Nibbàna Sermon 17

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammàsambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammàsambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammàsambuddhassa

Etaü santaü, etaü paõãtaü, yadidaü sabbasaïkhàra­sam­atho sabbåpadhipañinissaggo taõhakkhayo viràgo nirodho nib­bànaü.[1]

"This is peaceful, this is excellent, namely the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all assets, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction".

With the per­mission of the Most Venerable Great Preceptor and the assem­bly of the venerable meditative monks. This is the seventeenth sermon in the series of sermons on Nibbàna.

In our last sermon, we tried to analyse some dis­courses that give us a clue to understand what sort of an ex­perience an ara­hant has in his realization of the cessation of existence in the arahattaphalasamàdhi.

We happened to mention that the arahant sees the cessa­tion of existence with a deeply penetrative vision of the void that may be compared to a gaze that knows no horizon. We also dropped the hint that the non-manifestative conscious­ness, endless and lustrous on all sides, we had spoken of in an earlier sermon,[2] is an explicit reference to this same experi­ence.

How the arahant, ranging in his triple pasture of the sign­less deliverance, the undirected deliverance and the void de­liv­erance, animitta vimokkha, appaõihita vimokkha and su¤­¤ata vi­mokkha, gets free from the latency to perception, transcends the duality of form and formless, and crosses over this ocean of existence unhindered by Màra, has been de­scribed in vari­ous ways in various discourses.

Let us now take up for discussion in this connection three significant verses that are found in the Itivuttaka.

Ye ca råpåpagà sattà

ye ca aråpaññhàyino,

nirodhaü appajànantà

àgantàro punabbhavaü.

Ye ca råpe pari¤¤àya,

aråpesu asaõñhità,

nirodhe ye vimuccanti,

te janà maccuhàyino.

Kàyena amataü dhàtuü,

phusaytivà niråpadhiü,

upadhipañinissaggaü,

sacchikatvà anàsavo,

deseti sammàsambuddho,

asokaü virajaü padaü.[3]

"Those beings that go to realms of form,

And those who are settled in formless realms,

Not understanding the fact of cessation,

Come back again and again to existence.

Those who, having comprehended realms of form,

Do not settle in formless realms,

Are released in the experience of cessation,

It is they that are the dispellers of death.

Having touched with the body the deathless element,

Which is asset-less,

And realized the relinquishment of assets,

Being influx-free, the perfectly enlightened one,

Proclaims the sorrow-less, taintless state."

The meaning of the first verse is clear enough. Those who are in realms of form and formless realms are reborn again and again due to not understanding the fact of cessation.

In the case of the second verse, there is some confusion as to the correct reading. We have mentioned earlier, too, that some of the deep discourses present considerable difficulty in determining what the correct reading is.[4] They have not come down with sufficient clarity. Where the meaning is not clear enough, there is a likelihood for the oral tradition to become corrupt. Here we accepted the reading asaõñhità.

Ye ca råpe pari¤¤àya,

aråpesu asaõñhità,

"Those who, having comprehended realms of form,

Do not settle in formless realms".

But there is the variant reading susaõñhità, which gives the meaning "settled well". The two readings contradict each other and so we have a problem here. The commentary accepts the reading asaõñhità.[5] We too followed it, for some valid reason and not simply because it accords with the commentary.

However, in several modern editions of the text, the read­ing asaõñhità has been replaced by susaõñhità, probably be­cause it seems to make sense, prima facie.

But, as we pointed out in this series of sermons, there is the question of the dichotomy between the form and the formless. The formless, or aråpa, is like the shadow of form, råpa. There­fore, when one comprehends form, one also understands that the formless, too, is not worthwhile settling in. It is in that sense that we brought in the reading asaõñhità in this context.

Those who have fully comprehended form, do not depend on the formless either, and it is they that are released in the re­alization of cessation. They transcend the duality of form and formless and, by directing their minds to the cessation of ex­istence, attain emancipation.

In the last verse it is said that the Buddha realized the relin­quishment of assets known as nirupadhi, the "asset-less". It also says that he touched the deathless element with the body. In a previous sermon we happened to quote a verse from the Udàna which had the conclusive lines:

Phusanti phassà upadhiü pañicca,

Nirupadhiü kena phuseyyum phassà.[6]

"Touches touch one because of assets,

How can touches touch him who is asset-less?"

According to this verse, it seems that here there is no touch. So what we have stated above might even appear as contra­dic­tory. The above verse speaks of a `touching' of the death­less element with the body. One might ask how one can touch, when there is no touch at all? But here we have an extremely deep idea, almost a paradox.

To be free from touch is in itself the `touching' of the death­less element.

What we mean to say is that, as far as the fear of death is concerned, here we have the freedom from the pain of death and in fact the freedom from the concept of death itself.

The Buddha and the arahants, with the help of that wis­dom, while in that arahattaphalasamàdhi described as anàsa­và cetovimutti pa¤¤àvimutti,[7] or akuppà cetovimutti,[8] let go of their entire body and realized the cessation of existence, there­by freeing themselves from touch and feeling. That is why Nib­­bàna is called a bliss devoid of feeling, avedayita sukha. [9]

This giving up, this letting go when Màra is coming to grab and seize, is a very subtle affair. To give up and let go when Màra comes to grab is to touch the deathless, because thereby one is freed from touch and feelings. Here, then, we have a para­dox. So subtle is this Dhamma!

How does one realize cessation? By attending to the cessa­tion aspect of preparations.

As we have already mentioned, to arise and to cease is of the nature of preparations, and here the attention is on the ceas­ing aspect. The worldlings in general pay attention to the arising aspect. They can see only that aspect. The Buddhas, on the other hand, have seen the cessation of existence in a subtle way. The culmination of the practice of paying attention to the cessation aspect of preparations is the realization of the cessa­tion of existence.

Bhava, or existence, is the domain of Màra. How does one escape from the grip of Màra? By going beyond his range of vision, that is to say by attending to the cessation of existence, bhavanirodha.

All experiences of pleasure and pain are there so long as one is in bhava. The arahant wins to the freedom from form and formless and from pleasure and pain, as it was said in a verse already quoted:

Atha råpà aråpà ca,

sukhadukkhà pamuccati.[10]

"And then from form and formless,

And from pleasure and pain is he freed."

We explained that verse as a reference to arahattaphala­samàdhi. Here, too, we are on the same point. The concept of the cessation of existence is indeed very deep. It is so deep that one might wonder whether there is anything worthwhile in Nib­bàna, if it is equivalent to the cessation of existence.

As a matter of fact, we do come across an important dis­course among the Tens of the Aïguttara Nikàya, where Nib­bàna is explicitly called bhavanirodha. It is in the form of a dialogue between Venerable ânanda and Venerable Sàriputta. As usual, Venerable ânanda is enquiring about that extraordi­nary samàdhi.

Siyà nu kho, àvuso Sàriputta, bhikkhuno tathàråpo sam­àdhi­pañi­làbho yathà neva pathaviyaü pathavisa¤¤ã assa, na àpasmiü àposa¤¤ã assa, na tejasmiü tejosa¤¤ã assa, na vàyas­miü vàyo­sa¤¤ã assa, na àkàsàna¤càyatane àkàsàna¤cà­ya­ta­na­sa¤¤ã as­sa, na vi¤¤àõa¤càyatane vi¤¤àõancàyatanasa¤¤ã as­sa, na à­ki¤ca¤¤àyatane àki¤ca¤¤àyatanasa¤¤ã assa, na neva­­sa¤¤à­nà­sa¤­¤àyatane nevasa¤¤ànàsa¤¤àyatanasa¤¤ã as­sa, na idha­loke idha­lokasa¤¤ã assa, na paraloke paralo­ka­sa¤­¤ã assa, - sa¤¤ã ca pana as­sa?[11]

"Could there be, friend Sàriputta, for a monk such an at­tainment of concentration wherein he will not be conscious of earth in earth, nor of water in water, nor of fire in fire, nor of air in air, nor will he be conscious of the sphere of infinite space in the sphere of infinite space, nor of the sphere of infi­nite consciousness in the sphere of infinite consciousness, nor of the sphere of nothingness in the sphere of nothingness, nor of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nor of a this world in this world, nor of a world beyond in a world beyond - and yet he will be conscious?"

Venerable Sàriputta's reply to it is: "There could be, friend ânanda." Then Venerable ânanda asks again: "But then, friend Sàriputta, in which manner could there be such an at­tainment of concentration for a monk?"

At that point Venerable Sàriputta comes out with his own experience, revealing that he himself once attained to such a samàdhi, when he was at Andhavana in Sàvatthi. Venerable ânanda, however, is still curious to ascertain what sort of per­ception he was having, when he was in that samàdhi. The ex­planation given by Venerable Sàriputta in response to it, is of utmost importance. It runs:

Bhavanirodho nibbànaü, bhavanirodho nibbànan'ti kho me, avuso, a¤¤à'va sa¤¤à uppajjati a¤¤à'va sa¤¤à nirujjhati.

Seyyathàpi, àvuso, sakalikaggissa jhàyamànassa a¤¤à'va acci uppajjati, a¤¤à'va acci nirujjhati, evam eva kho me àvuso bhavanirodho nibbànaü, bhavanirodho nibbànam 'ti a¤¤à'va sa¤¤à uppajjati a¤¤à'va sa¤¤à nirujjhati, bhavanirodho nib­bànaü sa¤¤ã ca panàhaü, àvuso, tasmiü samaye ahosiü.

"One perception arises in me, friend: `cessation of exis­tence is Nibbàna', `cessation of existence is Nibbàna', and an­other perception fades out in me: `cessation of existence is Nib­­bàna', `cessation of existence is Nibbàna'.

Just as, friend, in the case of a twig fire, when it is burning one flame arises and another flame fades out. Even so, friend, one perception arises in me: `cessation of existence is Nib­bàna', `cessation of existence is Nibbàna', and another per­ception fades out in me: `cessation of existence is Nibbàna', `cessation of existence is Nibbàna', at that time, friend, I was of the perception `cessation of existence is Nibbàna'."

The true significance of the simile of the twig fire is that Venerable Sàriputta was attending to the cessation aspect of preparations. As we mentioned in connection with the formula etaü santaü, etaü paõãtaü, "this is peaceful, this is excel­lent", occurring in a similar context, we are not to conclude that Venerable Sàriputta kept on repeating 'cessation of exis­tence is Nibbàna'.

The insight into a flame could be different from a mere sight of a flame. Worldlings in general see only a process of burning in a flame. To the insight meditator it can appear as an intermittent series of extinctions. It is the outcome of a pene­trative vision. Just like the flame, which simulates compact­ness, existence, too, is a product of saïkhàras, or preparations.

The worldling who attends to the arising aspect and ignores the cessation aspect is carried away by the perception of the compact. But the mind, when steadied, is able to see the phe­nomenon of cessation: òhitaü cittaü vippamuttaü, vaya¤cas­sànu­passati,[12] "the mind steadied and released contem­plates its own passing away".

With that steadied mind the arahant attends to the cessa­tion of preparations. At its climax, he penetrates the gamut of existence made up of preparations, as in the case of a flame, and goes beyond the clutches of death.

As a comparison for existence, the simile of the flame is quite apt. We happened to point out earlier, that the word upà­dàna can mean "grasping" as well as "fuel".[13] The totality of ex­istence is sometimes referred to as a fire.[14] The fuel for the fire of existence is grasping itself. With the removal of that fuel, one experiences extinction.

The dictum bhavanirodho nibbànam clearly shows that Nibbàna is the cessation of existence. There is another signifi­cant discourse which equates Nibbàna to the experience of the cessation of the six sense-bases, saëàyatananirodha. The same experience of realization is viewed from a different angle. We have already shown that the cessation of the six sense-bases, or the six sense-spheres, is also called Nibbàna.[15]

The discourse we are now going to take up is one in which the Buddha presented the theme as some sort of a riddle for the monks to work out for themselves.

Tasmàtiha, bhikkhave, se àyatane veditabbe yattha cak­khu¤­ca nirujjhati råpasa¤¤à ca virajjati, se àyatane veditabbe yattha sota¤ca nirujjhati saddasa¤¤à ca virajjati, se àyatane veditabbe yattha ghàna¤ca nirujjhati gandhasa¤¤à ca vi­raj­jati, se àyatane veditabbe yattha jivhà ca nirujjhati rasasa¤¤à ca virajjati, se àyatane veditabbe yattha kàyo ca nirujjhati phoñ­­ñabbasa¤¤à ca virajjati, se àyatane veditabbe yattha mano ca nirujjhati dhammasa¤¤à ca virajjati, se àyatane veditabbe, se àyatane veditabbe.[16]

"Therefore, monks, that sphere should be known wherein the eye ceases and perceptions of form fade away, that sphere should be known wherein the ear ceases and perceptions of sound fade away, that sphere should be known wherein the nose ceases and perceptions of smell fade away, that sphere should be known wherein the tongue ceases and perceptions of taste fade away, that sphere should be known wherein the body ceases and perceptions of the tangible fade away, that sphere should be known wherein the mind ceases and percep­tions of mind objects fade away, that sphere should be known, that sphere should be known."

There is some peculiarity in the very wording of the pas­sage, when it says, for instance, that the eye ceases, cakkhu¤ca nirujjhati and perceptions of form fade away, råpasa¤¤à ca vi­rajjati. As we once pointed out, the word viràga, usually ren­dered by "detachment", has a nuance equivalent to "fading away" or "decolouration".[17] Here that nuance is clearly evi­dent. When the eye ceases, perceptions of forms fade away.

The Buddha is enjoining the monks to understand that sphere, not disclosing what it is, in which the eye ceases and perceptions of form fade away, and likewise the ear ceases and perceptions of sound fade away, the nose ceases and percep­tions of smell fade away, the tongue ceases and perceptions of taste fade away, the body ceases and perceptions of the tangi­ble fade away, and last of all even the mind ceases and per­ceptions of mind objects fade away. This last is particularly note­­worthy.

Without giving any clue to the meaning of this brief ex­hor­tation, the Buddha got up and entered the monastery, leav­ing the monks perplexed. Wondering how they could get it ex­plained, they approached Venerable ânanda and begged him to comment at length on what the Buddha had preached in brief. With some modest reluctance, Venerable ânanda com­plied, urging that his comment be reported to the Buddha for confirmation. His comments, however, amounted to just one sentence:

Saëàyatananirodhaü, kho àvuso, Bhagavatà sandhàya bhà­si­taü. "Friends, it is with reference to the cessation of the six sense-spheres that the Exalted One has preached this ser­mon."

When those monks approached the Buddha and placed Ven­erable ânanda's explanation before him, the Buddha rati­fied it. Hence it is clear that the term àyatana in the above pas­sage refers not to any one of the six sense-spheres, but to Nib­bàna, which is the cessation of all of them.

The commentator, Venerable Buddhaghosa, too accepts this position in his commentary to the passage in question. Saëàyatananirodhan'ti saëàyatananirodho vuccati nibbànam, tam sandhàya bhàsitan ti attho, "the cessation of the six sense-spheres, what is called the cessation of the six sense-spheres is Nibbàna, the meaning is that the Buddha's sermon is a refer­ence to it".[18]

The passage in question bears testimony to two important facts. Firstly that Nibbàna is called the cessation of the six sense-spheres. Secondly that this experience is referred to as an àyatana, or a `sphere'.

The fact that Nibbàna is sometimes called àyatana is fur­ther corroborated by a certain passage in the Saëàyatan­vi­bhaï­gasutta, which defines the term nekkhammasita doma­nas­sa.[19] In that discourse, which deals with some deeper aspects of the Dhamma, the concept of nekkhammasita domanassa, or "un­happiness connected with renunciation", is explained as fol­lows:

If one contemplates with insight wisdom the sense-objects like forms and sounds as impermanent, suffering-fraught and transient, and develops a longing for Nibbàna, due to that long­ing or expectation one might feel an unhappiness. It is such an unhappiness which, however, is superior to an unhap­piness connected with the household life, that is called nek­kham­ma­­sita domanassa, or "unhappiness connected with re­nun­ciation".

How such an unhappiness may arise in a monk is described in that discourse in the following manner:

`Kudàssu nàmàhaü tadàyatanaü upasampajja viharissàmi yadariyà etarahi àyatanaü upasampajja viharanti?' iti anut­ta­­resu vimokkhesu pihaü upaññhàpayato uppajjati pihàpac­ca­yà domanassaü. Yaü evaråpaü domanassaü idaü vuccati nek­khammasitadomanassaü.

"`O, when shall I attain to and dwell in that sphere to which the Noble Ones now attain and dwell in?' Thus, as he sets up a longing for the incomparable deliverances, there arises an un­hap­piness due to that longing. It is such an unhappiness that is called unhappiness connected with renunciation."

What are called "incomparable deliverances" are the three doorways to Nibbàna, the signless, the undirected and the void. We can therefore conclude that the sphere to which this monk aspires is none other than Nibbàna. So here we have a second instance of a reference to Nibbàna as a `sphere' or à­ya­tana.

Now let us bring up a third:

Atthi, bhikkhave, tad àyatanaü, yattha n'eva pathavã na àpo na tejo na vàyo na àkàsàna¤càyatanaü na vi¤¤àõàna¤­càyatanaü na àki¤ca¤¤àyatanaü na nevasa¤¤ànà­sa¤¤à­ya­tanaü na ayaü loko na paraloko na ubho candimasåriyà. Ta­tra p'ahaü bhikkhave, n'eva àgatiü vadàmi na gatiü na ñhi­tiü na cutiü na upapattiü, appatiññhaü appavattaü anàram­ma­õaü eva taü. Es'ev'anto dukkhassà'ti.[20]

Incidentally, this happens to be the most controversial pas­sage on Nibbàna. Scholars, both ancient and modern, have put forward various interpretations of this much vexed passage. Its riddle-like presentation has posed a challenge to many a phi­loso­pher bent on determining what Nibbàna is.

This brief discourse comes in the Udàna as an inspired ut­terance of the Buddha on the subject of Nibbàna, Nibbàna­pañi­samyuttasutta. To begin with, we shall try to give a somewhat literal translation of the passage:

"Monks, there is that sphere, wherein there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air; neither the sphere of infinite space, nor the sphere of infinite consciousness, nor the sphere of nothingness, nor the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-per­ception; neither this world nor the world beyond, nor the sun and the moon. There, monks, I say, is no coming, no going, no staying, no passing away and no arising; it is not established, it is not continuing, it has no object. This, itself, is the end of suf­fering."

Instead of getting down to the commentarial interpretation at the very outset, let us try to understand this discourse on the lines of the interpretation we have so far developed. We have already come across two references to Nibbàna as an àyatana or a sphere. In the present context, too, the term àyatana is an allusion to arahattaphalasamàdhi. Its significance, therefore, is psychological.

First of all we are told that earth, water, fire and air are not there in that àyatana. This is understandable, since in a num­ber of discourses dealing with anidassana vi¤¤àõa and ara­hat­ta­phalasamàdhi we came across similar statements. It is said that in anidassana vi¤¤àõa, or non-manifestative conscious­ness, earth, water, fire and air do not find a footing. Similarly, when one is in arahattaphalasamàdhi, one is said to be devoid of the perception of earth in earth, for instance, because he does not attend to it. So the peculiar negative formulation of the above Udàna passage is suggestive of the fact that these elements do not exercise any influence on the mind of one who is in arahattaphalasamàdhi.

The usual interpretation, however, is that it describes some kind of a place or a world devoid of those elements. It is gen­erally believed that the passage in question is a description of the `sphere' into which the arahant passes away, that is, his after death `state'. This facile explanation is often presented only as a tacit assumption, for fear of being accused of hereti­cal views. But it must be pointed out that the allusion here is to a certain level of experience of the living arahant, namely the realization, here and now, of the cessation of existence, bha­va­nirodha.

The four elements have no part to play in that experience. The sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite conscious­ness etc. also do not come in, as we have already shown with reference to a number of discourses. So it is free from both form and formless.

The statement that there is neither this world nor a world be­yond could be understood in the light of the phrase, na idha­loke idhalokasa¤¤ã, na paraloke paralokasa¤¤ã, "percipient neither of a this world in this world, nor of a world beyond in a world beyond" that came up in a passage discussed above.

The absence of the moon and the sun, na ubho candima såri­yà, in this sphere, is taken as the strongest argument in fa­vour of concluding that Nibbàna is some kind of a place, a place where there is no moon or sun.

But as we have explained in the course of our discussion of the term anidassana vi¤¤àõa, or non-manifestative conscious­ness, with the cessation of the six sense-spheres, due to the all lustrous nature of the mind, sun and moon lose their lustre, though the senses are all intact. Their lustre is superseded by the lustre of wisdom. They pale away and fade into insignifi­cance before it. It is in this sense that the moon and the sun are said to be not there in that sphere.

Why there is no coming, no going, no staying, no pass­ing away and no arising, can be understood in the light of what we have observed in earlier sermons on the question of rela­tive con­cepts. The verbal dichotomy characteristic of worldly con­cepts is reflected in this reference to a coming and a going etc. The arahant in arahattaphalasamàdhi is free from the limi­ta­tions imposed by this verbal dichotomy.

The three terms appatiññhaü, appavattaü and an­àram­ma­õaü, "not established", "not continuing" and "objectless", are suggestive of the three doorways to deliverance. Appatiññhaü refers to appaõihita vimokkha, "undirected deliverance", which comes through the extirpation of craving. Appavattaü stands for su¤¤ata vimokkha, the "void deliverance", which is the ne­gation of continuity. Anàrammaõaü is clearly enough a refer­ence to animitta vimokkha, the "signless deliverance". Not to have an object is to be signless.

The concluding sentence "this itself is the end of suffering" is therefore a clear indication that the end of suffering is reached here and now. It does not mean that the arahant gets half of Nibbàna here and the other half `there'.

Our line of interpretation leads to such a conclusion, but of course, in case there are shortcomings in it, we could perhaps improve on it by having recourse to the commentarial inter­pre­tation.

Now as to the commentarial interpretation, this is how the Udàna commentary explains the points we have discussed:[21] It paraphrases the term àyatana by kàraõa, observing that it means reason in this context. Just as much as forms stand in relation of an object to the eye, so the asaïkhata dhàtu, or the "unprepared element", is said to be an object to the arahant's mind, and here it is called àyatana.

Then the commentary raises the question, why earth, water, fire and air are not there in that asaïkhata dhàtu. The four ele­ments are representative of things prepared, saïkhata. There can­not be any mingling or juxtaposition between the saï­khata and the asaïkhata. That is why earth, water, fire and air are not supposed to be there, in that àyatana.

The question why there are no formless states, like the sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, is similarly explained, while asserting that Nibbàna is nevertheless formless.

Since in Nibbàna one has transcended the sensuous sphere, kàmaloka, the concepts of a this world and a world beyond are said to be irrelevant. As to why the sun and the moon are not there, the commentary gives the following explanation:

In realms of form there is generally darkness, to dispel which there must be a sun and a moon. But Nibbàna is not a realm of form, so how could sun and moon come in?

Then what about the reference to a coming, a going, a stay­ing, a passing away and an arising? No one comes to Nib­bàna from anywhere and no one goes out from it, no one stays in it or passes away or reappears in it.

Now all this is mystifying enough. But the commentary goes on to interpret the three terms appatiññhaü, appa­vat­taü and anàrammaõaü also in the same vein. Only that which has form gets established and Nibbàna is formless, therefore it is not established anywhere. Nibbàna does not continue, so it is ap­pavattaü, or non-continuing. Since Nibbàna takes no ob­ject, it is objectless, anàrammaõaü. It is as good as saying that, though one may take Nibbàna as an object, Nibbàna itself takes no object.

So this is what the traditional interpretation amounts to. If there are any shortcomings in our explanation, one is free to go for the commentarial. But it is obvious that there is a lot of confusion in this commentarial trend. Insufficient appreciation of the deep concept of the cessation of existence seems to have caused all this confusion.

More often than otherwise, commentarial interpretations of Nibbàna leaves room for some subtle craving for existence, bha­va­­taõhà. It gives a vague idea of a place or a sphere, àya­ta­na, which serves as a surrogate destination for the arahants after their demise. Though not always explicitly asserted, it is at least tacitly suggested. The description given above is ample proof of this trend. It conjures up a place where there is no sun and no moon, a place that is not a place. Such confounding trends have crept in probably due to the very depth of this Dham­­ma.

Deep indeed is this Dhamma and hard to comprehend, as the Buddha once confided in Venerable Sàriputta with a trace of tiredness:

Saïkhittenapi kho ahaü, Sàriputta, dhammaü deseyyaü, vit­thàrenapi kho ahaü, Sàriputta, dhammaü deseyyaü, saï­khittenavitthàrenapi kho ahaü, Sàriputta, dhammaü desey­yaü, a¤¤àtàro ca dullabhà.[22]

"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sàriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sàri­put­ta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sàri­putta, rare are those who under­stand."

Then Venerable Sàriputta implores the Buddha to preach in brief, in detail and both in brief and in detail, saying that there will be those who understand. In response to it the Buddha gives the following instruction to Venerable Sàriputta:

Tasmàtiha, Sàriputta, evaü sikkhitabbaü: `Imasmi¤ca sa­vi¤­¤àõake kàye ahaïkàramamaïkàramànànusayà na bhavis­santi, bahiddhà ca sabbanimittesu ahaïkàramamaïkàra­màn­ànusayà na bhavis­santi, ya¤ca cetovimuttiü pa¤¤àvimuttiü upasampajja viharato ahaïkàramamaïkàramànànusayà na honti, ta¤ca cetovimuttiü pa¤¤àvimuttiü upasampajja vi­ha­ris­sàmà'ti. Eva¤hi kho, Sàriputta, sikkhitabbaü,

"If that is so, Sàriputta, you all should train yourselves thus: In this conscious body and in all external signs there shall be no latencies to conceits in terms of I-ing and my-ing, and we will attain to and dwell in that deliverance of the mind and that deliverance through wisdom whereby no such laten­cies to conceits of I-ing and my-ing will arise. Thus should you all train yourselves!"

The Buddha goes on to declare the final outcome of that training: Ayaü vuccati, Sàriputta, bhikkhu acchecchi taõhaü vàvattayi saüyojanaü sammà mànàbhisamayà antam akàsi dukkhassa.

"Such a monk, Sàriputta, is called one who has cut off craving, turned back the fetters, and by rightly under­stand­ing conceit for what it is, has made an end of suffering."

We find the Buddha summing up his exhortation by quot­ing two verses from a Sutta in the Pàràyanavagga of the Sutta Ni­pàta, which he himself had preached to the Brahmin youth Uda­ya. We may mention in passing that among canonical texts, the Sutta Nipàta was held in high esteem so much so that in a number of discourses the Buddha is seen quoting from it, particularly from the two sections Añ­ñha­ka­vag­ga and Pàrà­ya­na­vagga. Now the two verses he quotes in this instance from the Pàràyanavagga are as follows:

Pahànaü kàmacchandànaü,

domanassàna cåbhayaü,

thãõassa ca panådanaü,

kukkuccànaü nivàraõaü,

Upekhàsatisaüsuddhaü,

dhammatakkapurejavaü,

a¤¤àvimokhaü pabråmi,

avijjàyappabhedanaü.[23]

"The abandonment of both sensuous perceptions,

And unpleasant mental states,

The dispelling of torpidity ,

And the warding off of remorse,

The purity born of equanimity and mindfulness,

With thoughts of Dhamma forging ahead,

And blasting ignorance,

This I call the deliverance through full understanding."

This is ample proof of the fact that the arahatta­phala­sam­àdhi is also called a¤¤àvimokkha. Among the Nines of the Aï­gut­tara Nikàya we come across another discourse which throws more light on the subject. Here Venerable ânanda is addressing a group of monks.

Acchariyaü, àvuso, abbhutam, àvuso, yàva¤cidaü tena Bhagavatà jànatà passatà arahatà sammàsambuddhena sam­bàdhe okàsàdhigamo anubuddho sattànaü visuddhiyà soka­pariddavànaü samatikkamàya dukkhadomanassànaü at­thaï­gamàya ¤àyassa adhigamàya nibbànassa sacchikiriyàya.

Tadeva nàma cakkhuü bhavissati te råpà ta¤càyatanaü no pañisaüvedissati. Tadeva nàma sotaü bhavissati te saddà ta¤­càyatanaü no pañisaüvedissati. Tadeva nàma ghànaü bhavis­sati te gandhà ta¤càyatanaü no pañisaüvedissati. Sà ca nàma jivhà bhavissati te rasà ta¤càyatanaü no pañisaüvedissati. So ca nàma kàyo bhavissati te phoññhabbà ta¤càyatanaü no pañi­saü­vedissati.[24]

"It is wonderful, friends, it is marvellous, friends, that the Exalted One who knows and sees, that Worthy One, fully en­lightened, has discovered an opportunity in obstructing cir­cumstances for the purification of beings, for the transcending of sorrow and lamentation, for the ending of pain and unhap­piness, for the attainment of the right path, for the realization of Nibbàna.

In as much as that same eye will be there, those forms will be there, but one will not be experiencing the appropriate sense-sphere. That same ear will be there, those sounds will be there, but one will not be experiencing the appropriate sense-sphere. That same nose will be there, those smells will be there, but one will not be experiencing the appropriate sense-sphere. That same tongue will be there, those flavours will be there, but one will not be experiencing the appropriate sense-sphere. That same body will be there, those tangibles will be there, but one will not be experiencing the appropriate sense-sphere."

What is so wonderful and marvellous about this newly dis­covered opportunity is that, though apparently the senses and their corresponding objects come together, there is no experi­ence of the appropriate spheres of sense contact. When Vener­able ânanda had described this extraordinary level of experi­ence in these words, Venerable Udàyã raised the following ques­tion:

Sa¤¤ãmeva nu kho àvuso ânanda, tadàyatanaü no pañi­saü­­vedeti udàhu asa¤¤ã? "Friend, is it the fact that while be­ing conscious one is not experiencing that sphere or is he un­conscious at that time?"

Venerable ânanda affirms that it is while being conscious, sa¤­¤ãmeva, that such a thing happens. Venerable Udàyã's cross-question gives us a further clue to the riddle like verse we discussed earlier, beginning with na sa¤¤a sa¤¤ã na vi­sa¤­¤a sa¤¤ã.

It is indeed puzzling why one does not experience those sense-objects, though one is conscious. As if to drive home the point, Venerable ânanda relates how he once answered a re­lated question put to him by the nun Jañilagàhiyà when he was staying at the Deer park in A¤janavana in Sàketa. The ques­tion was:

Yàyaü, bhante ânanda, samàdhi na càbhinato na càpanato na ca sasaïkhàraniggayhavàritavato, vimuttattà ñhito, ñhitattà santusito, santusitattà no paritassati. Ayaü, bhante, sam­àdhi kiü­phalo vutto Bhagavatà?

"That concentration, Venerable ânanda, which is neither turned towards nor turned outwards, which is not a vow con­strained by preparations, one that is steady because of free­dom, contented because of steadiness and not hankering be­cause of contentment, Venerable Sir, with what fruit has the Exalted One associated that concentration?"

The question looks so highly compressed that the key words in it might need some clarification. The two terms abhi­nata and apanata are suggestive of lust and hate, as well as introversion and extroversion. This concentration is free from these extreme attitudes. Whereas in ordinary concentration saï­­khàras, or preparations, exercise some degree of control as the term vikkhambhana, "propping up", "suppression", sug­gests, here there is no implication of any forcible action as in a vow. Here the steadiness is born of freedom from that very constriction.

Generally, the steadiness characteristic of a level of con­centration is not much different from the apparent steadi­ness of a spinning top. It is the spinning that keeps the top up. But here the very freedom from that spinning has brought about a steadiness of a higher order, which in its turn gives rise to contentment.

The kind of peace and contentment that comes with sam­àdhi in general is brittle and irritable. That is why it is some­times called kuppa pañicca santi, "peace subject to irritabil­ity".[25] Here, on the contrary, there is no such irritability.

We can well infer from this that the allusion is to akuppà ceto­­vimutti, "unshakeable deliverance of the mind". The kind of contentment born of freedom and stability is so perfect that it leaves no room for hankering, paritassanà.

However, the main point of the question posed by that nun amounts to this: What sort of a fruit does a samàdhi of this de­scription entail, according to the words of the Exalted One? After relating the circumstances connected with the above question as a flash back, Venerable ânanda finally comes out with the answer he had given to the question:

Yàyaü, bhagini, samàdhi na càbhinato na càpanato na ca sasaïkhàraniggayhavàritavato, vimuttattà ñhito, ñhitattà san­tu­sito, santusitattà no paritassati, ayaü, bhagini, samàdhi a¤­¤àphalo vutto Bhagavatà.

"Sister, that concentration which is neither turned towards nor turned outwards, which is not a vow constrained by prepa­rations, one that is steady because of freedom, contented be­cause of steadiness and not hankering because of contentment, that concentration, sister, has been declared by the Buddha to have full understanding as its fruit."

A¤¤à, or full understanding, is one that comes with realiza­tion conferring certitude and it is the fruit of the concentration described above. Then, as if coming back to the point, Vener­able ânanda adds: Evaü sa¤¤ãpi kho, àvuso, tad àya­ta­naü no pañisaüvedeti. "Being thus conscious, too, friend, one does not experience an appropriate sphere of sense."

So now we have garnered sufficient evidence to substanti­ate the claims of this extraordinary arahatta­phala­sam­àdhi. It may also be mentioned that sometimes this realization of the arahant is summed up in a sentence like anàsavaü cetovi­mut­tiü pa¤¤àvimuttiü diññheva dhamme sayaü abhi¤¤à sacchi­kat­­và upasampajja viharati,[26] "having realized by himself through higher knowledge here and now the influx-free deliv­erance of the mind and deliverance through wisdom, he dwells having attained to it."

There is another significant discourse in the section of  the Fours in the Aïguttara Nikàya which throws some light on how one should look upon the arahant when he is in arahatta­phala­samàdhi. The discourse deals with four types of persons, namely:

1) anusotagàmã puggalo "downstream bound person"

2) pañisotagàmã puggalo "upstream bound person"

3) ñhitatto puggalo "stationary person"

4) tiõõo pàragato thale tiññhati bràhmaõo "the Brahmin

stand­ing on dry ground having crossed over and gone be-

yond".[27]

The first type of person indulges in sense pleasures and com­mits evil deeds and is thus bound downstream in saüsàra. The second type of person refrains from indulgence in sense pleasures and from evil deeds. His upstream struggle is well expressed in the following sentence: Sahàpi dukkhena sahàpi domanassena assumukhopi rudamàno paripuõõaü pa­ri­sud­dhaü brahmacariyaü carati, "even with pain, even with dis­pleasure, with tearful face and crying he leads the holy life in its fullness and perfection."

The third type, the stationary, is the non-returner who, after death, goes to the Brahma world and puts and end to suffering there, without coming back to this world.

It is the fourth type of person who is said to have crossed over and gone to the farther shore, tiõõo pàragato, and stands there, thale tiññhati. The word brahmin is used here as an epi­thet of an arahant. This riddle-like reference to an arahant is explained there with the help of the more thematic descrip­tion àsavànaü khayà anàsavaü cetovimuttiü pa¤¤à­vi­muttiü diñ­ñheva dhamme sayaü abhi¤¤à sacchikatvà upa­sam­paj­ja vi­harati, "with the extinction of influxes he attains to and abides in the influx free deliverance of the mind and deliverance through wisdom".

This brings us to an extremely deep point in our discussion on Nibbàna. If the arahant in arahattaphalasamàdhi is sup­posed to be standing on the farther shore, having gone beyond, what is the position with him when he is taking his meals or preaching in his every day life? Does he now and then come back to this side?

Whether the arahant, having gone to the farther shore, comes back at all is a matter of dispute. The fact that it in­volves some deeper issues is revealed by some discourses touching on this question.

The last verse of the Paramaññhakasutta of the Sutta Ni­pà­ta, for instance, makes the following observation:

Na kappayanti na purekkharonti,

dhammà pi tesaü na pañicchitàse,

na bràhmaõo sãlavatena neyyo,

pàraügato na pacceti tàdi.[28]

"They, the arahants, do not formulate or put forward

views,

They do not subscribe to any views,

The true Brahmin is not liable to be led astray by ceremo­-

nial rites and ascetic vows,

The Such like One, who has gone to the farther shore,

comes not back."

It is the last line that concerns us here. For the arahant it uses the term tàdã, a highly significant term which we came across earlier too. The rather literal rendering "such-like" stands for steadfastness, for the unwavering firmness to stand one's ground. So, the implication is that the arahant, once gone beyond, does not come back. The steadfastness associ­ated with the epithet tàdã is reinforced in one Dham­ma­pada verse by bringing in the simile of the firm post at the city gate: Indakhãlåpamo tàdi subbato,[29] "who is steadfast and well con­ducted like the pillar at the city gate."

The verse in question, then, points to the conclusion that the steadfast one, the arahant, who has attained supramundane freedom, does not come back.  

---

---