Abstract:
Ariyadhamma sutta is the seventh discourse of the Samana-vagga (the chapter for monks) of the Anguttara-nikāya. Since this discourse has been exceedingly abbreviated due to the redactors' intervention, the entire idea from Ariyadhamma sutta has to be comprehended in comparison with the preceding discourses of the same chapter. Consequently, even though the Samana-vagga consists of eight discourses, with the exception of the first and last, the rest is complicated. The first discourse of this chapter speaks of seven unwholesome concomitants that should be broken by one who is apt for the honorific appellation 'bhikkhu'. In other words, the first discourse provides a religious etymology for bhikkhu.
All the subsequent discourses of this chapter consistently mention the same unwholesome concomitants that should be eradicated by one who becomes worthy for the honorific appellations samaņa, brāhmaņa, sotthiya, nahātaka, ariya and arahā respectively. As venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi remarks 'these terms are purely pedagogical ant not etymologically cogent. Significantly, each of these discourses mentions the reason one becomes worthy enough for aforesaid honorific appellations. For instance, the crux of the second and third discourses as follows: bhinnattā bhikkhu hoti; through the breaking of (seven unwholesome concomitants) one becomes a bhikkhu, samitattā samaņo hoti; through the appeasement of (seven unwholesome concomitants) one becomes a samaņo. It is clear that all of these discourses speak of seven unwholesome factors that should be eliminated by one who wishes to get each honorific appellation mentioned above. Interestingly, Ariyadhamma sutta, as the Sinhalese Tipitaka edition (i.e. Buddha-jayanti) reads arahattā ariyo hoti; through the deserving of (seven unwholesome concomitants) one becomes an ariya.
The meaning of this discourse is controversial, since it suggests the necessity of seven unwholesome factors to get the honorific appellation ariya. Especially, the term arahattā is totally questionable. Pali Text Society's edition reads this term as arȋhatattā, while the Burmese edition makes an arbitrary substitution of ārakattā. The Siamese tradition, has totally omitted this discourse from their edition. Accordingly, this paper attempts a critical analysis of this term.
