concept of stream-entry is closely related to the doctrine of karma. In one

passage in SN, the six benefits of attainment of the stage of stream-entry were

mentioned. Among the six benefits, two are: i. guarantee of the generation of no

fresh karma and ii. nullifying large portions of already accumulated karma. In

another passage, it is explained that when one attains dhammacakkhuṃ, his greater

part of suffering is exhausted, what remained is an infinitely small portion (SN II 134;

V 458). A number of similes are employed to show a contrast between the

   199  

destruction of accumulated karma and remaining karmic residue as a result of

gaining the stage of stream-entry. In one passage, it is related that in the moment one

gains the right vision (the path of stream-entry), greater parts of dukkha are

completely destroyed, remaining is infinitely small, does not amount to one hundred

thousandth of what is destroyed (SN II 134; V 458). Remaining karma is further

compared to little dust on the tip of the Buddha’s fingernail, while what is destroyed

is compared to the whole earth. Or what is remained is compared to few drops of

water from the confluence of the rivers of Gaṅga, Yamunā, Aciravati, Sarabhū and

Mahī, while what is destroyed is compared to water in those rivers. Thus through the

stage of stream-entry the early Buddhists ensured people of mundane success and a

worry-free state of mind.

With the development of two-tiered model of Buddhism, the attainment of

arahatta in this very life and the stage of stream-entry developed as spiritual goals

for two types of followers— monastics and laities respectively. The monastics were

taught to attain arahatta in this very life, while lay followers were given moral

teachings, and guide to mundane successes and hope of attaining liberation in future

lives. Thus, two communities upheld two distinct dimensions of the Buddhist path.

There was clear-cut demarcation in their practice, duties and responsibilities.

In the Mahāparinibbāna sutta of DN, when Ānanda asked the Buddha about

handling the Buddha’s cremation, the Buddha said that it was the affair of lay

followers, and that monks and nuns should not be involved in it. This shows the

immediate goal of the lay community was not attainment of Nibbāna which was

only attainable to monastic who had forsaken household life, but accumulating
   200  

merits, which was defined as source of happiness and success in this life and life

after. In the Milindapañha, Venerable Nagasena explained that monks should

adhere to the Pātimokkha and follow the highest ideal of Buddhist life, while lay

community should follow the lesser ideal, but still a worthy life; they should

venerate monks and stūpa. Through the merits, lay devotees could gain their wish

for happiness and success in the present life and life after (Milindapañha 162-64;

The Question of Milinda 94). Thus two stages represent two different spiritual

dimensions of aspiration of Buddhist community. While laities practice virtues,

which are conducive to wealth, long life, happiness and good future rebirths,

monastics commit themselves to virtues of renunciation, and practices that lead to

the end of saṃsāra. This is not to say that Buddhism as spiritual religion easily

moved from its main goal. The attainment of Nibbāna is the fundamental premise

of all Buddhist practices. The Buddhist teachings are either ethically or socially

valid insofar as they are subservient to attainment of Nibbāna. Laities are not to be

excluded from this goal. It might have been a big challenge to compromise between

the highest ideal of early Buddhism and mundane aspiration of the general masses.

The solution they came out was shifting the immediate goal to a distance goal for

the common masses, allowing some time for them to attend to their family

responsibilities enjoy other mundane felicities before the final goal. Thus, early

Buddhists had the same spiritual ideal for both monastics and laity, the difference

was only the time and space it would take to achieve it. This is reported in MN that

‘just as water in the river Ganga slopes and proceeds towards the ocean, the

followers of Gotama, either the monastics or laity slopes, slant and proceeds
   201  

towards Nibbāna’ (MN I 493; SN V 134-244). With the development of the stage

of stream entry, Buddhism gradually established a communal religion that differs

from local religions.

4.3 The Origins of the Stage of Non-return

In chapter 3, I have argued that originally the attainment of the stage of non-return

was similar to the attainment of the stage of arahatta. Gradually, the stage of non-

return was redefined as the penultimate stage to arahatta. This sub-chapter

investigates what led to such a development. This sub-chapter argues that the stage

of non-return was redefined as penultimate stage to maintain a hierarchy of monastic

members and lay spiritual practitioners.

Within the laities, there might have emerged a spiritually committed group,

who could not become monastic members for one reason or another. However, they

were highly committed spiritual practitioners. In the Dhātuvibhaṅga sutta of MN, it

is reported that Brahmin Pukkusati met the Buddha and had listened to the Buddha,

and sought for higher ordination, which was not given, as he did not have bowl and

robes. When he went out to search for the bowl and robes, he met an unfortunate

death due to the attack of a cow. When the monks inquired about his fate after

death, the Buddha stated:

Oh! Monks, the Brahmin Pukkusāti was wise. He practiced in accordance with
the dhamma. He did not trouble me with the explanation of dhamma. Oh!
monks, having abandoned the five fetters pertaining to lower sphere, he became
spontaneously born being. And he will attain final Nibbāna there, without
returning from that world. (MN III 247).
   202  

Another similar statement was made after the death of Brahmin Brahmāyu. He was

savant in the Vedic philosophy and history. He came in contact with the Buddha. The

Buddha exhorted him into dhamma through gradual talk followed by the doctrine of

the Four Noble Truths. He took refuge in the Buddha. When he passed away, monks

inquired about his destiny, the Buddha made a similar statement (MN II 146).

These stories suggest that there were lay practitioners who were serious in

practice but could not become monks or nuns as they could not meet the

requirements for ordination. Sometimes the impediment was due to family and social

responsibilities. The Ghaṭikara sutta of MN records that the Potter Ghaṭika, despite

his willingness to become monk, could not do so as he was prevented by his

responsibilities towards his parents. There were other householders who were quite

proficient in the dhamma, some could even instruct monks and nuns, but decided to

live at home; the stories of householder Citta and Ugga. It is recorded that

householder Citta was foremost lay male disciple amongst the preachers of dhamma.

Many discourses of his to monks and nuns are recorded in the Citta-saṃyutta (SN

IV 301-3014). Similarly it is recorded that householder Ugga of Hatthigāgama used

to visit monastics, if monks did not preach him dhamma, he would preach dhamma

to monastics (AN IV 212). There might have been lay practitioners whose lifestyles

were identical to monks, but they preferred to stay home. One such instance is

recorded in the Pāli commentary; the passage records that Dhammadinna, a

householder, listened to a discourse and became a non-returner. After returning home,

he adopted the lifestyle of monks at home. In fact the commentary defined him as

ending suffering while living at home. These are a few recorded stories, which
   203  

suggest there could have been many more such committed lay followers. Buddhists

had to provide a theoretical spiritual goal for these people.

Lamotte opines that the first three stages in the theory of four stages developed

because of the demand of laity for equal rights in the religious practices (Lamotte

1988:75-80). He further goes on to say that that trend continues and the development

of Mahāyāna Buddhism was the final triumph of laity over monastics (Lamotte

1988:81). Even though his argument is not very convincing as number of recent

studies has refuted this theory, that there was any conflict between monastics

members and laity for equal right.20 And in my study, I have not noticed any passage

either in the early Buddhist canon or Pāli commentarial literature that suggests

conflict between laities and monastics for equal right. Rather most of the textual

evidences suggest that these three stages might have been developed by monastics to

make Buddhism appealing to the common masses in the society, who might not have

been interested in the ideal of renunciation and asceticism. However, Lamottes’s

argument is creditable to the extent that the first stages originally might have been

developed for laities. Keith appropriately states that the classification of the four

stages was developed due to desire to win over converts who were not altogether

eager to attain Nirvāna, but desired for chances of better rebirths (Keith 1923:131).

With the development of the first three stages, early Buddhists might have wished to

                                                                                                                       
20
Raginald Ray (1994) in his book Buddhist Saints India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientation
has refuted the theory that Mahāyāna developed as result of demand of laity for equal right rather
proposed that Mahāyāna started from Monastic members who were forest meditators. Jan Nattier
(2007) in her book The Bodhisattva Path—Based on the Ugraparipṛchā, a Mahāyāna Sūtra, also
refutes this theory and argues that early Mahāyāna laity were very respectful to monastics.
Dhammajoti KL (2011) in his article Remarks on the Early Abhidharma Doctrine of the Three
Yāna-s also refutes the theory and argues that Mahāyāna started within monastic community who
were inspired by the biographical account of the Buddha.
   204  

convey the message that laity while living at home could attain until the first three

stages.

However, controversy remains regarding the fourth stage for laity. The early

Buddhists might have been reluctant to assign the stage of arahatta for laities. The

stage of arahatta was the highest spiritual ideal in early Buddhism. Arahats have

always been highly venerated saints, hence monastic members might have thought

that it would breach the hierarchical structure of monks and nuns over lay followers

if lay people too could attain this highest goal without the sacrifice of leaving their

homes and all mundane comforts. And this would affect the interest of people to

become monks and nuns, if lay people could become arahats while living at home.

Theoretically, it would defeat the whole purpose for becoming monks and nuns.

Therefore, the stage of non-return as a penultimate stage to arahatta might have been

created for lay practitioners.

From the religious point of view, the attainment of arahatta while dwelling at

home seems almost impossible. Though doctrinally there was no barrier for laities to

attain arahatta because early Buddhist discourses reveal that attainment of arahatta

doe not depend on whether one is a member of monastics or laity but only how one

devoted himself in the practice. In response to a question posted by Subha, between

monastic community and lay community, who were more equipped to achieve the

spiritual goal, the Buddha refused to give a categorical answer. He said one who was

endowed with right view, right practice is better equipped for spiritual goal,

irrespective of the distinction in lay and monastic community (MN I 493; SN V 134,

244). But on a practical level, the attainment of arahatta by laity is not easy. Though
   195  

have wanted to prove that everyone who took up Buddhist practices gained

something, and there was nothing to lose. By this Buddhists wanted to provide

incentive to accept Buddhist teachings. Such an intention is reflected in many

passages in the Nikāyas. There are numerous discourses in the Nikāyas that report

destinies of large numbers of people after their death in terms of four stages. In the

Janavasabha sutta, the intention for such declaration is documented. It states that

such declaration caused many good people and politicians to develop faith in

Buddhist teachings. In the Naḷakapāna sutta of MN, it is stated such declaration was

not employed to defraud, nor for the purpose of cajoling people, nor for the purpose

of material gain, honor or frame, but for the purpose of causing people to develop

enthusiasm and inspiration in Buddhist teachings (MN I 465). This suggests the stage

of stream-entry was developed for the purpose of inspiring people to embrace

Buddhist faith. This was essential to propagate Buddhism, as I have already

discussed above, the Buddhist path to liberation was too demanding, a great majority

of people could not meet the demands. This fact is acknowledged in the Nikāyas, for

instance, once lay follower Dhammadinna went to meet the Buddha, the Buddha

taught him about emptiness, immediately he said he dwelt at home with children and

wife, enjoying all mundane pleasures, hence he could not reflect on such profound

doctrine. The Buddha then taught him four factors of stream-entry (SN V 408). This

was not just a view of one particular person; rather it portrays the views of the

majority of people in the society where Buddhism developed.

The Sāmaññaphala sutta is significant in proving that originally the stage of

stream-entry might only have been meant for lay followers. In the dialogue between
   206  

attained the end (niṭṭha), the state of deathless (amata) (AN III 451). Another

passage in the Udāna recorded that a layperson by the name of Bāhiya Dāruciriya

requested for ordination after listening to a short discourse given by the Buddha. This

request was refused, as he did not have the requisites to become a monk. He went to

search for requisites, but met an unfortunate death on his way. When the monks

inquired from the Buddha about his destiny, the Buddha declared that he is liberated

(parinibbuto) from duality of the suffering and happiness, form and formless spheres

(Ud 35). Both these passages would imply that they became lay arahats. Lamotte

used the list in AN to argue that arahatta was an equally attainable goal for both

monastics and laities (Lamotte 1988:80). Somaratne also takes up the list in AN and

argues there might have been lay arahats in early Buddhism (Somaratne, 2009: 156;).

The controversy is quite complex because there are also references to lay arahats in

the Pāli post-canonical texts. The Milindapañha states that Buddha’s father,

Suddhodhana attained arahatta on his deathbed.

Post-canonical Pāli texts and Pāli exegetical literature tried to draw some

distinction between the lay-community and monastic community by stating that lay

arahats should either depart from the world on the very day of their attainment or

become monastic members (Milindapañha, 264-66). The Milindapañha tries to

justify the position by stating that there are no defects in attainment of arahatta by

layman but householder life is weak to sustain arahatta (The Questions of Milinda,

80-82).

Somaratne points out that this explanation that a laity after becoming an arahat

either should become monastic member or should pass on the same day of the
   207  

attainment of arahatta is arbitrary because purpose of renunciation is to have

sufficient time for spiritual practice to attain the arahatta. If one could become an

arahat while at home, there would be no reason for him to become a monastic

member (Somaratne, 2009:156). The Kathāvatthu adopted the linguistic and

psychological approach to resolve this paradox. It explains that when one attains

arahatta, he immediately transcends the status of layman because he loses all the

characteristics that make a layman. This explanation is creditable but the question is

whether he needs to become a monastic member. If one becomes an arahat, for him

psychologically there is no distinction between a monastery and a home. This

suggests that post canonical Buddhists though agree that under some special

circumstances a laity may become an arahat, however after the attainment of

arahatta, one cannot remain as laity.

The question is whether the concept of lay-arahat was developed in the Pāli post-

canonical literature, or it was already there in early Buddhism. Somaratne argues that

there were lay arahats in early Buddhism, but later monastic members attempted to

remove the lay-arahat concept. However, this question is complex, and I cannot go

deep into the question considering the scope and the present study, rather I would

confine myself in my argument that since quite early time, the Pāli Buddhist tradition

developed the concept of non-return as the highest spiritual goal for laity and

arahatta as the highest spiritual goal of monastics.

   208  

4.4 The Formation of the Four Stages as Idealized Stage on the

Spiritual Path for both Monastics and Laities

The shift of emphasis from immediate arahatta to institutionalization of Buddhism

and expansion of Buddhist community might have had an impact on the quality of

spiritual practices among the monastic members. The Buddhist monastic members

started to give more socially beneficial oriented doctrines instead of asking for

renunciation of social ties and families. The Aṅguttaranikāya, which is generally

considered as later than the other three Nikāyas, portrays the beginning of this trend.

Kelly comments that AN shows more concern for the lay community than other three

texts (Kelly 2011: 19; The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, 39). This sub-

chapter will discuss how, renounced monks and nuns degraded in term of spiritual

practice, and finally the wide gap between the twofold communities became narrow,

and gradually the four stages became equally applicable for monastic members and

lay followers.

It seems with the adoption of two tiers ideals, Buddhism became an attractive

religion for the people; on the one hand, it agrees with the psychological

expectations of the people, on the other hand, in ethical dimension, Buddhism was

better than many of the existed religions. Brahmanism was not very attractive to

many people for its discriminative social ethics. With the expansion of Buddhist

community in quantity, the quality of spiritual commitment among monastic

members changed substantially. The wandering life style gradually changed into a

settled form of monastic life. With this development, Buddhist monks and nuns

instead of concentrating on spiritual practices began to focus on teaching the lay

   196  

the Buddha and the king, there was no mention of any of the four stages. The Pāli

version mentions that when the king left, the Buddha addressed the monk and said

that if the king had not killed his father, he would have gain dhammacakkhu on the

very seat that he was seated (DN I 86).19 In chapter 2, I have shown that the arising

of dhammacakkhuṃ is equated with attainment of stream-entry. And another version

of the Sāmaññaphala sutta extant in Chinese translation, it is mentioned that if the

king had not killed his father, he would have been a stream-enterer and members of

the four pairs of Noble Persons (Macqueen 1988: 89). This version suggests that

compiler of this discourse already knew the four paths and the four stages. These

four pairs of Noble Persons are absent in all other extant versions of the discourse.

These versions all agree about the attainment of dhammacakkhuṃ, one version in

Chinese translation asserts that the king in fact had attained dhammacakkhuṃ and

would not retrogress from it (Macqueen 1988: 68). Another version in Chinese

translation states that if the king had not killed his father, he would have realized the

Four Noble Truths (Macqueen 1988: 89). Here though dhammacakkhuṃ is not

mentioned, but as already demonstrated in chapter 2, realization of the Four Noble

Truths is equal to gaining of dhammacakkhuṃ. The question is if the theory of four

stages was already developed by the time of the Sāmaññaphala sutta was compiled,

then why would the Buddha not mention it when he was explaining the fruits of

ascetic life in the discourse. The Sāmaññaphala sutta explains spiritual path from an

ordinary worldling to attainment of arahatta without any mention of the first three

stages. The absence of the first three stages is significant because the title of the

                                                                                                                       
19
sacāyaṃ bhikkhave rājā pitaraṃ dhammikaṃ dhammarājānaṃ jīvitā na voropessatha imasmiṃ
yeva āsane virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ uppajjissathāti.
   210  

canonical work. With this shift in the monastic values, the number of monks and

nuns increased drastically. This expansion of the lay Buddhist community and

monastic members, the emphasis of the monastic saṅgha shifted their prime goal

from liberation to learning the doctrines, interpreting them and teaching them to the

public, training young monks, and maintaining monasteries. The Vinaya Piṭaka

shows that monasteries became bureaucratic institutions. The records of the Vinaya

Piṭaka depict that Buddhists were enthusiastic in recruiting young people to the

Saṅgha (Vin I 9). To create a strong religious movement, there was a need to expand

the number of Buddhist monastic members and lay supporters to support Buddhist

activities and livelihood of a large number of Buddhist monks. The misbehaviors

recorded in the Vinaya Piṭaka suggest that there were monastic members who were

not truly committed to spiritual quests, but they were tolerated within the Buddhist

Saṅgha. In order to win lay followers, Buddhist monastic members emphasized more

on the external purity of monastic members, and learning and interpreting the

doctrines to lay community because lay community started to judge monks on

external purity and scriptural erudition (Milindapañha, 21; The Question of King

Milinda, 94; Reginald 1994: 15). Those monks who failed to exhibit external purity

and textual erudition, were castigated by the lay community (Bareau 1970-71: vol. 1,

238 cited in Reginald 1994: 15)  

Gombrich observes that the prime duty of the monastic members changed to

preserving the doctrine and preserving Buddhism, which means preserving scriptures

and commentaries (Gombrich 1984: 77). With their priority shifted to engagement of

social activities, emphasis on morality and textual studying, the degradation of

   211  

spiritual attainment inevitably followed because spiritual cultivation required quiet

and secluded atmosphere from social ties and with responsibilities cut off, but settled

monasteries did not always meet this requirement. This fact is recorded in the late

commentarial passages. Buddhaghosa has stated that the atmosphere in the

monasteries was not conducive for meditation, as they were too many inhabitants,

too much noise, and bounded by the duties of communal life, obligation to laity, the

arrival of visitors and other interruptions (Vism 118-22; Dhammaratana 1964: 46-7).

In the Path of Purification, it is stated that those who engaged in scholastic studies

could not afford time to practice meditation (The Path of Purification, 96-97).

Though it is too naïve to imagine the situation to be same in the period immediately

after the passing away of the Buddha as what is reported in the Visuddhimagga. On

the other hand this change did not occur all of a sudden. It was a gradual

development. It is plausible that this trend started in the early period of Buddhist

history. Some crude hints are seen within the Nikāyas. It is recorded that in one

instance, the Buddha was said to express his dissatisfaction stating that monks in the

past were diligent in practice; they did not trouble me, now it is the opposite. In

another instance, Venerable Mahākassapa was said to have lamented that formerly

there were many arahats, now only few. These are some of the few hints that portray

the beginning of the changing situation of the monastic saṅgha. It seems there was a

trend, which superseded spiritual attainment by intellectual erudition. The records in

the Visuddhimagga represents a culminate point in the development of this trend.

Conze who studied the Buddhist monastic history observes that ‘the scholars ousted
   212  

the saints, and erudition took the place of attainment’ (Conze 1959: 116; cited in

Reginald 1994: 18). Reginald further adds:

As Buddhist texts reiterate meditation ceases to be a priority of the renunciant

life, realization tends to fall away quickly coming to be considered no more
than a theoretical possibility. (Reginald 1994: 18)
All studies relating to Buddhist monastic history seem to suggest that gradually,

monastic members moved their priority from immediate goal of liberation to distant

goal of liberation. Bond rightly remarks that arahatta had become a remote norm

fairly early; this trend became more pronounced as time went on. It became virtually

unrealizable (Bond 1988: 164). This is also seen from records of the councils. In the

First Council, which was held soon after the passing away of the Buddha, it is

recorded that 500 arahats attended. In fact, all the participants were arahats, but the

Second and the Third Buddhist Councils the attainment of arathatta was not an

important yardstick to select the participants. In fact, the records of these two

councils do not elaborate how many arahats participated in respective councils.

During the commentarial period scholasticism superseded the practice. This is

recorded in the commentarial literature; the Manorathapūraṇī states:

As long as the suttanta exist, as long as the Vinaya flourishes, so long will the
light shine, as at sunrise. Whether or not there is a realization (paṭivedha) or
practice (paṭipatti), scholarship (pariyatti) is sufficient for the maintenance of
religion. The erudite man provided that he is learned in the Tipitaka, fulfills
both… that is why as long as scholarship remains, the religion
remains…whether there may be a hundred or a thousand monks adorned with
accurate vision, if scholarship is in default, no realization of the noble path is
possible. (AN-A I 93)
The Manurathapūraṇī further recorded the statement that there was a debate on the

practice (paṭipatti) vs learning (pariyatti), while group of monks devoted to ascetic

mode of life emphasized that practice was more important than learning, another
   213  

group of monks devoted to preaching and propagating Buddhism (dhammakathikas)

argued for the opposite. Finally, the latter won the debate. It further justifies

changing the focus by stating:

If there are hundred or thousand engage in insight meditation, there will be no

realization of the noble path if there is no learning (AN-A I 52-53).21
The purpose of shifting from the original ideal might not have been accidental or due

only to a change of social circumstances. It is untenable to assert that society went

through a substantial transformation within a few centuries after the Buddha; rather it

was an intentional shift for the purpose of institutionalizing Buddhism and making it

sustainable. Max Weber quite rightly states that followers of the Buddha had interest

in the continuation of their movement, and they wanted to make it stable and reliable

(Weber 1968: 54). This internal interest to expand Buddhism by adapting itself to lay

community and by making Buddhism more social-values-oriented perhaps paved a

way for later Mahāsaṃghika, finally Mahāyāna. They marginalized the path to

arahatta and advocated the path of Bodhisattva. When one observes the path of

Bodhisattva, i.e. the six perfections (ten in Theravāda tradition), it is clear that that

path is more socially oriented than renouncing social ties.22 Liberation from saṃsāra

is an extremely distant goal, benefiting society and helping people became the top

priority instead.
                                                                                                                       
21
āraddha-vipassakānaṃ-bhikkhūnaṃ-satepi-sahassepi-samvijjāne-pariyattiyā-asatiariya-magga-
paṭivedho-nāmanahoti,
22
However, some may argue the other way round, i.e. the emergence of Mahāsaṃghika has
influenced the whole Buddhist community. This study does not deny that possibility, in fact I think,
emergence of Mahāsaṃghika followed by Mahāyāna, indeed has asserted great influence among all
Buddhist community, including Theravāda. The influence is traceable in the Theravāda Buddhist
culture and Buddhist literature. But I think, Mahāsaṃghika is abrupt development. The trend of
making Buddhism more social oriental and include greater number of people into Buddhist
community, who fail to uphold arahatta ideal might have started every early in the Saṅgha, at least
among some members of Saṅgha. The emergence of Mahāsaṃghika is full-fledged outburst of this
tendency.  
   214  

This trend is observable in the Pāli exegetical literature, the commentaries to DN

and MN recorded the statements that even if there is no realization through practice

at all, if there is learning, Buddhism (sāsana) will sustain (paṭivedho ca paṭipatti ca

hoti pi na hoti sāsanaṭṭhitiyā pariyattipamānaṃ). With this new development, the

gap between the monastic Saṅgha and the lay community became narrow in terms of

spiritual progress. The immediate goal of liberation of upper tier followers became a

distant goal, and the immediate goal became better rebirth instead. This became more

pronounced as time passed. Survey among modern monastic members in Theravāda

Buddhism across the world reveals that even many monastic members of today do

not desire for liberation in this very life. When emphasis in liberation in this life

shifted, there might have arisen a need to provide for a theoretical explanation for the

monastic members. Then gradually, monastic members also included a preview of

the theory of four stages to arahatta.

Beside the above-mentioned main factor, other factors such as attempt to

incorporate cosmology along the path to liberation might have contributed to the

development of the theory of four stages to liberation. Cosmology was a strong part

of Indian mythology, religion and psychology. While the early Buddhists

discouraged in participating in mythologies or superstitious thoughts, these elements

crept into the religion at some point in the history of Buddhism as a response to

popular community demands. Such shifts also coincided with the broader

transformation of Buddhism from an ascetic religion into a communal religion.

Buddhists did not just borrow passively; they creatively incorporated non-Buddhist

ideologies into Buddhism by assigning them Buddhist values. In order to do that,

   215  

Buddhists needed to work out a scheme of spiritual path that embodied all

cosmological realms. In the scheme of the four stages, one passes through almost all

the cosmological realms before the realization of liberation. And cosmological

realms are defined in a hierarchical order in accordance to the Buddhist practices.

The more one progresses along the spiritual path, the higher one ascends into

cosmological realms. However, all cosmological realms are still impermanent, and

finally one has to transcend all cosmological realms to attain liberation. Through the

theory of the four stages, Buddhists could harmonize Buddhist doctrine of liberation

with people’s psychological attachment to higher abodes where they are free of

mundane suffering.

The need for recognizing spiritual hierarchy among the Buddhist practitioners

might also have contributed to the development of the theory of the four stages to

liberation. When attainment of arahatta become a distant goal in terms of space and

time, the need to recognize the hierarchy of spiritual experience to determine how

much one has progressed along the path, how much yet he has to travel along the

path, might have been felt by the Buddhists, because this provides some incentives

for spiritual practices. This is explicit when one observes the large number of

Nikāya passages where either monks or lay followers approached to the Buddha to

inquire about destinies when a devoted Buddhist practitioner or follower passed

away. These passages portray people’s curiosity to know whether his or her spiritual

practices bear any fruits and how much one progresses along the path. As arahatta

became gradually a distance goal and eventually became only an ideal, one needed a

theoretical cartography to measure spiritual progress, which provides some incentive

   216  

for Buddhist practices. This would give assurance to those who were not practicing

vigorously enough to liberation that they would still pursue the paths and gain rebirth

in better cosmological realms.

One of the questions that baffle a student of Buddhist studies is to discern when

this shift took place. In the absence of any concrete historical evidence recorded

either in the Pāli Canon or the Pāli commentarial literature and considering the

nature of the Pāli Buddhist literary, it is almost impossible to ascertain objectively

the precise period of development. In the absence of textual evidence, usually

scholars relied on archeological evidence, but unfortunately, so far there are no

archeological evidence that could shed any light on this question. Textual,

archeological and inscriptional evidence show that very early in the history,

monastics saṅgha shifted their emphasis from immediate liberation to distant

liberation.23 So it can be safely hypothesized that this development took place within

few centuries after the passing away of the Buddha.

                                                                                                                       
23
Gregory Schopen in his article (2004) “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The
Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of merit” argues that the railing of
Bhārhut and Sāñci belong to the 120 to B.C. and he points out according to inscriptions in these two
sites regarding the donors, about 40 percepts of the donors were monastics members. And these
monastic members are titled as specialized in discourses (sutaṃtika), reciters (bhānaka), specialized
in one basket (piṭakin, specialized in the five Nikāyas (pananekāyika). He further points out
Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions edited by Konow also show that about 50 percent donors were monastics
members. They are described as ‘preacher of the dhamma (dharmakathika), meditation practitioners
(prāhaṇīka) etc., (Indian Monastics Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and
Archaeological Evidence, 30-31). If his dating of the inscriptions is correct, then these evidences
imply that by these times, monastics members have already shifted their emphasis from immediate
liberation to other merit-making activities, and their expertise in learning was already highly valued
in the society.  
   217  

4.5 Conclusion

All textual evidence implies the theory of stages to liberation went through several

phases of development. The earliest phase of Buddhism aimed at liberation as soon

as possible, so arahatta was the only goal to be attained in this very lifetime. There

seemed to have no stages to arahatta; some of them directly became arahats shortly

after listening to a short discourse given by the Buddha, sometimes long discourses,

or sometimes a considerable time and guidance were required, depending on the

individual’s spiritual background before meeting the Buddha. There were people

who had already renounced family, social ties and responsibilities, and had been

practicing meditation before they met the Buddha. The Buddha only had to only turn

their cognitive insight in the right direction. They did not require gradual path to

liberation. There were people, who had no previous training, but were inspired by the

Buddha’s personality, developed religious aspiration (saṃvega) and renounced home

and became monks and nuns. To them, the Buddha taught the gradual path, as

documented in the Sāmaññaphala sutta, and other discourses. In this period

Buddhism was a religion for a small minority of monastic Saṅgha who renounced

home and social ties. It was not that Buddhism was not open to every person,

Buddhism from its inception was open to everybody, but on the precise condition

that they were capable of renouncing home and all mundane affairs. This

requirement was incompatible with the expectation of the great masses of people in

the society. People supported Buddhist monastic Saṅgha as a part of Indian culture

which supported ascetics with their basic needs in the hope of generating merits,

without being affiliated to any particular religion.

   218  

The second phase: gradually there arose an interest to bring Buddhism from a

small number of monastic members to the common masses in society. In order to

make Buddhism compatible with the demands of common masses in society, certain

adjustments in the original goal had to be made. So a two-tiers model of Buddhism

was put forward, the upper tier consisted of monastic members, and the lower tier

consisted of laities. The two categories of followers had two distinct priorities—the

immediate priority for monastic members was liberation from samsāra in this very

life; while the immediate priority for the lower tier followers was mundane success,

good rebirths and assurance of not going to unfortunate and lower existences. The

aim of early Buddhism was still maintained, but liberation was assured in some

future births. This goal for lay people to aspire to was named fruit of stream-entry.

The requirement for this stage was extremely low; basically it sufficed to become a

devoted Buddhist follower—establishing faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and

Saṅgha, and following basic ethical codes.

Third phase: among the lower tier followers, there emerged some spiritually

advanced followers, who could not become a monastic due to various reasons, and

monastics members tried to find ways to accommodate this group of lay

practitioners. Originally, they might have been recognized as very close or similar to

monks, but later they were assigned a separate spiritual stage known as “non-return”.

This might have been done to maintain the hierarchical status of monastic saṅgha

over the lay community even when they led a quasi-monastic life. And also there

were other theoretical difficulties, if arahatta was assigned to lay practitioners, it

would theoretically discourage people to become monks and nuns.

   219  

Fourth phase: applying the theory of four stages to both monastic Saṅgha and lay

followers. This might have happened because of the expansion of the lay Buddhist

community, and monastics members started to pay more attention in expanding the

lay community. In order to do so, those monks started to study and memorize

Buddha’s teachings, interpret the teachings to lay community, and gradually

monasteries became religious and social institutions. They became busy centers for

studying and serving lay community; this might have resulted in the unfortunate

decline of spiritual attainments by monastic members, particularly because many

people who were recruited as the monastic members were not motivated by

liberation, and ordination of teenagers took place. Slowly liberation from the

saṃsāra in this very life became a distant goal even for monastic members. By this

time, these two distinct parallel soteriological goals merged together; and the four

stages came to be crystallized as sequentially hierarchical stages to arahatta.

Thus, as shown in this chapter, social and religious factors played a significant

role in the development of the theory of the four stages to arahatta. Monastics

members were compelled to make certain adjustments in order to institutionalize

Buddhism and to ensure its sustainability. When Buddhism became institutionalized,

it might have impacted spiritual attainments among monastic members. This new

change might have contributed to the recognition of the theory of four stages to

arahatta as spiritual ideals of monastics and laities alike.

   220  

Chapter 5:
Exaltation of the Four Stages in the Pāli Abhidhamma and
Commentarial Literature

The previous chapter has shown that each of the four stages to enlightenment has

been developed in response to different social and religious demands that arose in the

history of Buddhist thought, and towards the end of Pāli Nikāya period, the theory of

the four stages to liberation was formed. At present the Theravāda tradition

perceives the theory of the four stages through the lens of Pāli commentators, and

hence the four stages are understood as peak spiritual stages one sequentially attains

during the course of liberation. This chapter aims to examine the Theravāda

traditional interpretation of the theory of four stages from a historical context,

investigating how the heterogeneous spiritual path to liberation is superseded by the

monolithic spiritual path to liberation in the Abhidhamma and subsequently in the

Pāli commentarial literature. This would broadly map the manner in which the theory

of the four stages and the theory of sequential development from the Nikāyas to the

Abhidhamma and Pāli exegetical literature developed. This chapter attempts to locate

certain possible factors which might have contributed to this development, and

examines how the concept of stream-enterer which originally was used to refer to a

lay Buddhist who has taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, is

elevated to the status of a highly exalted spiritual saint in the process of Buddhist

literary history.

5.1 The Sequential Attainment of the Four Stages

The question of the sequential attainment of the four stages was not discussed in the

Nikāyas. This has created certain dilemma in Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial
   221  

literature regarding whether the four stages are sequential attainment or one could

bypass some of the stages.

The Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators have interpreted the four stages

as sequential attainment. However, they have not constructed the theory without

basis. They derived some nucleus of this interpretation from the Pāli Nikāyas. There

are some passages in the Nikāyas that at outer appearance seem to imply the four

stages as sequential attainment. But a careful examination reveals they are not

necessarily sequential attainment.

The interpretation of sequential attainment of the four stages creates a dilemma

because insofar as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, non-returner is referred to an

individual who could not attain arahatta in this lifetime. But he will not return to

human conditions again, and would attain arahatta in the pure-abode. So if

sequential attainment of the four stages is accepted there cannot be attainment of

arahatta in the human world.

This section examines this dilemma from both a historical perspective and later

interpretative perspective. From a historical perspective, this section argues that the

four stages are not sequential attainment insofar as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned.

From the later interpretative perspective, it argues that the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and

the Pāli commentators did not consider there is a contradiction because they have

interpreted the stage of non-return differently than the Pāli Nikāyas. However, this

section argues the new interpretation of the stage of non-return is a deviation from

the early Buddhist interpretation of this stage.

The Pāli Ābhidhammikas have understood the four stages as sequential

attainment along the path of liberation. This new interpretation first appeared in the

Paṭisambhidāmagga. This seems to be the first text that is trying to supersede

   222  

heterogeneous paths to liberation by a monolithic path to liberation, placing the four

stages as pinnacle stages to path of liberation in a hierarchical order. The

Paṭisambhidāmagga explicitly brings out the implication that every practitioner

necessarily passes through the four stages to attain arahatta. This point is further

strengthened in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī. In the Dhammasaṅgaṇī the term phala is

superseded by bhūmi, (Dhs. 60). The four stages are interpreted as the first stage

(paṭhama-bhūmi), second stage (dutiya-bhūmi), third stage (tatiya-bhūmi), and fourth

stage (catuttha-bhūmi) respectively.1 The terms phala and bhūmi are never employed

synonymously in the Pāli Nikāyas; while the term phala has been used with the sense

of consequence, benefits and fruits etc., the term bhūmi has been used with the sense

of stage. By the change of term, Ābhidhammikas might have wanted to convey the

implication that four stages are sequential attainment.

Historically, the Pāli commentators are successors of Pāli Ābhidhammikas. Pāli

commentators often relied on the Abhidhamma to interpret the teachings of the Pāli

Nikāyas. Although their main task was to clarify the doctrines embodied in the

discourses, the authors of Pāli exegetical literature often employed the Abhidhamma

methodology and interpretation to elucidate doctrines in the Nikāyas. Therefore, the

Pāli commentators also interpreted the four stages as sequential attainment. For

instance, Buddhaghosa in the path of the Purification, subsumed the four stages

under the heading of purification of knowledge and vision (ñāṇadassanavisuddhi),

which is the culminating stage of spiritual path presented in the path of purification.

Buddhaghosa’s interpretation of the four stages implies sequential attainment of the

four stages. He writes that immediately after the stage of gotrabhū, there appears the
                                                                                                               
1
yasmiṃ samaye lokuttaraṃ jhānam bhaveti…diṭṭhigatānaṃ pahānāya paṭhamāya bhummiyā
pattiyā,..kāmarāgavyāpādanaṃ patanūbhāvāya dutiyāya bhummiyā pattiyā..kāmarāgavyāpādānaṃ
anavasesappahānāya tatiyāya bhummiyāpattiyā…rūparāga arūparāgamāna-uddhacca-avijjāya
anavasesappahānāya catutthāya bhummiyāpattiyā.
   223  

path of stream-entry. After two of three fruition consciousness, one becomes a

stream-enterer. Then either in the same sitting or on another occasion, he starts to

practice for the sake of attenuating greed and aversion to attain the second stage. He

brings forwards the faculties, the power and factors of enlightenment, he cultivates

them, then the path of once-return arises. Then he reflects on the defilements

abandoned, yet to be abandoned, the path he has arrived unto this stage and the

Nibbāna. Then he becomes a once-returner. The once-returner either in the same

sitting, or another occasion starts the practice for the sake of the completely

abandoning of sensual desire and aversion and attains the third stage. The non-

returner after a short reflection on the defilements that are already abandoned, that

are yet to be abandoned, he starts the practice for the sake of complete abandonment

of desire for form and form realms, conceit, agitation and ignorance. He brings

forwards the faculty, the power, and factors of enlightenment, then the path of

arahatta manifests. After the manifestation of the path of arahatta, after a short

refection, he becomes an arahat. (Vism 676-7).

According to Buddhaghosa, the four stages are sequential attainment. One can

either attain them in the same sitting or in a wider dimension of time and space. Even

though he employed the term spontaneous born being (opapātiko) for non-returner,

and he further goes on to describes non-returner as one who attains Nibbāna there,

not subject to return from that world, but he does not see contradiction between the

stage of non-return and the stage of arahatta in human realm. This is because he

understood the description of non-returner differently. According to him, one can

attain the stage of non-returner while in the human condition, still continues to

practice for the stage of arahatta.

   224  

A similar view is seen in other Pāli commentaries. For instance, Dhammapāla in

his commentary to the Theragāthā expressed a similar view. It is recorded that

Dabba, a young boy, went to the Buddha for ordination. He attained all the four

stages successively while he was being shaved:

At the moment of shaving first blade of hair, he was established in the stage of
stream-entry, at the moment of shaving second blade of hair, he was
established in the stage of once-return, at the moment of shaving third blade of
hair, he was established on the stage of non-return, and at the moment of
shaving fourth blade of hair, he realized the stage of arahatta. (Tha-A I 43)2

A similar dramatic narration is recorded in the same text with regard to Venerable

Saṅkicca (Tha-A II 255), and Sīvali who also went through all the four stages

successively at a young age (Tha-A II 148). In another passage, it is mentioned that a

young monk attained all four stages while a tiger was swallowing him:

While he was in the mouth of the tiger, he having suppressed the sensation
(pain) developed insight. When up to his ankle was being eaten, he attained the
stage of stream-entry, by the time up to knees were being eaten, he attained the
state of once-return, when up to navel part of the body was being eaten, and he
attained stage of non-return. When the heart was being eaten, he became arahat
together with analytical knowledge and uttered the joyful utterance. (DN-A III
748).3

The question is whether this understanding reflects the original implication of the

concept of non-returner in the Nikāyas. Etymological the term non-returner is

defined as one who does not return to sensual realm (kāmadhātu). Therefore in the

Nikāyas the non-returner is defined as not subject to turn back from that world

(anāvatti-dhammo tasmā lokā) and he takes birth in some higher realm known as

pure-abode, thereby, non-returner is defined as spontaneous born being (opapātika).

                                                                                                               
2
paṭhama kesa vaṭṭhiyā varopanakkhaṇe sotāpattiphale patiṭṭhahi, dutiyāya kesa vaṭṭhiyā
varopanakkhaṇe sakadāgāmiphale, tatiyāya kesa vaṭṭhiyā varopanakkhaṇe anāgāmiphale, sabba
kesānam pana voropanañ ca arahattaphaphala sacchikiriyā apacchā apure ahosi.
3
so byagghamukhe nipannova taṃ vedanaṃ vikkhambhetvā vipassanaṃ vaḍḍhento yāva gopphakā
khāditasamaye sotāpanno hutvā, yāva jaṇṇukā khāditasamaye sakadāgāmī, yāva nābhiyā
khāditasamaye anāgāmī hutvā, hadayarūpe akhāditeyeva saha paṭisambhidāhi arahattaṃ patvā
imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi.
   225  

The term opapātika was popularly known among contemporary Indians religious

philosophers. The Brahmajāla sutta contains a large number of speculative views

that were prevalent among religious philosophers of that time. Among them, one

relates to existence of spontaneously born beings (DN I 27).4 In the Pāyāsi sutta, in

the debate of birth after death, the term is used to refer to the world beyond. The term

is also used several times referring to classes of beings in the Buddhist discourse.

Buddhism recognizes four classes of beings in accordance to the ways they were

born—egg born, womb born, moisture born and spontaneously born (DN III 230;

MN I 73; SN III 240). The frequent occurrence of the term in several contexts

implies that the term opapātika was more archaic and was a common term in Indian

mythology. It refers to the class of mythical beings, particularly heavenly beings.

The origin of the term opapātika can be traced in the Upaniṣadic literature. In the

Upaniṣadic literature, the term is employed to describe the liberated sages who are

united with the Brāhman, and never return from there. But in Buddhism it is used in

the Buddhistic framework, and is used to describe beings who would have birth in

the heavenly realm known as pure-abode, and he would attain perfect liberation there

without ever returning to sensual realm.

The term non-return suggests that non-returners transcend human conditions

once for all, but would continue further existence in the heavenly realms until

enlightenment is achieved. This postulates that non-returners would achieve

enlightenment in non-human conditions, and outside the human realm. In other

words, one is described as non-returner on account of non-returning to sensual realm.

This would mean that the state of non-returner is an assignment to a postmortem

Buddhist practitioner, who did not succeed in gaining full enlightenment while in
                                                                                                               
4
atthi sattā opapātikā? n’atthi sattā opapātikā? atthi ca n’atthi ca sattā opapātikā?
   226  

human conditions. This position has strong support in the Nikāyas. In a passage in

the Citta-saṃyutta, Citta, a householder, when talking with his old friend Kassapa

about their spiritual achievement, says he has mastered four jhānas, and further says

if he were to die before the Buddha, he would be declared as non-returner by the

Blessed one (SN IV 301).

It seems quite clear that a non-returner is an individual who has abandoned the

five lower fetters, but failed to gain arahatta before passing away. My argument is

further supported by several passages that show that the stage of non-return was

declared upon the death of those practitioners. In the Dhātu-vibhaṅga sutta of the

Majjhimanikāya, it is reported that Brahmin Pukkusāti met the Buddha. He could not

recognize the Buddha. They had a conversation on the dhamma and at the end of the

conversation; he recognized the Buddha and sought for the higher ordination. But

this was not given, as he did not have a bowl and robes. He went out to search for a

bowl and robes, but met unfortunate death due to the attack of a cow. When the

monks inquired about his fate after death, the Buddha said:

Oh! monks, the householder Pukkusāti was wise. He practiced in accordance

with the dhamma, and he has not troubled me in the exposition of the
dhamma. With the destruction of the five fetters pertaining to lower realm, the
householder Pukkusāti has become spontaneous born being and he will attain
complete Nibbāna there, without ever returning from that world. (MN II 146).

A similar declaration was made after the death of Brahmin Brahmāyu. He was savant

in the Vedic philosophy and history. He came in contact with the Buddha. The

Buddha exhorted him into dhamma through gradual talk followed by the doctrine of

four noble truths. He took refuge in the Buddha. When he passed away, monks

inquired about his destiny, the Buddha stated:

Oh! monks, the Brahmin Brahmāyu was wise. He practiced in accordance

with the dhamma. and he did not trouble me in the exposition of the dhamma.
With the destruction of the five fetters pertaining to lower realm,, he has
   227  

become a spontaneous born being, and he will there attain complete

Nibbāna, without returning from that world. (MN III 247).

All these references imply that ‘non-returner’ refers to a person who could not attain

enlightenment whilst in the human form, but one who would attain final Nibbāna

without returning to human world. In the Pāli Nikāyas, most of the non-returners

were declared as non-returners after their death.

Then the question is how the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators

developed the theory of sequential attainment of the four stages without reference to

early Buddhist discourses. The answer seems obvious that they derived some nucleus

of this interpretation from the Nikāyas. There are quite a lot of passages, which at a

glance seem to imply that the four stages are necessarily sequential attainment. For

instance, in a number of discourses, the four stages are explained in relation to the

development of the five spiritual faculties:

Oh! Monks, when these five faculties are completely developed, one becomes
an arahat. If they are weaker than that one become non-returner, if they are still
weaker than that one becomes a once-returner, if they are still weaker than that
one is a stream-enterer. (SN V 200; 2002, 205)5

This is further supported by the passages that relate the four stages to the threefold

gradual trainings, which state that stream-enterers and once-returners are perfect in

morality, non-returners are perfect in morality and in concentration, an arahats are

perfect in morality, in the concentration and in wisdom (AN I 233-234). 6 Yet

stronger support for sequential development of the four stages is the eradication of

                                                                                                               
5
imesam kho bhikkhave pañcindriyānam samattā paripūrattā araham hoti, tato mudutarehi anāgāmi
hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadāgāmi hoti, tato mudutarehi sotāpanno hoti.
6
idha bhikkhave bhikkhu sīlesu paripūrakāri hoti, samādhism mattasokārī paññāya mattasokārī. So
tiṇṇam samyojanānam parikkhayā kolankolo… so tiṇṇam samyojānam parikkhayā
rāgadosamohānam tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti… sīlesu paripūrakārī hoti, samādhism paripūrakārī
hoti, paññāya mattasokārī. so pañcannam orambhāgiyānam samyojanānam parikkhayā
uddhamsoto hoti… antarāparibbāyī hoti. … sīlesu paripūrakārī hoti, samādhism paripūrakārī hoti,
paññāya paripūrakārī hoti, so savānam khayā anāsavam cetovimuttiom paññāvimuttim diṭṭh’eva
dhamme sayam abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.
   228  

the defilement to attain the four stages. The standard explanation of the four stages

is in relation to abandoning the list of ten fetters, which are identified as basic

hindrances for liberation. The Nikāya passages provided stereotypical description

that stream-enterers abandon first three fetters, once-returners further reduce greed,

hatred and delusion, non-returners abandon five lower fetters, arahats abandon all

out-flowing.

Here, a monk, having abandoned the three fetters becomes stream-enterer; he is

not subject to falling to lower existence. He is destined to perfect
enlightenment. Furthermore, a monk having abandoned the three fetters, and
having attenuated greed, hatred and delusion becomes a once-returner, having
returned to this world only once, will make end of suffering. Further, a monk,
having abandoned the five fetters relating to lower realm, becomes an
opapātika, there attains liberation without turning back from that realm. And
furthermore, a monk, having eradicated outflowing, he dwells having realized
the liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom through his own higher
knowledge. (DN I 156; II 200; MN I 490; 81, 84, 91, 94, 126; AN I 165)

At first glance these passages seem to imply that the four stages are sequential

attainment. But when one examines these passages carefully these passages are not

sufficient to establish the theory of sequential development. If one takes this listing

to be sequential attainment then one has to accept sequential attainment of the five

sub-stages of non-return because there are many passages listing the five kinds of

non-returners in sequential order of the development of the five faculties. For

instance, a number of passages record:

Oh! Monks, when these five faculties are fully cultivated, one becomes an
arahat. If they are weaker than that, then he is one who attains Nibbāna in
between. If they are further weaker then is one who attains Nibbāna upon
landing. If they are further weaker then he is one who attains Nibbāna without
exertion. If they are further weaker, then he is one who attains Nibbāna with
exertion. If they are further weaker he is one who is bound upstream, heading
towards the Akaniṭṭha realm.. (SN V 205)

If the listing of four stages in relation to development of the five faculties can be

taken argument for sequential attainment of the four stages, then one has to accept
   229  

the five sub-stages of non-return are also sequential attainment which implies the

antarāparinibbāyī goes through the rest of the four stages. But such implication is

untenable, for one who attains Nibbāna in between is one who attains Nibbāna either

in between death and new birth, or in the immediate next birth before crossing half of

life time. In either case, he cannot go through the other four stages.

There are many passages in the Nikāyas that imply the four stages are not

sequential attainment so far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, rather the four stages

appeared to be alternative stages. For instance, in the Saṃyuttanikāya it is

mentioned:

oh! Monks, when the mindfulness on breath in and out is developed and
cultivated, seven fruits, seven benefits may be expected. What are the seven
fruits, seven benefits? One attains perfect knowledge early in this very life. If
one does not attain the perfect knowledge early in this very life, then one
attains final knowledge at the time of death. If one does not attain final
knowledge early in this life, or at the time of death, then with complete
abandonment of the five fetters pertaining to lower existence, one becomes one
who attains Nibbāna in between. If one does not become one who attains
Nibbāna in between, then becomes one who attains of Nibbāna upon landing.
If one does not become one who attains Nibbāna upon landing, then one
becomes one who attains Nibbāna without exertion. If one does not become a
one who attains Nibbāna without exertion, then one becomes one who attains
Nibbāna with exertion. If one does not become one who attains Nibbāna with
exertion, then one becomes one bound upstream, heading towards the
Akaniṭṭha realm. (SN V 310).7

Furthermore, in the Nikāyas, it is frequently recorded that those who practice

Buddhist path would attain either one of two fruits; either perfect knowledge in the

very life, or if there is remnant of upādi, would attain the stage of non-return

(dvinnaṃ phalānaṃ aññataraṃ phalaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ, diṭṭhe ‘va dhamme aññā sati

vā upādisesa anāgāmitā : DN II 314; MN I 62, 63, 481’ SN V 129, 236; AN III 82,
                                                                                                               
7
evaṃ bhāvitāya kho bhikkhave ānāpānasatiya evam bahulīkatattā sattaphalā sattānisaṃsā
patikaṅkhā. Katame sattaphalā sattānisaṃsā? Diṭṭheva dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti. No ce
diṭṭheva dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti, atha maraṇakāle aññam ārādheti, no ce diṭṭheva
dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti, no ce maraṇakāle aññam ārādheti, atha pañcannam
orambhāgiyānam saṃyojanānam parikkhayā anatarāparinibbāyi hoti. upahaccaparinibbāyī hoti.
asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. uddhamsoto hoti akaṇiṭṭhagāmī.
   230  

143, V 108, It 39). These passages indicate the two stages were mutually exclusive

stages rather than two successive stages as described in the Pāli commentarial

literature.

When it comes to the co-relation between the threefold training and the four

stages, firstly, it is not explicit whether the stage of stream-entry and the stage of

once return are sequential attainment. What is emphasized here is the perfection of

morality. Secondly, the passage does not clearly affirm that an arahat has to go

through the first three stages. It only elucidates the level of spiritual attainment in

each stage; it does not deny the possibility that one can gain all these achievements

and directly becomes an arahat. The same argument is applicable to the four stages

in relation to the abandoning of the list of ten fetters. Though theoretically certain

fetters are assigned to each stage, it has not been explicitly mentioned that one has to

go through all the four stages. The possibility of one abandoning the first five fetters

and becoming non-returner directly or by abandoning list of the ten fetters, to

become arahat directly through bypassing other stages is not ruled out in the

Nikāyas. Careful observation of the Nikāyas passages that deal with enlightenment

would elucidate that this implication is more likely to be true than otherwise. In the

Nikāyas, not even one case story is recorded of anybody going through all the four

stages. Particularly, it is important to observe that in the Theragāthā and the

Therīgāthā, which record spiritual journey and attainment of the liberation by

monastic saṅgha, many of the passages are ascribed to authors referring to their own

achievement of liberation. Blackstone has pointed out that in the Therīgathā, out of

seventy-three stories, fifty-six are ascribed to authors referring to their own

achievement of liberation and in the Theragāthā, out of 269 stories, 97 stories are
   231  

ascribed to authors referring to their own attainment (Blackstone 1998: 108). Among

the recorded stories, there is not a single story that shows any of the early monastic

members going through the four stages in the path to liberation in the sequential

order.

On the other hand, there are many references of practitioners first gaining the

dhammacakkhuṃ, then directly becoming arahat. For instance, the story of the first

five disciples of the Buddha attained arahatta directly after hearing second discourse

given by the Buddha (SN III 68). The Dīghavu was declared as stream enterer, but

after his death he was declared as non-returner (SN V 344). In the Theragāthā, it is

recorded that a Brahmin by the name of Sañjaya having listened to Buddha attained

the first stage, and just after ordination, he was said to have attained arahatta

(Psalms of Brethren, 52). In the Theragāthā and the Therīgāthā, five such similar

instances are recorded (Psalms of Brethren 133, 141, 183, 222, 224; Psalms of

Sisters 56, 72, 125, 142).

In all these texts there are no mention of the intermediate stages. Furthermore,

there are many references in the Nikāyas, where one directly becomes an arahat,

without any of the first three stages. One fine example is the story of Bāhiya

Dārucīriya, after first meeting with the Buddha, he requested for ordination. He was

refused because he did not have bowl and robe ready with him. He went out to

search for bowl and robe; a cow killed him. After his death, the Buddha declared him

as one who is liberated (Ud 35). According to the commentaries, he neither met the

Buddha nor his disciples nor followed any Buddhist practice prior to his first

meeting. So there was no possibility for him to have gone through the first three

stages. There are also quite a few references of one becoming non-returner directly
   232  

after hearing a discourse. For instance, the story of Pukkusāti in the Dhātu-vibhaṅga

sutta of MN, and the story of Brahmāyu which have been cited above.

Another point to note is that the four stages are never referred to as four stages to

arahatta in the Pāli Nikāyas. The term bhūmi, which means stage, never appears with

the theory of the four stages in the Nikāyas. Rather, the term phala is employed to

define each stage   in the Nikāyas. The term phala means fruit or benefit or

consequence etc. In the Sāmaññaphala sutta of DN, it is reported that King

Ajātasattu inquired from the Buddha what the visible benefits of ascetic are, the term

used for benefits of ascetic life is sāmaññaphala, and the Buddha has enumerated a

list of benefits of ascetic life from mundane to supra-mundane. The discourse has not

mentioned stages to attainment of arahatta. In some passages, the term phala is also

used synonymously with ānisaṃsā, which means benefits or profits or consequence

(DN III 132). Sometimes phala is also combined with vipāka to denote consequence

of karma (DN I 27, 58; III 160). It is never employed in the Nikāyas with the sense of

stage. The four fruits are interpreted as stages only in the Abhidhamma and Pāli

exegetical literature. In the Nikāyas the theory of four fruits was intended to convey

the message to all practitioners and converts into Buddhism that they would enjoy

some benefits in accordance with the commitment and urgency they put into their

practice, not the implication of four sequential stages to attainment of an arahatta.

This hypothesis is further confirmed by references in the Nikāyas that mention

the benefits for anyone who practices the Buddhist teachings; either the fruit of

liberation here and now (diṭṭhe va dhamme nibbāna), i.e. fruit of arahatta, or fruit of

non-returner (anāgāmiphalaṃ). In the discourse on four foundations of mindfulness

   233  

(the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta) appearing in DN as Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta8 and in MN as

Satipaṭṭhāna sutta, there is a section known as Satipaṭṭhāna Saṃyutta in the

Saṃyuttanikāya (SN V 141-192). Furthermore, the content of the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta

has been repeated either in the same format or with little variations in several other

discourses in the Nikāyas. The version in DN and MN contains a prediction that

whosoever practices the four-fold foundation of mindfulness at least for seven days

are bound to gain either the stage of arahatta in this life or the stage of non-return

(MN I 63).9 The omission of the first two stages in the passage quoted cannot be

overlooked. This omission did not occur once, and in many passages it is repeated

referring to different aspects of Buddhist practice; thirty-seven factors of

enlightenment, meditation in breathing in and out etc. (AN III 83, 143; SN V 129,

181, 285). In another passage in AN, it is stated if someone abides in contemplating

on impermanent nature of all conditioned phenomena, perceiving impermanence,

experiencing impermanence, constantly without interruption focuses on it, he will

either attain Nibbāna in this very life, or if he fails, he will attain it at the time of

death, if he fails, he will attain one of the five types of non-returner (AN IV 70). In

SN, it is stated that one who cultivates the five spiritual faculties would gain

enlightenment in this very existence, or at the time of death, if not, at least he will

                                                                                                               
8
Maurice Walshe considers this discourse “as the most important sutta in the entire Pāli canon” (The
Long Discourses of the Buddha, 588). And Bhikkhu Nyanatiloka has asserted that this discourse is
the most important part of the whole Nikāya and the quintessence of the whole meditation practice
(The Path to Deliverance, 123). Today, in the Theravāda tradition, this is like a manual guide for
meditators. Anālayo in a comprehensive study of the discourse states that the path in the
Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta in DN and Satipaṭṭhāna sutta in MN belongs to late period of Buddhist
history (Anālayo 2003: 16). Bhikkhu Sujato has a very good study on the historical development of
the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta. He has convincingly argued that the section of the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta
contents in the Samyuttanikāya is more archaic than schemes in two discourses (Bhikkhu Sujato
2012a: 118).
9
yo hi koci bhikkhave. ime cattāro satipaṭṭhāne evaṃ bhāveyya, sattavassānitassa dvinnaṃphalānaṃ
aññataraṃphalaṃpāṭikaṅkhaṃ diṭṭhevadhamme aññā, sati vāupādisese anāgāmitā.  
   234  

gain one of the five types of non-returner (SN V 237).A close examination of these

passages leads to following conclusions:

i. In the early period of the Buddhism, only the stage of non-return and stage of

arahatta might have been considered as spiritual attainment. The stage of stream-

entry and once return were not yet considered as high spiritual attainment.

ii. These two were not necessarily sequential attainment, rather exclusive

attainment. Some would directly become arahats in this life, other would become

non-returners with some remnant of upādi, and they would attain final liberation

after death in the pure-abode.

The first point accords with my argument in chapter 2 and chapter 4 that stream-

enterers originally referred to people who have accepted Buddhism wholeheartedly

and developed receptivity towards Buddhist doctrine. The second point is further

supported by a passage in AN that mentions among the tenfold disciples of the

Buddha, who established faith in the Buddha, the five categories would gain

liberation here (human realm)—includes three types of stream-enterer, the once-

returners and those who become arahats in this life (diṭṭh’ eva dhamme arahā) and

the other five categories would gain liberation hereafter (in other realms)— the five

types of non-returners (AN V 119-20). 10 The passage is sufficiently cogent to

envisage that the non-returners do not attain the arahatta in the human conditions.

Though the four stages are listed in sequential hierarchical order, it does not

imply that these have to be attained in sequential order. This is clear when one

                                                                                                               
10
ye keci bhikkhave mayi niṭṭhaṅgatā, sabbe te diṭṭhisampannā. tesaṃ diṭṭhisampannānaṃ
pañcannaṃ idha niṭṭhā pañcannaṃ idha vihāya niṭṭha.pañcannaṃ idha niṭṭhā—
sattakkhattuparamassa, kolaṃkolassa, ekabījissa sakadāgāmissa, yo ca diṭṭh’eva dhamme arahā.
Idha vihāya niṭṭhā—antarāparinibbāyī, upahaccaparinibbāyī, asaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa,
sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa, uddhaṃsotassa akaniṭṭhā-gamino
   235  

observes the listing of the Eight Noble Persons. In the stereotypical list, the four

stages precede the four respective paths. For instance the list appears as:

The stream-enterer, one who is practicing for realization of the stage of stream-
entry, the once-returner, and one who is practicing for the stage of once-return,
the non-returner and one who is practicing for the stage of non-return, the
arahat, and one who is practicing for the stage of arahatta. (AN IV 292; DN III
255).

If the four stages are considered as successive sequential attainment merely because

they are listed in sequential order, then one has to admit that one first becomes

stream-enterer, then practices for the attainment of the stage of stream-entry, etc.,

obviously such implication is not acceptable. Moreover, in AN, there is a list of

tenfold persons described as worthy of veneration, worthy of respect and worthy of

gift listed in hierarchical order:

Oh! Monks, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy
of offerings, worthy of veneration, supreme field of merit for the world. What
ten? The Tathāgata, the Arahat, the fully Enlightened one, the solitary Buddha,
the one who has been liberated in both ways, the one who liberated through
wisdom, the body witness; the one attained view (right view), the one who
liberated through faith, the intellect pursuant practitioner, the faith pursuant
practitioner , and the one who has transcended the clan. (AN V 23)

If this hierarchical order is taken as sequential attainment, one has to admit that all

should aim to become fully enlightened Buddha, but such an implication is

untenable. Hence, mere listing of the four stages in sequential order does not imply

that they are necessarily sequential stages to attainment of arahatta, rather they

represent a hierarchical order of spiritual attainment.

Thus as far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, the textual evidence shows that

the four stages were crystallized as a map of spiritual progress within the Nikāyas,

not rigid stages that everyone goes through in order to attain arahatta. Rather, it is

more plausible to assert that it is just a theoretical map, some may go through all

four, while some others can bypass either the first stage, or the second stage or all
   236  

first three stages and become arahats directly, depending on the individual’s spiritual

background. As Nathan Katz observes if the four stages are taken as sequential

attainment, there would be a theoretical discrepancy in the theory (Nathan 1986: 92).

If four stages are necessarily sequential development, then theoretically, there cannot

be attainment of arahatta in human conditions. The implication in the Nikāyas is

explicitly clear that non-returners are those who fail to attain arahatta in this very

life, but will attain it in his future lives in some heavenly realms.

The question is why the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators interpreted

the four stages as sequential attainment. A possible reason may be because the

Ābhidhammikas tried to systematize the path to liberation. If the four stages are not

taken as sequential, it is difficult to arrange in a systematic order. Furthermore, the

passages in the Nikāyas describing the four stages in relation to abandoning of the

list of ten fetters might have provided rationale for the Ābhidhammikas and Pāli

commentators to interpret the four stages as sequential attainment. But how did the

Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators have deal the discrepancy of the stage of

non-return and the stage of arahatta in this lifetime? Neither the Pāli Abhidhamma

nor the Pāli commentarial literature contain any discussion on this discrepancy. The

silence shows that the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and the Pāli commentators might have

understood these stages differently. One possible reason would be because in the

Abhidhamma the definition of the term “non-returner” has been changed from its

definition in the Nikāyas. According to Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries the

non-returner is one who abandons the five fetters. According to this interpretation,

one can attain the stage of non-return by abandoning the five lower fetters, and

continue to practice to attain the stage of arahatta. These stages were understood to
   237  

be meditative attainment and one could attain the four stages in the same sitting.

Hence, they may not have seen any discrepancy.

5.2 The Theory of Four Stages and Heterogeneous Path Schemes to

Liberation in Nikāyas

The Pāli Nikāyas show that in early Buddhism recognized very distinctively

different, path as yet valid paths to liberation. Bradley S. Clough in his book Early

Indian and Theravāda Buddhism: Soteriological Controversy and Diversity11 very

convincingly argues that Early Buddhism prescribed diverse paths to arahatta, which

could be construed as supplementary, contradictory or overlapping. Each of these

schemes was recognized as a valid path to liberation. The scheme of four paths and

four stages in relation to abandoning the list of ten fetters is just one of them. He

charges Buddhaghosa for superseding the diverse paths with a singular meditative

path that integrates several path schemes. However, a careful observation reveals that

formation of monolithic path to liberation predates Buddhaghosa. In the

Abhidhamma period, there was a tendency to organize and systematize Buddhist

teachings. In the process of systematizing the path to liberation, the heterogeneous

paths to liberation came to be superseded by a monolithic path to liberation. The

monolithic path is constructed by connecting together several independent path

schemes found in the Nikāyas, and the four stages together with four respective paths

constructed the peak of this monolithic path to arahatta. In generalizing the theory of

four stages, Ābhidhammikas might have encountered some problems, such as the

absence of the theory of four stages in the scheme of the path followed by the

                                                                                                               
11
This book basically deals with controversy on Samatha and Vipassanā meditations. He argues that
both were independently valid paths to liberation. But later tradition, i.e. Buddhaghosa constructed
singular path by combing Samatha and Vipassanā together.
   238  

Buddha as recorded in the Nikāyas. The Buddhist soteriological path schemes are

based on the fundamental assumption that the Buddha and his disciples attained

enlightenment through treading alone these path schemes. If one cannot establish this

assumption with Buddhist textual sources, then the authenticity of the scheme and

its capability of bringing forth liberation would be subject to doubt. Therefore, later

Buddhists always sought to find reference in early Buddhist sources for any new

development in the history of Buddhist thoughts. Similar attempt is also seen in

universalizing the theory of four stages to liberation.

Some Buddhist schools held the view the Bodhisatta also goes through the four

stages. The commentary to the Kathāvatthu ascribes this view to Andhaka and

Uttarapanthaka (Kv-A 178). The Theravāda tradition refutes this view and argues

that the theory of four stages is not applicable to the Buddhas. Their argument is that

the Buddhas follow a different path to liberation. They assert that there are three

distinct paths to liberation for the three categories of people: the path of the perfectly

Enlightened One (sammāsambuddha-magga), the path of the Solitary Buddha

(paccekabuddha-magga), and the path of the disciples (sāvaka-magga). They

interpreted the theory of the four stages as applicable only to the path of the

disciples, not the other two. The commentary to the Kathāvatthu states that the four

stages to liberation are not applicable to the Bodhisatta who strives for supreme

enlightenment. The Theravāda tradition questions if the Buddha is a stream-enterer,

then there is no distinction between the state of Buddhahood and the state of stream-

enterer (Kv-A 174).12 Another commentarial passage further adds that the path of the

Bodhisatta is the fulfillment of perfections (pāramitā). He does not go through the

four stages. If one cultivates [other paths], the Bodhisatta would become a stream-
                                                                                                               
12
bhagavā sotāpanno ti buddhabhūtassa sotāpannabhāvo natthi paṭikkhipati.
   239  

enterer (bodhisattānañca ṭhapetvā pāramīpūraṇaṃ aññā niyāmokkanti nāma natthi.

Yadi bhaveyya, bodhisatto sotāpanno sāvako bhaveyya).

However, Pāli commentarial literature is not unanimous on this point. Some Pāli

commentarial passages mention that the Buddha also undergoes the four stages. For

instance, in the commentary to the Aṅguttaranikāya the Buddha went through the

four stages prior to his enlightenment:

On the day of Vesak full moon, in the evening, having approached the root of
the great Bodhi tree, having discarded the forces of the evil ones, having
recollected past lives in the first watch of the night, in the second watch of the
night purified the divine vision (higher vision), and in the last watch of the
night having penetrated into the theory of twelvefold dependent arising,
realizes the path of stream-entry. This is known as arising. Thus, in the
moment of the stage of stream-entry, in the moment of the path of once-return,
in the moment of stage of once-return, in the moment of path of non-return, in
the moment of stage of the non-return is known as arising, in the moment of
path of arahat, it is called ‘arising, and at the moment of stage of arahatta, one
is known as arisen (awaken). Unlike disciples, knowledge of psychic powers
does not arise to Buddhas, but with the path of arahatta, the knowledge of
omniscience and all virtues appeared to him. (AN-A I 99).13

And the same commentary further repeats the same concept:

Having eaten the sweet porridge offered by Sujātā and having caused the
golden bowl to be carried away by the river, in the evening having gone to the
vicinity of the bodhi tree, looking around the element of world and being seated
dispelled the evil forces while the sun was up (before sun set). In the first watch
of the night, recollected the past lives of him, in the second watch of the night
purified the higher vision, in the last watch of the night, having penetrated into
the causes and conditions, penetrated the path to stream-entry, subsequently he
realized the stage of stream-entry, the path of once-return, the stage of the
once-return, path of the non-return, stage of the non-return, the path of
arahatta, until then it is known as arising of wheel of dhamma. In the moment
of arahatta it is called the wheel of dhamma has arisen. And for the Buddhas,

                                                                                                               
13
sāyaṇhasamaye visākhapuṇṇamāya mahābodhimaṇḍaṃ āruyha mārabalaṃ vidhametvā
paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anusaritvā majjhimayāme dibbacakkhuṃ parisodhetvā
pacchimayāmasamantare dvādasaṅgaṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ anulomo-paṭilomato sammasitvā
sotāpattimaggaṃ paṭivijjhanto pi uppajjamāno vā nāma. sotāpattiphalakkhaṇe pi
sakadāgāmimaggakkhaṇe pi sakadāgāmiphalakkhaṇe pi anāgāmimaggakkhaṇe pi
anāgāmiphalakkhaṇe pi uppajjamāno va nāma. arahattamaggakhaṇe pana uppajjati nāma.
arahattaphalakkhaṇe uppanno nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sāvakānaṃ viya na paṭipāṭiya
iddhavidhañāṇādīni uppajjanti sah’eva pana arahattamaggena sakalo pi
sabbaññutañāṇaguṇarāsi āgato nāma hoti.
   240  

with the attainment of arahatta all the virtues arise simultaneously. (AN-A I
122)14

The commentary to the Paṭisambhidāmagga further mentions that the bodhisattas in

their final birth go through the four stages:

The abandoning of the three fetters means the abandonment of the self-view,
doubt and attachment to vows and rituals. Here, the Bodhisattas who are on the
final existence (pacchimabhavikā bodhisattā) are also included in the
classification (follow this method). Those who are not in the final existence,
having attained insight into equanimity of formation, stop there. (Pm-A I
271).15

The same step is mentioned in the commentary to the Itivuttaka:

Having arrived at the vicinity of the Bodhi tree, dispelling the evil forces (of
mind) in the first watch of the night recollected former lives, in the second
watch of the night purified the higher vision, the last watch of the night, having
access to knowledge of dependent co-arising, and having realized all
conditioned phenomena from diverse prospective, penetrated the path of
stream-entry,… until realization of stage of non-return, it is known as ‘being
arising’ in the moment of the path to arahatta, it is known as ‘arising’ and at
the moment of the arahatta, it is known as ‘ has arisen’. Unlike disciples there
is no appearance of knowledge of psychic power of the practice to the
Buddhas. All the heap of virtues of the Buddha appears simultaneously
together with the path of arahatta. (Iti-A II 82).16

How to reconcile this contradistinction in the Pāli commentaries is difficult to

answer. This shows that the Pāli commentators were concerned about the

                                                                                                               
14
sujātāya dinnaṃ madhupāyāsaṃ bhuñjitvā suvaṇṇapātiṃ nadiyā pavahetvā sāyaṇhasamaye
bodhimaṇdavaragato puratthimaṃ lokadhātuṃ olokento pi nisīditvā suriye dharamāne
yeva mārabalaṃ vidhametvā paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anussaranto pi majjhimayāme
dibbacakkhuṃ visodhento pi paccūsakalasamantare paccayākārānaṃ sammasitvā
sotāpattimaggaṃ pativijjhanto pi sotāpattiphalaṃ sacchikaranto pi sakadāgāmi maggaṃ
sakadāgāmi phalaṃ anāgāmimaggaṃ anāgāmiphalaṃ sacchikaronto pi arahattamaggaṃ
paṭivijjhanto pi dhammacakkaṃ uppādeti yeva nāma. arahattaphalakkhaṇe pana tena
dhammacakkaṃ uppāditaṃ nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sakalaguṇarāsi arahattaphal’ eva saddhiṃ
ijjhati.
15
tiṇṇaṃ saññojanānaṃ pahānāyāti sakkāyadiṭṭhivicikicchāsīlabbataparāmāsānaṃ pahānatthaṃ.
pacchimabhavikāpi bodhisattā ettheva saṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Apacchimabhavikā pana vipassanaṃ
saṅkhārupekkhaṃ pāpetvā ṭhapenti.
16
bodhimaṇḍaṃ āruyha mārabalaṃ vidhamanto paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anussaranto
majjhimayāme dibbacakkhuṃ visodhento, pacchimayāme paṭiccasamuppāde ñāṇaṃ otāretvā
anekākāraṃ sabbasaṅkhāre sammasitvā sotāpattimaggaṃ pativijjhanto yāva anāgāmiphalaṃ
sacchikaronto pi uppajjamāno eva nāma. arahattamaggakkhaṇe uppajjati nāma.
arahattaphalakkhaṇe pana uppano nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sāvakānaṃ viya paṭipātiyā iddhividdha
ñāṇadīnaṃ uppādanakiccaṃ n’atthi. Sah’eva pana arahattamaggena sakalo pi buddhguṇarāsī
āgato nāma hoti.
   241  

authenticity of the theory of four stages. There might have been certain dilemma in

the formation of the monolithic path to liberation. However, Pāli commentators

agree on the view that all disciples should go through the four stages. But when it

comes to the question whether the Buddha went through this experience, Pāli

commentators have given divergent interpretations.

Thus, the four stages ultimately superseded the rest of the path schemes of

liberation in the later part of the Abhidhamma and commentarial period, and the

standardization and uniformization of spiritual cartography is to influence the

worldview of later Theravāda Buddhist in centuries to come, even up till today. A

related observation about this uniformed description of spiritual attainments is the

domination and subsequent monopolization of such schemes solely for monastic

members as depicted in the Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentarial literature, which

serves as the topic of the subsequent subsection.

5.3 The Four Samaṇas and the Four Stages: The Four Stages
Domain of Monastics

In a number of discourses the stream-enterer, the once-returner, the non-returner and

the arahat are all defined as samaṇas (ascetic). In the Mahāparinibbāna sutta, the

Buddha on his death bed addressing Subhadda, stated that first ascetic

(paṭhamasamaṇo), the second ascetic (dutiyasamaṇo), the third ascetic

(tatiyasamaṇo) and the fourth ascetic (catuttasamaṇo) are found only in Buddhism

and the other religious systems are empty of these ascetics. The reason provided was

because the eightfold noble path is absent in other religious systems. This discourse

does not give further details of these four types of ascetics. The Cūllasīhanāda sutta

of MN also repeated the same, that four types of ascetics are found only in Buddhism

and other religious systems are empty of these ascetics. What is meant by four types
   242  

of ascetics referred to in these discourses referred to is not explicit. It is only in the

Aṅguttanikāya that these four types of ascetics are defined as stream-enterer, the

once-returner, the non-returner, and the arahat respectively. I have argued in chapter

two and chapter four that the stage of stream-entry and the stage of non-return were

originally developed for lay people who were mentally not prepared to or certain

circumstances prevented them from renouncing family life, social ties and

responsibilities. To resolve this contradiction samaṇas are ascetics and not lay

people, I have investigated the concept of samaṇa as understood by Buddhists

historically and how the stages which were originally meant for lay followers

evolved to become prerogatives for samaṇa as well. This section aims to trace how

such transition took place in the history of Buddhism from the Pāli Nikāyas to the

Pāli commentaries.

The Indian religious community at the time of the Buddha consisted of

Brāhmaṇas and Samaṇas. Despite differences in their ideology and ways of life, both

camps of people were recognized as religious practitioners. In a large number of

discourses, the term samaṇa-brāhmaṇa refers to religious practitioners who deserve

respect and honour (DN I 5; II 150; AN I 110, 173; Iti 64; Sn 189; Vin II 295).

Brahmanism is usually united under certain common views and values, despite the

fact that divergent views and interpretation existed among different Brahmins. On

the other hand, Śramaṇism came under several religious teachers, holding very

different and sometimes contradictory religious, philosophical and metaphysical

views. Despite their heterogeneous philosophical orientations, some common beliefs

and practices united them under the banner of Śramaṇism. Among the major

differences in these two religions, one was household life and anchorite.

Brahmanism in general recommends family life, performing social duties and

   243  

considered married life as a necessary part of a social orders (Gautama III 3, 36,

cited in Barua 1998: 247). The Vedic literature held the view that men’s offspring is

the immortality of men (prajātih amṛtaṃ), and those seeking immortality outside

marriage would become dust and perishes at the death (rājo bhūtvā dhvaṃsate)

(Barua 1998: 247). But Śramaṇism recommended life of renunciation of family and

social ties, and exclusive devotion to spiritual practices. They were also known as

bhikṣu because they sustained their lives by begging for their food and other

requisites from society. The Buddha was a member of the samaṇas, he was well

known among the people as recluse Gotama (samaṇa Gotama) (DN I 4, 87; Sn 91,

99; Vin I 8 etc.) In the Brahmajāla sutta of DN, the Buddha said ordinary people

would appreciate and praise him with regard to trivial matters on morality. The term

used is samaṇa-gotamo. There are numerous passages where the Buddha is

addressed as samaṇa gotama by non-Buddhists. Furthermore, the Buddha’s disciples

were known as recluses of the Sakyan son (Samaṇa-sakyaputtiya). In the Vinaya, it

is mentioned that one who transgresses any of the four Pārājikā rules become a non-

recluse (asamaṇa) (Vin I 96), but pretends to be a recluse (samaṇavesadhārako)

(Vin III 68). Furthermore, in the Sāmaññaphala sutta, king inquired from the

Buddha visible result of being a recluse (sāmaññaphala). It is explicitly clear that

the king referred to people who renounced family lives and social ties and became a

recluse. All these references seem to prove that the term samaṇa refers to a recluse

who renounces family life, social duties and functions. The rational behind the

equation of stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner and arahat with the samaṇas

has not been properly explained.

Such equation of the four samaṇas with the attainment of four stages indicates

subtle changes in Buddhist soteriology that have taken place in the history of
   244  

Buddhism. The Nikāyas show that even early Buddhists have certain difficulty in

understanding the exact meaning of the four samaṇas. For instance, the Pāli Nikāyas

contain two different interpretations of the four samaṇas. The Saṅgīti sutta of DN

defines the four samaṇas as:

i. Unshakable Recluse (samaṇāmacalo)

ii. Red Lotus Recluse (samaṇapuṇḍārīko)

iii. White Lotus Recluse (samaṇapaduma)

iv. Delicate Recluse (samaṇasukhumālo)

This discourse does not give any further details of the four samaṇas apart from

naming. In the Aṅguttaranikāya the list appears again but with detailed explanation.

This passage defines the four samaṇas as follows:

And oh! Monks, how does a person become an unshakable ascetic? Here, oh!
monks, a monk who is a trainee. He dwells aspiring and practicing for the
unsurpassed security from bondage… And how does a person become a white-
lotus ascetic? Oh! Monks, a monk with destruction of the outflowing, having
realized the liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom without are devoid of
outflowing with higher knowledge, in this very life, and having attained it, he
dwells in it. But yet he has not experienced the eight emancipations through
body. It is in this way, a person becomes a white-lotus ascetic. And how does a
person become a red-lotus ascetic? Here, oh! Monks, a monk with destruction
of outflowing and having realized the liberation of mind and liberation of
wisdom, which are devoid of outflowing with higher knowledge. Having
attained he dwells in it. He dwells having experienced the eight liberation
through body.

And how does a person become a dedicate ascetic among ascetics? Here, oh!
monks, a monk uses a robe which has been specifically offered to him; seldom
that has not been specifically offered to him. He eats alms food, which has been
specifically offered to him. Seldom that which has not offered him specifically.
He uses accommodation, which has been specifically offered to him, seldom
that has not been offered to him specifically. He uses medicine, which is
offered to him specifically, seldom which has not been offered to him
specifically. Fellow monks, who dwell with him, behave with him in a pleasant
manner through body, speech and mind, seldom in unpleasant manner. They
present him gifts in pleasant manner, seldom in unpleasant manner. The
discomfort feelings arising from bile, phlegm, wind or from combination of
these, or discomfort arise from change of climate, or arise from careless
behavior or discomfort arises from an attachment do not arise in him. He
   220  

Chapter 5:
Exaltation of the Four Stages in the Pāli Abhidhamma and
Commentarial Literature

The previous chapter has shown that each of the four stages to enlightenment has

been developed in response to different social and religious demands that arose in the

history of Buddhist thought, and towards the end of Pāli Nikāya period, the theory of

the four stages to liberation was formed. At present the Theravāda tradition

perceives the theory of the four stages through the lens of Pāli commentators, and

hence the four stages are understood as peak spiritual stages one sequentially attains

during the course of liberation. This chapter aims to examine the Theravāda

traditional interpretation of the theory of four stages from a historical context,

investigating how the heterogeneous spiritual path to liberation is superseded by the

monolithic spiritual path to liberation in the Abhidhamma and subsequently in the

Pāli commentarial literature. This would broadly map the manner in which the theory

of the four stages and the theory of sequential development from the Nikāyas to the

Abhidhamma and Pāli exegetical literature developed. This chapter attempts to locate

certain possible factors which might have contributed to this development, and

examines how the concept of stream-enterer which originally was used to refer to a

lay Buddhist who has taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, is

elevated to the status of a highly exalted spiritual saint in the process of Buddhist

literary history.

5.1 The Sequential Attainment of the Four Stages

The question of the sequential attainment of the four stages was not discussed in the

Nikāyas. This has created certain dilemma in Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial
   221  

literature regarding whether the four stages are sequential attainment or one could

bypass some of the stages.

The Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators have interpreted the four stages

as sequential attainment. However, they have not constructed the theory without

basis. They derived some nucleus of this interpretation from the Pāli Nikāyas. There

are some passages in the Nikāyas that at outer appearance seem to imply the four

stages as sequential attainment. But a careful examination reveals they are not

necessarily sequential attainment.

The interpretation of sequential attainment of the four stages creates a dilemma

because insofar as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, non-returner is referred to an

individual who could not attain arahatta in this lifetime. But he will not return to

human conditions again, and would attain arahatta in the pure-abode. So if

sequential attainment of the four stages is accepted there cannot be attainment of

arahatta in the human world.

This section examines this dilemma from both a historical perspective and later

interpretative perspective. From a historical perspective, this section argues that the

four stages are not sequential attainment insofar as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned.

From the later interpretative perspective, it argues that the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and

the Pāli commentators did not consider there is a contradiction because they have

interpreted the stage of non-return differently than the Pāli Nikāyas. However, this

section argues the new interpretation of the stage of non-return is a deviation from

the early Buddhist interpretation of this stage.

The Pāli Ābhidhammikas have understood the four stages as sequential

attainment along the path of liberation. This new interpretation first appeared in the

Paṭisambhidāmagga. This seems to be the first text that is trying to supersede

   222  

heterogeneous paths to liberation by a monolithic path to liberation, placing the four

stages as pinnacle stages to path of liberation in a hierarchical order. The

Paṭisambhidāmagga explicitly brings out the implication that every practitioner

necessarily passes through the four stages to attain arahatta. This point is further

strengthened in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī. In the Dhammasaṅgaṇī the term phala is

superseded by bhūmi, (Dhs. 60). The four stages are interpreted as the first stage

(paṭhama-bhūmi), second stage (dutiya-bhūmi), third stage (tatiya-bhūmi), and fourth

stage (catuttha-bhūmi) respectively.1 The terms phala and bhūmi are never employed

synonymously in the Pāli Nikāyas; while the term phala has been used with the sense

of consequence, benefits and fruits etc., the term bhūmi has been used with the sense

of stage. By the change of term, Ābhidhammikas might have wanted to convey the

implication that four stages are sequential attainment.

Historically, the Pāli commentators are successors of Pāli Ābhidhammikas. Pāli

commentators often relied on the Abhidhamma to interpret the teachings of the Pāli

Nikāyas. Although their main task was to clarify the doctrines embodied in the

discourses, the authors of Pāli exegetical literature often employed the Abhidhamma

methodology and interpretation to elucidate doctrines in the Nikāyas. Therefore, the

Pāli commentators also interpreted the four stages as sequential attainment. For

instance, Buddhaghosa in the path of the Purification, subsumed the four stages

under the heading of purification of knowledge and vision (ñāṇadassanavisuddhi),

which is the culminating stage of spiritual path presented in the path of purification.

Buddhaghosa’s interpretation of the four stages implies sequential attainment of the

four stages. He writes that immediately after the stage of gotrabhū, there appears the
                                                                                                               
1
yasmiṃ samaye lokuttaraṃ jhānam bhaveti…diṭṭhigatānaṃ pahānāya paṭhamāya bhummiyā
pattiyā,..kāmarāgavyāpādanaṃ patanūbhāvāya dutiyāya bhummiyā pattiyā..kāmarāgavyāpādānaṃ
anavasesappahānāya tatiyāya bhummiyāpattiyā…rūparāga arūparāgamāna-uddhacca-avijjāya
anavasesappahānāya catutthāya bhummiyāpattiyā.
   223  

path of stream-entry. After two of three fruition consciousness, one becomes a

stream-enterer. Then either in the same sitting or on another occasion, he starts to

practice for the sake of attenuating greed and aversion to attain the second stage. He

brings forwards the faculties, the power and factors of enlightenment, he cultivates

them, then the path of once-return arises. Then he reflects on the defilements

abandoned, yet to be abandoned, the path he has arrived unto this stage and the

Nibbāna. Then he becomes a once-returner. The once-returner either in the same

sitting, or another occasion starts the practice for the sake of the completely

abandoning of sensual desire and aversion and attains the third stage. The non-

returner after a short reflection on the defilements that are already abandoned, that

are yet to be abandoned, he starts the practice for the sake of complete abandonment

of desire for form and form realms, conceit, agitation and ignorance. He brings

forwards the faculty, the power, and factors of enlightenment, then the path of

arahatta manifests. After the manifestation of the path of arahatta, after a short

refection, he becomes an arahat. (Vism 676-7).

According to Buddhaghosa, the four stages are sequential attainment. One can

either attain them in the same sitting or in a wider dimension of time and space. Even

though he employed the term spontaneous born being (opapātiko) for non-returner,

and he further goes on to describes non-returner as one who attains Nibbāna there,

not subject to return from that world, but he does not see contradiction between the

stage of non-return and the stage of arahatta in human realm. This is because he

understood the description of non-returner differently. According to him, one can

attain the stage of non-returner while in the human condition, still continues to

practice for the stage of arahatta.

   224  

A similar view is seen in other Pāli commentaries. For instance, Dhammapāla in

his commentary to the Theragāthā expressed a similar view. It is recorded that

Dabba, a young boy, went to the Buddha for ordination. He attained all the four

stages successively while he was being shaved:

At the moment of shaving first blade of hair, he was established in the stage of
stream-entry, at the moment of shaving second blade of hair, he was
established in the stage of once-return, at the moment of shaving third blade of
hair, he was established on the stage of non-return, and at the moment of
shaving fourth blade of hair, he realized the stage of arahatta. (Tha-A I 43)2

A similar dramatic narration is recorded in the same text with regard to Venerable

Saṅkicca (Tha-A II 255), and Sīvali who also went through all the four stages

successively at a young age (Tha-A II 148). In another passage, it is mentioned that a

young monk attained all four stages while a tiger was swallowing him:

While he was in the mouth of the tiger, he having suppressed the sensation
(pain) developed insight. When up to his ankle was being eaten, he attained the
stage of stream-entry, by the time up to knees were being eaten, he attained the
state of once-return, when up to navel part of the body was being eaten, and he
attained stage of non-return. When the heart was being eaten, he became arahat
together with analytical knowledge and uttered the joyful utterance. (DN-A III
748).3

The question is whether this understanding reflects the original implication of the

concept of non-returner in the Nikāyas. Etymological the term non-returner is

defined as one who does not return to sensual realm (kāmadhātu). Therefore in the

Nikāyas the non-returner is defined as not subject to turn back from that world

(anāvatti-dhammo tasmā lokā) and he takes birth in some higher realm known as

pure-abode, thereby, non-returner is defined as spontaneous born being (opapātika).

                                                                                                               
2
paṭhama kesa vaṭṭhiyā varopanakkhaṇe sotāpattiphale patiṭṭhahi, dutiyāya kesa vaṭṭhiyā
varopanakkhaṇe sakadāgāmiphale, tatiyāya kesa vaṭṭhiyā varopanakkhaṇe anāgāmiphale, sabba
kesānam pana voropanañ ca arahattaphaphala sacchikiriyā apacchā apure ahosi.
3
so byagghamukhe nipannova taṃ vedanaṃ vikkhambhetvā vipassanaṃ vaḍḍhento yāva gopphakā
khāditasamaye sotāpanno hutvā, yāva jaṇṇukā khāditasamaye sakadāgāmī, yāva nābhiyā
khāditasamaye anāgāmī hutvā, hadayarūpe akhāditeyeva saha paṭisambhidāhi arahattaṃ patvā
imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi.
   225  

The term opapātika was popularly known among contemporary Indians religious

philosophers. The Brahmajāla sutta contains a large number of speculative views

that were prevalent among religious philosophers of that time. Among them, one

relates to existence of spontaneously born beings (DN I 27).4 In the Pāyāsi sutta, in

the debate of birth after death, the term is used to refer to the world beyond. The term

is also used several times referring to classes of beings in the Buddhist discourse.

Buddhism recognizes four classes of beings in accordance to the ways they were

born—egg born, womb born, moisture born and spontaneously born (DN III 230;

MN I 73; SN III 240). The frequent occurrence of the term in several contexts

implies that the term opapātika was more archaic and was a common term in Indian

mythology. It refers to the class of mythical beings, particularly heavenly beings.

The origin of the term opapātika can be traced in the Upaniṣadic literature. In the

Upaniṣadic literature, the term is employed to describe the liberated sages who are

united with the Brāhman, and never return from there. But in Buddhism it is used in

the Buddhistic framework, and is used to describe beings who would have birth in

the heavenly realm known as pure-abode, and he would attain perfect liberation there

without ever returning to sensual realm.

The term non-return suggests that non-returners transcend human conditions

once for all, but would continue further existence in the heavenly realms until

enlightenment is achieved. This postulates that non-returners would achieve

enlightenment in non-human conditions, and outside the human realm. In other

words, one is described as non-returner on account of non-returning to sensual realm.

This would mean that the state of non-returner is an assignment to a postmortem

Buddhist practitioner, who did not succeed in gaining full enlightenment while in
                                                                                                               
4
atthi sattā opapātikā? n’atthi sattā opapātikā? atthi ca n’atthi ca sattā opapātikā?
   226  

human conditions. This position has strong support in the Nikāyas. In a passage in

the Citta-saṃyutta, Citta, a householder, when talking with his old friend Kassapa

about their spiritual achievement, says he has mastered four jhānas, and further says

if he were to die before the Buddha, he would be declared as non-returner by the

Blessed one (SN IV 301).

It seems quite clear that a non-returner is an individual who has abandoned the

five lower fetters, but failed to gain arahatta before passing away. My argument is

further supported by several passages that show that the stage of non-return was

declared upon the death of those practitioners. In the Dhātu-vibhaṅga sutta of the

Majjhimanikāya, it is reported that Brahmin Pukkusāti met the Buddha. He could not

recognize the Buddha. They had a conversation on the dhamma and at the end of the

conversation; he recognized the Buddha and sought for the higher ordination. But

this was not given, as he did not have a bowl and robes. He went out to search for a

bowl and robes, but met unfortunate death due to the attack of a cow. When the

monks inquired about his fate after death, the Buddha said:

Oh! monks, the householder Pukkusāti was wise. He practiced in accordance

with the dhamma, and he has not troubled me in the exposition of the
dhamma. With the destruction of the five fetters pertaining to lower realm, the
householder Pukkusāti has become spontaneous born being and he will attain
complete Nibbāna there, without ever returning from that world. (MN II 146).

A similar declaration was made after the death of Brahmin Brahmāyu. He was savant

in the Vedic philosophy and history. He came in contact with the Buddha. The

Buddha exhorted him into dhamma through gradual talk followed by the doctrine of

four noble truths. He took refuge in the Buddha. When he passed away, monks

inquired about his destiny, the Buddha stated:

Oh! monks, the Brahmin Brahmāyu was wise. He practiced in accordance

with the dhamma. and he did not trouble me in the exposition of the dhamma.
With the destruction of the five fetters pertaining to lower realm,, he has
   227  

become a spontaneous born being, and he will there attain complete

Nibbāna, without returning from that world. (MN III 247).

All these references imply that ‘non-returner’ refers to a person who could not attain

enlightenment whilst in the human form, but one who would attain final Nibbāna

without returning to human world. In the Pāli Nikāyas, most of the non-returners

were declared as non-returners after their death.

Then the question is how the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators

developed the theory of sequential attainment of the four stages without reference to

early Buddhist discourses. The answer seems obvious that they derived some nucleus

of this interpretation from the Nikāyas. There are quite a lot of passages, which at a

glance seem to imply that the four stages are necessarily sequential attainment. For

instance, in a number of discourses, the four stages are explained in relation to the

development of the five spiritual faculties:

Oh! Monks, when these five faculties are completely developed, one becomes
an arahat. If they are weaker than that one become non-returner, if they are still
weaker than that one becomes a once-returner, if they are still weaker than that
one is a stream-enterer. (SN V 200; 2002, 205)5

This is further supported by the passages that relate the four stages to the threefold

gradual trainings, which state that stream-enterers and once-returners are perfect in

morality, non-returners are perfect in morality and in concentration, an arahats are

perfect in morality, in the concentration and in wisdom (AN I 233-234). 6 Yet

stronger support for sequential development of the four stages is the eradication of

                                                                                                               
5
imesam kho bhikkhave pañcindriyānam samattā paripūrattā araham hoti, tato mudutarehi anāgāmi
hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadāgāmi hoti, tato mudutarehi sotāpanno hoti.
6
idha bhikkhave bhikkhu sīlesu paripūrakāri hoti, samādhism mattasokārī paññāya mattasokārī. So
tiṇṇam samyojanānam parikkhayā kolankolo… so tiṇṇam samyojānam parikkhayā
rāgadosamohānam tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti… sīlesu paripūrakārī hoti, samādhism paripūrakārī
hoti, paññāya mattasokārī. so pañcannam orambhāgiyānam samyojanānam parikkhayā
uddhamsoto hoti… antarāparibbāyī hoti. … sīlesu paripūrakārī hoti, samādhism paripūrakārī hoti,
paññāya paripūrakārī hoti, so savānam khayā anāsavam cetovimuttiom paññāvimuttim diṭṭh’eva
dhamme sayam abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.
   228  

the defilement to attain the four stages. The standard explanation of the four stages

is in relation to abandoning the list of ten fetters, which are identified as basic

hindrances for liberation. The Nikāya passages provided stereotypical description

that stream-enterers abandon first three fetters, once-returners further reduce greed,

hatred and delusion, non-returners abandon five lower fetters, arahats abandon all

out-flowing.

Here, a monk, having abandoned the three fetters becomes stream-enterer; he is

not subject to falling to lower existence. He is destined to perfect
enlightenment. Furthermore, a monk having abandoned the three fetters, and
having attenuated greed, hatred and delusion becomes a once-returner, having
returned to this world only once, will make end of suffering. Further, a monk,
having abandoned the five fetters relating to lower realm, becomes an
opapātika, there attains liberation without turning back from that realm. And
furthermore, a monk, having eradicated outflowing, he dwells having realized
the liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom through his own higher
knowledge. (DN I 156; II 200; MN I 490; 81, 84, 91, 94, 126; AN I 165)

At first glance these passages seem to imply that the four stages are sequential

attainment. But when one examines these passages carefully these passages are not

sufficient to establish the theory of sequential development. If one takes this listing

to be sequential attainment then one has to accept sequential attainment of the five

sub-stages of non-return because there are many passages listing the five kinds of

non-returners in sequential order of the development of the five faculties. For

instance, a number of passages record:

Oh! Monks, when these five faculties are fully cultivated, one becomes an
arahat. If they are weaker than that, then he is one who attains Nibbāna in
between. If they are further weaker then is one who attains Nibbāna upon
landing. If they are further weaker then he is one who attains Nibbāna without
exertion. If they are further weaker, then he is one who attains Nibbāna with
exertion. If they are further weaker he is one who is bound upstream, heading
towards the Akaniṭṭha realm.. (SN V 205)

If the listing of four stages in relation to development of the five faculties can be

taken argument for sequential attainment of the four stages, then one has to accept
   229  

the five sub-stages of non-return are also sequential attainment which implies the

antarāparinibbāyī goes through the rest of the four stages. But such implication is

untenable, for one who attains Nibbāna in between is one who attains Nibbāna either

in between death and new birth, or in the immediate next birth before crossing half of

life time. In either case, he cannot go through the other four stages.

There are many passages in the Nikāyas that imply the four stages are not

sequential attainment so far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, rather the four stages

appeared to be alternative stages. For instance, in the Saṃyuttanikāya it is

mentioned:

oh! Monks, when the mindfulness on breath in and out is developed and
cultivated, seven fruits, seven benefits may be expected. What are the seven
fruits, seven benefits? One attains perfect knowledge early in this very life. If
one does not attain the perfect knowledge early in this very life, then one
attains final knowledge at the time of death. If one does not attain final
knowledge early in this life, or at the time of death, then with complete
abandonment of the five fetters pertaining to lower existence, one becomes one
who attains Nibbāna in between. If one does not become one who attains
Nibbāna in between, then becomes one who attains of Nibbāna upon landing.
If one does not become one who attains Nibbāna upon landing, then one
becomes one who attains Nibbāna without exertion. If one does not become a
one who attains Nibbāna without exertion, then one becomes one who attains
Nibbāna with exertion. If one does not become one who attains Nibbāna with
exertion, then one becomes one bound upstream, heading towards the
Akaniṭṭha realm. (SN V 310).7

Furthermore, in the Nikāyas, it is frequently recorded that those who practice

Buddhist path would attain either one of two fruits; either perfect knowledge in the

very life, or if there is remnant of upādi, would attain the stage of non-return

(dvinnaṃ phalānaṃ aññataraṃ phalaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ, diṭṭhe ‘va dhamme aññā sati

vā upādisesa anāgāmitā : DN II 314; MN I 62, 63, 481’ SN V 129, 236; AN III 82,
                                                                                                               
7
evaṃ bhāvitāya kho bhikkhave ānāpānasatiya evam bahulīkatattā sattaphalā sattānisaṃsā
patikaṅkhā. Katame sattaphalā sattānisaṃsā? Diṭṭheva dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti. No ce
diṭṭheva dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti, atha maraṇakāle aññam ārādheti, no ce diṭṭheva
dhamme paṭihacca aññam ārādheti, no ce maraṇakāle aññam ārādheti, atha pañcannam
orambhāgiyānam saṃyojanānam parikkhayā anatarāparinibbāyi hoti. upahaccaparinibbāyī hoti.
asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. uddhamsoto hoti akaṇiṭṭhagāmī.
   230  

143, V 108, It 39). These passages indicate the two stages were mutually exclusive

stages rather than two successive stages as described in the Pāli commentarial

literature.

When it comes to the co-relation between the threefold training and the four

stages, firstly, it is not explicit whether the stage of stream-entry and the stage of

once return are sequential attainment. What is emphasized here is the perfection of

morality. Secondly, the passage does not clearly affirm that an arahat has to go

through the first three stages. It only elucidates the level of spiritual attainment in

each stage; it does not deny the possibility that one can gain all these achievements

and directly becomes an arahat. The same argument is applicable to the four stages

in relation to the abandoning of the list of ten fetters. Though theoretically certain

fetters are assigned to each stage, it has not been explicitly mentioned that one has to

go through all the four stages. The possibility of one abandoning the first five fetters

and becoming non-returner directly or by abandoning list of the ten fetters, to

become arahat directly through bypassing other stages is not ruled out in the

Nikāyas. Careful observation of the Nikāyas passages that deal with enlightenment

would elucidate that this implication is more likely to be true than otherwise. In the

Nikāyas, not even one case story is recorded of anybody going through all the four

stages. Particularly, it is important to observe that in the Theragāthā and the

Therīgāthā, which record spiritual journey and attainment of the liberation by

monastic saṅgha, many of the passages are ascribed to authors referring to their own

achievement of liberation. Blackstone has pointed out that in the Therīgathā, out of

seventy-three stories, fifty-six are ascribed to authors referring to their own

achievement of liberation and in the Theragāthā, out of 269 stories, 97 stories are
   231  

ascribed to authors referring to their own attainment (Blackstone 1998: 108). Among

the recorded stories, there is not a single story that shows any of the early monastic

members going through the four stages in the path to liberation in the sequential

order.

On the other hand, there are many references of practitioners first gaining the

dhammacakkhuṃ, then directly becoming arahat. For instance, the story of the first

five disciples of the Buddha attained arahatta directly after hearing second discourse

given by the Buddha (SN III 68). The Dīghavu was declared as stream enterer, but

after his death he was declared as non-returner (SN V 344). In the Theragāthā, it is

recorded that a Brahmin by the name of Sañjaya having listened to Buddha attained

the first stage, and just after ordination, he was said to have attained arahatta

(Psalms of Brethren, 52). In the Theragāthā and the Therīgāthā, five such similar

instances are recorded (Psalms of Brethren 133, 141, 183, 222, 224; Psalms of

Sisters 56, 72, 125, 142).

In all these texts there are no mention of the intermediate stages. Furthermore,

there are many references in the Nikāyas, where one directly becomes an arahat,

without any of the first three stages. One fine example is the story of Bāhiya

Dārucīriya, after first meeting with the Buddha, he requested for ordination. He was

refused because he did not have bowl and robe ready with him. He went out to

search for bowl and robe; a cow killed him. After his death, the Buddha declared him

as one who is liberated (Ud 35). According to the commentaries, he neither met the

Buddha nor his disciples nor followed any Buddhist practice prior to his first

meeting. So there was no possibility for him to have gone through the first three

stages. There are also quite a few references of one becoming non-returner directly
   232  

after hearing a discourse. For instance, the story of Pukkusāti in the Dhātu-vibhaṅga

sutta of MN, and the story of Brahmāyu which have been cited above.

Another point to note is that the four stages are never referred to as four stages to

arahatta in the Pāli Nikāyas. The term bhūmi, which means stage, never appears with

the theory of the four stages in the Nikāyas. Rather, the term phala is employed to

define each stage   in the Nikāyas. The term phala means fruit or benefit or

consequence etc. In the Sāmaññaphala sutta of DN, it is reported that King

Ajātasattu inquired from the Buddha what the visible benefits of ascetic are, the term

used for benefits of ascetic life is sāmaññaphala, and the Buddha has enumerated a

list of benefits of ascetic life from mundane to supra-mundane. The discourse has not

mentioned stages to attainment of arahatta. In some passages, the term phala is also

used synonymously with ānisaṃsā, which means benefits or profits or consequence

(DN III 132). Sometimes phala is also combined with vipāka to denote consequence

of karma (DN I 27, 58; III 160). It is never employed in the Nikāyas with the sense of

stage. The four fruits are interpreted as stages only in the Abhidhamma and Pāli

exegetical literature. In the Nikāyas the theory of four fruits was intended to convey

the message to all practitioners and converts into Buddhism that they would enjoy

some benefits in accordance with the commitment and urgency they put into their

practice, not the implication of four sequential stages to attainment of an arahatta.

This hypothesis is further confirmed by references in the Nikāyas that mention

the benefits for anyone who practices the Buddhist teachings; either the fruit of

liberation here and now (diṭṭhe va dhamme nibbāna), i.e. fruit of arahatta, or fruit of

non-returner (anāgāmiphalaṃ). In the discourse on four foundations of mindfulness

   233  

(the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta) appearing in DN as Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta8 and in MN as

Satipaṭṭhāna sutta, there is a section known as Satipaṭṭhāna Saṃyutta in the

Saṃyuttanikāya (SN V 141-192). Furthermore, the content of the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta

has been repeated either in the same format or with little variations in several other

discourses in the Nikāyas. The version in DN and MN contains a prediction that

whosoever practices the four-fold foundation of mindfulness at least for seven days

are bound to gain either the stage of arahatta in this life or the stage of non-return

(MN I 63).9 The omission of the first two stages in the passage quoted cannot be

overlooked. This omission did not occur once, and in many passages it is repeated

referring to different aspects of Buddhist practice; thirty-seven factors of

enlightenment, meditation in breathing in and out etc. (AN III 83, 143; SN V 129,

181, 285). In another passage in AN, it is stated if someone abides in contemplating

on impermanent nature of all conditioned phenomena, perceiving impermanence,

experiencing impermanence, constantly without interruption focuses on it, he will

either attain Nibbāna in this very life, or if he fails, he will attain it at the time of

death, if he fails, he will attain one of the five types of non-returner (AN IV 70). In

SN, it is stated that one who cultivates the five spiritual faculties would gain

enlightenment in this very existence, or at the time of death, if not, at least he will

                                                                                                               
8
Maurice Walshe considers this discourse “as the most important sutta in the entire Pāli canon” (The
Long Discourses of the Buddha, 588). And Bhikkhu Nyanatiloka has asserted that this discourse is
the most important part of the whole Nikāya and the quintessence of the whole meditation practice
(The Path to Deliverance, 123). Today, in the Theravāda tradition, this is like a manual guide for
meditators. Anālayo in a comprehensive study of the discourse states that the path in the
Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta in DN and Satipaṭṭhāna sutta in MN belongs to late period of Buddhist
history (Anālayo 2003: 16). Bhikkhu Sujato has a very good study on the historical development of
the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta. He has convincingly argued that the section of the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta
contents in the Samyuttanikāya is more archaic than schemes in two discourses (Bhikkhu Sujato
2012a: 118).
9
yo hi koci bhikkhave. ime cattāro satipaṭṭhāne evaṃ bhāveyya, sattavassānitassa dvinnaṃphalānaṃ
aññataraṃphalaṃpāṭikaṅkhaṃ diṭṭhevadhamme aññā, sati vāupādisese anāgāmitā.  
   234  

gain one of the five types of non-returner (SN V 237).A close examination of these

passages leads to following conclusions:

i. In the early period of the Buddhism, only the stage of non-return and stage of

arahatta might have been considered as spiritual attainment. The stage of stream-

entry and once return were not yet considered as high spiritual attainment.

ii. These two were not necessarily sequential attainment, rather exclusive

attainment. Some would directly become arahats in this life, other would become

non-returners with some remnant of upādi, and they would attain final liberation

after death in the pure-abode.

The first point accords with my argument in chapter 2 and chapter 4 that stream-

enterers originally referred to people who have accepted Buddhism wholeheartedly

and developed receptivity towards Buddhist doctrine. The second point is further

supported by a passage in AN that mentions among the tenfold disciples of the

Buddha, who established faith in the Buddha, the five categories would gain

liberation here (human realm)—includes three types of stream-enterer, the once-

returners and those who become arahats in this life (diṭṭh’ eva dhamme arahā) and

the other five categories would gain liberation hereafter (in other realms)— the five

types of non-returners (AN V 119-20). 10 The passage is sufficiently cogent to

envisage that the non-returners do not attain the arahatta in the human conditions.

Though the four stages are listed in sequential hierarchical order, it does not

imply that these have to be attained in sequential order. This is clear when one

                                                                                                               
10
ye keci bhikkhave mayi niṭṭhaṅgatā, sabbe te diṭṭhisampannā. tesaṃ diṭṭhisampannānaṃ
pañcannaṃ idha niṭṭhā pañcannaṃ idha vihāya niṭṭha.pañcannaṃ idha niṭṭhā—
sattakkhattuparamassa, kolaṃkolassa, ekabījissa sakadāgāmissa, yo ca diṭṭh’eva dhamme arahā.
Idha vihāya niṭṭhā—antarāparinibbāyī, upahaccaparinibbāyī, asaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa,
sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa, uddhaṃsotassa akaniṭṭhā-gamino
   235  

observes the listing of the Eight Noble Persons. In the stereotypical list, the four

stages precede the four respective paths. For instance the list appears as:

The stream-enterer, one who is practicing for realization of the stage of stream-
entry, the once-returner, and one who is practicing for the stage of once-return,
the non-returner and one who is practicing for the stage of non-return, the
arahat, and one who is practicing for the stage of arahatta. (AN IV 292; DN III
255).

If the four stages are considered as successive sequential attainment merely because

they are listed in sequential order, then one has to admit that one first becomes

stream-enterer, then practices for the attainment of the stage of stream-entry, etc.,

obviously such implication is not acceptable. Moreover, in AN, there is a list of

tenfold persons described as worthy of veneration, worthy of respect and worthy of

gift listed in hierarchical order:

Oh! Monks, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy
of offerings, worthy of veneration, supreme field of merit for the world. What
ten? The Tathāgata, the Arahat, the fully Enlightened one, the solitary Buddha,
the one who has been liberated in both ways, the one who liberated through
wisdom, the body witness; the one attained view (right view), the one who
liberated through faith, the intellect pursuant practitioner, the faith pursuant
practitioner , and the one who has transcended the clan. (AN V 23)

If this hierarchical order is taken as sequential attainment, one has to admit that all

should aim to become fully enlightened Buddha, but such an implication is

untenable. Hence, mere listing of the four stages in sequential order does not imply

that they are necessarily sequential stages to attainment of arahatta, rather they

represent a hierarchical order of spiritual attainment.

Thus as far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, the textual evidence shows that

the four stages were crystallized as a map of spiritual progress within the Nikāyas,

not rigid stages that everyone goes through in order to attain arahatta. Rather, it is

more plausible to assert that it is just a theoretical map, some may go through all

four, while some others can bypass either the first stage, or the second stage or all
   236  

first three stages and become arahats directly, depending on the individual’s spiritual

background. As Nathan Katz observes if the four stages are taken as sequential

attainment, there would be a theoretical discrepancy in the theory (Nathan 1986: 92).

If four stages are necessarily sequential development, then theoretically, there cannot

be attainment of arahatta in human conditions. The implication in the Nikāyas is

explicitly clear that non-returners are those who fail to attain arahatta in this very

life, but will attain it in his future lives in some heavenly realms.

The question is why the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators interpreted

the four stages as sequential attainment. A possible reason may be because the

Ābhidhammikas tried to systematize the path to liberation. If the four stages are not

taken as sequential, it is difficult to arrange in a systematic order. Furthermore, the

passages in the Nikāyas describing the four stages in relation to abandoning of the

list of ten fetters might have provided rationale for the Ābhidhammikas and Pāli

commentators to interpret the four stages as sequential attainment. But how did the

Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators have deal the discrepancy of the stage of

non-return and the stage of arahatta in this lifetime? Neither the Pāli Abhidhamma

nor the Pāli commentarial literature contain any discussion on this discrepancy. The

silence shows that the Pāli Ābhidhammikas and the Pāli commentators might have

understood these stages differently. One possible reason would be because in the

Abhidhamma the definition of the term “non-returner” has been changed from its

definition in the Nikāyas. According to Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries the

non-returner is one who abandons the five fetters. According to this interpretation,

one can attain the stage of non-return by abandoning the five lower fetters, and

continue to practice to attain the stage of arahatta. These stages were understood to
   237  

be meditative attainment and one could attain the four stages in the same sitting.

Hence, they may not have seen any discrepancy.

5.2 The Theory of Four Stages and Heterogeneous Path Schemes to

Liberation in Nikāyas

The Pāli Nikāyas show that in early Buddhism recognized very distinctively

different, path as yet valid paths to liberation. Bradley S. Clough in his book Early

Indian and Theravāda Buddhism: Soteriological Controversy and Diversity11 very

convincingly argues that Early Buddhism prescribed diverse paths to arahatta, which

could be construed as supplementary, contradictory or overlapping. Each of these

schemes was recognized as a valid path to liberation. The scheme of four paths and

four stages in relation to abandoning the list of ten fetters is just one of them. He

charges Buddhaghosa for superseding the diverse paths with a singular meditative

path that integrates several path schemes. However, a careful observation reveals that

formation of monolithic path to liberation predates Buddhaghosa. In the

Abhidhamma period, there was a tendency to organize and systematize Buddhist

teachings. In the process of systematizing the path to liberation, the heterogeneous

paths to liberation came to be superseded by a monolithic path to liberation. The

monolithic path is constructed by connecting together several independent path

schemes found in the Nikāyas, and the four stages together with four respective paths

constructed the peak of this monolithic path to arahatta. In generalizing the theory of

four stages, Ābhidhammikas might have encountered some problems, such as the

absence of the theory of four stages in the scheme of the path followed by the

                                                                                                               
11
This book basically deals with controversy on Samatha and Vipassanā meditations. He argues that
both were independently valid paths to liberation. But later tradition, i.e. Buddhaghosa constructed
singular path by combing Samatha and Vipassanā together.
   238  

Buddha as recorded in the Nikāyas. The Buddhist soteriological path schemes are

based on the fundamental assumption that the Buddha and his disciples attained

enlightenment through treading alone these path schemes. If one cannot establish this

assumption with Buddhist textual sources, then the authenticity of the scheme and

its capability of bringing forth liberation would be subject to doubt. Therefore, later

Buddhists always sought to find reference in early Buddhist sources for any new

development in the history of Buddhist thoughts. Similar attempt is also seen in

universalizing the theory of four stages to liberation.

Some Buddhist schools held the view the Bodhisatta also goes through the four

stages. The commentary to the Kathāvatthu ascribes this view to Andhaka and

Uttarapanthaka (Kv-A 178). The Theravāda tradition refutes this view and argues

that the theory of four stages is not applicable to the Buddhas. Their argument is that

the Buddhas follow a different path to liberation. They assert that there are three

distinct paths to liberation for the three categories of people: the path of the perfectly

Enlightened One (sammāsambuddha-magga), the path of the Solitary Buddha

(paccekabuddha-magga), and the path of the disciples (sāvaka-magga). They

interpreted the theory of the four stages as applicable only to the path of the

disciples, not the other two. The commentary to the Kathāvatthu states that the four

stages to liberation are not applicable to the Bodhisatta who strives for supreme

enlightenment. The Theravāda tradition questions if the Buddha is a stream-enterer,

then there is no distinction between the state of Buddhahood and the state of stream-

enterer (Kv-A 174).12 Another commentarial passage further adds that the path of the

Bodhisatta is the fulfillment of perfections (pāramitā). He does not go through the

four stages. If one cultivates [other paths], the Bodhisatta would become a stream-
                                                                                                               
12
bhagavā sotāpanno ti buddhabhūtassa sotāpannabhāvo natthi paṭikkhipati.
   239  

enterer (bodhisattānañca ṭhapetvā pāramīpūraṇaṃ aññā niyāmokkanti nāma natthi.

Yadi bhaveyya, bodhisatto sotāpanno sāvako bhaveyya).

However, Pāli commentarial literature is not unanimous on this point. Some Pāli

commentarial passages mention that the Buddha also undergoes the four stages. For

instance, in the commentary to the Aṅguttaranikāya the Buddha went through the

four stages prior to his enlightenment:

On the day of Vesak full moon, in the evening, having approached the root of
the great Bodhi tree, having discarded the forces of the evil ones, having
recollected past lives in the first watch of the night, in the second watch of the
night purified the divine vision (higher vision), and in the last watch of the
night having penetrated into the theory of twelvefold dependent arising,
realizes the path of stream-entry. This is known as arising. Thus, in the
moment of the stage of stream-entry, in the moment of the path of once-return,
in the moment of stage of once-return, in the moment of path of non-return, in
the moment of stage of the non-return is known as arising, in the moment of
path of arahat, it is called ‘arising, and at the moment of stage of arahatta, one
is known as arisen (awaken). Unlike disciples, knowledge of psychic powers
does not arise to Buddhas, but with the path of arahatta, the knowledge of
omniscience and all virtues appeared to him. (AN-A I 99).13

And the same commentary further repeats the same concept:

Having eaten the sweet porridge offered by Sujātā and having caused the
golden bowl to be carried away by the river, in the evening having gone to the
vicinity of the bodhi tree, looking around the element of world and being seated
dispelled the evil forces while the sun was up (before sun set). In the first watch
of the night, recollected the past lives of him, in the second watch of the night
purified the higher vision, in the last watch of the night, having penetrated into
the causes and conditions, penetrated the path to stream-entry, subsequently he
realized the stage of stream-entry, the path of once-return, the stage of the
once-return, path of the non-return, stage of the non-return, the path of
arahatta, until then it is known as arising of wheel of dhamma. In the moment
of arahatta it is called the wheel of dhamma has arisen. And for the Buddhas,

                                                                                                               
13
sāyaṇhasamaye visākhapuṇṇamāya mahābodhimaṇḍaṃ āruyha mārabalaṃ vidhametvā
paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anusaritvā majjhimayāme dibbacakkhuṃ parisodhetvā
pacchimayāmasamantare dvādasaṅgaṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ anulomo-paṭilomato sammasitvā
sotāpattimaggaṃ paṭivijjhanto pi uppajjamāno vā nāma. sotāpattiphalakkhaṇe pi
sakadāgāmimaggakkhaṇe pi sakadāgāmiphalakkhaṇe pi anāgāmimaggakkhaṇe pi
anāgāmiphalakkhaṇe pi uppajjamāno va nāma. arahattamaggakhaṇe pana uppajjati nāma.
arahattaphalakkhaṇe uppanno nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sāvakānaṃ viya na paṭipāṭiya
iddhavidhañāṇādīni uppajjanti sah’eva pana arahattamaggena sakalo pi
sabbaññutañāṇaguṇarāsi āgato nāma hoti.
   240  

with the attainment of arahatta all the virtues arise simultaneously. (AN-A I
122)14

The commentary to the Paṭisambhidāmagga further mentions that the bodhisattas in

their final birth go through the four stages:

The abandoning of the three fetters means the abandonment of the self-view,
doubt and attachment to vows and rituals. Here, the Bodhisattas who are on the
final existence (pacchimabhavikā bodhisattā) are also included in the
classification (follow this method). Those who are not in the final existence,
having attained insight into equanimity of formation, stop there. (Pm-A I
271).15

The same step is mentioned in the commentary to the Itivuttaka:

Having arrived at the vicinity of the Bodhi tree, dispelling the evil forces (of
mind) in the first watch of the night recollected former lives, in the second
watch of the night purified the higher vision, the last watch of the night, having
access to knowledge of dependent co-arising, and having realized all
conditioned phenomena from diverse prospective, penetrated the path of
stream-entry,… until realization of stage of non-return, it is known as ‘being
arising’ in the moment of the path to arahatta, it is known as ‘arising’ and at
the moment of the arahatta, it is known as ‘ has arisen’. Unlike disciples there
is no appearance of knowledge of psychic power of the practice to the
Buddhas. All the heap of virtues of the Buddha appears simultaneously
together with the path of arahatta. (Iti-A II 82).16

How to reconcile this contradistinction in the Pāli commentaries is difficult to

answer. This shows that the Pāli commentators were concerned about the

                                                                                                               
14
sujātāya dinnaṃ madhupāyāsaṃ bhuñjitvā suvaṇṇapātiṃ nadiyā pavahetvā sāyaṇhasamaye
bodhimaṇdavaragato puratthimaṃ lokadhātuṃ olokento pi nisīditvā suriye dharamāne
yeva mārabalaṃ vidhametvā paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anussaranto pi majjhimayāme
dibbacakkhuṃ visodhento pi paccūsakalasamantare paccayākārānaṃ sammasitvā
sotāpattimaggaṃ pativijjhanto pi sotāpattiphalaṃ sacchikaranto pi sakadāgāmi maggaṃ
sakadāgāmi phalaṃ anāgāmimaggaṃ anāgāmiphalaṃ sacchikaronto pi arahattamaggaṃ
paṭivijjhanto pi dhammacakkaṃ uppādeti yeva nāma. arahattaphalakkhaṇe pana tena
dhammacakkaṃ uppāditaṃ nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sakalaguṇarāsi arahattaphal’ eva saddhiṃ
ijjhati.
15
tiṇṇaṃ saññojanānaṃ pahānāyāti sakkāyadiṭṭhivicikicchāsīlabbataparāmāsānaṃ pahānatthaṃ.
pacchimabhavikāpi bodhisattā ettheva saṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Apacchimabhavikā pana vipassanaṃ
saṅkhārupekkhaṃ pāpetvā ṭhapenti.
16
bodhimaṇḍaṃ āruyha mārabalaṃ vidhamanto paṭhamayāme pubbenivāsaṃ anussaranto
majjhimayāme dibbacakkhuṃ visodhento, pacchimayāme paṭiccasamuppāde ñāṇaṃ otāretvā
anekākāraṃ sabbasaṅkhāre sammasitvā sotāpattimaggaṃ pativijjhanto yāva anāgāmiphalaṃ
sacchikaronto pi uppajjamāno eva nāma. arahattamaggakkhaṇe uppajjati nāma.
arahattaphalakkhaṇe pana uppano nāma. Buddhānaṃ hi sāvakānaṃ viya paṭipātiyā iddhividdha
ñāṇadīnaṃ uppādanakiccaṃ n’atthi. Sah’eva pana arahattamaggena sakalo pi buddhguṇarāsī
āgato nāma hoti.
   241  

authenticity of the theory of four stages. There might have been certain dilemma in

the formation of the monolithic path to liberation. However, Pāli commentators

agree on the view that all disciples should go through the four stages. But when it

comes to the question whether the Buddha went through this experience, Pāli

commentators have given divergent interpretations.

Thus, the four stages ultimately superseded the rest of the path schemes of

liberation in the later part of the Abhidhamma and commentarial period, and the

standardization and uniformization of spiritual cartography is to influence the

worldview of later Theravāda Buddhist in centuries to come, even up till today. A

related observation about this uniformed description of spiritual attainments is the

domination and subsequent monopolization of such schemes solely for monastic

members as depicted in the Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentarial literature, which

serves as the topic of the subsequent subsection.

5.3 The Four Samaṇas and the Four Stages: The Four Stages
Domain of Monastics

In a number of discourses the stream-enterer, the once-returner, the non-returner and

the arahat are all defined as samaṇas (ascetic). In the Mahāparinibbāna sutta, the

Buddha on his death bed addressing Subhadda, stated that first ascetic

(paṭhamasamaṇo), the second ascetic (dutiyasamaṇo), the third ascetic

(tatiyasamaṇo) and the fourth ascetic (catuttasamaṇo) are found only in Buddhism

and the other religious systems are empty of these ascetics. The reason provided was

because the eightfold noble path is absent in other religious systems. This discourse

does not give further details of these four types of ascetics. The Cūllasīhanāda sutta

of MN also repeated the same, that four types of ascetics are found only in Buddhism

and other religious systems are empty of these ascetics. What is meant by four types
   242  

of ascetics referred to in these discourses referred to is not explicit. It is only in the

Aṅguttanikāya that these four types of ascetics are defined as stream-enterer, the

once-returner, the non-returner, and the arahat respectively. I have argued in chapter

two and chapter four that the stage of stream-entry and the stage of non-return were

originally developed for lay people who were mentally not prepared to or certain

circumstances prevented them from renouncing family life, social ties and

responsibilities. To resolve this contradiction samaṇas are ascetics and not lay

people, I have investigated the concept of samaṇa as understood by Buddhists

historically and how the stages which were originally meant for lay followers

evolved to become prerogatives for samaṇa as well. This section aims to trace how

such transition took place in the history of Buddhism from the Pāli Nikāyas to the

Pāli commentaries.

The Indian religious community at the time of the Buddha consisted of

Brāhmaṇas and Samaṇas. Despite differences in their ideology and ways of life, both

camps of people were recognized as religious practitioners. In a large number of

discourses, the term samaṇa-brāhmaṇa refers to religious practitioners who deserve

respect and honour (DN I 5; II 150; AN I 110, 173; Iti 64; Sn 189; Vin II 295).

Brahmanism is usually united under certain common views and values, despite the

fact that divergent views and interpretation existed among different Brahmins. On

the other hand, Śramaṇism came under several religious teachers, holding very

different and sometimes contradictory religious, philosophical and metaphysical

views. Despite their heterogeneous philosophical orientations, some common beliefs

and practices united them under the banner of Śramaṇism. Among the major

differences in these two religions, one was household life and anchorite.

Brahmanism in general recommends family life, performing social duties and

   243  

considered married life as a necessary part of a social orders (Gautama III 3, 36,

cited in Barua 1998: 247). The Vedic literature held the view that men’s offspring is

the immortality of men (prajātih amṛtaṃ), and those seeking immortality outside

marriage would become dust and perishes at the death (rājo bhūtvā dhvaṃsate)

(Barua 1998: 247). But Śramaṇism recommended life of renunciation of family and

social ties, and exclusive devotion to spiritual practices. They were also known as

bhikṣu because they sustained their lives by begging for their food and other

requisites from society. The Buddha was a member of the samaṇas, he was well

known among the people as recluse Gotama (samaṇa Gotama) (DN I 4, 87; Sn 91,

99; Vin I 8 etc.) In the Brahmajāla sutta of DN, the Buddha said ordinary people

would appreciate and praise him with regard to trivial matters on morality. The term

used is samaṇa-gotamo. There are numerous passages where the Buddha is

addressed as samaṇa gotama by non-Buddhists. Furthermore, the Buddha’s disciples

were known as recluses of the Sakyan son (Samaṇa-sakyaputtiya). In the Vinaya, it

is mentioned that one who transgresses any of the four Pārājikā rules become a non-

recluse (asamaṇa) (Vin I 96), but pretends to be a recluse (samaṇavesadhārako)

(Vin III 68). Furthermore, in the Sāmaññaphala sutta, king inquired from the

Buddha visible result of being a recluse (sāmaññaphala). It is explicitly clear that

the king referred to people who renounced family lives and social ties and became a

recluse. All these references seem to prove that the term samaṇa refers to a recluse

who renounces family life, social duties and functions. The rational behind the

equation of stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner and arahat with the samaṇas

has not been properly explained.

Such equation of the four samaṇas with the attainment of four stages indicates

subtle changes in Buddhist soteriology that have taken place in the history of
   269  

stream-entry. And among the four factors of stream-entry, resolute faith in the

Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha is the most essential requirement, while the fourth

factor, morality, can be supplementary. The first three are constitutive of Buddhism as

a religion. I refute the view that stream-enterer is a highly advanced spiritual saint and

argue that in the original formation of the concept, neither meditation nor direct

experience of the doctrine of soullessness was required to attain the stage of stream-

entry. I argue that abandoning the three fetters referred to intellectual conviction of a

person regarding the validity of the Buddha’s enlightenment and the Dhamma and the

Saṅgha. The eradication of the self-view associated with the attainment of stream-

entry does not refer to an actual experience of reality, but rather it is an intellectual

understanding of the doctrine of soullessness. The eradication of the second fetter

means the abandoning of the state of uncertainty, indecision and reluctance towards

Buddhism, and finally out of logical reasons and conviction the making up of one’s

mind firmly about the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha and committing oneself

wholeheartedly. The eradication of the third fetter referred to one’s trust in the

Buddhist path. Thus, a stream-enterer in the original formation referred to an

individual who possessed emotional and intellectual conviction in Buddhism.

With regard to the ethical standard for stream-enterer, in contrast to the traditional

understanding of the ethical impeccability of stream-enterer, I argue that in the

original formation of the concept, ethical perfection was not required, but aligning

one’s life with morality was encouraged. Though a stream-enterer was not subject to

serious moral  deterioration such as committing crimes like killing one’s father, killing

one’s mother, killing an Arahat, causing schism in the Saṅgha and wounding the
   270  

Buddha with ill intention, he is fallible of minor moral breaches. However, stream-

enterer maintains honesty and sincerity. Thus any Buddhist laity, not to mention

monastics, can meet the ethical standard of a stream-enterer described in the early

formation of the concept easily.

I have come to this conclusion through the analysis of the stage of stream-entry

and the case history of stream-enterers recorded in the Pāli Nikāyas that appear

outside the standardized elaboration of the theory of the four stages to liberation

scattered in the Pāli Nikāyas, particularly in the Sotāpattisaṃyutta of the

Saṃyuttanikāya. My argument is that these non-standardized descriptions predate the

standardized description of the stage of stream-entry, which became a stereotypical

description in the Pāli Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature. This conclusion

is on the ground of textual criticism.

Then the chapter examines the development of the elaborate and meticulous

descriptions of the concept of stream-entry from its original formulation in the early

discourses in the Pāli Nikāyas to the Pāli Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries. I

argue that the stage of once return was originally a sub-stage of stream-entry and later

it came to be recognized as a specific stage. My argument is established based on the

examination of several classifications of stream-enterer and the relationship between

the stage of stream-entry and the stage of once return in the Pāli Nikāyas. Firstly,

there are a lot of overlappings in the interpretations of the sub-stages of stream-entry

and the stage of once-return, particularly between the stages of ekabīja and the stage

of once-return. So far as the Pāli Nikāyas are concerned, an explicit distinction

between the ekabīja and once-returner has never been drawn out. It is only in the Pāli
   271  

commentarial literature a distinction between the two stages is provided which shows

that the distinction between the stage in the Pāli commentarial interpretation is not

coherent. Secondly, in terms of ethical standard, the gap in spiritual insight between

the stream-enterer and the once-returner is extremely narrow. Though some

distinction is shown in the standard version in terms of attenuating greed, hatred and

delusion, the precise distinction between greed, hatred and delusion of the stream-

enterer and once-returner is not drawn out, only the distinction between a worldling

and a once-returner in terms of the abandoning of greed, hatred and delusion is

shown.

The chapter ends with the investigation of the question of retrogression from the

stage of stream-entry. I point out that the question of retrogression from the stage of

stream-entry is never raised in the Nikāyas. It is only in the Abhidhamma period that

the question of retrogression arose. While the question of the retrogression of the

stage of arahatta has been subjected to huge debates and counter debates, the

question of retrogression of the stage of stream-entry was subjected to comparatively

less debate. Most of the Indian Buddhist schools have agreed that one does not

retrogress from the stage of stream-entry. It is only the Mahāsaṅghika-s who proposed

a different stance on the question. This school proposed that one is subject to

retrogression from the stage of stream-entry, but not from the stage of arahatta. The

Pāli Ābhidhammikas and the Pāli commentators accepts the view that there is no

retrogression from the stage of stream-entry. But when one makes a critical

examination of the concept of stream-enterer in relation to the concepts of

samayavimutta, asamayavimutta, kuppadhamma, akuppadhamma, parihānadhamma

   272  

and aparihāna-dhamma in Pāli literature, it reveals that there is a possibility of

inferring that one may retrogress from the stage of stream-entry.

In chapter 3, I examine the origin and the development of the stage of non-return.

It lays out the theory of two stages of Nibbāna and the stage of non-return. This

chapter demonstrates the earliest distinction between the stages of non-return and the

arahatta was based on the exhaustion and remnant of upādi. This chapter

demonstrates that the theory of two stages of Nibbāna is constructed on the basis of

exhaustion and remnant of upādi. sopādisesanibbāna is defined as the attainment of

Nibbāna with remnant of upādi and anupādisesanibbāna is defined as attainment of

Nibbāna with complete exhaustion of upādi. I argue that if one looks at the earliest

distinction of stage of arahatta and stage of non-return through the Pāli commentarial

interpretation of upādi, it is rational to conclude the attainment of the stage of non-

return is equal to the attainment of sopādisesanibbāna. It is argued here that the

commentarial interpretation of upādi has no strong evidence in the Pāli Nikāyas,

rather it is more rational to consider upādi as some subtle passive defilements or

karmic remnant that may not really affect liberation, but it would take further time to

exhaust. Therefore, in the earliest stage, the distinction between the stage of non-

return and arahatta was very narrow. Then the chapter investigates the role of jhānas

in the attainment of stage of non-return. It argues that the attainment of jhānas is a

necessary pre-condition for the attainment of the stage of non-return. My argument is

established based on the two interpretations given in the Pāli Nikāyas; firstly, the

rebirth in the Suddhāvāsa requires jhānic attainment. The Pāli Nikāyas sufficiently

clarify that one may take rebirth in the suddhāvāsa with jhānas attainment even
   273  

without abandoning the defilements (five higher fetters), but without jhānas

attainment, and only with abandoning the defilements, one cannot be reborn in the

Suddhāvāsa. Secondly, by the time one attains the stage of non-return, one could have

already abandoned the five lower fetters, which includes the abandoning of the

defilements that hinder jhānas attainment. Therefore, logically, a non-returner has no

difficulty in attaining jhānas.

Then the chapter examines the discrepancy in the commentarial interpretation of

the four stages and the concept of arahat without jhānas attainment (sukkhavipassako

arahat). On the one hand, the Pāli commentators agree that the four stages are

sequential, which implies necessary attainment of jhānas, on the other hand, they

accept the way of arahatta without jhānas attainment (sukkhavippassako). Then the

question is, how to become a non-returner without jhānas attainment? The Pāli

commentators seem to have understood that one becomes a non-returner through

abandoning of the five lower fetters, which can be abandoned only through vipassanā

meditation without samatha meditation. Then the question arises as to what happens

to a non-returner after death, if he fails to attain arahatta before his death. Some

commentators also admitted this contradiction, and proposed the solution that non-

returner in the scheme of sukkhavipassaka who attains jhānas, not through samatha

but through vipassanā. But how jhānas are developed through insight is not clear and

the arguments given by commentators are not very convincing. This study proposes

that samatha meditation is an integral part in the theory of four stages to liberation.

Furthermore, in this chapter I examine the classification of non-returner and the

doctrinal controversy related to it. I demonstrate certain ambiguities in the

   274  

interpretations of the classification of non-returners. Firstly, there is no sufficient

clarity as to the exact implication of the two types of non-returners—

sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī. The Pāli Abhidhamma and the

Pāli commentaries explain that as one attains Nibbāna through effort and one attains

Nibbāna without effort. What is meant by with effort and without effort is not clear in

the Nikāyas. The Nikāyas in different contexts explain the two terms, as one who

attains Nibbāna through the attainment of jhānas and who one attain Nibbāna without

attainment of jhānas. The Pāli commentaries also explain these two categories in a

similar manner. Then the question is how could one be reborn in the Suddhāvāsa

without having attained jhānas? This question is not clarified in the Pāli

commentaries. So I argue that it is more likely that the two categories of non-returners

referred to those who attain Nibbāna with karmic remnant and those who attain

Nibbāna without karmic remnant. Secondly, the precise definition of

antarāparinibbāyī is not clarified in the Nikāyas. The lack of clarity has created huge

debates in the later Buddhist schools of thought as to the exact implication of the term

antarāparinibbāyī. A number of Buddhist schools have interpreted the

antarāparinibbāyī as one in the intermediate existence. The Theravāda tradition has

interpreted antarāparinibbāyī as one who attains Nibbāna either immediately after

birth or before passing half of his lifespan in the Suddhāvāsa and thereby has rejected

the theory of intermediate existence. I cast down the Theravāda traditional

interpretation and argue that it is more logical to interpret antarāparinibbāyī in some

forms of intermediate existence. My argument is based on careful examination of the

concept and other concepts associated with intermediate existence such as

   275  

gandhabba, sambhāvesī which appear in the Nikāyas, Pāli Abhidhamma, Pāli

commentarial literature as well as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam.

In chapter 4 I demonstrate that the essence of Buddhist teaching is suffering and

its cessation, i.e., the attainment of Nibbāna. The device to attain this state is

meditation. To be successful in the practice, full-time devotion and commitment is

required. In order to facilitate this commitment early Buddhism prescribes the ascetic

lifestyle, i.e., monastics community. That is to dissociate oneself from mundane

affairs in the family and society. Early Buddhism viewed social affairs not only as an

obstruction to meditation but also a source of developing craving that prolongs one’s

saṃsāric journey. So the essence of early Buddhism soteriology is to withdraw from

mundane affairs in the world. According to early Buddhism, this liberation is to be

attained in this very life, not in some distant time and space. So heart of the early

Buddhist soteriology was monasticism, which correlates with ascetic way of life.

Buddhism was a renunciatory religion in its orientation and contents. Therefore, it

had very little relevance to the majority of common people who lived with mundane

affairs, and who were not willing to choose a monastic or ascetic life style. Rather

they sought mundane success and good rebirths after death. Indeed, there was a wide

gap between the early Buddhists monastic lifestyle and the choice of the common

people. Therefore, Buddhism was a religion of a small group of spiritual elites who

were willing and able to cut off from family and social affairs and directed all their

time, efforts and energies for the sake of liberation.

So in the early period Buddhism had very limited relationship with society.

People in society provided for food and other basic requisites to the monastics, in
   276  

return monks and nuns gave them some simple discourses, mostly dealing with

morality. The people in society happily accepted such discourses, but this does not

imply exclusive allegiance to Buddhist faith. It might have been a commonly

accepted social culture to provide food and requisites to people who renounced

mundane affairs for religious pursuits. In other words, there was no Buddhist

community of laities. Soon early Buddhists realized the need for expanding

Buddhism and having a community of lay Buddhists for the long-time sustainability

of Buddhism. I argue that the stage of stream-entry was created by early Buddhist

monastics to narrow down the gap between the early Buddhist goal and the

expectation of the common masses in society. Through the creation of this stage

Buddhists hoped to harmonize two polar opposites—the ascetic ideal and the

expectations of great masses of people in the society. The ascetic ideal has never been

a choice of many   in any given human history rather it could appeal to only a small

segment of society, so Buddhists wanted to expand the Buddhist community through

the creation of the stage of stream-entry to cater for laities. In this creation Buddhists

very skillfully syncretized spirituality and mundane affairs, by shifting final liberation

into a distant time and space.

It is further argued that in the process of the creation of the stage of stream-entry

Buddhists have taken into the consideration socio-psychological aspects of people in

society. The fear of birth in lower realms and animal realm was a psychological

concern of most people. Therefore the stage of stream-entry was created to assure

people that they could enjoy material prosperity, high re-births and that they would

not be reborn into lower existences, hells and animal realms with final liberation in a
   277  

distant time and space. The stage of stream-entry provides incentives to the laities to

accept Buddhism. So there were developed two types of Buddhist followers—

monastics and laities. They had two different goals. The monastics were exhorted to

strive for liberation in this very life, while laities were urged to develop resolute faith

in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, which are constitutive of Buddhism as a

religion. In the original formulation of the concept, stream-enterer was a lay Buddhist

who accepted Buddhism without any reservation. A stream-enterer could be defined

as one who entered into the stream of Buddhist community by accepting the

authenticity of the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha. Thereby the Buddhist religious

elitism developed, and they distinguished themselves from others, i.e., non-Buddhists.

However, Buddhism has never moved from its original essence, Buddhism promised

the Buddhist lay-followers liberation from saṃsāra in a distant time and space

allowing them to fulfill their mundane expectations before getting ready to abandon

everything and strive for arahatta. But Buddhists in India seem never to have

developed an exclusive communal identity as in the case of other religions in the

world. There is no evidence in the Nikāyas or in subsequent Pāli Buddhist literature

like the Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial literature to support that Buddhism was

involved with birth, marriage etc., which are the defining characteristics of communal

religions (Gombrich 2006: 26).

My conclusion is based on critical examination of early Buddhist discourses that

deal with the stage of stream-entry and stream-enterers scattered in the Pāli Nikāyas

and through logical induction. Firstly, the descriptions of the stage of stream-entry in

the Nikāyas in terms of faith, ethical standard and intellectual understanding, stream-
   278  

enterer are closely correlated with the concept of Buddhist lay community (upāsaka

and upāsikā). Secondly, the assurances given to a stream-enterer such as not taking

rebirth in a lower existence (realm of hell, realm of ghosts, realms of animals), but

either in the realm of human or deities and when born among human beings, would be

reborn in high and wealthy family and would enjoy great material comforts, is

incompatible with the early Buddhist goal of liberation from saṃsāra as soon as

possible. The dissidents of my argument have to prove why these mundane benefits

are included in the stage of stream-entry.

Then I show in a sequential order that after the stage of stream-entry, the stage of

non-return was created. It is argued originally that the stage of non-return was created

to account for spiritual progress of laities. I argue that within the lay community there

might have been people who were serious in practice, but either they did not want to

become monastic members or circumstances did not allow them to renounce home.

Buddhists had to recognize their progress in spiritual path. The early Buddhists were

perhaps hesitant to say that laities could attain arahatta while living at home with

mundane affairs. If they declared that people could attain arahatta while staying at

home with mundane affairs, then it would breach the hierarchy between monastics

and laities, and this would not provide any incentive for one to take up monastic life.

Therefore, laities were assigned the stage of non-return as a penultimate stage of

arahatta.

I arrive at this conclusion through the examination of case histories of non-

returners recorded in the Nikāyas and the descriptions of the stage of non-return given

in the Nikāyas. Firstly, most of the case histories of non-returners recorded in the first
   279  

four Nikāyas are laities. Secondly I have cited statements in the Nikāyas that provide

sufficiently clear implication that in the early stage of Buddhism, the stage of non-

return was the highest spiritual ideal a laity could aspire for while male and female

monastics would aspire for arahatta in this very life.

With regard to the stage of once-return, I argue that this was the last to be added

in the theory. Originally this stage was a sub-stage of stream-entry, not a distinct

stage. This argument is already established in chapter 2. In this chapter, I look further

into the question why this stage was later singled out as a separate stage. My

investigation of the question ends without any concrete conclusion because of the

lack of textual materials. I have made a general survey of soteriological stages in

other contemporary Indian religious traditions to trace whether Buddhists were

influenced by soteriological stages of other religions to formulate the theory of the

four stages to liberation. But it is very difficult to come to any concrete conclusion on

the issue with the available textual sources. I argue that though the views of

Benimadhab Barua (1988) and Peter Masefield (1986) that the theory of four stages to

liberation was influenced by the four āśrama-dharmas of Brahmanism, were some

way creditable, one has to be very cautious in asserting such concrete conclusion as

there is no sufficient evidence to correlate the two schemes.

Then I argue that with the increase of lay followers and supports from the laities,

there was a dynamic transformation among the monastic Saṅgha. The emphasis

shifted to preserving, learning, memorizing and propagating the dhamma from the

emphasis in practice. Due to the laxity on the practice among the monastics, the

attainment of arahatta started to decline gradually. When attainment of arahatta in

   280  

this life became difficult, there developed the necessity to provide an alternative

theoretical framework to account for their practice. Finally, the monastics were also

brought under the theory of the four stages to liberation. To arrive at this conclusion, I

have cited sufficient passages from the Nikāyas and the Pāli commentaries, which

shows that with the instutionalizing of Buddhism as a religion and increase of lay

community, the attainment of arahatta started to decline. I have also referred to a

number of secondary sources by modern scholars on Buddhist Studies that show the

gradual decline of spiritual enthusiasm among the monastics. These secondary

sources have looked at the question from different dimensions, be it historical,

archeological and textual. I employed their findings to support my arguments with

due acknowledgement.

Then I proceed to examine an important question, when exactly the theory of four

stages to liberation emerged in the history of Buddhism? My investigation reveals

that it is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to trace the exact period of the

emergence of this theory. The difficulty lies in the nature of the Buddhist texts. A

precise periodization of the discourses in the Nikāyas is very difficult as these texts

went through the process of many later editorial processes. Though most of the

contents of these discourses can be traced to the Buddha and his immediate disciples,

one cannot deny the fact that there certainly were later changes. Apart from textual

sources, there are no available archeological or other evidence that could shed

anylight into the question. My preliminary conclusion is that the theory of four stages

to liberation emerged as a theory to liberation applicable to laities and monastics,

within a few centuries after the Buddha’s passing. My conclusion is based on the
   281  

examination of some selected Buddhist discourses that are generally considered to be

the early stratum of Buddhist literature. In these discourses, the theory of the four

stages to liberation is absent. Some of these discourses, such as the Sāmaññaphala

sutta, can be dated towards the last period of Buddha’s life. In these discourses, the

theory of the four stages to liberation is absent. And in the Kathāvatthu, an

Abhidhamma text believed to be composed three centuries after the passing of the

Buddha, contains a full-fledged theory of the four stages. So this shows, by this time,

the theory has already emerged.

In chapter 5, I demonstrate a dynamic transformation of the theory of the four

stages to liberation in the Pāli Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries. The first

question dealt with in this chapter is whether the four stages are sequential attainment

or one could bypass some stages and attain arahatta directly. I argue so far as the Pāli

Nikāyas are concerned; it is untenable to think that the four stages are necessarily

sequential attainment, rather all textual evidence slant towards the conclusion that the

four stages function as theoretical spiritual cartography. One may go through all the

four stages or one may bypass some of the stages and become arahat directly. There

are no passages in the first four Nikāyas that clearly show one has to go through all

the four stages, nor are there any case histories of anybody going through all the four

stages. The concept of sequential attainment of the four stages was developed in the

Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentarial literature. I argue that the Pāli commentarial

interpretation of sequential attainment of the four stages deviated from the Pāli

Nikāyas. I have established my argument based on the following factors:

   282  

i. The Pāli commentators have not supported their thesis with any reference from

the Pāli Nikāyas.

ii. I show that there is sufficiently clear evidence that shows non-returners attain

Nibbāna after passing from this world.

iii. I demonstrate that there is discrepancy between the Pāli Nikāyas and the Pāli

commentaries regarding the interpretation of sequential attainment of the four

stages. The Pāli commentators have addressed this discrepancy.

Then I discuss the formation of the four stages as monolithic path to liberation in

Theravāda Buddhism. I argue that the Pāli Nikāyas contain heterogeneous paths to

liberation. According to different needs of different followers, early Buddhism had

divergent soteriological paths but in the Abhidhamma and the Pāli commentaries,

heterogeneous soteriological paths were superseded by a monolithic path to liberation

for the sāvakas. To this extent agrees with the findings of Clough (2012), but my

conclusion deviates from Clough’s assertion that it was Buddhaghosa who formulated

the monolithic path. I argue that the nucleus of the monolithic path has already

appeared in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. This monolithic path to arahatta is constructed

by integrating all other paths into the four stages. I argue that the Pāli commentaries

borrowed the Abhidhamma interpretation.

I demonstrate that in order to authenticate the four stages as monolithic path to

liberation, some Buddhist schools even tried to interpret it was not just a monolithic

path to liberation for sāvakas, the bodhisattas also go through the four stages. I

further show that some Pāli commentators and sub-commentators also supported such
   283  

a view. I argue that inserting the theory of the four stages in the enlightening

experience of the Buddha is anachronistic.

Then I investigate the question whether the four stages are supramundane

(lokuttara) stages or super-human state (uttaramanussadhammo). My investigation

brings me to the conclusion that neither the stage of stream-entry nor the stage of

once-return could be a supramundane or super-human state. This conclusion is based

on my investigation of the descriptions of a stream-enterer, the description of the

supramundane state and the superhuman state in the Nikāyas. The supermundane state

refers to the world transcending state, i.e., not related to mundane affairs. It is defined

as outflow-free (anāsava), thereby not subjected to any defilement. The state of

Nibbāna is defined as supramundane. And to be a superhuman state, it requires at

least the attainment of jhānas (Vin III 91). But I demonstrate as far as the Nikāyas are

concerned stream-enterers are neither world-transcended beings nor they have

attained jhānas. Those who have resolute faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the

Saṅgha, and observe morality can declare as stream-enterers themselves.

Furthermore, I argue the Ābhidhammikas and Pāli commentators have interpreted the

stage of stream-entry and stage of once return as supramundane stages. With this new

development, the gap between a stream-enterer and an arahat, which was very wide

in the Nikāyas, became very narrow. On the other hand, stage of stream-entry was

made to recede further and further from ordinary people in the society. My argument

is that this new development occurred because of the gradual decline of spiritual

enthusiasm among the monastic community. So the two developments occurred

simultaneously—one led to the gradual decline of spiritual enthusiasm among the

   284  

monastics, the other towards the exaltation of the stream-enterers, once-returners,

non-returners and arahats. In this chapter, I further show that in the process of this

development, some implicit attempts were made to exclude laities from the

community of stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and arahats.

The four stages went through a radical transformation in the Abhidhamma. In the

process of exaltation of the four stages to peak spiritual attainments, first attempts

were made to exclude laities from attainment of the four stages. My arguments are

based on the identification of stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners and

arahat to four categories of recluses (samaṇa). I demonstrate the term samaṇa in

early Buddhism always referred to a renunciant. The term was never employed to

describe a lay follower. I argue the identification of the four kinds of samaṇas with

respective attainment of the four stages reveal an inner tendency among monastic

members to exclude laity from the list of attainment of four stages.

My second argument is based on the interpretation of stream-enterer, once-

returner, non-returner and arahant with the community of noble disciples (sāvaka-

saṅgha) who are objects of veneration by Buddhists. Though Saṅgha is a broad term,

which can imply any organization or community, it is quite certain that the term

Saṅgha in the scheme of three refuges refers to monastic Saṅgha exclusively. So the

interpretation of the stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners and arahants

together with the four respective paths reveal a gradual tendency to exclude laities

from the scheme of the attainment of the four stages. However, I admit, the blame

cannot be put entirely on the Pāli commentators because the nucleus of this trend is

seen in the Nikāyas.

   285  

Over time, the exaltation of the stream-enterers, once-returners and non-returners

continued and reached its height in the Visuddhimagga. In the Visuddhimagga, the

spiritual path is constructed in the taxonomy of sevenfold purification (sattavisuddhi),

the four paths and the four stages consisted of the seventh stage, the wisdom and

vision (ñāṇadassana visuddhi), which is the peak of spiritual path according to the

Visuddhimagga. Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga, through a simile, implied that

stream-enterer already entered into Nibbāna, though not firmly established there yet.

Thus, over time, the concepts of stream-enterers, once-returner and non-returner

receded further and further and they came to be viewed as lofty spiritual attainments.

With this development, not only laities lost hope to attain these stages in one lifetime,

even monastics lost hope to attain these stages in one lifetime. Therefore, there was

developed the concept of worldling monastics. I argue that the original definition of

the term worldling (puthujjana) was not applicable to monastics. However, in the

later Buddhist literature, the definition of the term was widened to include monastics.

Furthermore, I demonstrate that in the process of the exaltation the four paths and

the four stages became a single moment, i.e., one can attain all the four paths and the

four stages in a single sitting. I conclude that this is a deviation from the Pāli Nikāyas.

I have shown in the Nikāya the four paths and the four fruits represent the whole

spiritual journey of a person from an ordinary person to an arahatta; in this process

an ordinary Buddhist starts with enjoyment of sensual pleasures and gradually

transcends sensual pleasures and all other forms of attachments, and becomes an

arahat. Furthermore, I argue that if commentarial interpretation is admitted, then

theoretically there is no possibility of having eightfold Saṅgha, since, firstly, the path
   286  

is a just a mind moment, it is spurious to identify one as candidate for stage and

worthy of honour etc., just for one moment; and secondly there could not be any

possibility of practicing and cultivating the path.

In conclusion this study shows the theory of four stages developed over time and

different socio-religious factors contributed to its development either directly or

indirectly. The fours stages developed independent of one another in response to

different socio-religious issue in the process of transforming Buddhism from its

original ascetic movement to an institutionalized religion. Each of these four stages

went through a substantial transformation in the Abhidhamma and Pāli commentarial

period.
   287  

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Abhidhammatthasaṅgha and Abhidhammatthavibhāvinī-ṭīkā. Edited by Saddhatissa

H. 1989. London: PTS.

Abhidhammāvatāra. Edited by Buddhadatta A. P.1980. London: PTS.

Abhidharmāvatāra-Purāna-ṭīkā, Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM edition,version 4.

1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

Aṅguttaranikāya vol. I-V. Edited by Morris R., Hardy E., Hunt M. and Rhys Davids

C.A.F. 1888-1995. London: PTS.

Aṅguttaranikāya-aṭṭhakathā (Manorathapūranī) vol. I-V. Edited by Wallesser and

Kopp H. 1924-1979. London: PTS.

Aṅguttaranikāya-ṭīkā (Sāratthamañjūsā), vol. I-III. Edited by Pecenko Primoz, 1996-

1999. London: PTS.

Buddhavaṃsa-aṭṭhakathā (Madhuratthavilāsinī), Edited by Horner I.B.1946-1978.

London: PTS.

Cariyāpiṭaka-aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī) Edited by Barua D.L. and Kopp

H.1939-1979. London: PTS.

Dhammapāda-aṭṭhakathā, vol. I-V. Edited by Helmer Smith, Norman H.C. and

Tailang. 1906-2007. London: PTS.

Dhammasaṅgaṇī. Edited by Muller E. 1885-1978. London: PTS.

Dhammasaṅgaṇī-aṭṭhakathā (Atthasālini). Edited by Muller E. 1979. London: PTS.

Dhammasaṅgāni-aṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā (Mūlaṭīkā), Chaṭṭhasaṅgāyanā CD-ROM edition,

version 4. 1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

   288  

Dīghanikāya, vol. I-III. Edited by Rhys Davids T.W., Carpenter J.E. 1889-2007.

London: PTS.

Dīghanikāya-aṭṭhakathā (Sumaṅgalavilāsinī), vol. I-III. Edited by Rhys Davids T.W.

Carpenter J.E. and Stede, W. 1968-1971. London: PTS.

Dīghanikāya-aṭṭhakathā-abhinavaṭīkā (Sādhuvilāsinī), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM

edition version 4. 1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

Dīghanikāya-aṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā (Līnatthavaṇṇanā), vol. I-III. Edited by Lily de Silva.

1970. London: PTS.

Itivuttaka. Edited by Windisch. 1889-2010. London: PTS.

Itivuttaka-aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī), vol. I-III. Edited by Bose M.M. and Kopp

H. 1934-1980. London: PTS.

Kathāvatthu, Vol. I-II. Edited by Taylor A.C. and Satoshi Nonome et. al. 1894-

1982. London: PTS.

Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā (Pañcappakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā). Edited by Jayawickram.

1979. London: PTS.

Mahāniddesa. Edited by Poussin Vallee L. de La. And Thomas E.J. 1916-1978.

London: PTS.

Majjhimanikāya vol. I-IV. Edited by Trenckner V., Chalmers R., Yamazaki and

Ousaka, Y. 1888-2006. London: PTS.

Majjhimanikāya-aṭṭhakathā (Papañcasūdanī) vol. I-V. Edited by Wood, J.H.,

Kosambi D. and Horner I.B. 1922-1979. London: PTS.

Majjhimanikāya-ṭīkā (Līnatthappakāsanā), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM, version 4.

1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

   289  

Milindapañha with Milinda-ṭīkā. Edited by Trenckner V. and Jaini P.S. 1880-1986.

London: PTS.

Mohavicchedanī Abhidhammātikatthavaṇṇanā. Edited by Buddhadatta A.P. and

Warder A. K. 1994. London: PTS.

Nettippakaraṇa. Edited by Hardy E. 1902-1995. London: PTS.

Nettipakkaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā. Edited by Hardy E. 1995. London: PTS.

Niddesa-aṭṭhakathā (Saddhammapajjotikā) vol. I-III. Edited by Buddhadatta A.P.

1939-1989. London: PTS.

Pañcappakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā (Mūlaṭīka), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM, version

4. 1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

Paṭisambhidāmagga, vol. I-II. Edited by Taylor A.C. 1905-1979. London: PTS.

Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā (Saddhammappakāsinī). Edited by Joshi C.V. 1933-

1979. London: PTS.

Peṭakopadesa. Edited by Barua A. 1949-1982. London: PTS.

Puggalapaññatti and Puggalapaññatti-aṭṭhakthā (Pañcappakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā).

Edited by Morris Richard, Georg Landsberg and Mrs. Rhys Davids. 1883-1997.

London: PTS.

Saṃyuttanikāya, Vol. I-VI. Edited by Rhys Davids C.A.F. and Somaratne G.A.

1884-2006. London: PTS.

Saṃyuttanikāya-aṭṭhakathā (Sāratthappakāsinī), vol. I-III. Edited by Woodward.

1977. London: PTS.

Saṃyuttanikāya-aṭṭhakathā-ṭīkā (Līnatthappakāsanā), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM,

version 4. 1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

   290  

Suttanipāta. Edited by Andersen Dines and Smith Helmer. 1913-1990. London: PTS.

Suttanipāta-aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthajotikā), vol. I-III. Edited by Smith Helmer. 1916-

1989. London: PTS.

Theragātha and Therīgathā. Edited by Oldenberg H., Pischel R., Norman K.R. and

Alsdorf, L.1883-19990. London: PTS.

Theragātha-aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī), vol. I-III. Edited by Woodward F.L.

1940-1995. London: PTS.

Therīgāthā-aṭṭhakathā. Edited by William Pruitt. 1997. London: PTS.

The Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu. Edited by Hermann Jacobi. 1879. Leipzig.

Udāna. Edited by Steinthal P. 1885-1882. London: PTS.

Udāna-aṭṭhakathā (Paramatthadīpanī). Edited by Woodward F.L. 1926-1971.

London: PTS.

Vibhaṅga. Edited by Rhys Davids C.A.F. 1904-1978. London: PTS.

Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā (Sammohavinodani). Edited by Buddhadatta A.P.1980.

London: PTS.

Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā-ṭīka (Mūlaṭīkā), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM, version 4.

1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

Vinayapiṭaka, vol. I-V. Edited by Oldenberg H., 1879-1995. London: PTS.

Vinayapiṭaka-aṭṭhakathā (Samantapāsādikā), vol. I-VIII. Edited by Takakusu J.,

Nagai M. and Kopp H. 1924-1982. London: PTS.

Visuddhimagga. Edited by Rhys Davids C.A.F. 1975. London: PTS.

Visuddhimagga-ṭīkā (Paramatthamañjūsā), Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyanā CD-ROM, version 4.

1995. Igatpuri: Vipassana Research Institute.

   291  

Sthiramati’s Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya: Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Texts and its

Tibetan Translation. Edited by Hartmut Buescher. 2007. Osterreichische

Academie der Wissenschaften Wien.

Primary Sources Translated into English

Abhidharmakośa Bhāṣya of Vasubandhu, Vol. I- IV. Translated by Gelong Lodro

Sangpo with a New Introduction by Bhikkhu Dhammajoti KL. 2012. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

A Manual of Psychological Ethics (Dhammasaṅgaṇī). Translated by Rhys Davids,

C.A.F. 1993. London: PTS.

A Designation of Human Types (Puggalapaññatti). Translated by Law B.C. 1992.

London: PTS.

Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Philosophical Psychology of Buddhism

(Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha). Edited and translated by Narada Mahathera,

translation revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2006. Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication

Society.

Eleder’s Verses, Prose (Theragāthā and Therīgāthā), Vol. I-II. Translated by

Norman K.R. 1969-2007. London: PTS.

Gaina Sūtras part I, The Ākāraṅga Sutra and Kalpa Sūtra. Translated by Herman

Jacobi. 1884. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

The Questions of King Milinda. Translated by Rhys Davids T.W. 1890. Oxford:

Clarendo Press.
   292  

Milinda’s Question (Milindapañha) vol. I-II. Translated by Horner I.B. 1963-1991.

London: PTS.

Points of Controversy (Kathāvatthu). Translated by Aung S.Z. and Rhys Davids

C.A.F. 1915-2001. London: PTS.

Psalm of the Early Buddhists I: Psalm of the Sisters (Therīgathā). Translated by Mrs.

Rhys Davids. 1909. London: PTS.

Psalm of the Early Buddhists II: Psalm of the Brethren (Theragāthā). Translated by

Mrs. Rhys Davids. 1914. London: PTS.

The Book of Analysis (Vibhaṅga). Translated by Thittila U., 1969-2010. London:

PTS.

The Book of the Discipline (Vinayapiṭaka), vol. I-V. Translated by Horner I.B. 1938-

1993. London: PTS.

The Book of the Gradual Sayings (Aṅguttaranikāya), vol. I-V. Translated by

Woodward F.L. and Hare E.M. 1932-1995. London: PTS.

The Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning (Buddhavamsa-aṭṭhakathā). Translated by

Horner I.B. 1978. London: PTS.

The Commentary on Itivuttaka (Itivuttaka-aṭṭhakathā), vol. I-II. Translated by

Masefield Peter. 2008-2009. London: PTS.

The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Saṃyuttanikāya). Translated by Bhikkhu

Bodhi. 2000. Boston: Wisdom Publication.

The Numerical Discourse of the Buddha (Aṅguttaranikāya). Translated by Bhikkhu

Bodhi. 2012. Boston: Wisdom Publication.

   293  

The Debates Commentary (Kathāvatthu-aṭṭhakathā). Translated by Law B.C.1940-

1989. London: PTS.

The Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views: The Brahmajāla Sutta and Its

Commentaries. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1992. Sri Lanka: Buddhist

Publication Society.

The Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship: The Sāmaññaphala Sutta and Its

Commentaries. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1989. Sri Lanka: Buddhist

Publication Society.

The Dispeller of Delusion (Sammohavinodanī), vol. I-II. Translated by Bhikkhu

Ñāṇamoli, revised by Cousin L.S. Nyanaponika Mahāthera and Shaw C.M.M.

1987-1991. London: PTS.

The Expositor (Atthasālini). Translated by Pe Maung Tin, 1920-1976. London: PTS.

“The Exegesis of the Sabbāsava Sutta.” Translated by Jayawickrama N. A. 2003.

Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies Vol. 3. Sri Lanka.

The Group of Discourses (Suttanipāta). Translated by Norman K.R. 2001. London:

PTS.

The Guide (Nettippakaraṇa). Translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli. 1962-1977. London:

PTS.

The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Dīghanikāya). Translated by Maurice Walshe.

1995. Boston: Wisdom Publication.

The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Majjhimanikāya). Translated by

Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2001. Boston: Wisdom Publication.

   294  

The Path of Discrimination (Paṭisambhidāmagga). Translated by Bhikkhu

Ñāṇamoli, introduction by Warder, A.K. 1982-1997, London: PTS.

The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga). Translated by Ehara N.R.M., Some Thera and

Kheminda Thera. 1995. Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). Translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli. 1997.

Singapore: Singapore Buddhist Meditation Centre.

The Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of

Abhidhamma (Abhidhammasaṅgaha and Abhidhammatthavibhānītīkā).

Translated by Wijeratne R.P. and Rupert Gething. 2002. London: PTS.

The Udāna and the Itivuttaka. Translated by John D. Ireland. 1997. Sri Lanka:

Buddhist Publication Society.

Teaching of the Buddha: In the Buddha’s Words: Anthology Discourses from the

Pāli Canon. Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2005. Boston: Wisdom Publication.

Secondary Sources

Anālayo, Bhikkhu. 2003. “The Seven Stages of Purification in Comparative

Perspective.” Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies vol. 3: 126-138.

— .2006. Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization. Malaysia: Buddhist

Wisdom Centre.

— .2007. “Sotāpatti.” In Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol. VIII, 142-43.

Colombo: Sri Lanka Government Press.

— .2008. “Rebirth and the Gandhabba”. Mahachulalonkorn Journal of Buddhist

Studies vol. I: 91-105,

   295  

Agrawal, Madan Mohan. 2001. Six Systems of Indian Philosophy. Delhi:

Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.

Alexander, Wyanne. 2002. “An Interpretation of Released in both sides

(ubhatobhāgavimutti), and Ramification for the study of Early Buddhism.”

Buddhist Studies Review vol. XIX, No. 1: 30-40

—. 2007. The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. London and New York: Routledge,

Taylor & Francis Group.

Bapat, P.V. 1937. Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga: A comparative Study.

Calcutta: Calcutta Oriental Press.

Bathieu, Boisvert. 1995. The Five Aggregates understanding Theravāda Psychology

and Soteriology. Canada: Wilfried Laurier University Press.

Bailey, Grey Mabbett & Ian. 2003. The Sociology of Early Buddhism. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Barua, Benemadhab. 1998, reprinted. A History of Pre-Buddhist Indian Philosophy.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Belvarkar, S.K. & Inchegeri Sampradaya. 1974. History of Indian Philosophy.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 2001. “The Jhāna and the Lay Disciples According to Pāli Suttas.”

In Buddhist Studies in Honour of Professor Lily De Silva, 134-64. University of

Paradeniya: Department of Pāli and Buddhist Studies.

—. 2007. “The Susīma-sutta and the Wisdom-Liberated Arahant.” Journal of the

Pali Text Society XXIX: 51-75.

   296  

— . 2009. “Susīma’s Conversion with the Buddha: A Case Study of the Susīma

Sutta.” Journal of the Pali Text Society XXX: 33-69.

Bodhiketu. 2011. “Stages of the Path: Stream Entry and Beyond.” Online Source:

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol5/stages-of-the-path.pdf

Bond, George D. 1990. “The Arahat: Sainthood in Theravāda Buddhism.” In

Sainthood: Its Manifestation in World Religion, edited by Richard Keichker and

George Bond D. Berkeley: University of California Press.

—.1984. “The Development and Elaboration of the Arahat Ideal in Theravāda

Buddhist Tradition.” American Academy of Religion 52, No. 2: 227-42.

Blackstone, Kathryn R. 1998. Women in the Footsteps of the Buddha: Struggle for

Liberation in the Therigāthā. U.K.: Routledge

Bluck, Robert .2002. “The Path of Householder: Buddhist Lay Discipline in the Pāli

Canon.” Buddhist Studies Review 19, No.1: 1-18.

Brahmali, Bhikkhu. 2007. “Jhāna and Lokuttarajjhāna.” Buddhist Studies Review 24,

No. 1: 75-90.

Bradley, S. Cough. 2012. Early Indian and Theravāda Buddhism: Soteriological

Controversy and Diversity. New York: Cambridge Press.

Bryan, Jare Cuevas. 1996. “Predecessors and Prototypes: Towards a conceptual

History of the Buddhist Antarābhava.” Numen 43, No. 3: 263-302.

Bronkhorst, Johonnes. 2000. Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

—.1998. The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers.
   297  

—.1985. “Dharma and Abhidharma.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies 48, No. 2: 305-20.

Bucknell, Rod. 1984. “The Buddhist Path to Liberation: An Analysis of the listing of

stages.” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies VII: 7-

40.

Buswell, Robert E. Jr. and Gimello Robert M. 1992. “The Importance of Mārga,

Both within and Beyond Buddhism.” In Paths to Liberation: The Mārga and Its

Transformation in Buddhist Thought, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. and

Robert M. Gimello, 1-36. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Carl, Olson. 2007. The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative Historical

Introduction. New Delhi: Heritage Publishers.

Cousin, L.S. 2005. “Buddhist Jhāna: Its Nature and Attainment According to the Pāli

Sources.” In Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies vol. II, edited by

Paul William, 55-68. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Group.

— .1994-96. “Origin of Insight Meditation.” Buddhist Forum IV: 35-58.

— .1983. “Nibbāna and Abhidhamma.” Buddhist Studies Review 1, No. 2: 2-23.

Collin, Steven. 1998. Nirvāṇa and other Buddhist Facilities: Utopias of the Pāli

Imaginaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— .1982. Selfless Persons: Imagery and thought in Theravāda Buddhism. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Charles, H. Long. 1967. “Prolegomenon to a Religious Hermeneutic” in History of

Religion 6, No. 3 .254-264: Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

   298  

Charles, Johnson Dawes. 1977. “The Path of Spiritual Progress in Theravada

Buddhism.” PhD diss. Dissertation submitted to The California Institute of

Asian Studies.

Collett, Cox. 1992. “Attainment through Abandonment: The Sarvāstivādin Path of

Removing Defilements.” In Paths to Liberation: The Mārga and Its

Transformation in Buddhist Thought, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. and Robert

M. Gimello, 63-106. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Conze, Edward. 1959. “Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In The Concise Encyclopedia of

Living Faith, edited by Zachner, 296-320. Boston: -Hawthorn Books

Crangle, Edward Fitgpatrick. 1994. The Origin and Development of Early Indian

Contemplative Practices. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Dasgupta, Surendranath. 1924. Yoga—As Philosophy and Religion. London: Kegan

Paul, Ternch Trubner & Co. Ltd.

Desmarais, Michele. 2008. Changing Minds: Mind, Consciousness and Identity in

Patañjali Yoga Sutra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Dhammajoti, K.L. 2015. “Prajñā-vimukta, Ubhayatobhāga-vimukta and

Vimokṣāvaraṇ: The Sarvastivāda Perspective.” In Buddhist Meditative Praxis:

Traditional Teachings and Modern Applications, edited by K.L. Dhammajoti,

25-47. The University of Hong Kong: The Centre of Buddhist Studies.

—. 2013. Reading Buddhist Sanskrit Texts: An Elementary Grammatical Guide.

Hong Kong: The Buddha-Dharma Centre of Hong Kong.

—. 2009. Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma (4th edition). The University of Hong Kong:

Centre of Buddhist Studies.

   299  

—. 2015. Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma (5the edition). Hong Kong: The Buddha-Dharma

Centre of Hong Kong.

Davids, Rhys T.W. 1911. Buddhist India. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

— .1908). Early Buddhism. London: Achhibald Constablez Co. Ltd.

Donald, Keeney Swear. 1967. “Knowledge as Salvation: A study in Early

Buddhism.” PhD diss. Princeton University.

Dhammaratana. 2011. Guide Through Visuddhimagga. Sri Lanka: Buddhist

Publication Society.

Dhirasekera, Jotiya. 2007. Buddhist Monastic Discipline: A Study of Its Origin and

Development in Relation to the Sutta and Vinaya Piṭakas. Sri Lanka: Buddhist

Cultural Centre.

Dube S.N. 1980. Cross Current in Early Buddhism.Delhi: Manohar Publication.

Douglas, Mary. 1982. “The Effect of Modernization on Religious Change.”

Daedalus III, No. I: 1-19.

Dutt, Sukumar. 1924. Early Buddhist Monachism: 800 B.C.-100 B.C. London:

Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co. Ltd.

Dutt, Nalinaksha. 1998. Buddhist Sects in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers.

—. 1980. Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools. New

Delhi: Rajes Publication.

Edwin, Bryant. 2009. The Yogasūtra of Patañjali: A New Edition, Translation and

Commentary. New York: North Point Press.

   300  

Endo, Toshiichi. 2002. Buddha in Theravāda Buddhism: A Study of the Concept of

Buddha in the Pali Commentaries. Sri Lanka: Buddhist Cultural Centre.

—.2013. Studies in Pāli Commentarial Literature: Sources, Controversies and

Insights. The University of Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies.

Frauwallner, Erich. 1984. History of Indian Philosophy Vol. I. Translated by V.M.

Bedekar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

—.1956. Earliest Vinaya and the Beginning of Buddhist Literature. Rome: Roma.

—.1995. Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origin of Buddhist Philosophical

System. Translated by Sophie Francis Kidd. New York: The State University of

New York Press.

Gethin, Rupert. 2001. The Buddhist Paths to Awakening. England: Oneworld

Publications.

— .1994. “Bhavaṅga and Rebirth According to Abhidhamma.” In Buddhism Forum

III, edited by V. Pagel, T Skorupski, 11-35. London: School of Oriental and

African Studies.

— 1997. “Wrong View (micchā diṭṭhi) and Right View (sammā diṭṭhi) in

Theravāda Abhidhamma.” in Recent Researches in Buddhist Studies: Essays

in Honour of Y. Karunadasa, edited by K.L. Dhammajoti Bhikkhu, Asanga

Tilakaratne and Kapila Abhayawansa. Colombo.

Geoffrey, Samuel. 2008. The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the

Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ghogyam, Trungpa. 2002. Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Boston &

London: Shambhala.
   301  

Gokkhale, B.G. 1965. “The Early Buddhist Elite.” Journal of Indian History XLII,

No. 2: 391-402.

Gombrich, R.F.1990. “Recovering the Buddha’s Message.” In Buddhist Forum I,

edited by T. Skorupski, 5-20. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

— .2006. Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern

Colombo. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

— .2006. How Buddhism Began: The Condition Genesis of the Early Teaching.

Oxon :Routledge.

— .1975. “Ancient Indian Cosmology.” In Ancient Cosmologies, edited by Carman

Blacker and Michael Loewer. Unwin: George Allen.

— .1988. “How the Mahāyāna Began.” Journal of Pāli and Buddhist Studies I:20-

46.

Graeme, Macqueen. 1988. A Study of the Śrāmaṇyaphala Sūtra. Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz.

Griffths Paul, J. 1983. “Indian Buddhist Meditation Theory: History, Development

and Systematization.” PhD diss. University of Wisconsin.

Grace, G. Burford. 1991. Desire and Death and Goodness: New Perspectives in

Philosophical Scholarship: Texts and Issues. New York: Peter Lang International

Academic Publishers.

—. 1992. “Theravāda Buddhist Soteriology and Paradox of Desire.” In Paths to

Liberation: The Mārga and Its Transformation in Buddhist Thought, edited by

Robert E. Buswell, Jr. and Robert M. Gimello, 37-61. Honolulu: University of

Hawaii Press.
   302  

Guang, Xing. 2005. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism

to the Trikāya Theory. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.

Gunaratana, Henapola. 1980. A Critical Analysis of the Jhānas in Theravāda

Buddhist Meditation. Washington: The American University.

Harvey, Peter. 2013. “The Saṅgha of the Sāvakas with Particular Reference to the

Trainee Member, the Person Practising for the Realization of Stream Entry

Fruit.” Buddhist Studies Review 30, No.1. 3-70.

—.2004. The Selfless Mind Personality, Consciousness and Nirvāṇa in Early

Buddhism. London and New York: Routledge Curzon, Taylor & Francis Group.

—. 2000. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Herman, Jacobi. 1979. Kalpasūtra of the Bradrabāhu. Keipzig:

— .1884. The Sacred of the East XXII. Oxford:

Herbert, V. Guenther. 2011. Philosophy and Psychology in Abhidharma. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Hirakawa, Akira. 1993. A History of Indian Buddhism from Sakyamuni to Early

Mahāyāna. Translated by Paul Groner. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Hiralal, Rasikda Kapadia. 2003. A History of the Canonical Literature of Jainas.

Asian Humanities Press.

Hidenori, Kitagawa. 1966. “On ‘Upādhi’.” Journal of Buddhist Studies,430-6.

Hoffman, Frank J. 2002. Rationality and Mind in Early Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsdass Publishers Ltd.

   303  

Horner, Isaline Blew. 1936. The Early Buddhist Theory of Man Perfected. New

Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Pvt. Ltd.

—.1934. “The Four Ways and Four Fruits in Pāli Buddhism.” The Indian Historical

Quarterly X, No. 4: 785-797.

Hurvotz, Leon. 1979. “The Eight Deliverances.” In Studies in Pāli and Buddhism,

edited by A.K. Narain. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

Huzita, Kaudazu. 1988. “Nirvana in the Early Buddhism: Nibbāna and Parinibbāna.”

Journal of the International Buddhist Studies 1-2:.

Hwang, Soonil. 2006. Metaphor and Literalism in Buddhism: The Doctrinal History

of Nirvana. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ian, Whicher. 1998. “The Final Stage of the Purification in Classical Yoga.” Asian

Philosophy 8, No. 2: 85-102.

James, Apple.2003. “Twenty Varieties of the Saṅgha: A Typology Noble Beings

(Ārya) in Indo Tibetan Scholasticism, Part I.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 31:

503-92.

Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1991. “Is there a Popular Jainism?” In The Assembly of

Listeners Jains in Society, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey,

187-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— .1977. “Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems.” In Studies in Honour of Edward

Conze, edited by L. Lancaster, 403-15.

— .2001. Jaina Path of Purification. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Johnston. 1936. The Buddha Carita or the Acts of the Buddha Calcutta: Baptist

Mission Press.
   304  

Keith, Berridale Arthur. 1979. Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon. Delhi:

Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Karunadasa, Y. 2013. Early Buddhist Teachings: Middle Position in Theory and

Practice. The University of Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies.

—. 2010. The Theravāda Abhidhamma: Its Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned

Reality. The University of Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies.

Kheminda, Thera. 1965. Path, Fruits and Nibbāna. Colombo: Balcome House.

Keith, A. Berriedale, 1923. Buddhist Philosophy in Indian and Ceylon. Oxford: The

Clarendon Press.

Lily, De Silva. 2004. “The Antarābhava.” Journal of Buddhist Studies XXXII: 79-83.

—.1996. Nibbāna as Living Experience: The Buddha and Arahat Two Studies from

the Pāli Canon. Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

— .1978. “Cetovimutti, Paññāvimutti and Ubhatogavimutti.” Pāli Buddhist Review

III, No. 3: 118-140..

Lamotte, Etienne. 1988. History of Indian Buddhism from the Origin to the Saka

Era. Translated by Sara Weeb Boin. Louvain: Peeter Press.

Lovejoy, Arthur Oncken. 1898. “The Buddhistic Technical Terms Upādāna and

Upādisesa.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 19: 126-136.

Liew, Jew Chong. 2009. “The Sarvāstivāda Doctrine of the Path of Spiritual

Progress: A Study Based on Primarily on the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śastra,

the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Their Chinese Commentaries.” PhD diss. The

University of Hong Kong.

   305  

Manne, Joy. 1995a. “Case History from the Pāli Canon II: Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmin,

Anāgāmin, Arahat—The Four-Stage Case History or Spiritual Materialism and

Need for Tangible Result.” Journal of Pali Text Society XXI: 35-128..

—. 1995b. “Case Histories from the Pāli canon I: The Sāmaññaphala Sutta

Hypothetical Case History or How to be Sure to Win a Debate.” Journal of Pali

Text Society XXI:

Masuda, Jiryo. 1978. Origin and Doctrine of Early Indian Buddhist Schools: A

Translation of the Hsuan-Chwang Version of Vasumitra’s Treatise, Translated

with Annotations. New York: Ams Press. Inc.

Masefield, Peter. 1986. Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. Colombo: The Sri

Lanka Institute of Traditional Studies.

—.1979. “The Nibbāna-Parinibbāna Controversy.” Religion IX: 215-230.

Marcus, Bingenheimer. 2010. Studies in Āgama Literature with Special Reference to

the Shorter Chinese Saṃyuktāgama. Taiwan: Dharma Drum Buddhist College.

Max, Muller. 1910. The Upanishad the Sacred Books of the East Part I. London:

Oxford University Press.

Melford, E. Spiro. 1982. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese

Vicissitudes.Berkeley : University of California Press.

— .1966. “Buddhism and economic Action in Burma.” American Anthropologist 68,

No. 55: 1163-1173.

Michael, Carrithers. 1991. “Jain Ideals and Jain Identity.” In The Assembly of

Listeners Jains in Society, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey,

15-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

   306  

Michael, P. Levine. 2001. “Can the Concept of Enlightenment Evolve?” Asian

Philosophy13, No. 2/3. 115-129.

Nakamura, Hajime. 1980. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Nanayakkara, Sanath. 2016. “How Vital is ‘Faith’ to Commence Buddhist Practice?”

In Buddhist Philosophy, History and Culture: Selected Essays of Sanath

Nanayakkara, edited by Asanga Tilakaratne et.al, 30-41. Sri Lanka: S.Godage &

Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Nyanapoika, Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2007. Aṅguttaranikāya Anthrology: An

Anthology of Discourses from the Aṅguttaranikāya. Sri Lanka: Buddhist

Publication Society Kandy.

Norman, K.R. 1991. “The Role of Layman According to Jain Canon.” In The

Assembly of Listeners Jains in Society, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline

Humphrey, 31-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ninian, Smart. 1964. Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy. London: John

Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Nyanatiloka. 19974. Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines.

Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

Olivelle, Patrick. 1993. The Āśrama System: The History and Hermeneuties of a

Religious Institution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oliver, Abeynayake. 1984. A Textual and Historical Analysis of the Khuddaka

Nikāya, Sri Lanka: Tisara Press.

   307  

Pande, Govinda Chandra. 2006. Studies in Origin of Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers.

Pandit, Lal Moti. 2004. Buddhism: A Religion of Salvation. Delhi: Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Padmasiri, De Silva. 1994. Buddhism and Freudian Psychology. Singapore:

Singapore University Press.

Philip, A. Mass. 2010. “On the Written Transmission of the Patañjali Yoga Śāstra in

From Vasubandhu to Caitana.” In Studies in Indian Philosophy and Textual

History, edited by Johannes Bronkhorst, und Karen Presendanz, 157-172-00.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Radhakrishna, S.1999. Indian Philosophy vol. I. London: Oxford University Press.

Randolp, Kloetzli.1997. Buddhist Cosmology: Science and Theology in the Image of

Motion and Light. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Rahula, Bhikkhu Telwatte. 1978. A Critical Study of the Mahāvastu. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers.

Reginal, A. Ray. 1994. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and

Orientations. London: Oxford University Press.

Rita, Langer. 2007. Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth Contemporary Sri Lankan

Practices. London and New York:Routledge.

Robison, H. Richard.1997. The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction.

California:Wordsworth Publishing company.

Robert, Decaroli. 2004. Hunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and

Formation of Buddhism. London: Oxford University Press.

   308  

Sarao, K.T.S. 2010. Origin and Nature of Ancient Indian Buddhism. Delhi:

Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

Schopen, Gregory. 2004. Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual,

Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers.

Schmithausen, Lambert. 1992. “An Attempt to Estimate the Some Reflection of the

Place of Philosophy in the Study of Buddhism Distance in Time between Asoka

and the Buddha in Terms of Doctrinal History.” In The Dating of the Historical

Buddha Part 2, edited by Bechert Heinz, . Gottingen: Vandenhaeck & Ruprecht.

—.1981. “On Some Aspect of Description or Theories of Liberating insight and

Enlightenment in Early Buddhism.” In Studien Zum Jainism und Buddhism,

edited by Klaus Bruhn and Albert Wezler, 197-250. Wiesbanden: Franz Steiner.

Sharma, Rajendra K.1999. Indian Society, Institutions and Change. New Delhi:

Atlantic.

Sharf, Robert H.1995. “Buddhist Modernism and Rhyetore of Meditation

Experience.” Numen 42, No. 3: 228-283.

Skilling, Peter, 2009. “Theravāda in History.” Pacific World Journal of Buddhist

Studies III, No. 11: 61-94...

Southwold, M. 1984. Buddhism in Life: The Anthropological Study of Religion and

Sinhalese Practice of Buddhism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Somaratne, G A. 1999. “Intermediate Existence and the Higher Fetters in the Pāli

Nikāyas.” Journal of Pali Text Society XXV: 121-154.

—. 2005. “Is Saddhhāvimutta an Arahat?” Sāragavesi Academic Journal.

   309  

—.2009. “White-clothed Celibate Arahants in Early Buddhism.” In Buddhist and

Pali Studies: Honour of the Venerable Professor Kakkapalliye Anuruddha, edited

by K.L. Dhammajoti and Y. Karunadasa,151-167: The University of Hong Kong:

Centre of Buddhist Studies.

—. 2014. “Ubhato-bhāga-vimutta: Liberated from Both Parts or Through Both

Ways?” Thai International Journal of Buddhist Studies 117-134.

Stcherbatsky, T H. 1923. The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of

the Word ‘Dharma’. Kolkata: Royal Asiatic Society.

—. 1977. The Concept of Buddhist Nirvāna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Sumangala, Kannimahara Thera. 1981. “The Attainment to the State of a Sotāpanna

or Stream-enterer; Is it a Superhuman (Uttaramanussa) State or Not? A Point of

View.” Buddhist Review LII, No. 2.

Sukomal, Chaudhuri. 1976. Analytical Study of the Abhidharmakośa. Calcutta:

Sanskrit College.

Sujato, Bhikkhu. 2012a. A History of Mindfulness: How insight worsted tranquility

in Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. Santipada Publication.

— .2012b. A Swift Pairs of Messengers: calm with Insight in the Buddha’s

Words. Santipada Publication.

— 2007. Sects & Sectarianism: The Origin of Buddhist Schools. Santipada

Publication.

Sujato, Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Brahmali. 2014. The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist

Texts. London: The Oxford Centre of Buddhist Studies.

   310  

Tanissaro, Bhikkhu. 2012. Into the Stream: A study Guide on the First Stage of

Awakening, online at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.pdf

Thurman, Robert.1984. The Central Philosophy of Tibetan. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.

Thomas, E.J.1988. The History of Buddhist Thought. London: Kegan Paul Trench

Trubner & Co, Ltd.

Torkel, Brekke. 2002. Religious Motivation and the Origin of Buddhism: A Social

Psychological Exploration of the Origin World Religion. Routledge Taylor and

Francis Group.

Varma, Vishwanath Prasad. 1973. Early Buddhism and Its Origin. Delhi: Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers. Pvt. Ltd.

Warder, A. K. 1956. “On the Relationship between Early Buddhism and other

Contemporary Systems.” Bulletins of School of Oriental and African Studies 18,

No. 1: 43-63.

—.1970. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Wayman, Alex. 2012. “The Intermediate-state Dispute in Buddhism” In Buddhist

Studies in Honour of I.B. Horner, edited by L. Cousins, A. Kurst, and K.R.

Norman, D. Reidel, 227-239. Boston: Publishing Company.

—.2006. “Twenty Reifying Views (Sakkāyadiṭṭhi).” In Studies in Pāli and

Buddhism, edited by A.K. Narain,. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

Weber, Max. 1968. “On Charisma and Institution Building.” In Selected Papers,

edited by S.N. Eisenstadt. Chicago University Press.

—.1963. Sociology of Religion,. London: Methuen.

   311  

—.1958. The Religion of India: Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism. Translated by

Hans H, Gerth and Don, Martindale. Glencoe: Free Press.

Wen, Tsungkuen. 2009. “A Study of Sukkhavipassaka in Pāli Buddhism.” PhD

diss. University of Queensland.

Werner, Karel. 1981. “Bodhi and Arahattaphala: From Early Buddhism to Early

Mahāyāna.” Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies IV, No. 1:

70-86.

— .1998. Yoga and the Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Wijesekera, O.H.de. A. 1964. “The Concept of Viññāṇa in Theravāda Buddhism.”

Journal of the American Oriental Society 84, No. 3: 254-59.

—. 1945. “Vedic Gandharva and Pāli Gandhabba.” University of Ceylon Review 3,

No. 1: 73-107..

—.1994. “The Philosophical Import of Vedic Yakṣa and Pāli Yakkha.” In Buddhist

and Vedic Studies, edited by M.H.F. Jayasuriya,, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers.

Wijayaratana, Mohan. 1990. Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the

Theravāda Tradition. Translated by Claude Graigien and Collin Steven,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winston, L. King, 1992. Theravāda Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of

Yoga. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

White, David Gordon. 2014. The Yoga Sutra of Patañjali: A Biography. New

Jersey: Princeton University Press.

   312  

Yuki, Sirimane. 2010. “An Analysis of the Peak Experience of a Magga-Phala.” In

Buddhism: Contemporary Studies, Selected Papers from 3rd International

Conference Sri Lanka Association of Buddhist Studies, edited by Sanath

Nanayakkara and Russell Bowden, Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka Association of Buddhist

Studies.

—. 2016. Entering the Stream to Enlightenment: Experiences of the Stages of the

Buddhist Path in Contemporary Sri Lanka. U.K.: Equinos Publishers Ltd.

Reference and Lexical Materials

Encyclopedia of Buddhism vol. I-VIII. Edited by G.P.Malalasekera.1961-2007.

Colombo: Government of Ceylon Press.

Pāli English Dictionary. Edited by T.W. Rhys Davids and Stede William. 1921-25.

New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.

A Critical Pāli Dictionary. Edited by Trenckner Vilhelm, Online version (http: www.

http://pali.hum.ku.dk/cpd/search.html)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. Edited by Franklin Edgerton.1953. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.