An Essay about Arahats (Arhats, Arahants, etc.)

by Daniel M. Ingram, Arahat

There is much lore, dogma, heresay, speculation, and really wild, complex thought and theory that gets tossed around about arahats. Some of it comes from the texts of the Pali Canon, some from the commentaries, some from the other strains of Buddhism (such as the Mahayana), some from tradition, and some people just seem to make up. These sources, like all sources, are of mixed quality, with a wide range of truth and junk mixed all together. I will do my best to sort out what is true, being as I am now in a position to do this from my own experience.

I do this because the false dogmas hinder and obscure the development of wisdom that comes from seeing life directly as it is. Realization comes from seeing things as they actually are now, not trying to imitate some bizarre behavioral or emotional ideal. Further, when people are trying to identify or evaluate the claims of those who claim realization, it is helpful to have an accurate set of criteria. Interestingly enough, as I have had a reasonable amount of experience in being subjected to the criteria that are out there, most of them have to do with very arbitrary and restrictive rules of behavior and speech, which have nothing to do with realization. Thus, in an attempt to focus the discussion where it should be, which is on direct perception of reality, I submit the following:

A few First Principles to frame, underpin, clarify and define the discussion:

1. The first and most essential point is that realization, awakening, enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it comes from one's own practice and direct perception of the Truth of Things, Ultimate Reality, or whatever you wish to call it.
2. All of the well-established meditation traditions as well as the non-aligned teachers may or may not be a support to this process.
3. Realization is not the exclusive property of any tradtion, lineage, religion or teacher, but instead is something inherent in all of reality that we may come to know.
4. Persons across times, places, cultures and traditions continue to discover the same inherent wisdom and may develop it to the highest levels possible, though they may use different techniques and use different language to describe what happened.
5. Some of the language used to describe realization is more to the point and accurate than others.
6. Realization is not bound up in specific conditions, and that means any specific conditions.
7. In perfect contrast to this, the mind and body of the being that has realized the Truth of Things is completely bound up in the same conditions and causality as before.
8. The Truth of Things that is discovered in realization is something that was always true, not just true after realization.
9. Thus, all the dogmatic notions about how causality and the standard laws of Nature and humanity are different after realization are all patently false by definition.
10. Mastery of the understanding of the Truth of Things does not imply or necessarily bestow mastery of any other aspect of skillful living.
11. Despite perennial assertions to the contrary, there are no new restrictions arising from relization on what thoughts, words and deeds a realized being might manifest that were not in place before their realization, by extension of those principles stated above.
12. Said another way and speaking in generalities, realized beings are capable of doing, saying, feeling and thinking anything that non-realized beings are capable of.
13. For this last point to be untrue, realization would have to be dependent on specific contitions and something created and rather than something discovered, both of which would notv qualify as realization but mere transient states of things.

The basics about arahats:

1. Arahat is a Pali word that gets spelled a lot of ways and translated a lot of ways, such as Saint, Conquerer, Holy One, etc.
2. Arahatship is the goal of Theravada Buddhism, which some people call Hinayana Buddhism.
3. Arahatship designates the perfection of mastery of training in Wisdom, the Third Training in Buddhism, with the other two trainings being Morality and Concentration.
4. Saying one his an arahat is the same as saying that one has directly and completely realized the Truth of Things that is beyond conditions.
5. Another way of saying it is that the process of falsely imputing a "self" from the sensations that make up the body, mind, and world has stopped because these sensations have been directly perceived as they are.
6. Theravada Buddhism defines 5 basic stages of awakening, called the Four Paths and Buddhahood, with some subcategories noted on occasion.
7. The Four Paths are increasingly complete perceptions of Ultimate Reality.
8. The Four Paths are, in order of increasing understanding, and with Pali names in parenthesis:
1. Stream Entry, a.k.a First Path (Sotapanna)
2. Once Returner, a.k.a Second Path (Sakadagami)
3. Never Returner, a.k.a Third Path (Anagami)
4. Pick your favorite traslation as above, a.k.a Fourth Path (Arahat).
9. Arahatship is also called the opening of the Wisdom Eye, as differentiated from the Dharma Eye which opens at stream entry. These are simply fine points that poetically restate what those realizations entail.
10. There is a phenomena in which the Wisdom Eye may open, which qualifies one as an arahat, but then close again. These people are arahats, but they are a lesser subcategory of arahats. Full arahats have had the Wisdom Eye open and stay open, meaning that they have obtained the understandings listed below and those have not faded.
11. Arahatship designates an understanding that has the following characteristics:
    1. The arahat has seen through the sense that there is a continuous, separate, or special controller, doer, observer, or centerpoint that is "who they are" in a very direct perceptual way that is not merely an intellectual or conceptual understanding.
    2. They know the sensations that seemed to imply these to be just more sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions as they always have been.
    3. This is not something they have to work to maintain, but instead is something that has stopped.
    4. The arahat knows in real time and directly what is meant by such phrases and concepts as:
    1. "in the thinking is only the thought, in the seeing is only the seen, etc."
    2. intrinsic luminosity
    3. the emptiness of phenomena
    4. that Nibbana is found in Samsara
    5. and a whole host of other poetic metaphors and attempts as description.

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:

1. Arahats cannot lie.
2. Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
3. Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
4. Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
5. Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
6. Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
7. Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
8. Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
9. Arahats cannot like music or dance.
10. Arahats love forests.
11. Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.
12. Arahats do not really exist today.
13. Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things.
14. Arahats have not fully realized the Truth of Things, but instead only practioners of certain strains of Tibetan Buddhism can really see through to reality.

Those who go back to the books to find quotes to try to prove me wrong should:

1. Consider that the texts contain numerous contraditions even within themselves.
2. Were written down over hundreds of years from stories recited over hundreds of years by people with diverse backgrounds and levels of understanding, and so contain both truth and falsehood.
3. Get your head out of the books and go get enlightened to a high degree, as not only will that end the debate, it is the thing that all this is about in the first place.

In short, the Limted Emotional Range Model, the Limited Possible Action Model, and the Limited Possible Thought Model of enlightenment are all completely off the mark and have nothing to do with actual perception of the Truth of Things. Remember, the Truth of Things is present in all that happens, by definition, and that has to include the sides of reality that people do not like, as those sides of reality are happening now in many people and must also be part of the Truth of Things.

What is true is that seeing all sensations as just part of the transient field of experience rather than some of them being a seperate or permenent self does change something in the relationship to phenomena, and there are emotional benefits that come from this, but they are exceedingly difficult to explain and certainly are not properly explained by the standard dogma. Thus, those who take as their primary criteria the dogma of the emotions that are supposed to be eliminated are looking in the wrong place. The place to look is the impermanence and selflessness of all phenomena, including all the phenomena that make up thoughts and emotions whether they like them or not. These were always simply part of the natural field of causality. This understanding is something very down to earth and real, not something grand, rarified, or abstract. It is the ultimate acceptance of the human condition as it is.

The reformists in Zen and even Tantra that make these points in their unfortunately grand and/or mysterious style are yet correct in their meaning. Becoming an arahat does not mean becoming the perfectly sanitized and hyper-limited manifestation dreamed of by the id-denying super-ego of a naive idealist, but someone who has finally come to rest in the clear and direct perception of the fullness of life, and that includes the emotional life, in all its glory, ordinariness, and tragedy.

I get so many emails from people who say things like, "I'm not really feeling much lust anymore, so I must be enlightened." Wow. I hardly know where to begin except to feel sorry for them.

There are are a whole host of other similar ridiculous myths and disempowering ideals about arahats that not only make it sound more like bondage than freedom but also simply do not make any sense, being the arbitrary and delusional products of various neurosis and misunderstandings of the dogma-compliers of the ages. When you run into any claims about what arahats or beings of any level of realization cannot or must do, think again.

One last point about arahats that I hear debated often has to do with whether or not arahats must master the jhanas to become arahats. The answer is a qualified no. The problem with the debate is that the jhana terminology was used in the original texts to define both the stages of insight and the pure concentration states. The commentaries then went on to describe the stages of insight but ignored what had been done in the original texts. So, if one takes the word jhana to mean pure concentration states, an arahat will only have mastered these if they learned to do so. Similarly, one who has mastered the concentrations states will not necessarily have any level of realization.

I hope you find these clarifications helpful. Those who wish to debate these points should realize a few things, chief among them that I am a strong debater and that I am not going to have my views changed on these points.

<< Back to Essays Page