Groundwork for a Metaphysic of Buddhist Morals: A New Analysis of puñña and kusala, in light of sukka

This paper offers a new basis for assessing the nature of Buddhist moral thinking. Although consistent with Damien Keown's view that Buddhist ethics may be considered a form of virtue ethics, the account outlined here does not aim to determine which western ethical theory Buddhism most closely matches. It suggests instead that Buddhist discourse presupposes different kinds of moral agency, distinguishable on the basis of the spiritual status of the agent. The moral language characteristically employed in different texts of the Pāli Canon differs accordingly. This accounts for some of the difficulties experienced by modern authors attempting to make comparisons with western traditions. Apparent inconsistencies among the texts can be resolved if one takes careful note of the spiritual status of the moral agents under discussion. The argument is based upon an analysis of a particular conceptual schema found in the Pāli Canon, namely, the tetrad of four logical categories of action based upon the pair of the bright and the dark (sukka and kaṇha). This schema is employed in order to clarify the relationship of two more commonly discussed terms, puñña and kusala. Section 1: Sukka and Kaṇha One of the more fertile ongoing conversations in the field of Buddhist Studies revolves around the problem of correctly situating the principles of Buddhist morality in relation to western ethical theories. Recent debate has focused upon the work of Damien Keown (1992), who has argued for a classification of early Buddhist ethics as a form of virtue ethics importantly similar to the system of Aristotle. Keown has indicated that both systems are centered on a teleological goal that is valued for its own sake and for the sake of which all lesser goals are sought: eudaimonia (happiness) for Aristotle and nirvāṇa in the case of Buddhism.(1) In both cases the summum bonum is attained through the cultivation of specific mental states that "participate in" or share the nature of the final good. For Aristotle these are the virtues. Keown argues that the conceptual frameworks of the two systems are sufficiently similar to warrant the application of this term in the Buddhist context. More recently, Velez de Cea (2004) has critiqued Keown, arguing that the system of values found in the Pāli suttas is unclassifiable in terms of a single western theory, but if anything most closely resembles a combination of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and moral realism. In this paper I wish to provide some of the groundwork for a revised account of Buddhist moral thinking, one that draws upon the insights of both authors, but which attempts to assess Buddhist moral discourse in specifically Buddhist terms rather than western categories. The point of departure for much of the current discussion pertains to the Pāli words that have been translated into English as "good." A key chapter of Keown's study is centered on two main terms, namely, puñña and kusala. The question posed is how, exactly, are these words conceptually related? Do they refer to precisely the same set of phenomena, or do they differ in their reference? There appear to be at least three logical possibilities. Keown takes the position that the terms refer to the same extensional set. "[E]very virtuous action is both kusala and puñña. . . . [K]usala and akusala describe the moral status of actions and dispositions vis à vis the summum bonum. Puñña, on the other hand, describes the experiential consequences of moral activity suffered by the agent" (1992:123). Velez de Cea disagrees on this point, arguing that the two represent two different kinds of action (2004:130). Others have argued for an overlap in signification, with kusala being the more general term (Premasiri 1976:72).(2) Before we can begin our own approach to this discussion one important observation must be made. As is apparent from Keown's remark, puñña and kusala each represent the positive pole of an antithetical pair of moral terms: A. puñña and apuñña (pāpa): karmically meritorious and karmically detrimental (merit and demerit) B. kusala and akusala: wholesome and unwholesome (skillful and unskillful) Thus the question concerning the logical relations of the positive poles is, by extension, the question of the relations between the two pairs of which they are parts. In this paper an attempt is made to clarify the relationship between A and B through the introduction of a third pair, also found throughout the Pāli Canon: C. sukka and kaṇha: bright and dark (white and black, pure and impure, good and evil) In choosing to examine this pair of terms I am following the lead of Peter Harvey who has already indicated its potential relevance to discussions of Buddhist morality (2000:44). Here I will argue that it forms a conceptual bridge between the other two pairs, allowing us a clearer understanding of the nature of their relationship. While both A and B are found throughout the Nikāyas, scholars seem to agree that B, kusala and akusala, is the more distinctively Buddhist of the two. The division of actions and mental states into puñña and apuñña is part of common Indian karma theory. It refers to the potency of actions to produce positive and negative future experiences for the agent. Here the two are translated as "karmically meritorious" (or "merit") and "karmically detrimental" (or "demerit") respectively. Karmically meritorious actions are of many sorts, but in brief can be summarized as moral actions that cause pleasant, enjoyable future experiences. Karmically detrimental actions generate unpleasant, unenjoyable future experiences. Fear of an unhappy rebirth, and desire for the pleasures of a happy one, are common motives among Buddhists. We should note, however, that while some meritorious actions will be purposefully aimed at these goals, others are thought of as simply having such results without their being aimed for XXX an important point to which we will return. The term kusala is usually translated as either "skillful" or "wholesome": kusala actions are skillful in the sense that they lead to nirvāṇa or awakening; they are wholesome in the sense of being characterized by positive, healthy qualities (dhammas). These qualities are perfected in one who has attained nirvāṇa. In this sense, actions based on these qualities have been called "nirvāṇic" by Keown and others. They "participate in" or display the qualities of nirvāṇa. How, then, are we to understand the relationship between the positive poles of A and B? Are all nirvāṇic actions karmically meritorious? Are all karmically meritorious actions nirvāṇic? Or only some? Let us see how introducing pair C helps to elucidate this question. In the Kukkuravatika Sutta (MN 57) the Buddha is said to have described human action as divisible into four basic categories.(3) Actions may be: (1) dark with dark result; (2) bright with bright result; (3) both dark and bright and with dark and bright result; (4) neither dark nor bright, neither dark nor bright in result, the action that conduces to the destruction of actions. The first three categories are relatively straight-forward, reflecting the general Buddhist conviction that actions have results that are in accord with, or correspond to, their character. The relationship is causal. Dark actions cause dark, unpleasant results in one's future experience; bright actions produce bright, pleasant results in one's future experience. The third category of action has a mixed nature and leads to a mixed result.(4) Category 4 seems to be identifiable with the path taught by the Buddha, the path that leads to the destruction of actions, to nirvāṇa. Intuitively, then, we would associate this category with the term kusala. Categories 1 through 3, on the other hand, seem to be connected to the "karmatic" pair, A (puñña and apuñña). Indeed this connection is explicit in Harvey's account, in which the first three categories are linked to the ideas of harmfulness and rebirth. Harvey glosses the four categories as follows: (1) that which is dark with dark result: harmful actions that lead to rebirths with harmful experiences in them; (2) that which is bright with bright result: non-harming actions that lead to rebirths with nonharmful experiences in them; (3) that which is both dark and bright and with dark and bright result: a mixture of the first two; (4) that which is neither dark nor bright, neither dark nor bright in result, the action that conduces to the destruction of actions: the will to get rid of the first three types of actions (2000:44). Because Category 4 is less immediately comprehensible than the others we shall delay its treatment. We will begin, then, by examining the Categories 1 through 3. It can be seen that Harvey understands a correspondence to exist between A and C. Dark actions are those that result in unfortunate rebirths (dark result); bright actions result in fortunate rebirths (bright result). The terms of both pairs are identified on the basis of their consequences. In spite of this, Harvey follows Keown in arguing that early Buddhist moral thinking cannot be considered a form of ethical consequentialism.(5) He notes that the early Buddhist tradition does not generally understand the moral goodness of an action to be dependent on the results that follow from the action; an action is good or bad in itself (2000:49). Positive experiential consequences flow from a morally good action because the action is morally good; the action is not considered morally good because the positive consequences flow from it. Thus bright actions have bright results because they are bright; they are not considered "bright" because they have bright experiential results. Dark actions have dark results because they are dark; they are not considered "dark" in virtue of the fact that they have dark experiential results (p. 17). Darkness and brightness are qualities of actions in and of themselves. If this is so, then we are compelled to ask: what kind of quality is being referred to? Harvey's gloss, as noted, suggests that the darkness or brightness of an action refers both to its harmfulness or nonharmfulness and to its leading to rebirths with harmful or nonharmful experiences in them. One might question whether the rebirths in question should be principally understood in terms of the amount of harmful or nonharmful experiences they contain, as opposed to pleasant or unpleasant experiences. But in general the connections Harvey draws between pair C and harmfulness, as well as between these and corresponding future rebirths, have a plausible ring given the suggestion of a correspondence between C and A.(6) Nonetheless, we may yet ask whether C might be more precisely explainable in its own terms. Actions and their results are qualified as being "bright" or "dark"; these adjectives are clearly suggestive of positive and negative moral valuations. These words are, moreover, related to the sense of sight. This is very clear in the Pāli, where the principal meanings of the terms are related to the presence or absence of physical light, i.e., "bright and dark" and "white and black." But we also find the added moral senses of "good and evil" and "pure and impure." As the PTS Dictionary comments under the entry for kaṇha, "In general it is hard to separate the lit. and fig. meanings; an ethical implication is found in most cases," excepting those that are actually referring to the sensations of normal vision (p. 180). It seems no coincidence that terms related to the presence or absence of light are employed in the moral context. To see why we need to recall that in Buddhist thinking the concept of "action" is understood in terms of the underlying volition or mental intention (cetanā) of the agent. As the Buddha himself famously put it: "It is intention, O Monks, that I call action; having formed the intention one performs acts by body, speech and mind."(7) Action is distinguishable from mere behavior. And this is so precisely in virtue of the fact that it is willed or intended. This is an important point of definition, the significance of which has not always been recognized by those working in the area of comparative Buddhist ethics. It is axiomatic. Bodily, verbal and mental actions are all to be understood as defined in terms of their underlying intentional state.(8) Thus to call an action bright, as Rhys-Davids suggests, could simply be a figurative, non-technical way of suggesting its moral praiseworthiness. But there is another possibility: it could be understood more literally as actually referring to an epistemic quality of the underlying mental state of the agent. In standard Buddhist soteriological thinking it is commonplace to note that various mental volitions have the effect of either darkening or not darkening the mind. Those that darken the mind obscure its capacity for insight and thus the final goal of awakening; other mental states do not have this effect, situating the mind in a more favorable position for the occurrence of liberating insight. Thus in Buddhist terms we can say that certain states are afflictive, obscuring the mind of the agent; others are not. Indeed this is how the Buddha himself is said to have explained these dark and bright actions: And what, Puṇṇa, is dark action with dark result? Here someone generates an afflictive bodily formation, an afflictive verbal formation, an afflictive mental formation. . . And what, Puṇṇa, is bright action with bright result? Here someone generates an unafflictive bodily formation, an unafflictive verbal formation, an unafflictive mental formation. (MN i 390) Bhikkhus Nyanamoli and Bodhi indicate that "afflictive" and "unafflictive" should be understood in terms of the underlying volition of the action. They cross-reference this passage to the more detailed explanation provided at MN i 47, which contains two well-known tenfold descriptions of the unwholesome (akusala) and the wholesome (kusala).(9) Afflictive, unwholesome mental formations are conditioned by three kinds of basic mental state: the so-called "three roots of the unwholesome": greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). Their opposites constitute the "three wholesome roots": generosity (dāna), friendliness (mettā), and wisdom (paññā). Thus it is the quality of the underlying state of mind characterizing one's intention that is the key determinant of the brightness of an action. Now the notion of some factor being a determinant for something else is importantly ambiguous. It can mean "that which determines" as well as "that which one uses to determine." Here it is understood in the former sense. Clearly the two senses are not equivalent. The criteria by which we judge an action to be good or bad do not necessarily constitute the causes of the action's being good or bad. Indeed more usually they are the effects as, for example, is arguably the case with regard to the injury or non-injury an action actually does to others. These indicators are more readily observed than the mental state of the agent. We may judge an action as morally bad, based on our observation of the injury it does. But from a Buddhist perspective we would have to modify our judgment upon learning that the results were accidental. We would then say that the action was "regrettable," or give it some other description with no implication of moral judgment upon the action itself. This point needs to be borne in mind when evaluating the arguments of scholars assessing the nature of Buddhist morality. The distinction is not always recognized; the criteria actually employed for judgment are often confused with the causal factors in virtue of which the action is good or bad. An analogy here would be illness. We do not confuse a fever, which is an effect, with its cause. A person has a fever because of their underlying condition of illness. A person is not ill because they have a fever. The fever is an indicator of the illness, not a causal determinant. Dark actions then, are not only those that have the effect of leading to negative, unpleasant future experiences for the agent XXX they are also actions that are unwholesome (akusala), based upon mental afflictions that block the mind from insight into its own nature. Bright actions are not only those that have the effect of leading to positive, pleasant future experiences for the agent XXX they are also wholesome. They do not afflict the mind. States that do not afflict the mind are conducive to liberating insight and the ultimate well-being of the person. There is an implicit telos here: a mind that is pure is naturally open to the possibility of self-understanding and spiritual freedom. Where does this leave us? It would seem that A, B, and C, when used as adjectives qualifying actions, all refer to exactly the same extensional set XXX but with varying connotations. In the universe of discourse that is action, they would seem to denote exactly the same phenomena. However they each have connotations of different value domains, the karmatic, the nirvāṇic (or soteriological) and the moral/epistemic respectively. Pair A, puñña and apuñña, connotes the experiential result of the action. Pair B, kusala and akusala, connotes the quality of the action with respect to wisdom and awakening. Pair C, sukka and kaṇha, is importantly ambiguous, simultaneously pointing towards both the moral quality and epistemic character of the action itself. The moral connotation links us to the karmatic; the epistemic connects us to the soteriological or nirvāṇic. Thus according to the understanding outlined so far, there is an easy correspondence to make among the three sets of antonyms. The former member of each pair would be translatable as "good," the latter as "bad." In puñña, kusala, and sukka we would appear to have three words referring to exactly the same set of actions. Because of its double implication of morality and knowledge the term sukka functions to bridge the conceptual gap between puñña and kusala. These results appear to support Keown's view that puñña and kusala refer to exactly the same set of phenomena. This could be considered the end of the story, but it is not. There are important qualifications that must be added. Thus far we have refrained from an analysis of the fourth category of action, that which seems most immediately identifiable with the Buddha's path. This category presents conceptual challenges that call for a more detailed analysis. Section 2: Different Classes of Agent In researching the root meaning of the word kusala Lance Cousins has concluded that in its original use it carried a sense of "intelligent" or "wise" (1996:156). In the Pāli Canon the word appears to convey an interesting double connotation, referring to both "origin" and "end," i.e., it indicates skillful mental states produced by wisdom and leading to awakening (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) (ibid:145).(10) Thus it is the word most clearly associated with the Buddha's path (ibid:154). It must be noticed however that kusala not only appears as a qualifier of action (karma), but also as a qualifier of mental states not associated with action XXX specifically those produced through meditation (e.g., the jhānas).(11) Puñña on the other hand is a term usually used to refer to actions that are intended to bring about pleasant results.(12) Thus when we look more closely and ask whether the class of the "wholesome" includes exactly the same members as the "bright" and the "karmically meritorious," we find that kusala is actually a more general term for any mental state associated with wisdom. These latter include nonintentional states such as the jhānas. Bright, meritorious actions constitute a large subset of the kusala, but do not exhaust it. We might say that kusala as a term applies to a wider value domain, a wider universe of discourse: one that includes morality, but much else besides.(13) Indeed as Keown has pointed out there are scriptural passages wherein the Buddha himself is described as endowed with kusala states. "The Tathågata. . . has abandoned all unwholesome states (akusaladhamma) and is possessed of states that are wholesome (kusala)" (MN ii 116).(14) Indeed a standard description of the Arahat is that of one who is "accomplished in what is wholesome, perfected in what is wholesome, attained to the supreme attainment, an ascetic invincible" (MN ii 26). Yet by definition an Arahat is one who has passed beyond the field of karma, beyond puñña and apuñña; he is one who will not be reborn. Hence, just as is true of the extraordinary, spiritually elevated states of mind which are the jhānas, so too for the extraordinary, spiritually elevated mode of existence which is Arahathood XXX the terms kusala and puñña do not appear to be coextensive. The spiritual states of an Arahat may be considered kusala, but they cannot be puñña.(15) Keown appears to have been well aware of this possible reservation concerning his account, dealing with it separately in a section of his work entitled "The Position of the Arahat." The difficulty is succinctly articulated: "[H]ow is it that kusala can be predicated of the Arahat while puñña may not?" (Keown 1992:124) Clearly this is a serious conceptual problem for Keown given his assertion that kusala and puñña represent two aspects of exactly the same set of phenomena. The solution Keown provides is rather brief and somewhat opaque; it will not be dwelt on here.(16) Instead a solution to this conundrum will be proposed based upon an analysis of the fourth category of action, that which is "neither dark nor bright, neither dark nor bright in result, the action that conduces to the destruction of actions." One obvious suggestion would be to simply identify this fourth category with the term kusala; this seems a natural identification given the "wise" connotations of the latter term. It would then be only a small step to further identify it with the conduct of the Arahat, the figure who represents the very embodiment of wisdom. In addition the Arahat's conduct appears to fit the description of being "neither dark nor bright, neither dark nor bright in result." By definition an Arahat is a liberated being, one who will not be reborn XXX the conduct of such a person generates no future experiential results. Hence it cannot be puñña. Taking this line of thinking one step further we could go on to identify the first three categories with the action of non-Arahats, those who do reap the results of their actions. It is their action that would be describable as puñña (or apuñña) XXX but not kusula. While the simplicity of this solution is tempting, unfortunately it does not mesh well with our analysis so far. We have already presented arguments to show that the terms puñña and kusula both apply to the first three categories. The inadequacy of suggesting otherwise can be seen from the fact that this would leave us no clear point of reference for the term akusula. To whom would this term apply? But a more telling consideration pertains to Category 4 itself. This category does seem to represent kusala conduct; indeed, it seems to be a description of the path of action advocated by the Buddha. But the conduct of a liberated being does not actually fit the final clause of the description, "action that conduces to the destruction of action." The Arahat has already reached the goal of having "destroyed action." For this reason alone it seems clear that Category 4 cannot be identified with the conduct of Arahats. In fact, properly speaking, an Arahat's conduct cannot be considered "action" (karma) at all; it is non-karmatic. Clearly the position of the Arahat is a special case, one that seems to fall outside the Buddha's fourfold schema of action. Let us momentarily put it to one side and return to our question. If not the Arahat, then whose actions, precisely, does Category 4 describe? Could it be that Category 4 actions belong to the ordinary person (puthujjana)? The problem with this suggestion is that the ordinary person's actions simply don't appear to fit the description in any way. They certainly do not appear to be "neither bright nor dark," for example. And yet we have just ruled out the Arahat as a possible agent for Category 4 actions. Thus it appears that we require another kind of actor whose level of spiritual attainment falls somewhere between the ordinary person and the Arahat. Here it seems reasonable to suggest that the agent be someone who has entered the Noble Eightfold Path, someone who has had an initial intimation of the freedom of nirvāṇa, but who has not yet achieved it. We may tentatively identify such a person with those categories of Noble Person (ariyapuggala) who have not yet reached the stage of Arahathood, the group of practitioners collectively referred to under the title sekha or "disciple in higher training." This group includes the Stream-Enterer (sotāpanna), Once-Returner (sakadāgāmin), and NeverReturner (anāgāmin). It seems natural to identify Category 4 with the actions of disciples in higher training. Their actions represent kusala par excellence. They lead to, and are informed by, the highest good. If this suggestion is satisfactory, what remains to be ascertained is whether such actions are properly considered karmically meritorious (puñña). In order to answer this question, we must begin by noting a peculiarity with regard to their "brightness": according to the literal description of Category 4 these actions are not bright. Category 4 actions are neither bright nor dark, with neither dark nor bright result. This distinguishes them from the actions of Category 2, which are bright with bright results. This suggests the possibility that there are two usages of kusala as an adjective describing actions: a) actions that are bright and not dark (Category 2) XXX Ordinary people b) actions that are not bright and not dark (Category 4) XXX Disciples in higher training Actions of Categories 2 and 4 are both kusala, but only Category 2 is "bright" (sukka).(17) Given this understanding it becomes possible to ask whether they are both puñña. Here I will argue that they are, but in interestingly different senses.(18) To see this we need to make use of a valuable conceptual distinction employed by Velez de Cea in his critique of Keown. Although it was not Velez de Cea's intention, the heuristic device he has introduced can actually be used to defend Keown's views. Basing himself on Aristotle, Velez de Cea has drawn a distinction between what he calls "instrumental" and "teleological" actions. As he puts it: By instrumental actions I mean actions leading to favorable conditions for cultivating nirvāṇic virtues and by teleological I mean actions actually displaying nirvāṇic virtues or virtues characteristic of the Buddhist ideal of sainthood. (2004:128) If we apply this distinction to our fourfold schema our initial temptation is to say that Category 2 actions constitute the instrumental; although they are motivated by non-nirvāṇic considerations, clearly they are "conducive to nirvāṇa" and thus instrumentally "nirvāṇic" XXX in the sense of resulting in circumstances that are situationally favorable to the attainment of the final goal. Category 4 actions, on the other hand, are directly informed by nirvāṇa; they appear to match what Velez de Cea calls the "teleological." Initially then, these results would appear to support the view, taken by Velez de Cea, that the terms puñña and kusala refer to two different kinds of action. But this result appears to contradict our understanding that these actions are both kusala XXX the first being bright and not dark (associated with the ordinary people), the second neither bright nor dark (associated with disciples in higher training). Of course, Velez de Cea is not employing the fourfold schema in his explanations, so it remains for us to explain the discrepancy. We can do this by refining the very distinction between the instrumental and the teleological. This refinement is based on the notion that one and the same action can be considered both instrumental and teleological, depending on the end towards which the agent's intention is principally related. So while actions of Category 4 are indeed teleologically nirvāṇic (kusala), they are also correctly viewed as instrumentally karmatic (puñña), the notion of "instrumentality" being understood as referring to the unintended effects of the action. Category 4 actions participate in nirvāṇa; but unless the agent reaches this goal he or she will be reborn. Such actions will have had the inevitable effect of leading to a higher rebirth, even though this result will have been gained inadvertently. This beneficial result for the person did not inform his or her intention. As for Category 2 actions, these have the unintended effect of leading one closer to nirvāṇa. But they also inevitably lead to positive future experiences for the agent, such as a pleasant rebirth. Such a concern for oneself informs the agent's intention. The agent's mental state is self-centered and does not "participate in" the final goal of nirvāṇa; in some basic sense it is not based in the awareness of this possibility of selflessness. The agent's actions therefore lead to pleasant future experiences, such as a better rebirth. Such a result is inevitable. There is a telos inherent in the natural order of things. We can therefore speak of such actions as teleologically puñña or teleologically karmatic. Note that this way of talking assumes that the key determinant (in the causal sense) of an action's being either Category 2 or 4 is indeed the quality of awareness that marks the intention of the agent. In most circumstances an ordinary person is motivated by a concern informed by the delusion of self; one's moral conduct is motivated by the desire to benefit oneself (e.g., with a higher rebirth, the prospect of pleasure, etc.) But an inversion happens upon entry into the Noble Eightfold Path: actions are thereafter marked by the first intimation of nirvāṇa; they are now indelibly "experienced as" leading to this final goal. They are informed by the wisdom that sees through the delusion of self. These actions are teleologically kusala (inevitably leading to nirvāṇa) and instrumentally puñña (unintentionally leading to a higher rebirth).(19) By refining the tool provided by Velez de Cea, we reach the conclusion that all kusala action is puñña and all puñña action is kusala XXX but in two different ways: Category 2: teleologically puñña and instrumentally kusala, (sukka, not kaṇha); the action of ordinary people Category 4: instrumentally puñña and teleologically kusala, (neither sukka nor kaṇha); the virtuous action of disciples in higher training A final inversion occurs upon Awakening, when the telos is realized. At this point one can no longer properly speak of action (karma) at all. Some Preliminary Conclusions The appropriate description of a "good" or "moral" conduct in early Buddhist thought hinges on the mental state of the agent, which in turn should be set in the context of the agent's spiritual status. Broadly speaking we must distinguish at least three classes of agent and the descriptions of their respective moral conduct. (1) Ordinary persons (puthujjana): a good action is bright, teleologically meritorious and instrumentally skillful (i.e., such action results in experiences that better situate one to pursue liberation, e.g., a happy rebirth). Hence, for this kind of agent, good conduct is describable as puñña, kusala, and sukka.(20) (2) Disciples in higher training (sekha): a good action is neither bright nor dark, instrumentally meritorious, and teleologically skillful (informed by nirvāṇa: born from wisdom and proceeding there too). The agent is inevitably drawn towards nirvāṇa, but, paradoxically, not motivated by the goal of attaining it for him or herself. The delusion of self has been penetrated by insight, even if it and the other unwholesome roots have not been entirely eradicated. For this kind of agent, good conduct is accurately described as kusala, puñña, and not sukka (neither sukka nor kaṇha). (3) Arahats (including the Buddha): good conduct is beyond duality XXX neither bright nor dark, neither karmically meritorious nor detrimental, neither wholesome nor unwholesome. There is, in fact, some ambiguity as to whether the Arahat's good conduct should be called wholesome.(21) As we have seen, kusala states are said to be perfected in the Arahat. On the other hand, because kusala and akusala are often understood as applying to action (karma), we would also expect to find passages indicating that the conduct of Arahats is neither. Properly speaking such activity cannot be considered action in the normal sense. The activity of Arahats is never described as puñña; it no longer generates future experiences. Thus, as well, the awakened activity of this category of "agent" cannot be described as "bright with bright result." For this kind of agent, good conduct is accurately described as neither kusala, puñña, nor sukka (nor their opposites). More generally, this schema may be rearticulated to include non-moral sentient beings like animals, in terms of the degree of awareness and freedom informing their conduct. (0) Animals. This kind of sentient being has little awareness informing its conduct; it does not know what it is doing and therefore its behavior is not intentional (i.e., it is involuntary, unfree). Hence for this kind of sentient being rather than speaking of action (karma) we may speak simply of behavior. (1) Ordinary persons. The ordinary person has a greater degree of awareness; one is capable of knowing what one is doing. Much of one's behavior is intentional (voluntary, free). Such behavior is, however, informed by the delusion of self. Because the behavior is intentional we speak principally of action. (2) Disciples in higher training. Members of this group have an even greater degree of awareness informing their behavior. Their behavior is intentional (voluntary, free), but is moreover informed by the veridical awareness that is insight into lack of self. The conduct of such persons becomes progressively more pure as they proceed toward nirvāṇa. Here we speak principally of virtuous action. (3) Arahats. These beings have reached full awareness. Their activity is entirely free from delusion.(22) It proceeds from the realized state wherein the false dichotomy of self and other has been entirely eradicated. Here we may speak of enlightened conduct or awakened activity. Clearly these classes represent ideal types.(23) Also note that this schema allows for a loose distinction to be made between the moral conduct of the laity and the monastic community (i.e., associated with classes one and two respectively), assuming that it is more common for members of the latter group to have had the experience of transformative insight, which marks one's entry into the supramundane path.