Kathavatthu - Of Falling Away

Points of Controversy
OR
Subjects of Discourse
BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE KATHAVATTHU
FROM THE ABHIDHAMMA-PITAKA
BY
SHWE ZAN AUNG, B.A
AND
MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A

2. Of Falling Away.
Controverted Point—That an Arahant can fall away
from Arahant ship.
From the Commentary.—Because of such statements in the Suttas as
4
liability to fall away, and the opposite, these two things, bhikkhus, are
concerned with the falling away of a bhikkhu who is training';1 and
'these five things, bhikkhus, are concerned with the falling away of
a bhikkhu who now and then attains emancipation,'2 certain sects in
the Order incline to the belief that an Arahant can fall away. These
are the Sammitiyas, the Vajjiputtiyas, the Sabbatthivadins, and some
of the Mahasanghikas. Hence, whether it be their view or that of
others, the Theravadin, in order to break them of it asks this
question.'
3
I.—APPLYING THE THESIS.
[I]
4
Th.—Tour assertion that an Arahant may fall away
from Arahantship involves the admission also of the follow-
ing: that he may fall away anywhere; [2] at any time; [3]
that all Arahants are liable to fall away; [4] that an Arahant
is liable to fall away not only from Arahantship, but from
all four of the Path-fruitions. [5] Just as a man may
still be rich i f he lose one lakh in four lakhs, but must,
you would say, lose all four to lose his title to the status
given him by the four.
1
Anguttara-Nikaya, i. 96.
2
Ibid., iii. 173.
3
' Falling away' is, more literally, declined, the opposite of growth.
See Dialogues, ii. 821 The Comy, continues :
4
" Falling away " is two-
fold-—from what is won, and from what is not yet won. " The vener-
able Godhika fell away from that emancipation of will which was inter-
mittent only" (Br., samayikala , or, PTS, samadhikaya :
which comes of concentrative exercise, Samyutta-Nikaya, i. 120),
illustrates the former. " See that the reward of your recluseship fall
not away for you who are seeking it, [while yet more remains to be
done!]" (Majjhima-N., i. 271) illustrates the latter,'
4
"We have, for the remainder of the work, applied just sufficient
condensation to eliminate most of the dialogue as such, with its
abundant repetitions of the point controverted; and have endeavoured
to reproduce all the stages of argument and the matter adduced
therein.


II. REFUTATION BY COMPARING CLASSES OF ARIYANS.
1
[6] If an Arahant may fall away, then must those in
the three lower Stages or Paths—the Never-Returners, the
Once-Returners, the Stream-Winners—also be held liable
to fall away and lose their respective fruits.
2
[7] If an Arahant may fall away, so as to be established
only in the next lower fruit, then must an analogous fall-
ing away be held possible in the case of the other three
classes, so that those in the first stage who fall away are
' established' only as average worldlings. Further,
If the Arahant fall away so as to be established in the
first fruit only, then must he, in regaining Arahantship,
realize it next after the first fruit.
3
[8] If an Arahant may fall away from Arahantship who
has admittedly put away more corruptions
4
than any of
those in the three lower stages, surely these may always
fall away from their respective fruits. Why deny this
liability in their case (9-18), and assert it only with respect
to the Arahant ?
[14-20] If an Arahant may fall away from Arahantship
who admittedly excels all others in culture of the [Eight-
fold] Path, of the Earnest Applications of Mindfulness, of
the Supreme Efforts, the Four Steps to Potency of Will,
the Controlling Powers and Forces, and of the Seven
Factors of Enlightenment, why deny that those who have
cultivated these [thirty-Seven matters pertaining to En-
lightenment
5
] in a lesser degree may no less fall away from
their respective fruits ?
[21-32] Similarly, if each and all of the Four Truths
—the fact of 111 , the Cause of it, the Cessation of it, the
Way to the cessation of it—have been seen by the Arahant
1
Viz., all who are graduating or have graduated in Arahantship.
2
Or fruition ; the conscious realization or assurance (to borrow a
Christian term) of the specified attainment.
3
Thus violating the constant four-graded order.,
4
Literally, torments, kilesa, i.e., vices causing torment.' On these
ten see below, and Bud. Psych Ethics, p. 327 f.
6
On these see Dialogues, ii. 129 f.; Compendium, pt. vii., § 6.
T.S. V.


no less than by the three lower Paths, why maintain only
of the Arahant that he can fall away?
[33] You cannot assert that the Arahant, who has put
away lust
1
and all the other corruptions, may fall away
from Arahantship, and yet deny that the Stream-Winner,
who [on his part] has put away the theory of soul,
2
may
also fall away from his fruit; or deny either that the latter,
who [on his part] has also put away doubt, the contagion
of mere rule and ritual, or the passions, ill-will and
nescience, all three entailing rebirth on planes o f misery,
may also fall away. Or [34], similarly, deny that the
Once-Returner, who [on his part] has put away the theory
of a soul, doubt, the contagion of mere rule and ritual,
gross sensuous passions, coarse forms of ill-will, may also
fall away from his fruit. Or [35], similarly, deny that the
Never-Returner, who [on his part] has put away the theory
of soul, doubt, the contagion of mere rule and ritual, the
residuum3
of sensuous passion and ill-will, may also fall
away from his fruit. Or analogously [36] assert that the
Never-Returner can fall away, but that the Stream-Winner
cannot, or [37], that the Once-Returner cannot. Or,
analogously [38], assert that the Once-Returner can fall
away, but that the Stream-Winner cannot.
Conversely [39], you cannot maintain that the Stream-
Winner, who has [of course] put away theory of soul, etc.,
cannot fall away from his fruit, without maintaining as
much for the Arahant who [on his part] has put away the
passions of appetite and all the other corruptions.
4
Nor,
similarly [40-4], can you maintain that anyone of the four
1
B aga , or lobha , understood as appetite or greed in general.
2
Sakkayaditthi . On this term see Bud. Psy. Ethics, 247,
n. 2. This and the next two vices are the first three
c
fetters'
destroyed by those in the first Path. Khys Davids, American Lec-
tures, p. 146 f .
3
Literally, accompanied by a minimum of (anu-sahagato) .
In the Dhammasangani, and below (iv. 10), this work of diminishing
is worded differently. See Bud. Psy. Ethics, p. 96, and n. 1,
* Namely, hate, nescience, or dulnes?, conceit, error, doubt, stolidity,
excitement, unconscientiousness, disregard of blame, or indiscretion.


Classes cannot fall away, without maintaining as much for
any other of the four.
[45] You admit all the achievements and qualifications
conveyed by the terms and phrases associated [in the
Suttas] with the position of Arahant:—
That he has ' put away passion or lust, cut it of f at the
root, made it as the stump of a palm tree, incapable of
renewing its existence, not subject to recrudescence,'1 and
has also so put away the remaining [nine] corruptions—
hate, nescience, conceit, etc.
[46] That, in order so to put away each and all of the
corruptions, he has cultivated—
the Path,
the Earnest Applications of Mindfulness,
the Supreme Efforts,
the Steps to Potency of Will,
the Controlling Powers and Forces,
the Factors of Enlightenment ;2
[47] That he has [consummated as having] 'done with
lust, done with hate, done with nescience,'3 that he is one
by whom
' that which was to be done is done,'
' the burden is laid down,
the good supreme is won,
the fetter of becoming is wholly broken away,'
one who is ' emancipated through perfect knowledge,'4 who
has 'lifted the bar,' 'filled up the trenches,' 'who has
drawn out,' ' is without lock or bolt,' an Ariyan, one for
whom 'the banner is lowered,' 'the burden is fallen,' who
is 'detached,'5 'conqueror of a realm well conquered,'6 who

1
Anguttara-Nik, i. 218 (elsewhere connected with tanha ,
natural desire).
2
See above, §§ 14-29. * Pss. Brethren, p. 193.
4
The epithets named thus far recur frequently'as one of therefrains
of Arahantship, e.g., Anguttara-Nik, iii. 359.
5
These are all discussed in Majjhima-Nik, i. 139.
6
We cannot trace this simile verbatim. Differently worded, it
occurs, e.g., in Iti-vuttaka, § 82.


has 'comprehended 111 , has put away its cause, has realized
its cessation, has cultivated the Path [thereto],'1 who has
' understood that which is to be understood,2 compre-
hended that which is to be comprehended, put away that
which is to be put away, developed that which is to be
developed, realized that which is to be realized.'3
How then can you say that an Arahant can fall away
from Arahantship ?
[48] With respect to your modified statement, that only
the Arahant, who now and then [i.e., in Jhana] reaches
emancipation, falls away, but not the Arahant who is at
any and all seasons emancipated:—
[49-51] I ask, does the former class of Arahant, who
has put away each and all of the corruptions, who has
cultivated each and all of the matters or states pertaining
to enlightenment, who deserves each and all of the afore-
said terms and phrases associated with Arahantship, fall
away from Arahantship ?
[52-54] For you admit that the latter class of Arahant,
who has done and who has deserved as aforesaid, does not
fall away. If you admit also, with respect to the former
class, that all these qualities make falling away from
Arahantship impossible, then it is clear that the matter of
occasional, or of constant realization of emancipation does
not affect the argument.
[55] Can you give instances of Arahants falling away
from Arahantship? Did Sariputta? Or the Great Mog-
gallana? Or the Great Kassapa? Or the Great Kacca-
yana ? Or the great Kotthita ? Or the Great Panthaka?4
Of all you admit that they did not.

1 The noble or Ariyan Eightfold Path.
2 Esp. the five aggregates. Samyutta-Nik., iii. 26, etc.
3 On all these four see Digha-Nik., iii. 280 f .
4 On all of these Pss. of the Brethren may be consulted. Kot -
thita in some MSS. is Kotthika .


PROOF FROM THE SUTTAS.
[56] You say that an Arahant may fall away from
Arahantship. But was it not said by the Exalted One :—
' Both high and low the ways the learners wend :
So hath the Holy One to man revealed.
Not twice they fare who reach the further shore,
Nor once [alone that goal] cloth fill their thought ?'1
Hence you are wrong.
[57] . . . Again, is there to be a ' cutting of what has
been cut ?' Eor was it not said by the Exalted One :—
£
He who with cravings conquered grasps at naught,
For whom no work on self is still un wrought,
No need for cutting what is cut is there ;
All perils swept away, the Flood, the Snare ?'2
[58] .. . Again, your proposition implies that there is
a reconstructing of what is already done. But this is not
for the Arahant, for was it not said by the Exalted One:—
4
For such a Brother rightly freed, whose heart
Hath peace, there is no building up again,
Nor yet remaineth, aught for him to do.
Like to a rock that is a monolith,
And trembleth never in the windy blast,
So all the world of sights and tastes and sounds,
Odours and tangibles, yea, things desired
And undesirable can ne'er excite
A man like him. His heart stands firm, detached,
And of all that he notes the passing hence
Hence there is no reconstructing what is already done.
1
Sutta-Nipata, ver. 714. The Corny, explains ' high and low ways'
by easy or painful progress, as formulated in Bud. Psy. Eth., p. 54
2
Untraced except the first line, for which see Sutta-Nipata, ver.
741; Anguttara-Nik., ii. 10; Iti-vuttaka, §§ 15, 105.
3
Anguttara-Nik., iii. 378; Pss. of the Brethren, vers. 642-4.


[59] S.V.S.M:
1
—Then our proposition according to you
is wrong. But was it not said by the Exalted One :—
6
Bhikkhus, there are these five things tvhieh conduce to the
falling away of a bhikkhnicho is intermittently emancipated:—
which are the five ? Delight in business, in talk, in sleep, in
society, absence of reflection on how his heart is emanci-
pated r
2
Hence the Arahant may fall away.
[60] Th.—But does the Arahant delight in any of those
things ? If you deny, how can they conduce to his falling
.away? If you assent, you are admitting that an Arahant
is affected and bound by worldly desires—which o f course
you deny.
[61] Now i f an Arahant were falling away from Arahant-
ship, it would be, you say, because he is assailed by lust,
or hate, or error. Such an attack, you say further, is in
•consequence of a corresponding latent bias.
3
Yet if I ask
you whether an Arahant harbours any one of the seven
forms of latent bias — sensuality, enmity, conceit, erro-
neous opinion, doubt, lust for rebirth, ignorance—you must
deny such a thing.
[62] Or if, in his falling away, he is, you say, accumu-
lating lust, belief in a soul, doubt, or the taint o f mere rule
and ritual, these are not vices you would impugn an
Arahant withal.
[68] In fact you admit that an Arahant neither heaps
up nor pulls down, neither puts away nor grasps at, neither
•scatters nor binds, neither disperses nor collects, but that,
having pulled down, put away, scattered, dispersed, so
abides,
Hence it surely cannot be said that 'An Arahant may
fall away from Arahant ship.'
2
1
Any of the four sects holding the controverted view.
2
Anguttara-Nik., iii, 173.
3
See below, ix. 4.