Recently, I’ve been working on a release of EĀ 17.1, which is a sūtra that tells a story about how Rāhula became an arhat. I say “a” story because there were at least two of them. This essay will not attempt a complete comparison of these stories, but I wanted to take some time this morning to put my thoughts on the topic down in writing.
We should probably note before we continue that EĀ 16.10 appears to serve as a prelude to EĀ 17.1. A group of monks approach the Buddha in that sūtra to report that Rāhula has perfected the precepts but hasn’t destroyed the contaminants yet. Then, in EĀ 17.1, the Buddha gives Rāhula some personal instruction while the two were walking to Śrāvastī.
Story A: Rāhula Became an Arhat through Meditation (EĀ 17.1 & MN 62)
A Synopsis of the Story
In EĀ 17.1, the Buddha goes to Śrāvastī for his morning alms and takes Rāhula along with him. While they were walking on the road to the city, the Buddha turns to Rāhula and tells him, “Now, you should contemplate form as impermanent.” Rāhula repeats this instruction back to the Buddha. Then the Buddha continued, “Rāhula, feeling, conception, volition, and awareness are all impermanent.”
Rāhula wondered to himself why the Buddha would give him instruction while they were walking to Śrāvastī and decided to take the instruction literally. He turned back and found a tree to sit and contemplate the impermanence of the five aggregates.
Meanwhile, the Buddha continued to Śrāvastī as usual, solicited alms, and returned to the monastery at Jeta’s Grove. After eating, he decided to go for a walk and, by the by, came upon Rāhula sitting in contemplation. The Buddha again took the opportunity to give Rāhula a more detailed program of contemplation designed to overcome mental affliction, which here serve the equivalent role to the hindrances in other EBT sources. The program and each step’s intended result are listed below:
| Subject of Contemplation | Intended Goal |
|---|---|
| Breathing | Eliminate grief |
| Foul discharges and impurities of the body | Eliminate craving |
| Kindness | Eliminate hate |
| Compassion | Eliminate harmful thoughts |
| Joy | Eliminate jealousy |
| Equanimity | Eliminate pride |
Rāhula however was unsure about how to go about practicing the first task, the mindfulness of breathing. So, he got up and went to the Buddha to ask how to do it.
The Buddha explained that mindfulness of breathing involves being mindful of a number of thing while one inhales and exhales. First, the practitioner places their attention on the tip of their nose and observes each inhalation and exhalation: Are they long or short? Are they cool or warm? Being fully aware of this, the practitioner then widens their attention to observe their entire body with each breath. They are fully aware of whether they are breathing or not breathing. Finally, they are aware of whether their breathing follows the thought to exhale or inhale (i.e., intentionally directed breathing rather than involuntary breathing).
This is the entirety of the mindfulness of breathing in EĀ 17.1, which is much simpler and focused than the more familiar exercise that we find in Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda sources.
Rāhula took these more specific instructions and returned to his meditation spot to practice them. After he had done, he contemplated thoughts of desire and eliminated the various bad and unskillful things. From there, he passed through the four meditations (S. dhyāna, P. jhāna). Once he had reached the pure mindful equanimity of the fourth meditation, he then realized three penetrating knowledges (S. abhijñā, P. abhiññā). These are the knowledge of past lives, rebirth of sentient beings, and the destruction of the contaminants.
Having attained these three types of knowledge, Rāhula became an arhat, which he reported to the Buddha. The Buddha praised Rāhula and declared to the monks that Rāhula was the best of his disciples in terms of keeping the precepts.
This final point places this sūtra among a group in EĀ texts that serve as the back stories about why the Buddha declared certain disciples among the four assemblies to be the best at one particular virtue or practice. They seem to function essentially as commentary on the sūtras found in EĀ chapters 4 to 7 (which are parallel to AN 1.188-267)
Another Version of the Story
EĀ 17.1 has a parallel in Pali found at MN 62. This parallel, however, only covers the story up to the Buddha giving Rāhula specific instruction on how to practice the mindfulness of breathing. It then abruptly ends, right at the point when the story of Rāhula becoming an arhat begins in EĀ’s version. But I want to leave that aside for the moment.
Instead, let’s compare the basic outline of these stories where they do parallel each other:
| EĀ 17.1 | MN 62 |
|---|---|
| The Buddha and Rāhula head for Śrāvastī for alms | The Buddha and Rāhula head for Śrāvastī for alms |
| The Buddha gives Rāhula instruction about the aggregates while they are on the road | The Buddha gives Rāhula instruction about the aggregates while they are on the road |
| Rāhula decides to skip getting alms and goes to a tree to sit in contemplation | Rāhula decides to skip getting alms and goes to a tree to sit in contemplation |
| The Buddha happens upon Rāhula and gives him a program of contemplation to practice | Sāriputta happens upon Rāhula and suggests that he practice the mindfulness of breathing |
| Rāhula goes to the Buddha and asks about how to practice the mindfulness of breathing | Rāhula goes to the Buddha and asks about how to practice the mindfulness of breathing |
| The Buddha teaches Rāhula the specific steps of the mindfulness of breathing | The Buddha gives Rāhula a program of contemplation and also the specific steps of the mindfulness of breathing |
This high level outline of the two stories shows that they are nearly identical. There are only a couple minor differences: In MN 62, it’s Sāriputta who happens upon Rāhula while he is contemplating under a tree and the Buddha doesn’t give him the full program to practice until Rāhula asks how to practice mindfulness of breathing. MN 62 combines all of the Buddha’s instructions on meditation into a single encounter.
When we compare the two versions in more detail, though, we find another difference. MN 62 has a much more elaborate program of contemplation than EĀ 17.1, and the portions that are parallel with EĀ are in a reversed order:
| MN 62 Program | EĀ 17.1 Program |
|---|---|
| Earth, water, fire, wind, and space | - |
| Kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity | Breathing |
| Impurity | Foul discharges and impurities |
| Impermanence | - |
| Breathing | Kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity |
So, while MN 62 is missing half of the story found in EĀ 17.1, it is actually a more developed and expanded version of the sūtra.
Conclusions
The process these texts went through to reach the state we find them in today could have been complicated. Changes could have happened at multiple times. MN 62 may have been reduced to only the story of Rāhula receiving instruction from the Buddha before the instructions themselves were enlarged, or vice versa. It might also be that neither version included a story of Rāhula becoming an arhat and that EĀ 17.1 has been doubled in size to add this to it.
We need to look at a wider context to decide which is more likely. Which brings us to the other account of Rāhula’s awakening.
Story B: Rāhula Became an Arhat through Wisdom (SĀ 200 & MN 147)
Last spring, I released a translation of SĀ 200 (SĀ 2.57 by Yinshun’s reckoning). This sūtra was the Sarvāstivāda account of Rāhula becoming an arhat, which is found in the Āyatana Saṃyukta of SĀ. This story has a Pali parallel found at MN 147.
One thing that we should notice is that SĀ 200 is the final sūtra of a series of 17 sūtras in which Rāhula asks the Buddha Dharma questions. The first eight are represented by SĀ 198, and another eight are SĀ 199. Both sets of sūtras are essentially the same; the only difference is whether it’s Rāhula or the Buddha who asked the questions. We should probably surmise that these sixteen sūtras were considered a record of how Rāhula progressed to the point reached at the start of SĀ 200 (according to the Sarvāstivādins).
Synopsis of the Story
The sūtra opens with Rāhula approaching the Buddha and asking earnestly for a Dharma teaching that he could contemplate in seclusion and realize liberation from rebirth. The Buddha examined Rāhula’s mind and decided that he was not ready for this. Instead, he suggested that Rāhula teach the aggregates for someone else.
Rāhula did this and returned to the Buddha again to request a Dharma teaching to contemplate. The Buddha again decided instead to have Rāhula teach someone else about the six sense fields. Rāhula accepted this instruction and did so.
In this way, the Buddha tasked Rāhula with also teaching dependent origination to others. It appears that there were other subjects that the Buddha told him to teach, too, but the Chinese translation abbreviated the series of exchanges at that point and skipped to the end. There, the Buddha finally told Rāhula to go into seclusion and contemplate all of the subjects that he had been tasked to teach to other people.
When Rāhula did this, he realized that all of these teachings lead to nirvāṇa. He reported this to the Buddha afterward, and the Buddha assessed that Rāhula was ready to receive the higher teaching. He told him that everything is impermanent. I.e., the sense fields, their objects, awareness, sensory contact, and the feelings, conceptions, intentions, and cravings that arise from contact are all impermanent.
Rāhula rejoiced and was gladdened by this. He later went into seclusion to contemplate the impermanence of everything and became an arhat liberated from rebirth.
Another Version of the Story
This sūtra also has a Pali parallel at MN 147. However, this version departs significantly from SĀ 200 even though the two texts share enough resemblance to be related to one another. They appear to be two versions of some original story that must not have been quite so elaborate.
In this version, the story begins with the Buddha deciding that Rāhula is ready to be taught how to end the contaminants. The next morning, the Buddha takes Rāhula into Andha Forest to meditate after the morning alms meal.
In SĀ 200, these events occur after the Buddha tasked Rāhula with teaching basic subjects for other people. In fact, this sutta would fit well enough as an expansion of the conclusion of SĀ 200. But the Buddha doesn’t take Rāhula into the forest in that story; Rāhula goes into seclusion to contemplate by himself.
The story in MN 147 is framed in a mythical fashion, with an unseen audience of devas celebrating the event of the Buddha teaching Rāhula how to be rid of the contaminants. Unlike the other stories, this one seems explicitly conscious of the fact that Rāhula was the Buddha’s son.
Once they are settled in a spot in the forest, the Buddha gives Rāhula a Dharma talk with a set of observations found throughout the Aggregates and Sense Fields divisions of SĀ and SN. The Buddha addresses a set of subjects close but not quite identical to the ones found in SĀ 198-200:
| MN 147 | SĀ 198-200 |
|---|---|
| Inner and outer sense fields | Inner and outer sense fields |
| Sensory awareness | Sensory awareness |
| Sensory contact | Sensory contact |
| Feeling, conception, volition, awareness arising from sensory contact | Feelings, conceptions, intentions, cravings arising from sensory contact |
There are two differences. First, MN 147 takes the unorthodox course of interleaving the four mental aggregates into the presentation in the place where we might expect items from the six sets of six. One has to wonder whether a recall error has taken place, in which the list of aggregates was triggered after feeling and conception rather than the last two of the six sets.
The other difference is the presentation. In MN 147, these subjects are not separated neatly as I’ve listed them above. Instead, all the items related to the eye are listed first: the eye, sights, visual awareness, visual contact, and feeling, conception, volition, and awareness that arise from visual contact. Then the entire list is repeated for the remaining five senses. In SĀ 198-200, each list is treated in a separate sūtra, so they are presented in the usual way as six sets of six plus the sense fields.
This brings us to the actual observations about these subjects. In SĀ 200, the observation is that they are not related to a self in four ways: They are not self, not different than a self, self is not in them, and they are not in a self. MN 147 instead presents the standard argument that they are not self, beginning with the observation that they are impermanent. Being impermanent, they are painful. Something that’s impermanent and painful could not be a self.
When this is realized, a noble disciple becomes disillusioned with these things. Once they are disillusioned with them, desire for them fades away, and one is liberated from attachments to them. This is also liberation from rebirth.
Rāhula’s awakening is added to the very end of MN 147 as a sort of footnote that he was freed from the contaminants during the Buddha’s Dharma talk. Unlike SĀ 200, this would make it impossible for his awakening to be the result of secluded meditation. And this would be the opposite of the account we find in EĀ 17.1 that depicts his awakening as equivalent to an arhat liberated in both ways.
Finally, we are reminded about the unseen deva audience to these events with a note that many of them clarified their Dharma eyes.
Conclusions - Any?
It would seem there may have been a disagreement in early Buddhism over what sort of arhat Rāhula was: One liberated by wisdom or in both ways? MN 147 clearly takes the former position while EĀ 17.1 clearly takes the latter. SĀ 200 is less clear which was the case, but the former seems the most likely since there is no mention of attaining samādhi or the penetrating knowledges.
And this begs some questions that are difficult to answer today: Why does MN appear to contain both accounts in the form of MN 62 and MN 147? Why does MN 62 suddenly cut off the account of Rāhula’s awakening found in EĀ 17.1 when otherwise the outline of those two parallels are very close to each other? In light of MN 147, it seems reasonable to at least consider that MN 62 may have been edited to eliminate contradictory stories about Rāhula. It seems to belong to a different tradition than MN 147 when we compare both to their Āgama parallels.