NIBBĀNA GUARANTEED

The Significance Of Becoming Homeless

In the above teaching, we are taught that no householder ever became fully enlightened, upon dying. As shocking as some will find this, it does not mean all is lost; far from it. The lay practitioner should understand that his endeavour in this lifetime is to become a noble being, a bodhisatta (Bodhi + satta = noble + being). A bodhisatta is someone who is guaranteed Full Enlightenment within nine lives or less, regardless of one’s subsequent effort, kamma, and luck.

The reason we should not be surprised that householders do not become fully enlightened is simply because it is impossible to renounce life, and build a life, at the same time.

Even so, householders should not rule out the possibility of realising Nibbāna at the close of life, whence a householder ceases to be a householder and lets go of all in the throes of death. Retirement might offer an opportunity. Otherwise, the renunciant effort is stymied by the urban environment.

Let’s look into what is meant by ‘dusty’. Dust settles imperceptibly slowly, and given enough time, builds up and becomes matted, binding to whatever it settles on. The human body similarly accrues calculus on the teeth, in veins and arteries, causing illness and death. Similarly, the attachment, born of sensuous experience, which we are particularly exposed to in the household life, slowly and relentlessly, binds us to existence.

The Buddha taught three similes to Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha’s son, highlighting the difficulties of partial withdrawal. They are particularly relevant to the householder.

This first simile depicts the recluses and Brahmins who, whilst ostensibly homeless and pursuing the noble life, still unreservedly delight in bodily senses. Any discomfort arising from their efforts is in vain.

The Buddha presents two more similes to Saccaka. The second simile involves wet sappy wood lying on dry land. The Buddha asks Saccaka what the outcome would be when trying to make a fire with wet sappy wood on dry land. Saccaka answers that such conditions would result in weariness and disappointment. The Buddha explains this second scenario depicts those who are only partially withdrawn from sensual pleasures. And, even if these renunciants experience pains due to their exertions, they are still not capable of knowledge and vision, and supreme enlightenment.

The third simile is of dry sapless wood on dry land far from water. This scenario depicts recluses and Brahmins who are bodily and mentally fully withdrawn from sensual pleasure. Even if these renunciants experience pains due to their exertions, they are capable of knowledge and vision and supreme enlightenment.

The message is clear. Only full withdrawal from sensual pleasures brings Full Enlightenment. Physical and mental pains are not measures of success.

Classes Of Bodhisatta

Just as the life-force in a yellowing leaf diminishes beyond resuscitation, so too do the kammic forces supporting the renunciant’s existence. We can think of this as the point of no regression. A person who is developed to the point of no regression is known as a Bodhisatta of which there are several classes. Entry level starts with the Stream-Enterer/Winner of which there are several sub-types, followed by the Once-Returner, and then the Non-Returner. Buddhas and arahants are not classed as bodhisatta, even though they are noble beings. This is because their work is complete. They have no more lives left to live.

On one occasion, while warning a group of bhikkhus against following unskilful teachers and teachings, the Buddha gave a simile of two cow herders (Cūḷagopālaka Suttaṃ MN34). The teaching distinguishes the different types of Bodhisatta.

There was once a foolish cowherd from Magadha who came to a place on the Ganges river that had no ford. Being the last month of the rainy season in autumn, the river was swollen, and he failed to examine the near and far shore before driving his cattle across. The herd met with disaster. The Buddha explained the cowherd depicted the wrong sort of teacher. He described these as recluses and brahmins who are unskilful in this world, and unskilful in the other world, and unskilled in Mara the tempter’s reign, and what is outside Mara’s reign, and unskilled in the realm of death, and what is outside the realm of death. He warned such unskilfulness will lead to harm and suffering for a long time for those who think they should listen to such unskilled and unenlightened recluses and Brahmins.

By ‘unskilled’ the Buddha refers to teachers ignorant of true renunciant wisdom.

There was also a wise Magadhan cowherd who, in the last month of the rainy season, had cattle to drive across the Ganges at a place that had no ford. Being wise, he examined the near and far shores. Then he had the bulls, who were the fathers and leaders of the herd, enter first. When they had crossed, he had the strong cattle and the cattle to be tamed enter. When they had crossed, he made the heifers and young oxen enter. When they had crossed, he made the calves and feeble cattle cross. Lastly, there was a newborn tender calf, which was urged along by its mother’s lowing. It too crossed safely. So too, the Buddha explained, there are recluses and Brahmins who are skilful in this world and the other world, skilled in Mara’s reign and what is outside of Mara’s reign, skilled in the realm of death and what is outside the realm of death. It will lead to the welfare and happiness for a long time of those who think they should listen to them and place faith in them.

The Buddha then explained the symbolism behind the different cattle. The leaders of the herd, who were first to cross, are arahants who have destroyed all fetters. The renunciative life has been lived, their work is complete, they have laid down the burden. They have crossed Mara’s stream and safely arrived at the other shore. Second to cross were the strong cattle and the cattle to be tamed, which symbolise the non-returnees who have destroyed the five fetters. They reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes. Third to cross were the heifers and young oxen. These symbolise the once-returnees. They have destroyed the three fetters and attenuated lust, hate and delusion. Fourth to cross were the calves and feeble cattle. They symbolise stream-enterers. They have destroyed the three fetters. Fifth to cross was the tender calf, which symbolises the bhikkhus who are Dhamma-Followers and Faith-Followers. All have crossed Mara’s stream and have reached safety.

The Buddha adds that by merely thinking one should listen, and have faith in the Dhamma, leads to one’s welfare for a long time.

So, the bodhisatta identified above are the non-returner, once-returner, and stream winners. Of the latter, there are two types: the Dhamma-Followers and Faith-Followers. These noble beings are defined by which of ten fetters they have managed to overcome. We will now look at what these fetters are.

The Five Lower Fetters

There was an occasion when the Buddha was residing at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, in Anāthapindika’s Park. He asked a group of bhikkhus if they could recall the five lower fetters. The Venerable Mālunkyāputta reiterated them as personality view, doubt, adherence to rules and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. Whilst this was correct, his answer appears to have lacked something. The Buddha pointed out that some sectarians would argue that a baby also has no notion of these five fetters.

The Buddha criticised Mālunkyāputta’s reply by teaching the simile of two swimmers. Just as a feeble swimmer will not succeed in crossing the swollen Ganges, the full fruit of the Dhamma cannot manifest if the mind of the listener does not acquire confidence, steadfastness and resolution in it. And just as it takes a strong-armed man to successfully swim a swollen river Ganges, so too a man’s mind must enter into the Dhamma with steadfastness and resolution, if he is to be successful. The teaching here is that a man needs to be more than strong in knowledge of the Dhamma, but he must also walk the path to abandoning the five lower fetters, and his mind must enter into it.

The Stream Enterer

The Pāli word sotapanna (sota + panna = ear, river + wisdom) is usually translated as stream enterer and stream winner. It could also be meaningfully translated as wisdom-hearer.

In the Sāmaññaphala Suttaṃ (DN2:102) stream entry is described as the opening of the Dhamma eye. This is a euphemism for someone who has not only realised the import of the Dhamma but, by virtue of insight, one’s faith becomes planted, rooted, and established in the Dhamma. It may or may not be a eureka moment, so to speak, but more likely develops over a long-term practice.

Once stream entry is attained, a person cannot be reborn more than seven times, as a stream winner. The Ratana Sutta says: “Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom, even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).”

We notice that the translator has added qualifying brackets, restricting this limit to the sense-sphere. Unfortunately, we cannot passively accept what the Pāli Canon tells us regarding some faith teachings on cosmology and rebirth. They can be vague and even inconsistent.

The Javanasabha Sutta tells us that King Bimbisara of Magadha was reborn as a Yakkha called Javanasabha, and then reappeared to the Buddha and Ānanda. He says he could recall fourteen of his previous lives, and has known for some time he has been a stream winner, and that he looks forward to becoming a once-returner.

This is not a helpful teaching. It doesn’t tell us where his fourteen lives were spent, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that all fourteen lives were as a stream winner. Such is the ambiguity of the Pāli Canon regarding cosmology and rebirth, we are left to ascertain a reasonably convenient teaching for ourselves and will return to this issue later.

We want to know whether we live seven lives as a stream winner, and then another two as a non-returner. This, of course, would make a maximum possible total of nine lives. And, whatever the number, are we destined to live them all? If the former, and we have to live them all, then the universe is suspiciously clockwork.

It also has to be noted that the remarkable absence of anything explicit on these points further raises suspicion. How can such a far-reaching reasonable faith-teaching end up being so vaguely stated?

Another defining term for noble beings is that he is forever free from reappearing in a world of woe. But this doesn’t mean a bodhisatta never again endures suffering. Whether stream winner or arahant, this world is still this world, and the mind and body still function in response to feelings pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. Whether Nibbāna is assured in some future life, or is already attained, all beings feel the vicissitudes of life. Only those who can descend into voidness find unassailable respite, and only for as long as they reside therein.

Entry-level Bodhisattahood is stream entry, and it is reached by abandoning the three lower fetters of personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances.

‘Abandoned by seeing’ means an appreciation in one’s own experience of the ethics contained in the four noble truths.

Self-Identity Views / Uncertainty

The Buddha taught all is impermanent, and there is no immutable self or soul. But the bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, acquired a perniciously wrong view regarding consciousness. He thought the same consciousness spanned successive rebirths. He believed there is at least some sort of immutable aspect to consciousness. The Buddha questioned Sati over this view.

The Buddha’s response was palpable. He rebuked Sati and said consciousness is dependently arisen; without condition there is no origin of consciousness. What has ‘consciousness being dependently arisen’ got to do with consciousness not being the same in the next existence? The Buddha is saying as our circumstances change, so too must consciousness. Therefore, consciousness cannot be permanent, and what is impermanent is not fit to be called ‘I’ or ‘mine’. Consciousness is a compounded thing.

But why has bhikkhu Sati accrued demerit that will lead to his harm and suffering for a long time? As we have already learned, perspective is no small issue. Sati seems to have thought consciousness was a discrete something, in some way immutable, and enduring between lives. This is a form of eternalism. Who knows what happened to Sati, but what we are taught here is that an unfaithful view of existence, and peddling ignorance to others, is not without consequence to oneself.

Uncertainty / Doubt / Cynicism

Uncertainty, doubt and cynicism are various terms for the same fetter, and also one of the five hindrances. They are destructive because they are dismissive, and mar learning. This fetter should be distinguished from the doubt that supports empirical investigation.

There are three levels to investigating the Dhamma: hearing it taught, studying the discourses, and reviewing the discourses in the light of discipline (personal experience).

But there is a modern problem regarding the Sutta Piṭaka. The basket of discourses is considerably larger than when first expounded by the Buddha. Today, the Sutta Piṭaka cannot be passively accepted, due to the revisions it has accrued.

The Buddha is asking the renunciant to be meticulously clear over what and why he believes something. What we can be sure of are the empirical teachings, as these are verifiable by experience. What falls outside what is verifiable by personal experience is either faith-based (reasonable or unreasonable), fabulous, or a fiction. We will bear this in mind as we go.

Adherence To Rules And Observances

There are four types of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasure, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances (rituals), and clinging to a doctrine of self. Only clinging to rules and observances is used to define a stream enterer. Anciently, this teaching probably had quite an impact, as ritual was fundamental to Vedic Dhamma. Indeed, the whole Iron Age world seems to have relied on ritual to communicate with the gods.

Any rule and observance, Buddhist or not, has the potential to preclude freedom from bondage; to become the end instead of the means. There is no place for dogma, mindless practice, or superstition on the path to Nibbāna. All Buddhist teachings are stepping-stones to understanding the nature of sentience, and purification of consciousness. Once this is understood, there is no need for rules and rituals.

The Buddha compares the Stream Winner to a simile of a man needing to cross a large expanse of river. There is no ferryboat or bridge, and the current on the near shore is dangerous. So the man makes a raft of grass, twigs and branches, and by lying on it, and paddling with his hands and feet, he successfully makes the crossing. Having addressed a group of bhikkhus with this story, he then asked them whether the man would be making good use of the raft if he were to carry it with him wherever he went on dry land. They replied he would not. ‘Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to the raft, you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so, things contrary to the teaching.’

Even wishing for Nibbāna has to go. However, desire for the Dhamma should be distinguished from rules and observances. Whilst any desire, even for the Dhamma, precludes Nibbāna, desire for the Dhamma does not preclude the attainment of Nobility.

Sarakāni — The Alcoholic Stream Winner

Anciently, when a disciple or layperson died, it was not unusual for someone from the Sakyan clan to ask the Buddha to disclose the rebirth location of the deceased. The Buddha obliged on the grounds that there were clansmen whose faith would be bolstered by this. Layman Sarakāni was a clansman who for some time had practiced the Dhamma discipline. When he died, the Buddha proclaimed him a Stream-Winner. A number of the Sakyans were somewhat put out to hear this, as they knew Sarakāni had become a drinker before he died.

This led the highly respected layman Mahānāma to voice his concern directly to the Buddha, who gave a lengthy response. It included not five distinctions of Bodhisatta, as in the simile of the two cow-herders, but six.

The Buddha then distinguishes four sorts of stream-enterer (Sotāpanna), with a diminishing trend in confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha. But the trend diminishes more so for the Buddha and the Saṅgha than it does for the Dhamma. Only the first sort of stream-enterer has firm confidence in all three. The second and third sorts have at most a partial regard for the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, although they do have five noble qualities. By the time we reach the fourth and final stream-enterer, he has no confidence whatsoever in the Buddha and the Saṅgha. His only saving quality is samma vācā, which is a Dhamma teaching.

The Buddha, of course, is not saying trees are able to attain partial enlightenment. He was using irony to underline a point; stream entry is attainable by those capable of dhammic speech, which, we should recall, is supported by the three states of right view, right effort and right mindfulness.

We can also reasonably conclude from the above that the most fundamental aspect of the three jewels is not the Buddha or the Saṅgha, but the Dhamma. The Dhamma is first and foremost; not people.

Interestingly, even though Ānanda was the Buddha’s personal assistant, he had much difficulty grasping this. He had allowed himself to become very attached to his colleagues in the Dhamma. At the death of Sāriputta, he was found weeping.

Despite the above teaching, Ānanda again became distressed, this time on learning of the Buddha’s imminent death. The Buddha responded: “Ānanda, it may be that you think: ‘The teacher’s instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher.’ It should not be seen like this. Ānanda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and discipline, will at my passing be your teacher.”

These two teachings do not bode well for those who see Buddhism as a religion. They explicitly tell us that the only refuge to be taken is with like-minded people and the Dhamma. There is no mention of worshipping the Buddha.

Here is a good place to call into question an affirmation all Buddhists are familiar with: ‘To the Buddha I go for refuge. To the Dhamma I go for refuge. To the Saṅgha I go for refuge.’ Clearly, this is not entirely consistent with the above teachings. The diligent reader of the Pāli canon will be mindful not to become religious towards the Buddha’s teaching, but to learn, practice and realise it. After all, the above tells us one does not have to be a Buddhist to reach nobility. Perspective and practice is the way.

The Moment Of Realisation

There is an interesting event recorded in the Dīghanakha Suttam (MN74) describing the moment the venerable Sāriputta became fully realised, and Dīghanakha attained stream entry.

We learn from the above that attaining Full Enlightenment can be particularly unspectacular. Also of particular note is Dīghanakha the wanderer. He became a stream-enterer, and yet was not ordained into the Buddha’s discipline. The Sappurisa Suttaṃ also tells us, a true man does not have to wear robes.

Faith And Devotion in Buddhism

So, what place does faith and devotion for the Tathāgata have in today’s Buddhism?

Not only does faith and devotion for the Buddha lead the way to heaven, the same is said for having faith and devotion for senior bhikkhus Sāriputta and Moggallana. Even remembering the venerables Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimbila, with a confident heart, leads to heavenly rebirth.

Whilst this is consistent with practicing the Brahma Viharas, there is more to this logic. It raises the question of whether revering any virtuous person also conduces to a heavenly rebirth, such as Jesus of Nazareth, Socrates, or even someone virtuous but not famous.

The Buddha did not outlaw devotion, but he did limit its use. Just before he died, he stipulated four places where a Buddhist should arouse emotion towards his memory. These are where the Tathagata was born, where he attained enlightenment, where he set the wheel of Dhamma turning, and where he passed away. This is not as inconsistent as it may first appear. We must understand that India is a land which, since time immemorial, has been characterised by ritual and devotional worship. By stipulating where devotional emotion may be aroused, he was actually significantly curtailing its practice for a minority of Buddhists, and precluding it for the majority.

It wasn’t until the first century AD, around five hundred years after the Buddha’s death, that figurines of meditating Buddhas began to appear. This date is consistent with the rise of Buddhist revisionism, known as Mahāyana. Symbols found in the discourses are also found on the sides of buildings at Bodhgaya, and extant coins. Common symbols are the bodhi tree, a wheel, footprints, and a lotus flower.

The Buddhist renunciant must remain mindful that faith and devotion alone are not enough to attain nobility. But faith and devotion with Dhamma practice will fruit in a noble condition, even though attachment to the Dhamma precludes Nibbāna.

While the Buddha did not frown in any way on those who sought heavenly rebirth, the attainment of heaven was not his primary concern. Getting to heaven(s) was never lost knowledge. His teaching was about the rarest of all knowledge and practices: liberation from all existences (PariNibbāna), the end of all suffering, birth and death.

The Buddha did not evangelise his teaching. Interested parties had to go to the Buddha to satisfy their interest. The teaching of higher training to laity began inadvertently with Sāriputta, whilst giving last rites to the noted layman Sudatta.

It is my belief that the Buddha did not teach higher Dhamma to householders, not because he didn’t want to pass on the wisdom of renunciation, but in significant part because it is not possible to renounce the world and pursue a worldly life at the same time. A failure to appreciate this will, as the Buddha put it, lead to personal harm and suffering for a long time. For this reason I commend that a dedicated effort is reserved for a dedicated environment.

Discussion

The urbanite with renunciant ideals is in a compromising situation. Selflessness is counter-survival, and conflicting feelings are an ongoing hazard for those practicing the ethic of selflessness. The ethical householder must be careful not overextend his practice in an urban setting. The world will ruthlessly take advantage of those who look conflicted.

The Buddha taught higher Dhamma only to those who had taken up homelessness, or who went out of their way to seek his wisdom. It is worth remembering that a life of moderation is a good maxim for urban living, and that a dedicated practice requires a dedicated environment. I say, an urbanite can descend into voidness if the conditions are right. Liberation is temporary.

Recognising Stream Entry — Mirror of the Dhamma

Whilst the Buddha would reveal a deceased person’s status and rebirth destination to a lay clansman, he expected bhikkhus to assess their own status. He told Ānanda that it is not surprising that a human being should die, but if each time someone died he was approached and questioned about it, that would be troublesome for the Tathagata. He then gave Ānanda the Mirror of the Dhamma teaching. This teaches how a person can self-assess whether they are stream winners.

There follows four such teachings. These are the Four Desirable States, the Seven Good Qualities, the Five Fearful Animosities, and the Seven Knowledges.

Four Desirable States

The Four Desirable States are also known as The Four Possessions, and sometimes the Four Streams Of Merit.

These Four Desirable States are a confirmed confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha, and the virtues dear to the noble ones. The virtues are found listed variously but they all lead to concentration. They are all enlightenment factors: faith, virtue, learning, generosity and wisdom, and mindfulness, seclusion, dispassion, cessation, maturing in the skill of release or detachment.

In practice, Buddhist virtues cannot be realised in isolation. To practice one is to practice several at the same time.

The Buddha goes on to teach that, having practiced the Four Desirable States for a long time, a bhikkhu may declare himself a stream winner, and therefore forever beyond worlds of woe.

Seven Good Qualities

There was an occasion when the Buddha was on tour with a large group of Saṅgha in the territory of the Kosalan, when he neared the village of Bamboo Gate. A group of brahmin householders heard he was in the area and went to meet him. They candidly revealed their wishes. They wanted to remain as householders, enjoying scents, garlands, unguents, and homes crowded with children, but they also wanted rebirth in a good destination.

In response, the Buddha taught them how to contemplate the seven good qualities. These are abstaining from inflicting suffering and taking life, taking the not-given, committing adultery, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech and frivolous speech. The technique for contemplating these he called Purification in Three Ways.

This syllogistic logic is also applied to adultery, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech and frivolous speech. Purified of these seven qualities, a householder may expect, at the breakup of the body, to be reborn in a happy destination.

The Buddha did not stop teaching there. He also added the Four Desirable States, and told the householders that with extended practice of the Seven Good Qualities, and the Four Desirable States, one may declare oneself forever done with worlds of woe.

Five Fearful Animosities

The Buddha taught the Five Fearful Animosities to merchant and philanthropist to the Saṅgha, Sudatta (more commonly known as Anāthapiṇḍika).

• Feeling ill-at-ease in this life may arise due to having taken life. It may give rise to fear regarding the next life. But, for one who abstains from taking life, this fearful animosity subsides.
• Feeling ill-at-ease in this life may arise due to taking the not given. It may give rise to fear regarding the next life. But, for one who abstains and gives, this fearful animosity subsides.
• Feeling ill-at-ease in this life may arise due to sexual misconduct. It may give rise to fear regarding the next life. But, for one who abstains from sexual misconduct, this fearful animosity subsides.
• Feeling ill-at-ease in this life may arise due to false speech. It may give rise to fear regarding the next life. But, for one who abstains from false speech, this fearful animosity subsides.
• Feeling ill-at-ease in this life may arise due to negligent use of intoxicants. It may give rise to fear regarding the next life. But, for one who abstains from negligent use of intoxicants, this fearful animosity subsides.

SN II.12:41

The Buddha finishes by adding that when these five have subsided, and with the possession of the Four Desirable States, if he wishes, he may declare himself a noble being.

Seven Knowledges

The Seven Knowledges are also referred to as the Seven Factors (MN48). They are not to be confused with the Seven Factors of Enlightenment, even though they are seven factors for enlightenment. When the Seven Knowledges are understood and embodied, a disciple possesses the Fruit Of Stream Entry.

• An absence of the five hindrances.
• Stillness and serenity.
• Understanding the uniqueness of Buddha-Dhamma.
• Confessing and restraining oneself.
• Having a keen regard for training.
• Heeding and engaging fully.
• Being gladdened and inspired by the Dhamma.

The Uniqueness Of Buddha-Dhamma

So what is meant by the uniqueness of Buddha-Dhamma, in the teaching of the Seven Knowledges? Note that we are asked to understand the uniqueness of the Dhamma, and not the man himself.

It is evident from the Pāli Canon that Siddhatta Gotama didn’t invent meditation, ethics, nor swapping the home life for orange robes and mendicancy. Nor was he the first to teach meditation as commensurate with rebirth.

We know that as a bodhisatta and student of Uddaka Rāmaputta, he held the view that abiding in the highest meditational state would not bring Nibbāna, but merely rebirth at a level of existence commensurate with neither-perception-nor-non-perception. It is clear from this that Siddhatta was seeking to avoid rebirth; that is, extinction; Nibbāna. As neither he nor his teachers were arahants, we must ask, from whom did they get this understanding?

Siddhatta’s search for and moment of enlightenment is recorded in the Ariyapariyesanā discourse.

The teaching tells us at least two things. One, Siddhatta resolved to surpass his personal best effort and continue striving until he attained sublime peace, security from bondage, Nibbāna. Two, the realisation of Nibbāna was accompanied with knowledge and vision of the workings of existence (Saṃsara), and the conviction that he was living his last life.

Knowledge And Vision

So what is unique about the knowledge and vision Siddhatta acquired during his three muses? On his first muse he recollected his many past lives. On his second muse he understood how beings pass on according to their actions, and on the third muse he saw Saṃsara as it really is; he understood what suffering is, its origin, that it can be stopped, and what has to be done to stop it — the Four Noble Truths. He also realised he was living his last life.

We are told the Buddha attained a modest fourth jhānaṃ during his Full Enlightenment. This is consistent with what we read the Buddha taught Udāyin: fourth jhānaṃ is required before the mind can be redirected to recollection of past lives and knowledge of passing away and reappearance of beings, according to their kamma and luck.

Our own study of the jhāna tells us that any higher than fourth jhānaṃ, and the mind’s eye, which utilises signs, becomes dysfunctional, and therefore watching beings born and reappearing according to their kamma and luck would be impossible.

Fourth jhāṇaṃ is hardly tantamount to Nibbāna either. It is still well in the domain of conditionality, and not beyond an earnest meditator. The Pāli Canon also tells us there were other teachers who could see the reappearance of beings, although we are told what they concluded was not always trustworthy.

So not all the knowledge and vision Siddhatta acquired was unique. Only the third muse — the Four Noble Truths — was unique, although we must answer why.

Nibbāna — Sublime Peace, Security From Bondage

We know that sublime peace and supreme security from bondage are synonyms for Nibbāna, and that Nibbāna is mastery over consciousness. Nibbāna is the ability to transcend the imaginative faculties regardless of the level of physical and emotional discomfort generated by mind and body.

We must be careful not to think of Nibbāna as some sort of bubble of bliss in which arahants float around. In his old age, the only respite the Buddha found was in signless concentration. During his waking state, he still felt tired, hungry, thirsty, and all the other feelings humans need to function.

So how did the Buddha know he had achieved supreme security from bondage? The same way we know when we are successfully applying the apperceptive gaze and when we have lost it. Quite simply, he was able to keep his consciousness pure regardless of what was happening to him.

You and I are partially nibbānic whenever we apply the apperceptive gaze. The arahant is fully nibbānic, because he maintains his apperceptive gaze through every moment of his waking state. He is a Tathagata.

But is an arahant master of his consciousness during sleep? This is one of the points alleged to have caused the great schism: could an arahant succumb to sensuous desire during sleep? We know the Buddha fell asleep mindful and fully aware. If we wish to learn more of mindfulness and sleep, then we are left to investigate this for oneself.

We must not think Nibbāna is freedom from suffering. Only Parinibbāna is permanent freedom from suffering, and that is extinction upon death. But even Parinibbāna doesn’t qualify as unique to the Buddha Dhamma. The nihilist also believes in extinction upon death. After all, it’s quite possible to reach a valid conclusion on erroneous premises.

Fully Enlightened

So what does it mean to be fully enlightened? Ordinarily, to be enlightened means to become aware of something. The Ariyapariyesanā discourse presents what the Buddha became aware of during his enlightenment, yet not all of what he learned qualifies as unique.

Clearly, being fully enlightened, in the sense of becoming fully informed of something, is very different to being master of one’s consciousness (Nibbāna), and entering Eighth Liberation.

The fact is, Buddhist scholars and translators pervasively use the terms Full Enlightenment, Nibbāna, and liberation to mean the same thing. In reality, no one is fully enlightened in the sense that they are omniscient without qualification; not even the Buddha was omniscient without qualification.

Tradition

Tradition has its own explanation for what makes Buddha-Dhamma unique. Buddhists believe that the path to Nibbāna is something that is found and lost over the aeons; mostly lost. This makes Buddha-Dhamma unique only to this era.

This also makes the man, Siddhatta Gotama, unique, and so Buddhists attribute to him the epithet of The Buddha.

Voidness — The Buddha’s Unique Achievement

Even though Voidness isn’t mentioned in the above teaching, we have to include it in our investigation, as Siddhatta claimed Voidness as a unique discovery: “However, Ānanda, there is this abiding discovered by the Tathagata: to enter into and abide in voidness internally by giving attention to no signs.”

He is not saying he discovered the technique of giving attention to no signs. As mentioned, he reached the third absorption under Ālāra Kālāma, and fourth absorption under Uddaka Rāmaputta, and these attainments are only possible by signlessness. Siddhatta’s unique discovery was that only signless meditation is able to bring about Voidness.

The Buddha described Voidness as the deliverance of mind that is temporary and delectable. But this is not the sublime peace of the above teaching. The Buddha taught that the highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction.

Even though there is only one Voidness, full and temporary, and it is the consummation of meditation, it is not beyond an extreme meditator who is not an arahant, and not all arahants have realised Voidness. Thus, Voidness is Nibbāna.

It is curious that the Buddha makes a unique claim to having discovered Voidness, yet more of this is not made in the discourses. This is likely because it is not necessary to attain Voidness to be an arahant.

What is second to nothing taught by the Buddha is Vipassanā, the apperceptive gaze. The apperceptive gaze is what the Buddha was practicing in the MāraSaṃyutta, albeit described in a fabulous way. We are told Siddhatta was tempted by Mara and his three daughters — Desire, Lust and Aversion — but never succumbed. That is, he kept his consciousness pure, and our personal experience tells us this can only be done with the apperceptive gaze.

There are two situations when the apperceptive gaze can be used: one is in meditation, in which case the ultimate achievement is Voidness, and two, during every other moment of one’s wakened state. In this case, the ultimate achievement is Nibbāna, which is the maintenance of pure consciousness during every moment of one’s wakened state.

Discussion

So the Ariyapariyesana (MN26) and the Mahāsacca (MN36) discourses describe enlightenment as the acquisition of knowledge, while the MāraSaṃyutta describes it as beyond all craving and hatred. This difference of teachings here is likely the consequence of there being more than one scribe behind the Pāli Canon. The former is a faith teaching, and the latter, when stripped of its symbolism, is a fact teaching.

Our investigation reveals that the uniqueness of the Buddha Dhamma is found in Siddhatta’s discovery that only signless meditation is able to bring about Voidness, and the Four Noble Truths. However, it is the Four Noble Truths, and their ultimate outcome, permanent mastery of consciousness through the apperceptive gaze, that is most important, as Voidness, Full, Temporary, and Eighth Liberation are not realised by all arahants.

But what makes the Four Noble Truths unique? Because they were the only teaching that led to extinction, and that is why it is important to understand the uniqueness of Buddha Dhamma. But we should not confuse Parinibbāna with nihilism. Buddha Dhamma teaches there is cause and effect working not just at the physical level, but also at the moral level, whereas nihilism denies moral cause and effect, and ascribes extinction as default upon death.

There is another historically outstanding aspect of Buddha Dhamma. Even after putting aside the mahayanisms of the Pāli canon, no other writings come close to elucidating the practice and psychology of renunciation with the same fullness and insight. Siddhatta Gotama is history’s great teacher of renunciation, even though his exertions did not exceed all others. In fact, he became disenchanted with extreme physical practices.

From this enlightened perspective, he was able to re-evaluate the admixture of teachings and training he had undergone over the previous seven years, and make them serve the nibbānic path of renunciation. This is why Buddha-Dhamma is largely a re-presentation of so many Hindu teachings.

We may never be completely sure of the origin of every teaching attributed to Siddhatta Gotama. But we do know he gave the world a new spiritual paradigm long before the monotheistic Christian era. While theistic religions were teaching the promise of eternal succour in return for deference to the agents and institutions of god(s), the Buddha taught that all existences are transient, and therefore guarantee suffering sooner or later, and so he taught the path to extinction.

I have no recollection of Parinibbāna ever being taught as synonymous with extinction, although many Buddhists tacitly believe this is the case. The tradition is to leave individuals to derive their own insights. Even though the realisation of Buddha Dhamma for oneself is part of its empirical methodology, not teaching its ultimate outcome is outside the Buddha’s prescription.

We should not abandon renunciative practices out of fear of becoming extinct. Renunciative practices include selflessness and moderation in all things. These concepts are universal and useful for oiling the wheels of life.

Once Returnees (Sakadāgāmi)

A stream entrant can be defined using the first three of the five lower fetters, but a once-returner is defined using all five.

Identity view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances are criteria that define the stream winner. These are perspectives with which the Buddhist renunciant contemplates his experiences, and which become part of the fabric of his thinking. They are applicable at the intellectual level.

By contrast, the fetters of sensual lust and ill-will are less intellectual and more issues of sense gratification. Both the stream enterer and the once-returner are required to abandon the first three lower fetters, but the once-returner goes further. He has also practiced the attenuation of sensual desire and hate for a long time. This will make him proficient in the apperceptive gaze.

Non-Returner (Anāgāmi)

The anāgāmi is a non-returner to the Earth. He has completely abandoned the five lower fetters and attenuated the five upper fetters. Abandonment means his imagination is always kept pure of greed, hatred and delusion. This does not mean these fetters never arise, but that they never for a moment go unchallenged or unmanaged, while ever they are present.

Attenuation of the five upper fetters means he has practiced self-mastery in respect of them for a long time. He is joyous and swift in wisdom, unlike the sakadāgāmi and stream winner.

Five Upper Fetters

The anāgāmi has yet to free himself from the five upper fetters.

1. Passion for form is traditionally understood to mean craving for rebirth in a fine material afterlife. Such a person would be content with attaining the jhāna during meditation, instead of striving to refine his meditations further and into Voidness.
2. Passion for what is formless is traditionally understood as craving for rebirth in immaterial heavens. Such a person would be content with attaining the absorptions, instead of refining his meditations further into Voidness.
3. Conceit is a form of renunciant snobbery, and is not uncommon. Many Saṅgha groups withhold the wisdom of the Dhamma in exchange for deference, and seek aggrandisement in the name of the Dhamma. It is the Buddhist form of religiosity and popery.
4. Restlessness is something we all have to work with.
5. Ignorance at this level may mean ignorance of Voidness, as it does not automatically follow that an anāgāmi has yet descended into Voidness.

Arahants

Some arahants use wisdom and meditation to attain Nibbāna. Some do not rely on meditation at all but use only wisdom. Regardless of the way an arahant becomes enlightened, he takes no succour from his senses, nor shrinks from discomfort. He is beyond any temptation and intimidation that existence can muster.

This does not mean he is never bothered by the vicissitudes of life, but they are not free to affect his consciousness. The arahant has no more ambition or volition, other than what it takes to stay well, and maybe teach.

An arahant is sometimes described as attaining the Deathless. Attaining the Deathless does not mean he becomes immortal. The Deathless is available to the arahant only while he is alive. The Deathless is Voidness and it is the same for all renunciants, past, present and future. It is the only true respite available to anyone, and is brought about by signless meditation.

An arahant lives his last life. He is not reborn anywhere.

Tradition says the arahant is incapable of nine transgressions:

1. Depriving a living being of life
2. Taking the not given
3. Indulging in sexual intercourse
4. Knowingly speaking a falsehood
5. Storing goods for sensual enjoyment
6. Acting wrongly through attachment
7. Acting wrongly through hatred
8. Acting wrongly through folly
9. Acting wrongly through fear

Only the arahant has abandoned all ten fetters. Not all arahants have the same psychic capabilities, or even any at all.

Buddhas

Buddhas are distinguished from arahants, even though both are fully liberated. One distinction appears to lie in how Nibbāna is attained. A Buddha first realises the path to Nibbāna for himself. By contrast, an arahant learns the Noble Eightfold path first, and then by virtue of this, works towards the realisation of Nibbāna. It is a simple case of the pioneer, a Buddha, making the discovery and then showing the way to others.

Should you or I become fully liberated, technically speaking, we would be considered arahants and not Buddhas.

But surely, more than one person can make the same discovery at, or around the same time. The Pāli Canon is inconsistent over this point. The Bahudhātuka Suttaṃ maintains it is not possible for two Buddhas to arise contemporaneously in the same world system. The Isigili Suttaṃ, on the other hand, reports the Buddha teaching that many Buddhas can be reborn at the same time and place.

So how do we square the Bahudhātuka and Isigili discourses? Buddhas are either unique to a time and world system or they are not. Readers may take their pick, but I believe the Bahudhātuka discourse overly exalts Buddhas and attributes to them an unreasonable uniqueness, which I view as a Mahāyanaism.

Whatever one chooses to believe, under the doctrine of the preservation of truth, we should know what we believe, and why. We should not shy away from testing the faith-based teachings for reasonableness. After all, faith alone does not liberate.

Table 20 Bodhisatta Table Of Comparative Qualities

Seven Kinds Of Person

The Seven Kinds Of Persons is another listing of noble beings. They are distinguished by the practices they use to reach nobility. An interesting point revealed below is that most do not meditate, and yet they are fully or partially enlightened.

The term Liberated is used to mean liberated from any adulteration of consciousness; the continuous condition of self-transcendence during one’s waking state. Liberation here means Nibbāna. The reader will recall that the term Full Liberation is Voidness, which is quite different.

1. Liberated-In-Both-Ways: Here a person contacts the body and abides in the immaterial absorptions, transcending forms. His taints are also destroyed by seeing with wisdom. He has done his work with diligence; he is no more capable of being negligent.
2. Liberated-By-Wisdom: Here a person does not contact the body and abide in the immaterial absorptions transcending forms. Even so, his taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom. He does not have to work diligently; he is no more negligent.
3. Body-Witness: Here a person contacts the body and abides in the immaterial, transcending forms. Only some taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom. He still has to work with diligence.
4. One Attained-To-View: This person does not contact the body and abide in the immaterial, transcending forms, but some taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom. He has reviewed and examined with wisdom the teachings of the Tathagata. He still has to work with diligence.
5. Liberated-By-Faith: This person does not contact the body and abide in the immaterial, transcending forms, but some taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom and his faith is planted, rooted, established in the Tathāgata. He still has to work with diligence.
6. Dhamma-Follower: This person does not contact the body and abide in the immaterial, transcending forms. His taints are not destroyed by seeing with wisdom. But the teachings of the Tathāgata are accepted after reflecting on them with sufficient wisdom. He has qualities of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. He still has to work with diligence.
7. Faith-Follower: This person does not contact the body and abide in the immaterial, transcending forms. His taints are not yet destroyed by seeing with wisdom. But he has sufficient faith in and love for the Tathāgata. He has qualities of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. He still has to work with diligence.

Discussion

The first two noble beings are arahants, and so they have no work to do. The arahant Liberated-In-Both-Ways still accesses the absorptions, but the arahant Liberated-By-Wisdom does not meditate. Meditation here specifically refers to the absorptions.

Numbers three to seven are partially liberated types, bodhisatta, who do not access immaterial jhāna. Three and four are descriptive of once-returners or non-returners.

Five, six and seven are stream winners. We must not think that those Liberated By Faith and the Faith Follower have reached nobility by faith alone. We have already established that faith alone does not liberate. We will also notice that the person liberated by faith is described as partially liberated by seeing with wisdom, and the Dhamma Follower and the Faith Follower have attained their nobility with the practical skills of energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom.

Table 21 Seven Categories of Noble Persons

Bodhisatta or Bodhisattva?

Understanding the difference in meaning between the words Bodhisatta and Bodhisattva is of particular importance for a proper understanding of Buddhism. This is not helped by the similarity between some Pāli and Sanskrit words, where there is often little or no substantive difference in meaning.

For example, Nibbāna in Pāli becomes Nirvana in Sanskrit, dhamma becomes dharma, kamma becomes karma, jhāna becomes dhyana. It is tempting, therefore, to assume that the terms Bodhisatta and Bodhisattva are similar in meaning. They are in fact doctrinally, seriously different, and every Buddhist should be aware of their differences and the Buddha’s warning concerning disagreements of doctrine.

Despite this warning, Buddhist history has an infamous doctrinal split, which has created two branches called Theravada Buddhism (Elder vehicle), and what is still misleadingly referred to as Mahāyāna Buddhism (Great Vehicle).

The Mahāyāna school has a particularly questionable practice called the bodhisattva vow, and some equally questionable rationales for it. It encourages bhikkhus and laymen to take a vow that requires them to commit to never becoming an arahant, until Hell freezes over. Another wording sometimes encountered is, until all sentient beings have become Bodhisattva. The arguments for the vow are not convincing, as hell is not going to freeze over for quite some time, and so fulfilling the vow will likely involve living far more than nine lives.

And yet, our studies leave no doubt: all Bodhisatta of the Pāli Canon are defined as never living more than nine lives. Teaching the Dhamma until all beings are bodhisattva will also prove vain, and likely cause widespread offence in the process, as many, if not most sentient entities would prefer a heavenly rebirth over Parinibbāna.

Mahāyānaism also claims a bodhisattva can be reborn in worlds of woe, and this is where beings will be grateful to hear the Dhamma. But this too is outside of Pāli Canon criteria, as nobility precludes rebirth in worlds of woe.

Another rationale for extra-novenary bodhisattvaism is that it is a strategy to keep the Dhamma alive. But the Buddha gave another explanation for how this is achieved: practice the Noble Eight-Fold Path.

Comparison with Christianity

So why would anyone revise the Pāli Canon so radically?

There were some disagreements in the Saṅgha around one hundred years after the Buddha’s death, but they concerned only relatively minor issues, such as the handling of gold and storing food. Issues became more serious when the Saṅgha started to question what it meant to be a Buddha.

Globally respected Buddhist scholar A. K. Warder tells us that around five hundred years after the Buddha’s death, scribes in the south of India and Ceylon were very creative in producing Mahāyāna text. New doctrines and teachers were born there. He says the prophecy of the future Buddha Metteyya was likely fabricated in south India. One of the earliest Mahāyānists may have been Nāgārjuna. These new teachings began to appear in northern India around the second century C.E. As we will discover, many mahāyānaisms have found their way into the Pāli Canon.

But why would Buddhist scribes of southern India revise the Pāli Canon? A very credible and supportable answer comes in the form of Christianity. Tradition says Christianity arrived in Kerala, southern India, circa the first decades of the Christian era, in the form of Saint Thomas. Indian tradition maintains Kerala is the first place outside of Israel to establish a permanent Christian presence. Significantly, this occurred around five hundred years after the Buddha’s death, around the time Warder attributes the time and place for the rise of Mahāyāna.

The Buddhist community would have been acutely aware of any serious rise of interest in a new religion. Some commentaries say Christian missionaries were physically aggressive in spreading Christianity. But it is also true that Christianity has always proved popular wherever it has been allowed. Its Canon is spectacular, and if we are honest with ourselves, being saved by someone else due to devotion is more appealing than having to do it yourself by renunciation.

There is another curious piece of evidence to this scenario. The Buddha is recorded as saying the Dhamma would last only five hundred years, and that the cause was the ordination of women. But the ordination of women started during the Buddha’s ministry, with the Buddha’s permission. Certainly, a mixed-gender Saṅgha carries a sexual element, but how could this lead to a radical revision of doctrine? And why would it have taken five hundred years to become a problem?

A more realistic cause for the rise of Mahāyāna is the arrival of Christianity in southern India. It provides a date, a location, and a motive for the hypothesis that ancient Buddhist scholars revised the Pāli Canon in order to give it an attraction comparable with the Bible.

We have already encountered two monotheistic teachings in the Pāli Canon. One is that anyone who denied the recluse Gotama experienced superhuman states and knowledge and vision worthy of noble ones, or claimed he hammered out his teaching using only reasoning, went straight to hell, as if carried off and put there. This is not only literally untrue; it is not consistent with Angulimala’s experience. The other is the exalted and multiple afterlives of the Bodhisattva, which can be compared with the privileged afterlife in the Eternal City.

There is a third significant teaching in the Pāli Canon our methodology singles out for analysis: the promissory return of a Buddha called Metteyya. This compares with the return of Jesus Christ. What both prophecies have in common is that they provide a psychological engine that generates great hope and attachment in the believer.

As we continue our study of the Canon, we will encounter yet more questionable Pāli discourses, which we will investigate for comparability with biblical teachings. In addition to blasphemy, extended but limited afterlife, and the promissory return of a great leader, we will also be looking at a Pāli Canon version of a Eucharist, a Genesis, miracles, and a judgemental god. Another area of study that produces some interesting comparisons is rebirth within the cosmos.

We should bear in mind that the point behind the Mahāyāna revisions is not to make Pāli teachings identical with biblical ones, but to make their canons competitive. They could never be identical anyway. The Pāli Canon has no place for eternalism, whilst the Bible relies on it.