‘Noble or holy individuals’ [ariya-puggala] in Buddhist views

Theravāda Buddhist School holds a view that individuals [both ascetic and laymen] have potential to liberate from the state of suffering [tukkhatā], the state of impermanence [aniccatā], and enter the stream which entails the liberation [vimutti, vimokkha]. Eventually, once we have entered the stream, Buddhists believe that we are qualified and ready to attain the state of enlightenment which signifies and determines that we will reach the final extinction [nirvana/nibbāna], and at that position we will never born again. 

However, the term ‘nirvana’ literally is translated ‘extinction’ or ‘liberation’ has become a fruitful debate among scholars for the last two centuries since Buddhism was discovered and re-created to life once again by the West around the 18^th Century [Original Buddhism is believed to extinct from its mother-land, India, for centuries before it was spread to other parts of the world, and become prosperous in all sorts of forms and styles]. The debate mainly focuses on clearer meaning and condition of the so-called ‘nirvāna’ which consequently reflects vague explanation from Buddhist traditions at the first place. However, as we are living a worldly life, and merely learning, witnessing and/or guessing on individual’s experience which may have been written millenniums ago, it seems a manifestation of this quiz still in distance to show us the true light. 

Nonetheless, the discussion herein mainly aims to render the procedure or path of practical way to reach the ideal goal [again, nirvana]. Although, the clear definition of its condition and true meaning is still debatable, and, perhaps unconvincing, for our generation, condition, and environment, Buddhists, throughout various traditions, have created very systematic and practical approach rendered in various scriptures including primary source like the ‘tipit᷂aka’. Therefore, in this discussion I would like to draw merely details of those who are considered the ‘stream enterer’ or ‘holy individuals’ [ariya-puggala] of Buddhists regarding what have they experienced inside that stream before ending in the state of extinction upon death. They are vividly described as follow;

• A.    ‘ariya-puggala 2’ – Technically, they are considered holy and noble individuals who succeed or reach sublime qualifications in Buddhist view which initially is counted from the first sublime stage called ‘sotāpattimagga = the path for stream entering stage’. They are classified into 2 here;

1.     ‘sekha’ – Literally means ‘the learner’. They are considered the ones who still have obligation of learning, experiencing and practicing inside the stream called ‘the first 7 kinds of ariya-puggala out of 8 [the 8 stage is considered the last one called ‘arahat’ means ‘the enlightened or worthy one].

2.     ‘asekha’ – These kids of noble individuals are believed to have completed all the learning and practicing procedure and now holding a state of enlightenment called ‘arahattaphala’ = the fruit of worthy one. Buddha and his famous foremost like Sārīputra or Moggalāna for example are believed to attain this stage.

Nonetheless, of those two kinds of ‘ariya-puggala’, endlessly Buddhists also divide and classify them into more vividly and detailed figures. From previous quantity of 2 I have rendered previously, now they are classified into 4 as follow;

• B.    ‘ariya-puggala 4’

1.     ‘sotāpattipannā’ – Individuals [this term can be used with both ascetic and lay people] who are believed to have work and practice hard [ in the path of virtue, meditation, and wisdom = sīla; samādhi; paňňā] and finally reach the first stage of the stream. Literally means ‘the stream-enterer’. However, individuals who attain this stage are still believed to return to the worldly life and reborn again [no exact numbers of how many lives we have to undergo suggested at this point] to practice, and develop until gaining sufficient qualification to move to the next stage.

2.     ‘sakadāgāmī’ – The ones who have attained or enter the second stage of the stream, literally means ‘once-returner’. It could be explained that if we reach this stage, it means that we will merely return once to the worldly life in order to practice and cultivate more until yielding sufficient sublime qualification to move to the next stage.

3.     ‘anāgāmī’ – It is believed that individuals who enter this stage are considered the ones who will never return to worldly life again. Thus, it literally means ‘non-returner’ which could be explained that from this position we hold to the final stage [arahat] can be accomplished in this life.

4.     ‘arahanta/arahat’ – The worthy one; the one who has ceased the circle of rebirth, transmigration, and wondering. This stage is on the top of the stream in Buddhist view. It is considered the last life which is believed to bring the cessation of suffering [tukkha] conditioned by impermanence [aniccatā], no-self [anattatā] [nothing else in this world is under our control], and subjected to decay.

It is noteworthy to observe that although Buddhist [Theravāda School] view on stages of stream which entails the final extinction or liberation is considered to properly formalized and strictly followed in order to attain the ideal final state of extinction, other traditions like ‘Mahāyāna School’ interestingly is believed to hold diferent view in this kid of state or stream, perhaps, even the state of ‘nirvāna’ itself is explained and interpreted differently.

Buddhist [Theravādin School] views on materiality and element [rūpa]

The assumption and notion of natural substance and material of Buddhism, especially from Theravādin School, is described in profound interpretation and meaning. They, slightly, differ from that of modern science in which it is being viewed and rendered differently. However, herein since we have merely discussed Buddhist matter, views of modern science on natural substance and material [which I believe we all well acknowledge through our experiences in life] would not be explicitly discussed. Therefore, today, I would love to draw some notions and views on such matters from the pālī canon and various scriptures of Asian sources to share and discuss in this very space. Technically one of the most recognized and acknowledged fundamental principles of human-being and the world of Theravādin view is ‘rūpa’.

According to the Buddhist discourse, the term ‘rūpa’ is vividly described in ‘anggutranikāya/ pan᷂cakanipāta = the collection of discourses arranged in accordance to numbers/ fifth-category’, and some description of the team also appear in ‘dighanikāya = the collection of long length discourse’. The term is literally translated ‘corporeality; materiality; and matter’. ‘rūpa’ itself is categorized in several groups and numbers rendering from 2 to 60. It is believed that original terminology might have been discovered and preached by Buddha possibly a few. Then, later after his demise, Buddhist commentators and monastic pundits, who may have succeeded in profound practice and discovered deeper insight, interpreted and added in much later sources they have composed.  Its trait and behavior is also described as ‘conditions or substances which are unstable, unsustainable, impermanent, and vulnerable conditioned by natural factors; body and constituents which consist of both behavior and traits’. Therefore, the precise definition seems very descriptive and, at the same time, vague. Nonetheless, herein, we ought to begin merely with the ‘rupa 2’;

1.    

1. ‘mahā-bhūtarūpa’ or ‘bhūta-rūpa 4’ – literally means ‘the Four Primary Elements; primary matter’. Theravādin traditions believe to hold the views that the world [material and mental world, or whatever] is consisted and composed from these four primary elements or matters. Thus, there are believed to eventually decompose and decay at certain stage, as well as are subjected to unsustainable, impermanent conditions and the demise. The Four Primary Elements are;

1.1  ‘pat᷂havīdhātu’ – Element which possesses extensional and solid condition, takes up space, and provides foundation for other substance, generally called ‘element of soil, or earth’.

1.2  ‘āpodhātu’ – Element which possesses cohesive and liquid condition. It absorbs; infiltrates; expands; and flows freely. It is general called ‘element of water’.

1.3  ‘tejodhātu’ – Element which possesses heat or radiated condition. It is general well acknowledged as ‘element of fire; or heat’.

1.4  ‘vāyodhātu’ – Element which possesses waving, vibrating, and motioning condition. It is generally well acknowledged as ‘element of wind; or air’. 

2.     ‘upādāya-rūpa 24’ – It is literally interpreted ‘materiality that depends on one of those mentioned primary elements in order to emerge and occur in several conditions; or it is called ‘derivative materiality’. Notably, these views on materials and conditions of substances may have been freely interpreted, composed and added to scriptures in various own Buddhist traditions. Therefore, the term of ‘derivative materiality’ are categorized and vividly rendered in Buddhist discourses both in a so-called primary source like ‘dhīghanikaya= the collection of long length discourses’, and in secondary sources like ‘visuddhimagga’ scripture which was composed by ‘Buddhaghosa’ – the prominent Buddhist commentator – in the 10^th century B.C.E. The 24 kinds of ‘upādāya-rūpa’ appear in details as follow;

A.    ‘pasāda-rūpa 5’ – Material or element which possesses sensitive conditional qualities;

1.     ‘cakkhu’ – the eye

2.     ‘sota’ – the ear

3.     ‘ghāna’ – the nose

4.     ‘jivahā’ – the tongue

5.     ‘kāya’ – the body

B.    ‘gocara-rūpa; or visaya-rūpa 5’ – Material or element which is described as sources or material qualities of those sensual fields;

6.     ‘rūpa’ – form

7.     ‘sadda’ – sound

8.     ‘gandha’ – smell; scent; odour

9.     ‘rasa’ – taste

                   *** ‘phot᷂t᷂habba’ – Generally it is known as ‘tangible objects’. However, it is not counted or included in this context by some traditions because of it is clearly annexed with ‘mahā-bhūtarūpa 3; pathavī, vāyo and tejo’. 

C.    ‘bhāva-rūpa’ – Materiality or element which is considered as ‘material qualities of genders or sex’.

10.  ‘itthatta’ – femininity

11.  ‘purisatta’- masculinity

D.    ‘hadaya-rūpa 1’ – It is considered a mental form or element and/or physical basis of mind, which appears merely one element in Theravādin view.

12.  ‘hadaya-vaddhu’ – The foundation or basement of the heart; heart base. This is obviously seen as more physical than ‘mind’ in Buddhist view.

E.     ‘jīvita-rūpa 1’ – It is considered a material quality of life. It merely appears by itself in this category which is;

13.  ‘jivitindriya’ – the faculties of life; vitality; or vital force. It is considered physical force or energy which strives for survival of all beings in this worldly life. It also appears by itself in this context.

F.     ‘āhāra-rūpa 1’ – Literally means ‘material quality of nutrition or food’. It seems, however, the definition of this category is vaguely or flexibly preserved. Possibly, some of elements may have been left out because merely this form appears below;

14.  ‘kaval᷂ingkārāhāra’ – literally means ‘edible or staple food; nutriment’. As mentioned, Buddhists categorize liquid or soften form of food in other unit. 

G.    ‘pariccheda-rūpa 1’ – It is considered a material quality of delimitation. It is categorized by itself in this context as;

15.  ‘ākāsa-dhātu’ – This element is also categorized in the ‘vāyo-dhātu’ of ‘mahā-bhūtarūpa’ as ‘space-element’. Speaking of which, as we may have observed that the categorization may been overlapped or annexed without any way out in some stages of translation through various texts which freely composed and interpreted throughout Buddhist traditions to fit best with cultural, social and environmental context. 

H.    ‘viňňatti-rūpa 2’ – It is interpreted as ‘material quality of communication’ here which is divided into two elements as follow;

16.  ‘kāya-viňňatti’ – Material quality of communication which entails bodily intimation; or a gesture.

17.  ‘vacī-viňňatti’ – Material quality of communication which entails verbal intimation; or speech.

I.       ‘vikāra-rūpa 5’ – It is interpreted as ‘forms or elements which are flexible and subjected to transformation’. Material quality of plasticity or alterability is also accepted.

18.  ‘rūpa-lahutā’ – It is a condition of ‘lightness; agility’

19.  ‘rūpa-mudutā’ – It is a condition of ‘pliancy; elasticity; malleability’

20.  ‘rupa-kammaňňatā’ – It is a condition of ‘adaptability; wieldiness’

J.      ‘lakkhan᷂a-rūpa 4’ – This element is considered a trait or behaviour of material quality of salient or notable features which is rendered in details as follow;

21.  ‘rūpa-upacaya’ – Condition or element of growth and integration.

22.  ‘rūpa-santati’ – Condition or element of continuity.

23.  ‘rūpa-jaratā’ – Condition or element of decay or demise.

24.  ‘rūpa-aniccatā’ – Condition or element of impermanence. 

These are views and assumption of natural substances, elements and material which form and determine our world [both physical and mental]. It is noteworthy to observe that the principle simply begins with few major figure of descriptive terminology then vividly rendered, explained, categorized and displayed. However, it seems, notably, all vivid and descriptive elements described above eventually fit into one condition which is considered the core-teachings of Buddhism in which they are all subjected to ‘aniccatā; tukkhatā; and anattatā = impermanent; subjected to alteration or change; and being no self’.

Buddhim in Sri Lanka [Part ll]

After Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka in the 3^rd Century B.C.E, it was chiefly embraced by the Sinhalese, and shortly was established in the heart of the Island. The doctrine gained popularity, and soon after the educating of dhamma and vinaya in major monasteries was widely conducted by monks and laymen. In the latter half of that century Mahinda Thera [Indian monk from Pātalīputra who introduced the doctrine to the Island] addressed King Devānampiyatissa to be the royal sponsor for a council conducted, the first time, in Sri Lanka. The council was conducted in Thūpārama in the city of Anurādapura. ‘Mahāvansa’ scripture states there were 68,000 arahats [the worthy one, or the enlightened one] participated the council. The process, which took 10 months to complete, entailed positive outcome for the doctrine in Sri Lanka; firstly, Theravāda Buddhism is believed to be established the first time outside Jambūdīpa [India]; secondly, soon after Theravada school was also sent across the great ocean from Sri Lanka to establish in Suwannaphūmī, well recognised later as Myanmar, Mon, Siam [Thailand] and Laos.  

It is noteworthy to observe that the mission carried out by Mahinda Thera and Sangghamittā Therī is worth to be called the first group of Buddhist missionary who conducted their religious duty outside of India, though it is believed that after the third council [tatiya-sanggīti], Emperor Asoka, the Great, has sent 9 groups of Buddhist missionaries to propagate the doctrine throughout Asia. The two prominent Buddhist figures not only introduced Buddhist teachings and principles to the Sinhalese, but also brought various Indian cultural aspects for instance arts, architecture, and fine-arts into Sri Lanka. It is believed that plentiful Buddhist literatures and commentaries were composed here in this period. As we may have realised that the ‘tipit᷂aka’ [presumably at this stage, while the dispute over the dialect the Buddha preached has still been carried on by scholars nowadays, I believe the ‘tipit᷂aka’ should have been one of local ‘Magadī’ or Kosāla dialects] also was translated into Sinhalese and later was translated back to ‘pālī’- the one we have now, by one of the most famous Buddhist figure named ‘Buddhaghosacariya’ in the 10^th B.C.E. 

However, Theravāda Buddhism flourished for centuries in Sri Lanka until the 23^rd century B.C.E, the doctrine was chiefly affected by disastrously political and social circumstances in Sri Lanka. Consequently, it faded popularity and almost vanished for the second time in history. King Kittirājasingha [2209-2323] observed this negative phenomenon and expressed his great concern. Eventually, it is described by Buddhist chronology in South East Asian tradition that the concern was discussed and suggested by Sarangkara Sāman᷂ero [literally translated ‘novice monk- ascetic who is under 20’, however It seems, perhaps, normal in many traditions to possess such marvellous mythology to revere their belief]. He addressed the issue to the King, and suggested that he should send missionary to Suvannabhūmī [South East Asia] to return Theravāda Buddhist doctrine to Sri Lanka once again. 

According several collated chronology of South East Asia, the time mentioned was identical with the flourishing era of, at least, three major Kingdoms in Suvannabhūmi, for instance; Hangsavatī [the city of swan] of Mon which is Pego nowadays; Amarapura [city of eternity] of Myanmar; and Sri Ayodayā [the undefeated city] of Siam. Nonetheless, King Kittirājasingha decided to send his missionary to Ayodayā to bring Saman᷂avansa [Theravāda school of Siam] preceptor to Sri Lanka. We are not curtain the reason of such critical decision. However, King Paramakot᷂ha of Ayodayā agreed with the mission. He then granted the preceptor of Saman᷂avansa School; Upālīthera of Dhammarama monastery and his followers to travel to Sri Lanka. According the Siamese chronicle, Upālīthera arrived at the Island and conducted the baddhasīmā rites [presumably, the ritual process of Buddhism created to legitimate and authorise the authenticity of ordination, literally means ‘set up a boundary’] in pubbārāma [monastery of flower] and dhammikārāma monastery. It is described that plentiful of Sinhalese were ordained in a new Theravāda school introduced by Upālītthera from Siam. The school then established in Sri Lanka and was named after its origin ‘Siamvangsa’. 

Nonetheless, Buddhism in Sri Lanka seemed to be affected by some uncertain modern progress and movement which sporadically occurred within that century. By the time ‘Siamvangsa’ successfully established and well embraced, it is believed that several of Theravāda schools were also introduced to the Island, for instance; Amarapuravangsa school from Myanmar; Rāmanvangsa school from Mon. Presumably in the case of teachings and principles of these schools, they seem not different as they emerged and directly influenced from the original Theravāda School in Sri Lanka in the 3^rd century B.C.E. However, it is believed that merely ritual practice, and conducts, perhaps, differ from one another. These three Theravādin Schools still are extant and strictly followed in Sri Lanka at the present.