Who Can Attain Nirodha Samapatti, and What Happens After?

What the suttas say, and what I have found in practice.

Two questions come up again and again around nirodha samapatti – the cessation of perception and feeling: who is able to attain it, and what happens when a person emerges from it, particularly in terms of the higher attainments on the path (non-return, arahantship). The Theravada tradition offers answers I cannot agree with.

Nirodha samapatti is the temporary cessation of perception, feeling, and consciousness, entered from the eighth meditative attainment (neither perception nor non-perception). The body remains alive, but experience does not occur. I describe it in detail in the cessation chapter of the Jhana Training Manual. I, of course, cannot offer any new textual discoveries. What I can offer is a careful reading of what the suttas do and do not say, together with my own experience. Take the reasoning on its merits and the experience for whatever it is worth to you.

Who can attain nirodha samapatti?

The orthodox Theravada answer is restrictive. Only a non-returner (anagami) or an arahant is said to be capable of entering cessation. It is worth being clear from the outset that this is a conclusion of the Theravada commentarial tradition, and not something the suttas state. As far as I'm aware, there is no sutta that reserves the cessation of perception and feeling only for non-returners and arahants.

The sutta support for the restriction might be indirect. For example, Anguttara Nikaya 5.166 speaks of "a bhikkhu [monk] accomplished in virtuous behavior, concentration, and wisdom" who can enter and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. One could argue that "accomplishment in wisdom" is what makes the difference between a non-returner, who can attain cessation, and a once-returner, who supposedly cannot. The problem with this argument is that "accomplished in wisdom" quite consistently describes an arahant in the suttas, not non-returners. So, saying that non-returners are accomplished in wisdom and once-returners are not is simply arbitrary.

Moreover, the same sutta goes on to describe that monk accomplished in wisdom as someone not reaching final knowledge in this very life. This is an internal inconsistency, as both refer to arahantship across the Sutta Pitaka. This makes me question the reliability of that particular passage.

Another example could be the sutta "With Kamabhu" (Samyutta Nikaya 41.6), where Venerable Kamabhu says that two qualities are of help in attaining the cessation of perception and feeling: serenity and insight. I definitely agree that insight is helpful for the attainment of cessation. However, to convert "insight is helpful" into "a non-returner qualifies and a once-returner doesn't" (because the non-returner has gained deeper insight) would be arbitrary again – there is no indication the line should be drawn between the once-returner and the non-returner. These are the kinds of textual support one might offer, and they seem weak to me.

But set the textual question aside: the restriction is also hard to motivate on its own terms. No other attainment carries a prerequisite of this kind. The eight samadhi attainments that precede nirodha samapatti are clearly available to those who do not even know the Buddha’s teaching: the ascetics Alara Kalama and Rama attained the seventh and the eighth of them, respectively, before the Buddha’s awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 26). Nor is there any prerequisite for the stages of awakening themselves – a person can in principle go straight from no attainment to arahantship (although in practice, this is probably extremely rare). Against this background, a unique restriction on the attainment of cessation of perception and feeling is puzzling.

The specific line drawn between the once-returner and the non-returner is hard to defend. The difference between them is that the non-returner has uprooted sensual desire and ill-will, whereas the once-returner has only weakened them. But in the eighth attainment, from which nirodha samapatti is entered, sensual desire and ill-will are completely suppressed anyway. During the meditation they are not active obstacles for the once-returner any more than for the non-returner.

My own experience is that, indeed, the restriction doesn't work in practice – I attained the cessation of perception and feeling without being a non-returner or an arahant. I'm aware how that will read to some: those who place more confidence in the Theravada doctrine than in an account like mine will simply conclude that I did not attain cessation at all. That is a fair response. I have described what I experienced, and why I take it to be nirodha samapatti, in the cessation chapter of the manual. Readers can weigh it for themselves.

What happens after emerging from nirodha samapatti?

The second question concerns what the attainment yields, and here a common impression needs untangling. Most discourses that mention the cessation add that the cessation attainer's taints are destroyed by seeing with wisdom (e.g., MN 26), which is the description of arahantship. This can give the impression that nirodha samapatti automatically delivers full awakening, Nibbana (and I also held this view for some time during my monkhood).

The counterargument to that view is AN 5.166, which clearly allows for the possibility that someone attaining the cessation of perception and feeling does not attain Nibbana in this life. It is also worth noting that the sutta does not at all say that the given meditator is a non-returner – neither before nor after the attainment of cessation – as the commentary seems to suggest.[1] That is quite a relevant detail for contemplating both of the questions – who can attain the cessation and what happens after.

So, what does the sutta textual evidence suggest regarding the consequence of nirodha samapatti? I think the most honest answer is to admit that the suttas do not provide a clear, definite answer. We have many suttas mentioning the destruction of the taints after the cessation attainment, and against that we have one sutta allowing the non-destruction of the taints as a possibility, but that sutta itself seems slightly problematic as it describes someone accomplished in wisdom as not having attained final knowledge. Based purely on this textual evidence, I can understand taking either of the two sides.

However, my practice experience has convinced me of the interpretation that does not promise any of the higher wisdom attainments – I'm sure I attained the cessation of perception and feeling, but I'm also sure I do not possess the qualities of a non-returner or an arahant.

How, then, should the stock phrase about the destruction of the taints following the cessation be understood? As a description of how the practice unfolds when it unfolds well, not as a rule that it always does. There are many such sequences in the suttas. One step genuinely supports the next, yet possessing the earlier step does not immediately guarantee the later one. The sequence portrays the "success story" – how it is when it happens. But it doesn't mean awakening always immediately follows the cessation of perception and feeling. It may or may not.

That said, nirodha samapatti is very conducive to Nibbana. It is the ultimate "two-in-one" practice – extraordinarily powerful for developing both serenity and insight at once. The resulting nonduality is a direct encounter with non-self (anatta insight), and, of course, no other meditative state makes the mind more serene than the cessation of perception and feeling.

In summary

For anyone drawn to nirodha samapatti there is good news and a caution. The good news is that you do not need to be a non-returner to reach it – it is more accessible than what the Theravada restriction allows. The caution is that reaching it may or may not carry you to the higher wisdom attainments on the spot. It is remarkably fertile ground for Nibbana, but the one who reaches it has not necessarily "done what had to be done" – there may well be work remaining.

[1] The commentary is simply deviating from what the Pali actually means here. According to footnote 1160 in AN by Bhikkhu Bodhi, the commentary says "A certain mind-made group (aññataram manomayam kayan): a certain group of brahmas in the pure abodes, who are reborn by the jhana-mind." But "certain mind-made group" (aññataram manomayam kayam) does not refer to the pure abodes. "Mind-made" (manomaya) refers to the whole form realm (rupa-loka), of which the pure abodes are only a fraction. Just as the beings in the formless realm are called "perception-made" (saññamaya), the beings in the form realm are called "mind-made" (manomaya). This is also in line with footnote 1161 in AN by Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Udayi has confused the devas of the formless realm, who are said to be perception-made (saññamaya), with the devas of the form realm (including the pure abodes), who are said to be mind-made (manomaya)." So, "mind-made" simply refers to the form realm in general, not to the pure abodes, which are the abodes of non-returners, i.e., the sutta does not imply anything about the stage of awakening of the cessation attainer (except that he is not an arahant).

Sources:

Anguttara Nikaya (AN): The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2012

Samyutta Nikaya (SN): The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2000

Majjhima Nikaya (MN): The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2009

If you would like to be informed about new essays and other relevant updates, you can sign up here.