Dutiyavivādamūlasutta — Akkosavagga — the fifth chapter of the Tens, closing the First Fifty
Setting
None stated in the source
Speakers
Venerable Upāli questioning the Buddha, continuing directly from AN 10.42
Form
A single question, a single ten-item answer, in five newly paired reversals
Length
~1 minute to read
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — genuinely new content after three repeats
Why this discourse
Upāli asks the identical question that opened AN 10.42, expecting perhaps another repeat — but this time the Buddha answers with a wholly different list: not distortions of doctrine, but disagreements over how to classify a specific disciplinary offense.
Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
A second set of ten roots of dispute concerns offenses themselves: misjudging whether something is an offense at all, whether it is light or serious, whether corrupt intention was involved, whether it requires rehabilitation, and whether it has redress — each judged wrongly in either direction.
The pattern finally breaks
After AN 10.37, 10.41, and 10.42 all delivered the same five doctrinal reversals under three different questions, this discourse repeats only the question's wording, not its answer — genuinely new content, arriving exactly where a fourth repeat might have been expected.
A practical, procedural register
Where the earlier list concerned doctrine in the abstract, this one is squarely about case-by-case Vinaya judgment: whether a specific act counts as an offense, how serious it is, whether it was intentional, and what follows from each classification — the kind of dispute an ubbāhikā judge (AN 10.33) would actually be convened to settle.
Key terms
anāpattiṁ āpattīti dīpeti — “explains what is not an offense as an offense” — the first of this discourse's five new reversals.
lahukaṁ āpattiṁ garukāpattīti dīpeti — “explains a light offense as a serious offense” — the second reversal, over an offense's severity.
duṭṭhullaṁ āpattiṁ aduṭṭhullāpattīti dīpeti — “explains an offense committed with corrupt intention as an offense not committed with corrupt intention” — the third reversal.
sāvasesaṁ āpattiṁ anavasesāpattīti dīpeti — “explains an offense requiring rehabilitation as an offense not requiring rehabilitation” — the fourth reversal, over what remedy an offense calls for.
sappaṭikammaṁ āpattiṁ appaṭikammāpattīti dīpeti — “explains an offense with redress as an offense without redress” — the fifth and final reversal.
The text
The discourse in full: Upāli's question, and the Buddha's second, distinct list of ten roots. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
Upāli's question
§1“Sir, how many roots of dispute are there?” “Upāli, there are ten roots of disputes. What ten?
Ten roots of dispute, over offenses
§2It’s when a mendicant explains what is not an offense as an offense, and what is an offense as not an offense. They explain a light offense as a serious offense, and a serious offense as a light offense. They explain an offense committed with corrupt intention as an offense not committed with corrupt intention, and an offense not committed with corrupt intention as an offense committed with corrupt intention. They explain an offense requiring rehabilitation as an offense not requiring rehabilitation, and an offense not requiring rehabilitation as an offense requiring rehabilitation. They explain an offense with redress as an offense without redress, and an offense without redress as an offense with redress. These are the ten roots of dispute.”
· · ·
Self-check quiz
5 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 5
What does Upāli ask about in this discourse?
Correct: A. The identical question, but this time with a different answer.
Question 2 of 5
How does the Buddha's answer here compare to AN 10.37, 10.41, and 10.42?
Correct: B. The pattern of three straight repeats finally breaks here.
Question 3 of 5
Which of these is one of this discourse's five new categories of dispute?
Correct: A. One of five: offense/not, light/serious, corrupt/not intention, needing/not needing rehabilitation, with/without redress.
Question 4 of 5
According to the guide, what kind of dispute does this list concern, compared to the earlier one?
Correct: B. A shift from doctrinal distortion to procedural offense-classification.
Question 5 of 5
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: D. No location is given, continuing the pattern for the Upāli exchanges.
