The Sukkhavipassaka

 

Attached to samādhi->


It is the aim here to ascertain the meaning of these three terms, and especially of the last with respect to the minimum of concentration (samādhi, samatha) implied by it as indispensable. The material for this inquiry is the Pali texts and their commentaries.

Samathayānika (‘one whose vehicle is quiet’): see, e.g., Visuddhimagga Ch XVIII. ‘Quiet’ (samatha) stands here for the four jhānas and four āruppas (‘Formless Attainments’).

Vipassanāyānika (‘one whose vehicle is insight’): see, e.g., Vism Ch XVIII. ‘Insight’ here means investigation intended to lead to the attainment of the Noble Eightfold path in any one of its 4 stages.

The suddhavipassanāyānika (‘one whose vehicle is pure insight’) in Vism Ch XVIII is probably equatable with the next.

Sukkhavipassaka (‘bare-insight worker’): see quotations in Appendix I; since the term is often used to explain the Piṭaka term paññāvimutta, an examination of the meaning of that term is required before attempting to fix a meaning for sukkhavipassaka.

As will be seen from the Sutta references summarized in Appendix I, the term paññāvimutta is given a number of widely varying descriptions. The word descriptions, rather than definitions is used purposely here; for numerous differing descriptions can, and should, be made of a single thing or person from various angles as, say, of a fig-tree from above, from the side, etc.), with different emphasis, in alternative terms, and so on; but a definition is properly only a single strict delimitation, usually of a quality or set of qualities. The Buddha makes great use of multiple descriptions as well as of definitions. (See. e.g., App. I § 8). So, taking these descriptions of the paññāvimutta as complementary and not contradictory, they can be used as the basis for ad hoc definitions, if required.

However, paññāvimutti (‘understanding-deliverance’) emerges as the particular distinctive quality (guṇa) or idea (dhamma), found in all arahantship, of being liberated by the permanent deliverance from ignorance (avijjā) given by understanding. This quality (or idea) has in itself no grades (only the four unrepeated stages of the Path—the ‘8 stages of insight’ in Vism Ch XX and XXI are not relevant here, see § 5). But in the formal statement of the 6th (supramundane) abhiññā, that is Arahantship as exhaustion of taints (see. e.g. M I 35–6 and App. I § 8), both paññāvimutti and cetovimutti (‘heart-deliverance’) appear always together.
Cetovimutti, however, alone, is the temporary liberation from need (taṇhā) provided in anyone, Arahant or ordinary man, by the eight attainments (4 jhānas and 4 āruppas ; see e.g., MN 29, and Paṭisambhidāmagga Vimokkhakathā), and at its lowers is the first jhāna. Cetovimutti thus has grades, is temporary, and is the particular field of quiet (samatha), while paññāvimutti has no grades, is permanent (in each of its four stages in its removal of ignorance) and is the particular field of knowledge of the Four Truths. In combination with cetovimutti of some grade, paññāvimutti gives the Arahant permanent unassailability to his deliverance from both ignorance and need.

Now while paññāvimutti is thus the quality (or idea), the word paññāvimutta is used of the ‘person’ (i.e., ‘type of person’) possessing that quality. Arahants, as ‘persons’ vary, not in paññāvimutti but in the grade of development of their cetovimutti, and on this general basis two kinds of Arahant are contrasted, that is, the ubhatobhāgavimutta (‘Both-Ways-Liberated’) and paññāvimutta (‘one liberated by understanding’); see MN 70, Puggalapaññatti etc.). The former, at maximum, has the highest grade of cetovimutti with the five mundane abhiññās, while the latter, at minimum, has only one or the four jhānas (this will be shown later): a possessor of the five mundane abhiññās is never, then, called a ‘paññāvimutta’ (though he of course has paññāvimutti), and one with only the jhānas for cetovimutti is never called ubhatobhāgavimutta (thought he of course has some cetovimutti). However, the two terms overlap in the intervening grades of cetovimutti (the 8 vimokkhas, 4 āruppas, etc.), and the line of demarcation varies according to the terms to the terms of description and contrast (see App. I). The lower the grade of cetovimutti the more emphasis comes to be laid on paññāvimutti, though the former is never and nowhere stated to be quite dispensable with. The paññāvimutta ‘person’ (puggala)—‘persons’ being a convention (vohāra)—is thus not strictly or uniquely definable in the way that the quality of paññāvimutti is. Hence the treatment of him by multiple descriptions.

At this point the question arises: Does the Tipiṭaka allow any interpretation of paññāvimutta to the effect that, at the very minimum, he can reach Arahantship quite without jhāna, even as a factor of the Eightfold Path? Does the Satipaṭṭhāna method suggest this?

A careful examination of the Suttas summarized in Appendix I and of other relevant Tipiṭaka passages shows quite clearly that not one of them furnishes ay information on the question: the four jhānas are not mentioned either collectively or singly in connection with paññāvimutta. In fact nowhere in the Tipiṭaka is it said that Arahantship (or any stage of the Path) can be reached without jhāna. In the particular case of the Susīma Sutta (App. I § 4) the specific omission of the jhānas from the list of attainments not necessary for the paññāvimutta is, however, particularly striking. If the Buddha intended that jhāna, too, was not necessary, why did he not say so outright, which he never did? But in other Suttas, too, such as those at SN 35:70 & 152, no mention is made of jhānas:

might that not show that the Buddha may have wanted perhaps to hint that Satipaṭṭhāna made jhāna unnecessary? Let us see. Those two Suttas do relate specifically to the fourth Satipaṭṭhāna, the contemplation of Ideas as Ideas of the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta (DN 22). And in that Sutta the Noble Eightfold Path is defined in full with sammā-samādhi (‘Right Concentration’), its eight factor, clearly and unequivocally as jhāna. That is the answer.

The Suttas’ answer to the question is thus perfectly definite:
there is no dispensing with jhāna. And this is also confirmed equally decisively by the Abhidhamma, where the Dhammasaṅgaṇī’s comprehensive list of 89 types of cognizance contains no type of Path-Cognizance without supramundane jhāna.

In view of this, then, if the Commentaries say the contrary if, for instance we think that they assert or suggest that a sukkha vipassaka can become an Arahant without any jhāna-concentration at all—, then, if we are not mistaken, they must be in irreconcilable conflict with both the Suttas and the Abhidhamma: there is really no escape. If that is right, they disregard the instructions of the Mahāpadesa Sutta (A II 167) and their own criterion, which is that of a statement in commentaries conflicts with the Tipiṭaka, it must be rejected. Let us see if, in act, they actually do so.

The commentaries often use their term sukkhavipassaka to explain the Piṭaka term paññāvimutta, though they are not at all synonymous. That being so, since the Tipiṭaka, as already shown, does not allow the omission of jhāna from the indispensable qualities of he paññāvimutta or from the factors of the Path (and consequently Arahantship), this meaning must ne conveyed also by the commentaries either explicitly or implicitly, of they are not to contradict the Piṭakas. Let us take five representative statements— the most awkward we can find from the commentaries, which at first glance most clearly seem to state the contrary.
Mayaṃ nijjhānikā sukkhavipassakā (App. I § 4a).
So (paññāvimutto) sukkhavipassako ca catūhi jhānehi vuṭṭhāya arahattaṃ pattā cattāro cā ti imesaṃ vasena pañcavidho hoti (App. I § 5a).
Paññābalen’eva … vimutto ti attho (App. I § 7a).
Jhānābhiññānaṃ abhāvena (App. I § 8a).
Anuppāditajjhāno āraddhavipassako (App. I § 8a).
What are we to make of these?

Do they, especially § 4, not show incontestably that the commentator held that jhāna was unnecessary altogether? That quotations out of context can be misleading is so obviously true that it is constantly forgotten and has always to be reiterated. The full immediate contexts will be found in Appendix I with English translations. But let us take each statement individually and examine it closely in the light of its proper context, of the text commented on, of possible alternative grammatical solutions, and of the teaching as a whole.

(1) The word nijjhānika here (as described in the note to App. I § 4a) does not mean “no jhāna,” but on the contrary unmistakably alludes to the term dhammanijjhānakhanti; for the appearance of this expression in the sutta (MN 70) where the paññāvimutta is described makes this allusion inescapable. The word thus means ‘ponderers’ indeed there appears to be no usage anywhere of nijjhāna in any form in a negative sense, the prefix being here augmentative, not privative. As to the words that follow in the same passage (§ 4a), namely vināsamādhiṃ evaṃ ñāṇuppattiṃ dassanatthaṃ, these simply state what is, in fact, the essence of the Buddha’s teaching: that concentration alone does not provide final liberation, which is only attainable by the intervention of insight leading to Path-attainment (see § 2 above). The words Vinā samādhiṃ belong properly to dassanatthaṃ not to ñāṇuppattiṃ. And this does not imply in any way jhāna—concentration (cetovimutti) has no part to play at all.

(2) The addition of the sukkhavipassaka to the four distinguished by the jhāna they have emerged from (vuṭṭhāya) might seem to suggest that he does without jhāna at all times. If that were actually intended, though, it would be odd, given that the Susīma Sutta here being commented on omits, specially and pointedly, any mention of jhāna (see § 2 above) from the dispensables, that the commentator should leave such an important point not cleared up (and it is not cleared up anywhere else). But this oddness here vanishes if we take proper account of the word vuṭṭhāya; for that means ‘having emerged’ and so applies only to the time before reaching the Path, but conveys nothing about the composition of the Path reached. The samathayānika first develops jhāna, on the basis of which, after emerging from it, he develops insight, till he reaches the Path whose eighth factor is supramundane jhāna. The vipassanāyānika (including the sukkhavipassaka) places jhāna second, or works without it at all, till the attainment of the path whose eight factor is likewise supramundane jhāna. This passage therefore gives us information about the practice of vipassanā, but none at all about the composition of the path or the indispensability of jhāna (see also § 5 below).

(3) This simply restates what is said in the later part of App. I § 4a, namely that the attainment of the path, as such and considered apart from the necessary accessory concentration, is the peculiar field of understanding (and of it were not, understanding would have no part to play.) (4) This might seem at first conclusive, explicit and incontrovertible evidence in favour of the view that the commentaries did reject jhāna as indispensable. However, let us take a close look at the wording of the sutta commented in (see App. I § 8, 1st para). The commentary (§ 8a) says jhānābhiññānāṃ abhāvena: but in the sutta passage being commented on we find the words sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā (which are actually the basis for this formula being called the ‘sixth, supramundane, abhiññā’). So here in the sutta we have the sixth, supramundane, abhiññā alone without the other five, mundane, abhiññā. Now while the ‘five’ are the exclusive product of the fourth jhāna and so belong only to samatha (see e.g. Vism Ch XII and XIII), the ‘sixth’ is, considered alone, the exclusive product of understanding (as explained under (i) above). If we, then, uncritically take the commentary’s compound jhānābhiññānaṃ to be what the grammarians call a dvandva-compound, resolve it into jhānānañ-ca abhiññānañ-ca, and translate the whole phrase by ‘with the absence of jhānas and abhiññās we have made the commentator contradict flatly the very passage in the sutta he is commenting on—the sutta assets the presence of an abhiññā and the commentator has been made to deny sweepingly both jhānas and abhiññās—which is plainly absurd. The proper and only way here is to take the compound as a tappurisa-compound, resolve it into jhānena abhiññānaṃ, and translate the whole phrase by ‘with the absence of abhiññās du to jhāna’ (i.e., of the five mundane, which are due to the perfecting of the 4th jhāna). Further confirmation is provided by the presence, in this same sutta passage, of the word cetovimutti: and there is no cetovimutti without jhāna. It is also said in this same sutta passage that this Arahant ‘has not… the Eight Liberation’s. Now the first three of these are jhāna collectively in three aspects, the remaining five being the four āruppas and cessation. In this connection the commentaries (App. I § 5b and 6a) are at special pains to show that ‘having the Eight Vimokkhas’ is a collective statement allowed of one who has gained any one āruppa but not of one who has only jhāna: having jhāna is thus compatible with the eighth ‘having no Eight Vimokkhas’. Such an explanation would indeed be futile of the commentators held that jhāna was dispensable for Arahantship.

(5) The expression anuppāditajhāno āraddhavipassako means simply ‘one who begins his insight without first arousing jhāna’ and so is interpretable under (ii) above. So here too all the commentarial passages describing the paññāvimutta and exhibiting their use of sukkhavipassaka tell us nothing about jhāna not being necessary for the path.

There is, in fact, nothing here to tell; for that has already been told unequivocally in the suttas and Abhidhamma in the appropriate place (see § 2). It would also be quite absurd to suppose that Ācariya Buddhaghosa forgot the Dhammasangaṇī’s definition, since he uses its 89–fold classification of all cognizance as one of the main pillars of his exegetical system, and equally absurd to suggest that he forgot that the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta, commented upon by him in such detail, contains the sutta definition of Path-samādhi as jhāna (also repeated elsewhere). But it would be reasonable to suppose that he remembered them well—well enough for him not to suspect that these passages which he wrote could possibly be interpreted to mean that jhāna could be dispensed with, for him not to refer here to definitions that he must have regarded as too well known to need repetition in every instance. For in the Visuddhimagga (p. 666–7 / Ch xxi) he wrote the words—repeated in the Atthasālinī (p. 228–9)—Sukkavipassakassa uppannamaggo … paṭhamajjhāniko va hoti: ‘The bare-insight worker’s Path … always (only) has the first jhāna’.

Examples of omission for the sake of emphasis of other aspects will be found, for instance, in Majjhima sutta 121 (omission of the 4 jhānas), in majjhima sutta 125 (omission of only the first jhāna), etc., etc., and these too are not to be taken as ‘hints that what is omitted is unnecessary’.
This inquiry would not be complete without observing that several types of concentration (samādhi) are distinguished in the commentaries. The Visuddhimagga (p. 85) lists, among other sets, two kinds, namely upacāra and appanā. Elsewhere it is explained that by upacāra samādhi (‘access-concentration’) is intented the concentration of kāmāvacara (‘sensual sphere’) type that accompanies strong vipassanā (‘insight’), which arises when the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa) have been suppressed but before the jhāna-factors have arisen (based on the passage at M I 21, lines 31–3: ‘my energy was aroused, … my heart was concentrated and unified’, which theme is developed differently at Paṭisambhidā I 99). Appanā-samādhi (‘absorption-concentration’) is defined as jhāna (with the jhāna factors arisen), and as rūpāvacara (‘from sphere’) or arūpāvacara (‘formless-sphere’). However, in another context (Vism 289) a third type called there khaṇika-cittekaggatā (‘momentary unification of cognizance’) is introduced but not developed. Of this the Paramatthamañjūsā says khaṇikacittekaggatā ti khaṇamattaṭṭhitiko samādhi; so pi hi ārammaṇe nirantaraṃ ekākārena pavattamāno paṭipakkhena anabhibhūto appito viya cittaṃ niccalaṃ ṭhapeti:  .“Momentary unification of cognizance” is concentration that is steadied for only a moment; yet when that occur in one mode uninterruptedly on an object without its being overcome by opposition, it steadies cognizance (making it) motionless as through it were absorption’ (p.278 Hewavitarane ed.). This, in its context of a sub-comment on a comment on the sutta-phrase samādahaṃ cittaṃ assasissāmī ti pajānāti (‘he understand ” I shall breathe in concentrating cognizance”), might seem to half-open the door to some form of substitute for appanā (to use the commentarial terminology, which is not in the Piṭaka) Remembering, however, that both suttas and Abhidhamma define Path consciousness unequivocally as inseparable from jhāna (paraphrased in the commentaries by ‘appanā’) what is ‘as though it were absorption’ can never be the actual supramundane sammāsamādhi of the path (see e.g., Atthasālinī p. 214). Though it is doubtless a perfectly legitimate way of describing certain aspects of the necessary degree of concentration without which no insight can take place at all, this passage cannot be taken, and was never intended to be taken, to have any bearing on the composition of the Noble Eightfold Path.

In these contexts it needs also to be remembered that the term vipassanā, whether in the Piṭakas or the Commentaries, whether by itself or as a component of the commentarial term sukkhavipassaka, is used specifically for that kind of examination of experience which leads up to attainment of the Path, but not for the understanding (paññā) contained in the actual path under supramundane sammādiṭṭhi (‘Right View’). Vipassanā is thus only that kind of understanding that precedes the Path, its last states before the actual Path itself being called vuṭṭhānagāminī vipassanā (‘insight leading to emergence’ Vism 661), and the Path itself being called vuṭṭhānaṃ that is, ‘emergence’ of Right View from wrong view (and so with other seven factors: see Paṭisambhidāmagga I 69).

It would therefore seem that any use of the term Vipassaka (whether sukkha or not) as synonymous with maggalābhī (‘path-obtainer’) would be incorrect. It that is so, then whatever is said about a sukkhavipassaka, as vipassaka, tells us nothing about the composition of the path which he may attain, for which we must look to the proper definitions in the proper places.

It is perhaps allowable to infer that, at minimum, a sukkhavipassaka need not develop jhāna at any time before he actually reaches the supramundane jhāna of the Noble Eightfold Path, but unless his Path contains at least the supramundane first jhāna it is not, in fact, the Path but only dhammuddhacca (‘overestimation of ideas’) in the form of a vipassanūpakkilesa (‘imperfection of insight’) see App. II; also Vism Ch XX end).

With the reservations already made about the difficulties of defining ‘persons’ (§2 above), the following general definitions can perhaps be made.

(i) Samathayānika (‘one whose vehicle is quiet’); one who in his work to reach the path (in each of its four stages) habitually first arouses jhāna, then emerges from it, and practises insight on the jhāna emerged from. This leads him, if successful to the ‘emergence’ of the path with supramundane jhāna (at minimum the first as its eighth factor.)

(ii) Vipassanāyānika (‘one whose vehicle is insight’): one who habitually practices insight before jhāna on his way to the Path. If he makes no use of, or does not attain jhāna before he reaches the path, he is called a suddhavipassanāyānika (‘one whose vehicle is pure insight’), in which case he can be taken as equivalent to the next.

“(iii) Sukkhavipassaka (‘bare-insight worker’): one who never emerges from jhāna (or any attainment of samādhi) before the time he reaches the supramundane sammāsamādhi of the Path—in his case the supramundane first jhāna (Vism 666–7; Atthasālinī 228–9). Unlike the paññāvimutta, which term describes the Obtainer of the Fourth Stage of the Path and its fruit, the term sukkhavipassaka (like the other two commentarial terms (i) and (ii) above) is only applicable to one who is trying for, but has not yet reached, the path in any one of its four stages, and so it can be, and is, used for the ordinary man who has not yet reached even the Stream-Entry Path as well as for those trying for the other stages of the Path. The term sukkhavipassaka-khīṇāsava (App. I § 8a) then properly means ‘one whose taints are exhausted, who has arrives at the Path by the way of the Bare-insight worker’. Since his insight is called ‘bare (dry), impoverished’ (App. I § 7b), his way is probably not the easiest.

(iv) Paññāvimutta (‘liberated by understanding’): since all Arahants are, strictly speaking ‘liberated by understanding’, this term, when used to distinguish one kind from another has only a relative or comparative meaning: in this sense, a paññāvimutta is contrasted with a Buddha as not having discovered the path he follows (App. I § 1.), or he is contrasted with an ubhatobhāgavimutta (‘both ways liberated’) Arahant by his not having fully exploited to the full the field of samādhi (samatha: App. I § 2 etc.), while at minimum the ubhatobhāgavimutta must have one of the four āruppas (App. I § 5b, 6a), a paññāvimutta can at minimum have only the first jhāna. What is the latest point to which his attainment of it can be put off is not stated. If called (collectively) ‘without the Eight Vimokkhas’ (App. I § 6, cf. § 8) he can still have jhāna (App. I § 5b, 6a). Both paññāvimutta and cetovimutti (the last in some degree) are present in all Arahants (App. I § 8.).

(v) The Suttas (notably the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta) and the Abhidhamma (Dhammasaṅgaṇī) state unequivocally that there is no Noble Eightfold Path without supramundane jhāna. This is confirmed in the commentaries (specifically with the words ‘the bare-Insight Worker’s path … always (only) has the first jhāna (§ 3 end). Commentarial passages that at first glance seem to state the contrary can be found after proper investigation, not to do so.

(vi) The general spirit of the Buddha’s teaching in relation to samatha is expressed by the following sutta: “Bhikkhus, these two ideas partake of true knowledge. What two? Quiet and insight.
When quiet is maintained in being … a pure heart is maintained in being … (and) lust is abandoned. When insight is maintained in being, … understanding is maintained in being, …. (and) whatever ignorance there is abandoned. No heart defiled by lust is liberated, and no understanding defiled by ignorance is maintained in being.
This heart-deliverance is due to fading of ignorance’ (AN 3:10/I 61). Other suttas expressing this are far too may to refer to here.
Consequently, such suttas as the Satipaṭṭhāna sutta (MN 10), or those at, say, Saṃyutta 35:70 and 152, have to be taken as emphasizing the essential part played by insight in developing understanding, without, however, implying that the minimum jhāna of cetovimutti can ne dispensed with.

* * *
APPENDIX I 

(For discussion and justification of translations see § 3.)  § 1. Paññāvimutta (at maximum) distinguished from sammāsambuddha only by the fact that the paññāvimutta follows the way that a sammāsambuddha discovers (SN 22:58/S III 65–6).

§ 2. Paññāvimutta contrasted with ubhatobhāgavimutta in terms of the ‘9 attainments’ (4 jhānas, 4 āruppas, and cessation): the paññāvimutta can have all these, but what distinguished him then from the other is that he has not fully exploited them (in their aspect of samatha). No paññāvimutta is without one of these attainments. (AN 9:44/A IV 452–3).

§ 3. Paññāvimutta contrasted with tevijja, cha¿abhiññā, and ubhatobhāgavimutta: he is less than these, but no mention that he can dispense with jhāna. (SN 7:7/S I 191).

§ 4. Susīma sutta: the paññāvimutta need not have the five mundane abhiññās (supernormal powers) or the 4 āruppas (formless attainments): specific omission of jhāna from the attainments that can be dispensed with. Compare the wording of attainments here with that in, say, MN 6. (SN 12:70/A II 121–7).

§ 4a. Commentary to Susīma Sutta: mayaṃ nijjhānikā sukkhavipassakā paññāmatten’eva vimuttā ti … “Ājāneyyāsi vā” to ādi kasmā vuttaṃ? Vinā samādhiṃ evam-nāṇuppattim dassanattham.
Idañ hi vuttam hoti: Susīma maggo vā phalaṃ vā na samādhinissando na samādhi-ānisaṃso na samādhissa nipphatti, vipassanāya pana so nissando vipassanāya ānisaṃso vipassanāya nipphatti … Translation: (note: nijjhānikā fr. nijjhāna (‘pondering’), and alludes directly to dhamma nijjhānaṃ khamati … dhammanijjhānakhanti (MN 70/M I 480), cf. also nijjhatti & nijjhāpenti (M I 320); no instance of this term in any form as negative of jhāna, prefix nir- being augmentative, not privative, here). “We are liberated by understanding, friend”: we are ponderers, bare-insight workers, liberated simply by understanding … “Whether you understand or …” and the rest: why is this said? In order to show without (reference to) concentration the arising of knowledge thus. What is meant is this: ‘Susīma, neither the Path nor (its) fruit are the outcome of concentration, or the benefits of concentration, or the productions of concentration, rather they are the outcome of insight, the benefits of insight, the production of insight’. (Note: this simply states the fact that concentration alone does not, as susīma seems to have supposed, produce true liberation, which is the field of understanding; but nothing is said here to the effect that jhāna can be dispensed with).

§ 5. Paññāvimutta contrasted with ubhatobhāgavimutta in terms of the 4 āruppas only, the difference then being that the paññāvimutta need not have these. (MN 70/A I 477–8). No mention of jhāna.

§ 5a. Commentary to MN 70: Paññāya vimutto ti paññāvimutto. So sukkhavipassako ca jhānehi vuṭṭhāya arahattaṃ pattā cattāro cā ti imesaṃ vasena pañcavidho hoti. Pā¿i pan’ ettha aṭṭha-vimokkha-paṭikkhepavasen’eva āgatā … (cites Puggalapaññatti 14; see § 6 below, and particularly reservations in this respect in both § 5b and 6a).
Translation: (resolution of compound not rendered) ‘He (one liberated by understanding) is of five kinds namely the bare-insight worker and those (four) who have reached arahantship after emerging from the four respective jhānas. Now here (in this particular aspect of the āruppas) the text is also stated in terms of rejection of the Eight Liberations’ (as in the Puggalapaññatti) but see commentary to that, § 6a below).

§ 5b. Sub-commentary to MN 70 (cf. § 6a below):
“Paññāvimutto” ti visesato paññāya eva vimutto na tassa paṭṭhānabhūtena aṭṭhavimokkhasankhātena sātisayena samādhinā to paññāvimutto—yo ariyo anadhigata-aṭṭhavimokkhena24 sabbaso āsavehi vimutto/ tass’etam adhivacanam // adhigate pi hi rūpajjhānavimokkhena1 so sātisayasamādhinissito ti na tassa vasena ubhatobhāgavimutto hotī ti vutto vayaṃ attho/ arūpajjhānesu pana ekasmim pi sati ubhatobhāgavimutto yeva nāma hoti/ tena hi aṭṭhavimokkhekadesena tannāmadānasamatthena aṭṭhavimokkhalābhi tveva vuccati samudāye hi pavatto vohāro avayave pi dissati yatha sattisayo ti// … Aṭṭhavimokkhapaṭikkhepavasem’eva ti avadhāraṇena paṭikkhepavasen’eva āgatabhāvaṃ dasseti/ ten’āha “kāyena phusitvā viharatī” ti.

Translation: ‘Liberated distinctively by means of only understanding; not by means of any concentration with extra (development), entitled (collectively) the “Eight Liberations” and made the basis for that (understanding), thus ‘liberated by understanding” ; this is a synonym for the (type of) Noble One (i.e., Path-attainer) liberated altogether from taints with respect to a Liberation (i.e., form-jhāna—see note at the end for the ‘Liberations’) that has not arrived at (the collective title of) “the Eight”. For even when (that title is) arrived at (by his developing a formless jhāna (as in § 2 above) yet since (the paññāvimutta is here regarded specifically) with respect to (some) form-jhāna Liberation (of his), he (thus) has for support (the form-jhāna) concentration “with extra” (i.e., with extra formless-jhāna), and so the meaning is that he is not then called ubhatobhāgavimutta in virtue of that (extra formless-jhāna), though when there is even one of the formless jhānas he is called an ubhatobhāgavimutta too (as in MN 70, see § 5 above). For he is called an “Obtainer of the Eight Liberations” in virtue of the ability of a part (i.e., one of the last five) of the Eight Liberations to confer that name since the usage is found to occur with respect to the whole and to a member, as in the case of (the term) sattisayo… “Also stated in terms of rejection of the Eight Liberations” points out how it is stated in terms of rejection on account of emphasis’.

§6. Paññāvimutta contrasted with ubhatobhāgavimutta in terms of possession of the Eight Liberations (collectively: § 5 above and § 6a below). The Paññāvimutta need not have the Eight Libera-tions collectively. (N.B. the insistence of the commentary here and the Sub-commentary in § 5b above on the collectiveness of the term ‘Obtainer of the Eight Liberations’ and that it can only be gained by attaining one of the āruppas, but not by attaining form-jhāna clearly shows that the commentators were fully aware of the indis-pensability of jhāna for the attainment of the Noble Path). (Puggal-apaññatti 14 & 73).

§6a. Commentary to Pug: Reproduces § 5a up to ‘Pañcavidho hoti’, and adds etesu hi eko pi aṭṭhavimokkhalābhī na hoti// ten’eva “na h’eva kho aṭṭhavimokkhe” ti (Pug. text) ādim āha// arūpāvacara-jjhānesu pana ekasmiṃ sati ubhatobhāgavimutto yeva nāma hotī ti.

“Translation: For not even one among these [five (see 5a)] is (called) an “attainer of the Eight Liberations” (collectively), hence “without (having touched with the body) the Eight Liberations” and so on is said. But when there is any one of the formless-sphere jhānas (i.e., the four āruppas) he (i.e., this `obtainer of the Eight Lib-erations’) is also called “ubhatobhāgavimutta” (Note: this means that an “obtainer of the Eight” can be called an ubhatobhāgavimutta in contrast to a paññāvimutta who has no āruppas and he can also be called a paññāvimutta in contrast to an ubhatobhāgavimutta who has, say the five mundane abhiññās (see § 2 above). The Mūlaṭīkā adds nothing extra).

§7. Paññāvimutta described in contrast with the ubhatobhā-gavimutta in terms of ‘seeing with understanding the 7 standing-points for consciousness (viññāṇaṭṭhiti) and two bases (āyatana), namely those of the non-percipient and neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient. He lacks the 8 Vimokkhas (see Nos. 5b and 6a), this tells us nothing about jhāna (DN 15/D II 70).

§7a. Commentary: ‘Paññāvimutto’ ti paññāya vimutto;
aṭṭhavimokkhe asacchikatvā paññābalen’eva nāmakāyassa ca rūpakā-yassa ca appavattim katvā vimutto ti attho. So sukkhavipassako ca paṭhamajjānādīsu aññatarasmiṃ ṭhatvā arahattaṃ patto cā ti pañcav-idho (see § 5a) hoti.

(There follows quotation from Pug. As in § 5a) Translation: ‘… without having reached the Eight Libera-tions (collectively, see nos. 5b and 6a), he is liberated by causing, through the power of understanding alone (see § 4a), the non-occurrence of the name-body and the form-body. He (the paññāvimutta) is five fold as the bare-insight worker and the four who reach arahantship by having already steadied themselves in one of the jhānas beginning with the first (before they reach their Path)’. (Note: no more is said here than in § 4a and 5a).” §7b. Sub-commentary: Paṭhamajjhānaphassena vinā pari jānanādippakārehi cattāri saccāni jānato paṭivijjhanto. Tesaṃ kic-cānaṃ matthakappattiyā ṇiṭṭhitakiccatāya visesana mutto ti vimutto.

So paññāvimutto … samathabhāvanāsinehābhāvena sukkhā lūkhā asiniddhā vā vipassanā etassā ti sukkhavipassako.

Translation: ‘One knowing, penetrating, the four Truths in the (four) modes of diagnosing (suffering), etc., without (having already had) the experience of (even) the first jhāna. He is freed dis-tinctively by these four functions being brought to their culmina-tion and to their function-completion, thus he is liberated. It is he that is “liberated by understanding” … He has insight that is bare (dry), impoverished, owing to the absence of the moisture of main-tenance of quiet in being, or is unmoistened, thus he is a “bare-(dry)insight worker” (Note: Since this passage deals explicitly with insight (vipassanā) alone, nothing can be deduced from it about the composition of the Path: see § 5).

§8. The Arahant without the Eight Vimokkhas has both paññāvimutti and cetovimutti: Kathañ ca bhikkave puggalo samaṇapuṇḍarīko hoti? Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭhe ‘va dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati, no ca kho aṭṭha vimokkhe kāyena phusitvā viharati. (AN 4:87/A II 87)

Kathañ ca bhikkhave puggalo samaṇapuṇḍarīko hoti? Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu sammādiṭṭhiko hoti … sammāsamādhī hoti sam-māñāṇī hoti sammāvimuttī hoti, no ca kho aṭṭhavimokkhe kāyena phusitvā viharati. (AN 4:89/A II 89) Kathañ ca bhikkhave puggalo samaṇapuṇḍarīko hoti? Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu pañcas’ upādānakkhandhesu udayabbayānupassī viharati: Iti rūpaṃ iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo; … iti viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo ti, no ca kho aṭṭha vimokkhe kāyena phusitvā viharati. (AN 4:90/II 90) Translation: ‘And what, bhikkhus, is a samaṇapuṇḍarīka? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu by realization through his own direct-acquaintance (abhiññā) here and now enters upon and abides in the heart-deliverance (cetovimutti) and understanding-deliverance (paññāvimutti) that are taintless owing to (complete) exhaustion of taints; and yet he has not touched with the body the Eight Liberations (aṭṭha vimokkha) and abode in them’. (AN 4:87).

‘And how, bhikkhus, is a person a samaṇapuṇḍarīka? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu has Right View, … has Right Concentration (sammāsamādhi), has Right knowledge, and has Right Deliverance; and yet he has not touched with the body the Eight Liberations and abode in them’. (AN 4:89) ‘And how, bhikkhus, is a person samaṇapuṇḍarīka? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating rise and fall in the five categories of consumption thus: Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is (feeling… perception… determinations…) consciousness, … such its disappearance; and yet he has not touched the Eight Liberations and abode in them’. (AN 4:90) §8a. Commentary: Samaṇapuṇḍarīko ti puṇḍarīkasadiso samaṇo; puṇḍarīkam nāma ūnasatapattam saroruham, iminā suk-khavipassaka-khīṇāsavaṃ dasseti. So jhānābhiññānaṃ abhāvena aparipuṇṇaguṇato samaṇapuṇḍarīko nāma hoti. Samaṇapadumo ti … jhānābhiññānam bhāvena paripuṇṇaguṇattā samaṇa-padumo nāma hoti. (ad. 87).

Dasaṅgikamaggavasena vā arahattaphalañāṇa-arahattaphala-vimuttīhi saddhim aṭṭhaṅgikamaggavasena vā sukkhavipassa-kanīṇāsavo kathito. (89).

Anuppāditajjhāno āraddhavipassako appamādavihārī sekhapug-galo kathito. (90).

Translation: “Samaṇapuṇḍarīka” is a samaṇa like a puṇḍarīka; a puṇḍarīka is a waterlily with less than a hundred pet-als. By this he shows a bare-insight worker; and he is called a samaṇapuṇḍarīka because his qualities are incomplete with the absence of (those kinds of) direct acquaintance (abhiññā) due to jhāna &. “Samaṇapaduma” … is so called because his qualities are complete with the presence of (those kinds of) direct acquaintance due to jhāna25.’ (87).

(Here) the bare-insight worker is expounded by means of the ten-factored path or by means of the eight-factored path together with arahant-fruition knowledge and arahant-fruition deliverance.’ (98).

(Here) an initiate person (i.e., not an arahant, but who has at least reached stream-entry) who abides in diligence as one who ini-tiate (his) insight without having aroused jhāna (already)’.

* * *
APPENDIX II

A sutta in the Aṅguttara Nikāya Fours (AN 4:170/A II 156–7) gives four ways of arriving at Arahantship, apart from which, no Arahantship—final knowledge’ (aññā)—can be arrived at. They are:

Samathapubbaṅgamaṃ vipassanaṃ bhāveti—he maintains in being insight preceded by quiet.

Vipassanāpubbaṅgamaṃ samathaṃ bhāveti—he maintains in being quiet preceded by insight.

Samathavipassanaṃ yuganaddhaṃ bhāveti—he maintains in being quiet and insight yoked together.

Bhikkhuno dhammuddhaccaviggahitaṃ mānasaṃ hoti. So … samayo yaṃ taṃ cittaṃ ajjhattaṃ yeva santiṭṭhati sannisīdati ekodi hoti samādhiyati; tassa maggo sañjāyati—a bhikkhu’s mind is misled by overestimation of ideas. On that occasion cognizance (then) become steadied in himself again, clarified, becomes single, and is concentrated. (Then) the path is born in him. (AN 4:170/A I 157; Paṭisambhidā Yuganaddhakathā).

As to the fourth instance, the commentaries explain uddhacca here by ‘vikkhepa’ (‘distraction’) and viggahita by virūpagahita and virodhagahita (respectively ‘seized by deformation’ and ‘seized by opposition’) and paraphrased by taṇhāmānadiṭṭhi (‘need, conceits, and wrong views’). Uddhacca as one of the ‘ 5 Hindrances to concentration’ is properly ‘agitation’, but here the meaning is more literal in the sense of being ‘distracted’ from fact, and is ‘thrown up’ (ud+hata+ya), i.e., ‘overestimates’ ideas. He thus overestimates what he has achieved and mistakes it for the Noble Eightfold Path when it is not.

Now these four ‘ways’ are not four alternatives: the first three are alternatives, and need no comment, since they are three alternative ways of arriving at the Noble Eightfold Path without mistake in the way. The fourth, however, makes a mistake on the way, whichever of the three ways he is following, and afterwards sets himself right and eventually reaches the Noble Eightfold Path.

The mistake he makes is to fancy some mere advance in Vipassanā (‘insight’ in the sense of §5, 9.v.) is the Noble Path. That mistake is called in the Paṭisambhidāmagga Yuganaddhakathā, a vipassanūpakkilesa (‘imperfections of insight’) and is divided into ten different kinds, which are also treated in detail in the Visuddhimagga, Ch XX.

The conclusion to be drawn from this sutta, in the light of the definitions of the supramundane sammāsamādhi of the Path given in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta and the

Dhammasaṅgaṇī, is that if someone fancies he has obtained the Noble Eightfold Path but not even the first jhāna as a component of it, he has in fact, simply exhibited dhammuddhacca (‘overestimation of ideas’), the remedy for which is further practice in elimination of need, conceits, and wrong views.

Nananamoli Thera