Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourses 1.316–332

A Poorly Explained Teaching

Ekadhammapāḷi — the twenty-sixth 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
Fourteen discourses in three groups — two on the individual who arises with wrong or right view, eight comparing a poorly and a well explained teaching, and two closing similes about continued existence
Length
~4 minutes to read
Northern parallel
The polemic against Makkhali Gosāla and the material on well and poorly explained teachings are both represented in the Chinese Āgamas; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★★☆☆ — the middle section is a small logical puzzle worth doing properly, and the last two entries are severe

Why this discourse

Three quite different things sit in this chapter. It contains the only named opponent in the entire Book of the Ones, attacked in unusually harsh terms. It contains four entries about who lives happily and who lives in suffering under a good teaching and a bad one, which form a small logical square and are among the shrewdest observations in the collection. And it ends with two sentences comparing continued existence to excrement, which are as blunt as anything the Buddha is recorded as saying and are worth neither softening nor skipping.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

A teaching that is well explained rewards effort and punishes idleness; a teaching that is poorly explained does the reverse — and it matters which one a person has been given.

The one named opponent (AN 1.319)

“That futile man, the bamboo-staffed ascetic” is Makkhali Gosāla, leader of the Ājīvikas, whose teaching of strict fate the canon treats as the most damaging doctrine in circulation. The simile is a trap set at the mouth of a river: he is a net across the one channel everything has to pass through.

This is the harshest personal language in the Ones, and it is worth asking what earns it, since the collection is elsewhere notably restrained about rival teachers. AN 3.61, on this site, gives the answer: the doctrine attributed to him holds that beings are defiled and purified without cause, that there is no act, no effort, no human initiative — and the Buddha’s objection there is precisely that anyone who accepts this has no remaining reason to do or refrain from anything at all. The severity here is not about disagreement. It is about a doctrine that, if believed, disables the person believing it.

A teacher using this passage should probably say that we know the Ājīvikas almost entirely through the reports of their opponents, and that a movement described only by the people arguing against it is unlikely to be described fairly.

The four entries on effort (AN 1.324–327)

These four repay slow reading, because the pattern is counterintuitive until it clicks. In a poorly explained teaching, an energetic person lives in suffering — and a lazy person lives happily. In a well explained teaching, a lazy person lives in suffering — and an energetic person lives happily.

The logic is exact. Effort applied to a system that does not work produces nothing but the cost of the effort; the person who does not bother is spared that. Effort applied to a system that does work produces results; the person who does not bother now has something to regret. Whether diligence pays is therefore not a fact about diligence. It depends entirely on the quality of what is being practiced.

That is an unusually candid thing for a tradition to say about itself, because it makes the claim falsifiable in exactly the way AN 3.65 recommends. It also has an edge for modern readers: the same four sentences apply to any discipline, any institution, and any self-improvement scheme, and applying them is not a comfortable exercise.

Three parties, and moderation (AN 1.320–323)

The surrounding entries extend the same logic. Under a poorly explained teaching, the encourager, the encouraged, and the practitioner all accumulate wickedness — including, notably, the one who was persuaded. Under a well explained one, all three accumulate merit. Responsibility is distributed across the whole chain rather than resting on the teacher alone.

AN 1.322–323 make a sharper practical point about giving. Under a poorly explained teaching, the donor should know moderation, not the recipient; under a well explained one, the recipient should, not the donor. It is a compact piece of advice with two edges: give sparingly to what does not work, and if you are being given to on the strength of a good teaching, the restraint required is yours.

A finger-snap of existence (AN 1.328–329)

The chapter ends with two sentences that are startling in any context. Just as even a little bit of excrement still stinks — and then urine, spit, pus, blood — so the Buddha does not approve of even a little bit of continued existence, bhava, not even for as long as a finger-snap.

Two things are worth saying. First, the phrase “not even as long as a finger-snap” is the same measure used at AN 1.53 for a moment of love, and using it here inverts that entry deliberately: the smallest unit that counted for good there counts for bad here. Second, the object is bhava, continued existence, becoming — not this life, not the body, and not the world. What is being refused is the process of becoming something further, endlessly, which is the third link of dependent origination and the thing extinguishment is the extinguishing of.

Even so, the image is deliberately disgusting and no amount of context makes it pleasant. Readers who find this alienating are not misreading it. The Aṅguttara does not always sound like the humane, moderate collection of the chapters on friendship and marriage, and printing this entry beside those is more honest than choosing between them.

Key terms

Makkhali Gosāla — the “bamboo-staffed ascetic” of AN 1.319, leader of the Ājīvikas, whose doctrine of strict fate the canon treats as the most damaging in circulation. Known to us almost entirely through his opponents.
svākkhāta / durakkhāta — “well explained” and “poorly explained” — said of a dhammavinaya, a teaching-and-training taken as a whole system.
āraddhavīriya / kusīta — “energetic” and “lazy” — the two persons run through both systems in AN 1.324–327 to produce the chapter’s logical square.
mattaññutā — “knowing moderation” — which AN 1.322–323 assigns to the donor in one case and to the recipient in the other.
bhava — “continued existence, becoming” — the object of the closing similes. Not this life or this body but the process of becoming something further; the third link of dependent origination.

The text

All fourteen discourses of the chapter, in order. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Two individuals (AN 1.316–318)

§316“One individual, mendicants, arises in the world for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans. What one individual? Someone with wrong view, whose perspective is distorted. They draw many people away from the true teaching and establish them in false teachings. This is one individual who arises in the world for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans.”

§317“One individual, mendicants, arises in the world for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans. What one individual? Someone with right view, whose perspective is undistorted. They draw many people away from false teachings and establish them in the true teaching. This is one individuals who arises in the world for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.”

§318“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that is so very blameworthy as wrong view. Wrong view is the most blameworthy thing of all.”

The trap at the mouth of the river (AN 1.319)

§319“Mendicants, I do not see a single other individual who acts for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans, as that futile man, the bamboo-staffed ascetic. Just as a trap set at the mouth of a river would bring harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster for many fish, so too that futile man, the bamboo-staffed ascetic, is a trap for humans, it seems to me. He has arisen in the world for the harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster of many beings.”

Well and poorly explained (AN 1.320–327)

§320“Mendicants, the one who encourages someone in a poorly explained teaching and training, the one who they encourage, and the one who practices accordingly all brim with much wickedness. Why is that? Because the teaching is poorly explained.”

§321“Mendicants, the one who encourages someone in a well explained teaching and training, the one who they encourage, and the one who practices accordingly all brim with much merit. Why is that? Because the teaching is well explained.”

§322“Mendicants, in a poorly explained teaching and training, the donor should know moderation, not the recipient. Why is that? Because the teaching is poorly explained.”

§323“Mendicants, in a well explained teaching and training, the recipient should know moderation, not the donor. Why is that? Because the teaching is well explained.”

§324“Mendicants, in a poorly explained teaching and training an energetic person lives in suffering. Why is that? Because the teaching is poorly explained.”

§325“Mendicants, in a well explained teaching and training a lazy person lives in suffering. Why is that? Because the teaching is well explained.”

§326“Mendicants, in a poorly explained teaching and training a lazy person lives happily. Why is that? Because the teaching is poorly explained.”

§327“Mendicants, in a well explained teaching and training an energetic person lives happily. Why is that? Because the teaching is well explained.”

Not even a finger-snap (AN 1.328–329)

§328“Just as, mendicants, even a little bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a little bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

§329“Just as even a little bit of urine, or spit, or pus, or blood still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a little bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

· · ·

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
Who is “the bamboo-staffed ascetic” of AN 1.319?
Correct: B. The only named opponent in the entire Book of the Ones.
Question 2 of 10
What simile is used of him?
Correct: B. “A trap for humans, it seems to me.”
Question 3 of 10
What earns that severity, according to the guide?
Correct: B. The severity is not about disagreement.
Question 4 of 10
What caution does the guide add about the Ājīvikas?
Correct: B. A standard historiographical caution, worth stating in class.
Question 5 of 10
In a poorly explained teaching, who lives happily?
Correct: B. The person who does not bother is spared that cost.
Question 6 of 10
In a well explained teaching, who lives in suffering?
Correct: B. Effort applied to a system that works produces results.
Question 7 of 10
What does that square imply about diligence?
Correct: C. An unusually candid thing for a tradition to say about itself, and falsifiable in the way AN 3.65 recommends.
Question 8 of 10
Who accumulates wickedness under a poorly explained teaching, per AN 1.320?
Correct: B. Responsibility is distributed across the whole chain rather than resting on the teacher alone.
Question 9 of 10
What does AN 1.322–323 say about moderation in giving?
Correct: A. Give sparingly to what does not work; and if you are being given to on the strength of a good teaching, the restraint required is yours.
Question 10 of 10
What is the object of the closing similes about excrement?
Correct: C. And the measure used — “not even a finger-snap” — deliberately inverts AN 1.53.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0