Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 3.123

At Kusinārā

Kusinārasutta — Kusināravagga — the thirteenth chapter of the Threes

Setting
Kusinārā, in the Forest of Offerings (Baliharaṇa); stated at the head of AN 3.123, opening the thirteenth chapter
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
A matched pair: the identical invitation and meal, received two different ways, each ending in the Buddha’s verdict on the gift
Length
~2 minutes to read
Northern parallel
Material on the purity of an offering depending on the receiving mind is preserved in the Chinese Āgamas; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — a plain contrast whose vocabulary rewards a second look

Why this discourse

Two mendicants receive the identical invitation, walk to the identical house, and are served the identical food by the identical householder. The discourse describes the scene twice, almost word for word, and the only thing that changes between the two tellings is what happens in the mendicant’s mind while eating. That is the whole point: the discourse is not interested in the food, or the giver, or the occasion. It is interested in exactly one variable, and it holds everything else constant to isolate it.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

The same gift, given the same way, is barely fruitful or very fruitful depending entirely on the state of mind of the mendicant who receives it.

A controlled experiment

Read the two halves side by side and notice what the discourse does not vary: the invitation, the walk to the house, the seat, the server, the food, all repeated in nearly identical wording. A teacher can use this structure directly — ask a class to underline every word that changes between §3 and §5, and the underlines will cluster entirely around the mendicant’s thoughts.

Tied, infatuated, attached

The first mendicant eats gathito, tied; mucchito, infatuated; ajjhosanno, attached — three verbs for the same collapse, each pressing a little further than the last. Tied describes a bond from outside; infatuated describes a mind gone soft; attached describes something that has closed its hand around the object and will not open it.

None of this is about the food being especially good. It is about what the mendicant does with pleasant food once it arrives, and the answer is: builds a hope out of it. ‘I really hope this householder serves me with delicious fresh and cooked foods in the future, too’ — a wish aimed at a future meal, spoiling the meal actually in front of him.

The same vocabulary as AN 3.103

The first mendicant is anādīnavadassāvī, blind to the drawback, and anissaraṇapañño, not understanding the escape. The second is the exact opposite: ādīnavadassāvī, seeing the drawback, and nissaraṇapañño, understanding the escape.

Those are not incidental words. They are the second and third terms of the gratification–drawback–escape analysis that AN 3.103, two chapters back, names as the very thing the Bodhisatta had to work out before he would announce his awakening. This discourse never states the analysis as a formula the way AN 3.103 does. It shows what it looks like lived out at a single almsround, one mendicant applying it and one not.

Renunciation, good will, harmlessness — against sensual, malicious, cruel

The negligent mendicant’s food-thoughts spill into a wider triad: sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts. The diligent mendicant’s spill into the opposite triad: renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. This is the identical pair of triads that AN 3.124, immediately next, uses to diagnose an entire community — one that quarrels and one that lives in harmony. Reading the two discourses together, the same diagnostic tool is applied first to a single almsbowl and then to a whole monastery.

Why the gift's fruit depends on the receiver

MN 142, the discourse on the analysis of religious donations, works out systematically how a gift is purified — from the giver’s side, from the receiver’s side, from both, or from neither. AN 3.123 is a single, concrete illustration of the receiver’s side of that analysis: the householder’s hands, food, and generosity do not change at all between the two halves, and yet one gift is barely fruitful and the other very fruitful, because purity on the receiving end is not guaranteed by the giver’s ethics alone.

Key terms

gathita, mucchita, ajjhosanna — “tied, infatuated, attached” — three verbs for the negligent mendicant’s mind while eating, each pressing further than the last.
ādīnavadassāvī / anādīnavadassāvī — “seeing / not seeing the drawback” — ādīnava is the same term AN 3.103 uses for the second of its three questions about the world.
nissaraṇapañña / anissaraṇapañña — “understanding / not understanding the escape” — nissaraṇa, the third term of AN 3.103’s analysis, applied here to a single meal.
pamatta / appamatta — “negligent / diligent” — the verdict the discourse renders on the two mendicants, and the reason it gives for each gift’s fruitfulness.
mahapphala — “very fruitful” — what the second mendicant’s gift becomes, and what the first mendicant’s explicitly does not.

The text

The discourse in full: the setting, the negligent mendicant’s meal, and the diligent mendicant’s meal. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

The setting

§1At one time the Buddha was staying near Kusinārā, in the Forest of Offerings. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants, “Mendicants!” “Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

Eating tied to the gift

§2“Mendicants, take the case of a mendicant living supported by a town or village. A householder or their child approaches and invites them for the next day’s meal. The mendicant accepts if they want. When the night has passed, they robe up in the morning, take their bowl and robe, and approach that householder’s home, where they sit on the seat spread out. The householder or their child serves and satisfies them with their own hands with delicious fresh and cooked foods.

§3The mendicant thinks: ‘It’s so good that this householder serves me with delicious fresh and cooked foods.’ Then they think: ‘I really hope this householder serves me with delicious fresh and cooked foods in the future, too.’ They eat that food tied, infatuated, attached, blind to the drawbacks, and not understanding the escape. They think about it with sensual, malicious, or cruel thoughts. A gift to such a mendicant is not very fruitful, I say. Why is that? Because that mendicant is negligent.

Eating untied to the gift

§4Take another case of a mendicant living supported by a town or village. A householder or their child approaches and invites them for the next day’s meal. The mendicant accepts if they want. When the night has passed, they robe up in the morning, take their bowl and robe, and approach that householder’s home, where they sit on the seat spread out. The householder or their child serves and satisfies them with their own hands with delicious fresh and cooked foods.

§5It never occurs to them: ‘It’s so good that the householder or their child serves and satisfies me with their own hands with delicious fresh and cooked foods.’ They don’t think: ‘I really hope this householder serves me with delicious fresh and cooked foods in the future, too.’ They eat that almsfood untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawback, and understanding the escape. They think about it with thoughts of renunciation, good will, or harmlessness. A gift to such a mendicant is very fruitful, I say. Why is that? Because that mendicant is diligent.”

· · ·

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 does the discourse hold constant between its two halves?
Correct: B. Everything external is identical; only the mendicant’s mind differs.
Question 2 of 10
What three verbs describe the negligent mendicant’s mind while eating?
Correct: B. Gathita, mucchita, ajjhosanna — each pressing a little further than the last.
Question 3 of 10
What hope does the negligent mendicant form while eating?
Correct: B. A wish aimed at a future meal, spoiling the one actually in front of him.
Question 4 of 10
What does the guide identify as significant about “ādīnava” and “nissaraṇa” in this discourse?
Correct: B. This discourse shows the analysis lived out at a single almsround.
Question 5 of 10
What wider triad does the negligent mendicant’s thinking spill into?
Correct: B. The same triad AN 3.124, next, uses to diagnose a whole community.
Question 6 of 10
What triad does the diligent mendicant’s thinking spill into instead?
Correct: A. The exact opposite of the negligent mendicant’s three thoughts.
Question 7 of 10
How does the guide connect this discourse to MN 142?
Correct: B. The giver’s generosity is identical in both halves; only the receiving mind differs.
Question 8 of 10
What verdict does the Buddha give on the negligent mendicant’s gift?
Correct: A. Not worthless — but not very fruitful, because the mendicant is negligent.
Question 9 of 10
What verdict does the Buddha give on the diligent mendicant’s gift?
Correct: A. Because that mendicant is diligent.
Question 10 of 10
What is the discourse’s central point about a gift’s fruitfulness?
Correct: B. A controlled experiment isolating exactly one variable.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0