Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourses 1.287–295

What Cannot Happen (III)

Aṭṭhānapāḷi — the twenty-third chapter of the Ones

Setting
None stated; the chapter continues from AN 1.1, whose setting at Sāvatthī is understood to hold
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
Nine discourses, abbreviated in places, completing the impossibility series with conduct and its results
Length
~3 minutes to read
Northern parallel
The same treatment of conduct and result appears throughout the Chinese Madhyama-āgama (T26); this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — simple, provided the phrase “for that reason alone” is not read past

Why this discourse

This chapter finishes the impossibility series by stating the kammic claim in both directions: good conduct cannot yield a disagreeable result, and neither bad nor good conduct can carry someone to a destination opposite to its own character. Stated flatly, that is the crudest possible doctrine of moral consequence, and it is exactly what a great many people believe Buddhism teaches. Stated with the four words the text actually includes — for that reason alone — it becomes something considerably more careful, and the whole value of reading the chapter closely lies in those four words.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

Conduct cannot produce a result opposite in character to itself — but no single act, on its own, determines where anyone ends up.

The mirror completed

AN 1.287–289 mirror AN 1.284–286 exactly: where the previous chapter said an agreeable result cannot come from bad bodily, verbal, or mental conduct, this one says a disagreeable result cannot come from good conduct of the same three kinds. Together the six entries make one claim, which is that the relationship between action and result has a direction that cannot be reversed.

That is a weaker claim than it may look. It does not say the relationship is proportional, or immediate, or predictable in its timing, or that the result comes in any particular form. It says only that the sign cannot flip.

The four words that change everything

AN 1.290–295 extend the claim to rebirth, and this is where the qualification appears. It is impossible that someone who has engaged in bad bodily conduct could for that reason alone be reborn in a heavenly realm; possible that they could, for that reason alone, be reborn in a bad destination.

Read without that phrase, the passage is a straightforward doctrine of moral bookkeeping: bad people go down, good people go up. Read with it, the claim becomes narrower and much more defensible. Bad conduct is not a route to a good destination; that is all. It does not say that a person who has done something bad will therefore go to a bad destination, because their conduct is not a single item and no single item is being credited with deciding the outcome.

The canon is consistent about this elsewhere, and sometimes startlingly so. AN 3.100 — on this site — argues at length that the same act produces radically different results depending on the character of the person who does it, using the image of a lump of salt in a cup of water against the same lump in the Ganges. There are discourses in which a murderer becomes an arahant. A reader who takes the phrase “for that reason alone” seriously will find the rest of the canon much easier to reconcile than one who does not.

What this rules out

It is worth being explicit about which position the chapter is refusing, because it is a position people actually hold. The target is the idea that one can act badly and arrange, by some other means, for it not to matter — by ritual, by patronage, by belonging to the right group, by intention divorced from action, or by any transaction that leaves the conduct in place and removes the consequence.

That reading fits the Aṅguttara’s general temperament. This is the collection that told the Kālāmas to test claims by their observed effects and that spends a hundred entries on ordinary dispositions rather than on rites. The impossibility here is not cosmic bookkeeping enforced by an authority; it is a statement that the world does not contain a mechanism for that particular exemption.

Reading the rebirth language

Some readers of this series will not hold a view about rebirth, and there is no need to pretend otherwise or to require one. It is worth noting how little of the chapter’s force depends on it. Substitute “where this leads” for the destinations and the structure survives intact: conduct has a direction; the direction cannot be reversed by wishing; and no single act settles the whole question.

The Buddha’s own most careful handling of the issue is in the four assurances at the end of AN 3.65, which deliberately show that the ethical life pays whether or not there is another world. That passage is the right one to have in reserve when this chapter raises the question in a class.

Key terms

kāya-, vacī-, manosucarita — good bodily, verbal, and mental conduct — the threefold division of action used throughout the canon and the subject of the first three entries.
duccarita — bad conduct — the negative of the same three, carried over from the previous chapter.
taṁnidānā — “for that reason alone, on that basis” — the qualification in AN 1.290–295 that narrows the claim from moral bookkeeping to a statement about direction.
sugati / duggati — “a good place” and “a bad place” — the destinations named. The chapter’s structure survives substituting “where this leads” for them.
iṭṭha, kanta, manāpa — “likable, desirable, agreeable” — the three-word formula for a welcome result, and its negation for an unwelcome one.

The text

All nine discourses of the chapter. Four paragraphs carry ranges rather than single numbers because the canon abbreviates repeated discourses. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Good conduct and its result (AN 1.287–289)

§287“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good bodily conduct. But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good bodily conduct.”

§288–289“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good verbal … good mental conduct. But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good verbal … good mental conduct.”

Bad conduct and where it leads (AN 1.290–292)

§290“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen that someone who has engaged in bad bodily conduct, could for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But it is possible that someone who has engaged in bad bodily conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.”

§291–292“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen that someone who has engaged in bad verbal … bad mental conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But it is possible that someone who has engaged in bad verbal … bad mental conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.”

Good conduct and where it leads (AN 1.293–295)

§293“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen that someone who has engaged in good bodily conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But it is possible that someone who has engaged in good bodily conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”

§294–295“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen that someone who has engaged in good verbal … good mental conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. But it is possible that someone who has engaged in good verbal … good mental conduct could, for that reason alone, when their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a good place, heavenly realm.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10
What single claim do AN 1.284–289 make together?
Correct: B. A weaker claim than it looks: nothing is said about proportion, timing, or form.
Question 2 of 10
Which phrase in AN 1.290–295 narrows the claim decisively?
Correct: C. Read without it the passage is moral bookkeeping; read with it, it is a claim about direction.
Question 3 of 10
What does the chapter therefore not say?
Correct: B. Which is what makes the rest of the canon reconcilable.
Question 4 of 10
How does AN 3.100 support that reading?
Correct: B. The canon is consistent about this, and sometimes startlingly so.
Question 5 of 10
Which position is the chapter actually refusing?
Correct: A. The world does not contain a mechanism for that particular exemption.
Question 6 of 10
How does that fit the Aṅguttara’s general temperament?
Correct: B. Not cosmic bookkeeping enforced by an authority.
Question 7 of 10
What happens to the chapter’s structure if a reader substitutes “where this leads” for the rebirth destinations?
Correct: B. Little of the chapter's force depends on holding a view about rebirth.
Question 8 of 10
Which passage does the guide recommend having in reserve when the rebirth question is raised in a class?
Correct: A. The Buddha's own most careful handling of exactly that issue.
Question 9 of 10
What does the three-word formula iṭṭha, kanta, manāpa describe?
Correct: B. The standard canonical pair of formulas for a good and a bad outcome.
Question 10 of 10
What relation does this chapter have to the one before it?
Correct: C. The Aṅguttara states both directions of a claim as a matter of course.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0