The classification of three types of individuals, or three stages in the spiritual progress of a single individual, has a long history in Buddhist literature. As Steven Collins has observed in the context of Theravada Buddhism (Selfless Persons {116276:93}), "The idea that there is a social and psychological range in the appreciation of doctrine refers not only to a difference between individual persons (puggala vemattata), to which much attention was devoted, but also to differences of insight within each individual as he progresses along the path." The Mahapadana suttana (III, 6) of the Pāli Canon (Digha Nikaya no. 14) compares people of varying intellectual capacity to three types of lotus plants: those which remain submerged in the pond; those which grow only up to its surface; and those which rise above the water, undrenched by it. Only the latter of the three types, "those whose eyes are nearly free from dust", are considered ripe for the Buddha's teaching. See Dialogues of the Buddha Part II, tr. by T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davis {116261:31}. The Vimuttimagga of Arahant Upatissa, a text similar in many respects to the Visuddhimagga of Budhaghosa but extant only in its Chinese translation, associates three types of individual with the three trainings: "The Blessed One expounded the training of higher virtue (śīla) to a man of the lower type, the training of higher thought (citta) to a man of the middle type and the training of higher wisdom (prajñā) to a man of the higher type." The Path of Freedom tr. by N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera and Kheminda Thera {116266:3}.

In later parts of the Canon and in the post canonical commentaries, a distinction is made between the 'ordinary man' (puthujjano) who is outside Buddhism, the 'learner' (sekho) in the teaching, and the 'adept' (asekho) in accordance with three types of insight appropriate to them (Digha Nikaya III, 118-19). According to the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha, I, 196) both the 'ordinary man outside' Buddhism and the 'learner within the teaching' possess a worldly 'right view' in so far as they believe in the efficacy of karma, but the ordinary man "is not in accordance with the truth" because he has the "perversion of self view" (attaditthi paramasa), whereas the learner does not. (A further distinction was made (Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha, I, 20-1) between the 'good ordinary man' who appreciates the Buddhist teaching and the blind one who does not.) Only the adept possesses super worldly right view through having attained a level of insight appropriate to one or another stage of the Path (the 'stream winner', 'once returner', 'non returner' and 'Arhat').

New three-fold typologies were introduced with the advent of Mahāyāna Buddhism to accomodate new doctrinal innovations (especially the doctrines of immanent Buddhahood and compassion). For example, it is used in the 1:vv47}, a text attributed to Asaṅga Maitreyanātha, to distinguish different states of the Buddha potential in different beings: Uttaratantra {116081:ch

Pure, (partly) pure and (partly) impure,

And thoroughly pure

Are known respectively as

Sentient beings, Bodhisattvas and Tathagatas.

See Asaṅga's commentary to this verse, in The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, tr. E. Obermiller {116271:183}. Asaṅga details various ways of classifying individuals into inferior, intermediate, and superior in his Yogācārabhūmi {116181:7.5}. He begins his analysis with the statement that "The three persons, inferior, intermediate and superior have their inception in realization method (sgrub)." The first does not follow the teaching to benefit himself or others, the second does follow it but only to benefit himself and not others, and the third enters into the teaching to benefit both himself and others. Asaṅga later distinguishes between the inferior individual who is attached to the evil he commits, the intermediate one who either commits evil without being attached to it or is attached to evil although he does not commit it, and the superior individual who neither commits evil nor is attached to it [8.2 f.].

Atiśa claims, in the autocommentary to his Bodhipathapradīpa {116051}, to derive his typology from Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya {116086:189.1} which distinguishes between the inferior person who works (thabs) only for his own happiness, the intermediate one who turns away from suffering only out of his own lack of happiness but therefore continues to suffer, and the worthy individual (dam pa) who works for the welfare of all others by turning away the foundation of their suffering, and thereby suffers on account of their suffering.

Tsong kha pa takes up Atiśa's three-fold typology as an orienting framework for schematizing the vast subject matter pertaining to the Buddhist path. Here, however, the two lower types were redefined as lower stages (or levels of motivation) in the spiritual life of a single follower of the Buddhist path. What were Tsong kha pa's reasons for redefining Atiśa's typology in this way? The major reason must have been that in Tibet, unlike India, Buddhism was the dominant religion and pervaded all sectors of society; this rendered the lowest, unregenerate non-Buddhist type superfluous (or irrelevant to Buddhist soteriology). The 'lesser individual' thus became a catch all category for interested laypersons as well as ordained Buddhists on the beginning stages of the path. While the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas of the mediocre path also derived from an Indian Buddhist context, they came to be treated, for pedagogical purposes, as selfish tendencies to which all Buddhists are prone, but which are ultimately overcome with the cultivation of genuine compassion. Tsong kha pa's three-fold organizing scheme was followed by subsequent Dge lugs pa lam rim authors (such as Pha bong kha) and later adopted by the Rnying ma scholar 'Jigs med gling pa and his commentators in his Yon tan mdzod rtsa ba {115776} under the impact of the Ris med movement,

Klong chen pa, in his formative Rnying ma lam rim writings (Sems nyid ngal gso {116036} and Yid bzhin mdzod {116191}) does not adopt Atisha's typology as an orienting framework for schematizing the stages of the path but invokes it primarily as a scheme for distinguishing between three types of motivation for seeking Refuge. The lowest type comprises non-Buddhists who do not follow any philosophical system, those who do but fancy taking refuge in what does not really provide refuge, or those who have entered the Buddhist fold and have temporary faith in the three jewels but were unable to set out on the path. Such ordinary persons, motivated by fear of evil destinies, take refuge in sectarian gods, mountains, or forests in the hopes of securing a better rebirth. Those of mediocre intelligence, Śrāvaka or Pratyekabuddhas, motivated by fear of worldliness, take refuge in the three jewels in order to attain personal liberation. Those of highest intelligence, Bodhisattvas, motivated by fear of personal quiessence and happiness that would make one forsake the well being of others, take refuge in the three jewels in order to attain Buddhahood (via the Pāramitāyāna and Mantrayāna) for themselves and others. As 'Jigs med gling pa (Bden gnyis shing rta {115781:405.2}) notes, "The classification of three basic types of individual is a way of designating the respective goals of three types of motivation for goal-realization" (de ltar rten gyi gang zag gsum du bzhag pa yang 'bras bu bsgrub pa'i bsam pa tha dad pa gsum gyi 'bras ming rgyu la btags pa ste...). 'Jigs med gling pa goes further (Bden gnyis shing rta {115781:406.2}) to conclude that "since the stages of both the lesser and mediocre (types of individual) are focussed on the benefits of a better rebirth or personal salvation, they are considered to be stepping stones on the path of the great (individual)." 'Jigs med gling pa's discussion which begins on Bden gnyis shing rta {115781:402} (see also {115781:409.6}) is based on Klong chen pa's Shing rta chen po {116031:422} but is obviously indebted to Atiśa and Tsong kha pa.

Finally, one should note that various three-fold typologies are found throughout Mahāyāna (see the entry from ) and Mantrayāna literature to represent differences either between individuals and their capacity for understanding the teaching e.g. , , or between levels of understanding and realization in the path of a single individual, e.g. , and . Shing rta chen po {116031:636.5;683}rim gyisthod rgalcig carblonyams myongrtogs

by David Higgins