Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 10.33

A Judge

Ubbāhikāsutta — Upālivagga — the fourth chapter of the Tens

Setting
None stated in the source
Speakers
Venerable Upāli questioning the Buddha
Form
A single question, a single ten-item answer
Length
~2 minutes to read
Difficulty
★★★☆☆ — denser technical vocabulary than AN 10.31 or 10.32

Why this discourse

Upāli asks what qualifies a mendicant to serve as a judge — specifically, to sit on an ubbāhikā, a special committee convened to settle a disciplinary dispute outside the full assembly. The answer builds from basic conduct and learning up to a four-part knowledge of disputes that mirrors, in miniature, the structure of the four noble truths.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

A judge needs ten qualities: ethical conduct restrained by the code, deep learning in the teaching, mastery of both monastic codes, firmness in training, skill at persuading opposing parties, skill at raising and settling disciplinary issues, and a four-part knowledge of what a dispute is, how it arises, how it ceases, and the way leading to its cessation.

A recurring core, opening a new pattern

The first three qualities — ethical restraint, deep learning, and mastery of both monastic codes — will recur unchanged as the opening three qualities of AN 10.34, 10.35, and 10.36, each asking about a different kind of monastic authorization. AN 10.33 is the first of that set, and the only one whose remaining seven qualities concern arbitration rather than pastoral care.

A four-part echo of the four noble truths

The final four qualities — knowing what a dispute is, how it originates, how it ceases, and the practical way to its cessation — follow exactly the same four-part logic (the fact, its origin, its cessation, the path to cessation) used elsewhere in the canon for the four noble truths themselves, here applied to the narrower, practical problem of a Saṅgha dispute.

An institution named only here

The ubbāhikā — a special tribunal drawn from senior mendicants to settle a matter the full assembly could not easily resolve — is not otherwise discussed in this project; this discourse gives the qualifications for sitting on one without narrating a case.

Key terms

ubbāhikā — a special committee or tribunal convened to settle a disciplinary dispute, drawing the mendicant qualified for it away from ordinary assembly process — this discourse's own title.
adhikaraṇa — “disciplinary issue” or dispute — the matter a judge must know how to raise, settle, and understand at four levels.
ubhayāni pātimokkhāni — “both monastic codes” — the rules for monks and the rules for nuns, both of which a judge must have mastered in detail.
saññāpetuṁ, paññāpetuṁ, nijjhāpetuṁ — “to persuade, advocate, and convince” — three of the five interpersonal verbs used to describe bringing opposing parties to see the other side.
bahussuta — “very learned” — deep familiarity with the teaching, the second of the ten qualities, and a threshold that will recur unchanged in AN 10.34–36.

The text

The discourse in full: Upāli's question, and the Buddha's ten qualities of a judge. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Upāli's question

§1“Sir, how many qualities should a mendicant have to be deemed a judge?” “Upāli, a mendicant should have ten qualities to be deemed a judge. What ten?

Ten qualities

§2It’s when a mendicant is ethical, restrained in the monastic code, conducting themselves well and resorting for alms in suitable places. Seeing danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They’re very learned, remembering and keeping what they’ve learned. These teachings are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased, describing a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. They are very learned in such teachings, remembering them, rehearsing them, mentally scrutinizing them, and penetrating them theoretically. Both monastic codes have been passed down to them in detail, well analyzed, well mastered, well evaluated in both the rules and accompanying material. They’re firm and unfaltering in the training. When there are opposing parties, they’re able to persuade, advocate, and convince them, make them see the other side and trust each other. They’re skilled in the instigation and settlement of disciplinary issues. They know what a disciplinary issue is. They know how a disciplinary issue originates. They know how a disciplinary issue ceases. They know the practical way leading to the cessation of a disciplinary issue. A mendicant should possess these ten qualities to be deemed a judge.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

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

Question 1 of 6
What does Upāli ask about in this discourse?
Correct: A. The qualifications for sitting on an ubbāhikā, a disciplinary tribunal.
Question 2 of 6
According to the guide, which three qualities recur unchanged in the following three discourses (AN 10.34–36)?
Correct: B. The shared opening core of this whole run of authorization discourses.
Question 3 of 6
What four-part structure does the final set of qualities echo?
Correct: B. Knowing what a dispute is, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation.
Question 4 of 6
What is an ubbāhikā?
Correct: B. This discourse's own title, naming the institution a qualified judge would sit on.
Question 5 of 6
Does this discourse narrate an actual dispute being settled?
Correct: B. A qualifications list, not a narrated case.
Question 6 of 6
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: D. As throughout this chapter so far, no location is given.
Answered 0 of 6 · Correct 0