Migasālā (AN 6.44 and AN 10.75)

Dear All,

I have a question regarding the two Migasālā suttas which can be found at AN 6.44 and AN 10.75. Both suttas refer to the same story of Migasālā who questions Venerable Ananda regarding the reason why both her father Purāṇa and her uncle Isidatta attained to the state of Once Returner when they died, although the former was a celibate (brahmacārī) and the latter not (abrahmacārī). Besides the fact that it is strange that Purāṇa is considered as a celibate since he has a daughter, namely Migasālā, I am a bit puzzled by the following passages in AN 10.75 and how to interpret them.

First the Buddha refers to a person who is immoral (ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti ) and who is not learned in the teachings (bāhusaccenapi akataṃ hoti ), has not penetrated them (diṭṭhiyāpi appaṭividdhaṃ hoti ) and how this person will go to degradation after death (paraṃ maraṇā hānāya pareti).

Here’s the full passage:

idhānanda, ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti. tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, yatthassa taṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhati. tassa savanenapi akataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi akataṃ hoti, diṭṭhiyāpi appaṭividdhaṃ hoti, sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ na labhati. so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā hānāya pareti, no visesāya; hānagāmīyeva hoti, no visesagāmī.

Then the Buddha refers to the same kind of immoral person (ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti) but who this time is learned in the teachings (bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti), has penetrated them (diṭṭhiyāpi paṭividdhaṃ hoti) and how this person will head for excellence (so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā visesāya pareti).

Here’s the passage:

ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti. tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti yatthassa taṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhati. tassa savanenapi kataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti, diṭṭhiyāpi paṭividdhaṃ hoti, sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ labhati. so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā visesāya pareti, no hānāya; visesagāmīyeva hoti, no hānagāmī.

What I don’t really understand in the second case is how it is possible for that person to be still immoral if he has penetrated the teachings and if he attains temporary liberation (sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ labhati). I asked a Sayadaw about this passage and he told me that the terms savanenapi kataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti,… should be considered more as potentialities. He has the potential to penetrate the Dhamma, and this only the Buddha can knows (tadantaraṃ ko jāneyya, aññatra tathāgatena) and therefore he exhorts us not to judge other people (tasmātihānanda, mā puggalesu pamāṇikā ahuvattha, mā puggalesu pamāṇaṃ gaṇhittha).

I started to look at the commentaries and here’s how ‘he understands as it really is’ (yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti) is glossed:

yathābhūtaṃ pajānātīti “sotāpattiphalaṃ patvā pañcavidhaṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhatī”ti uggahaparipucchāvasena jānāti.

It seems to indicate that he knows through learning and questioning that the fivefold immorality ceases without remainder when the fruit of Sotāpatti is attained. Can we therefore say that although he is immoral, he knows indirectly (without having realized it) that his immorality will cease when he attains the fruit of Sotāpatti?

bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hotīti vīriyena kattabbayuttakaṃ antamaso dubbalavipassanāmattakampi kataṃ hoti.

diṭṭhiyāpi suppaṭividdhaṃ hotīti antamaso lokiyapaññāyapi paccayapaṭivedho kato hoti. imassa hi puggalassa paññā sīlaṃ paridhovati, so paññāparidhotena visesaṃ pāpuṇāti.

sāmayikampi vimuttiṃ na labhatīti kālānukālaṃ dhammassavanaṃ nissāya pītipāmojjaṃ na labhati.

So he has gained some weak vipassana through effort, he has penetrated [the teachings] by worldly knowledge and he obtained some joy and gladness by listening to the Dhamma for a while.

And later the Buddha says that this latter person (the immoral one who has some understanding) is better than the former (ayaṃ, ānanda, puggalo amunā purimena puggalena abhikkantataro ca paṇītataro ca), the reason being that the Dhamma stream carries him along (taṃ kissa hetu? imaṃ hānanda, puggalaṃ dhammasoto nibbahati).

But then the commentary says: dhammasoto nibbahatīti sūraṃ hutvā pavattamānaṃ vipassanāñāṇaṃ nibbahati, ariyabhūmiṃ pāpeti, being a hero, the flow of vipassana insight carries him along or stretches him out, and makes him reach the plane of the Noble Ones.

This seems to imply that although he is immoral, he is carried along by vipassana insight. Isn’t this in contradiction with what is said before? Doesn’t that in a way mean that he is already a Sotapanna?

Finally, what is the meaning of the sentence: “imassa hi puggalassa paññā sīlaṃ paridhovati, so paññāparidhotena visesaṃ pāpuṇāti”? How can this worldly knowledge (lokiyapaññā) cleanse his sīlaṃ?

Sorry for all these questions, but any advice on how to correctly interpret this Sutta would be welcome.

Florent