Is the anāgāmī liable to phassa?

 

Attached to CONTACT →

"Your argument as I understand it assumes that the anāgāmī is liable to phassa, and concludes that, since all phassa is sa-āsava sa-upādāna therefore the anāgāmī has upādāna. I shall do my best to do as you ask and refute you.

1. I shall take your second question first. 'Is there phassa apart from being sa-āsava sa-upādāna?' The answer is: no, there is not.

2. 'Is the anāgāmī liable to phassa or not?' It is evident that your argument depends upon an affirmative answer to this question, and that this, in turn, depends upon the absurdities of a negative answer—i.e. that the anāgāmī is not liable to phassa, which can be truly said only of the arahat. It follows from this that your argument is dependent upon the assumption that the question is one that can be answered categorically—if the answer 'no' is absurd, then the answer 'yes' must be correct.

In the Anguttara (III, 67: i,197; IV,42: ii,46) the Buddha speaks of four kinds of questions: those that can be answered categorically, those that require a discriminating answer, those that require a counter question, and those that must be put aside. Perhaps the question, 'Is the anāgāmī liable to phassa or not?' cannot be answered categorically and is one that must be set aside.

We know that the puthujjana is liable to phassa, and that the arahat is not. But your question asks about the anāgāmī, who is neither puthujjana nor arahat. It is quite true that if I deny that the anāgāmī is liable to phassa I confound him with the arahat; but it is no less true that if I allow that he is liable to phassa I fail to distinguish him from the puthujjana. Thus the question cannot be answered.

To this it can be objected that since both puthujjana and anāgāmī are liable to re-birth, that since neither of them has reached the goal and become arahat, in this respect at least, they are indistinguishable, and consequently that the question can in fact be answered affirmatively. It will be noticed, however, that we are now no longer debating whether or not the anāgāmī is liable to phassa, but whether or not your question 'Is the anāgāmī liable to phassa?' is answerable. And whether we decide that it is answerable or not depends upon whether we regard the paticcasamuppāda formulation as a Universal Law (which will include the sekha) or as a pedagogical device (which treats the sekha as irrelevant). In this way we establish that your argument does not in any way invalidate my view of paticcasamuppāda; at most it represents a rival point of view; and we are free to choose between them."

L. 146 |156] 21 November 1961 - Ñāṇavīra Thera