This may (or may not) be a grammatical point with meaningful implications. I am not a Pāli scholar so I need help interpreting the following phrase from MN 73: “There are not only one hundred, or two, or three, or four, or five hundred, but far more male [same for female] lay followers, my disciples, clothed in white leading lives of celibacy, who with the destruction of the five lower fetters will reappear spontaneously and attain final Nibbana there, not subject to returning from that world.”
The Pāli:
Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa ekupāsakopi sāvako gihī odātavasano brahmacārī yo pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātiko tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā”ti?
Here is my question: The English translation says "…who with the destruction of the five lower fetters will reappear spontaneously…etc. {my emphasis]. Does this mean that these disciples already have destroyed the lower fetters, or that they are, at this point, once-returners who will become non-returners when and if they were to destroy the five lower fetters?
Thanks in advance.
k.
This is an excellent question of grammar & translation. The pāli teachers will comment further and more definitively (I’m just a student!). But from what I understand:
“lower fetters destroyed” establishes that this occurs first
“reappear spontaneously” is a present tense that functions as a future tense, hence occurring after the “lower fetters destroyed”
This is a standard sentence construction in pāli that establishes the first thing occurring and then the second thing. In English we might say, “There are some apples that fall from the tree and become rotten.” But in pāli we have to say, “There are some apples that, having fallen from the tree, (then)(will) become rotten.”
These are all non-returners. The five lower fetters have been uprooted and they are not subject to “returning” to the human realm or any sense desire realm, because they have uprooted the fetter of sense desires and craving for sense pleasures, but they have not yet uprooted the fetter of desire for existence, so they will take their rebirths in the pure abodes where they will attain final nibbāna.
Thank you for your input. This is exactly how I interpret it. However, I need confirmation from a Pāli scholar, as I will be discussing this issue in an article I am preparing. Again, thank you—
Thank you for your response. I know that this is commonly believed about the passage, but I need to understand the grammatical construction, because an alternative interpretation is given by Beth L, and that is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. I will be happy to abandon it, but I need detailed explanation rather than just a re-statement of a common viewpoint. Again, thank you.
You’re welcome! And best wishes on your writing project.
Yes, I suspect the grammarians will say this is the relative clause construction that pāli forces, more or less.
So we have the subordinate clause introduced by the the relative pronoun yo (“who”):
literally “who five lower fetters destruction (of the)”
followed by the completion of the demonstrative clause. Per normal, this clause is introduced with a demonstrative pronoun, in this case atthi (“there (are)”)
“(of) Gotama followers disciples laypersons”
then the subordinate clause above, then the completion of the main clause:
“reappear (and attain) spontaneously there final Nibbana”
A correction from my first post: opapātiko is the adjective form of the verb; it is not a verb tense. However it is readable as a future tense.
The reading of “with” is required by the instrumental declension parikkhayā .
Just to be clear then: are you saying that an English rendering of the probable meaning would be something like, “should this group of disciples successfully (at some point) abandon the remaining of the five lower fetters they would at that point become non-returners." In other words, as the is Buddha speaking, they are not yet non-returners. Is that right or do I have it backwards?
…is there even a single laywoman disciple of Mister Gotama—white-clothed and chaste—who, with the ending of the five lower fetters, is reborn spontaneously, to be extinguished there, not liable to return from that world?”
Then the Buddha:
“There are not just one hundred such chaste laywomen who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
In your opening post, what you offer first as the English translation corresponds to the Buddha’s answer. The pāli you cite right after it corresponds to Vaccha’s question right before it.
So with that understood, yes, Vaccha is asking the question as a matter of conjecture (as in the rest of his questions in this part of the sutta). Here is where I’m not competent to teach the meaning but only the pāli. Still, it seems clear the conjecture is about the ability of such a layperson to become a non-returner as a result of the destruction of the five lower fetters.
In other words, as the Buddha replies, this is available to many – it is not an exclusive club. Up to who knows how many laywomen? This conjecture is difficult to capture 1:1 between pāli and English; however, the pattern of discourse with the grammar is so common across the suttas.
@stephen is where I’d go first. He’s a layperson who has studied extensively under John Kelly. You might send him a private message, as well. I don’t usually summon monastics by name. Also @dogen and @Sphairos as well as @cdpatton who has the Chinese translations mastered.
BethL–My apologies to you (and everyone else). I was actually interested in the implications of the Buddha’s response, not Vacca’s questions. The Pāli:
Na kho, vaccha, ekaṁyeva sataṁ na dve satāni na tīṇi satāni na cattāri satāni na pañca satāni, atha kho bhiyyova yā upāsikā mama sāvikā gihiniyo odātavasanā brahmacāriniyo pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyiniyo anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā”ti
which you have translated in English as:
"There are not just one hundred such chaste laywomen who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
But I am interested in the issue of whether they will be reborn subsequent to the destruction of the fetters or whether they already have achieved non-return status. You seem to interpret this passage as I do, that their non-return status is dependent on their hoped for future attainment. Is that right?
To be clear, I am not in a position to solve this for you. I am only approaching it grammatically. You would need someone, such as a monastic or those I summoned, to resolve that.
It is very clear from the Pāli that the chaste women have achieved non-return. The standard pericope for that is used: pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyiniyo anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā.
Thank you for this clarification, Sphairos. So, would you consider this evidence of “high levels of [meditative] attainment reached by a large number of householders,” as suggested by Bhikkhu Anālayo in his 2022 article for Mindfulness (p. 324)?
Since I was pinged here, I’ll chip in - from the context of the sutta, the question doesn’t seem to be about the potential, but whether anyone’s achieved these attainments already.
(Also, for the argument’s sake - anyone can achieve these things, anyway. So it seems weird to question specific groups and their specific potentials.)
Therefore yes, we can say that Pāli suttas claim that high levels of attainments were reached by a large number of householders. See the rest of the sutta:
If the worthy Gotama and the monks were the only ones to succeed in this teaching, not any nuns … chaste laymen … laymen enjoying sensual pleasures … chaste laywomen … laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures, then this spiritual path would be incomplete in that respect. But because Mister Gotama, monks, nuns, chaste laymen, laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, chaste laywomen, and laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures have all succeeded in this teaching, this spiritual path is complete in that respect.
Thank you Dogen. And yet, in MN 71, Vacca asks the Buddha: “Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end to suffering?” The Buddha replies: Vacca, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end to suffering” (i.e. non-return).
This is an unequivocally definitive statement which is also implied, but perhaps not stated so starkly, throughout the Nikāyas. It suggests that “succeed in the teaching” (“accomplished in the Dhamma” is the way Bhks. Ñāṇamoli & Bodhi translated it) refers to attainments on a downward gradient: Only monastics are described as attaining deliverance “here and now”; only celibate lay followers are described as being able to attain non-returner status; and the attainments continue to become less exalted for non-chaste disciples. In any event, if it is true as implied in MN73 that large numbers of the Buddha’s lay followers were non-returners, I am wondering why only a extremely small number of suttas give unambiguous examples of this? Anyway, thanks again.
“The Buddha replies: Vacca, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end to suffering (i.e. non-return).”
The phrase “has made an end to suffering” refers specifically to arahantship — the complete ending of suffering. A non-returner (anāgāmī), while free from the five lower fetters, is still subject to subtle forms of existence and is not yet fully liberated.
Also, householders can indeed attain anāgāmi-phala and live as laypeople in that state. While some texts (both suttas and commentaries) suggest that arahantship is not compatible with lay lifestyle, it can occur at the moment of death to laypeople- though it’s considered is considered quite difficult.
I’ll try to find and share those references in the suttas soon
SN55.54 Gilānasutta is a guide of instructions for “sick wise lay followers”. If practiced correctly, it can lead to arahantship on the deathbed. These instructions can be delivered by another wise lay follower. The final instruction exhorts the sick person to abandon all forms of becoming:
[the supporting follower] should say: ‘Good fellow, the realm of divinity [Brāhmas] is impermanent, not lasting, and included within substantial reality. It would be good to turn your mind away from the realm of divinity and apply it to the cessation of substantial reality.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one and the other.”
Again, non-return and arahant are different things. Making an end to suffering is arahantship, and is mostly the domain of renunciates. It is said in the suttas that householders who reach arahantship need to ordain in 7 days or they die!
See the rest of the sutta: