Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Corruption calls for disgust and distance; bad temper calls for equanimity and distance; and only good character calls for company.
Disgust, and the snake in the dunghill
The first individual is described in the canon’s harshest register: unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, of suspicious behavior, underhand, no true ascetic though claiming to be one, rotten inside, festering, and depraved. The prescription is disgust and complete avoidance.
The reason is not what one might expect. It is not that you will be corrupted by them — the discourse explicitly says even if you don’t follow the example of such an individual. It is that you will get a bad reputation: that individual has bad friends, companions, and associates.
And the simile is exact about the mechanism. A snake that has been living in a dunghill: even if it does not bite, it will still rub off on you. The danger named is not venom but residue. Association transfers something whether or not anything happens.
That is a claim about reputation, and it is worth being honest that it is a prudential argument rather than a moral one. The discourse does not say the corrupt person will make you corrupt. It says being seen with them will cost you, and treats that cost as sufficient reason.
Equanimity, and three similes for one temper
The second individual is the irritable and bad-tempered person of AN 3.25 — the same definition word for word, down to being lightly criticized. But where AN 3.25 gave one simile, this discourse gives three.
The festering sore, struck, discharges more. A firebrand of pale-moon ebony, struck, sizzles and crackles more. A sewer, stirred, stinks more. Three different sensory registers — sight, sound, smell — for the same mechanism: contact produces an increase of what was already there.
The prescribed attitude is equanimity, not disgust, and the reason given is purely practical: they might abuse or insult me, or do me harm. No moral judgment is passed on the bad-tempered person at all. They are a hazard to be given room, not a corruption to be recoiled from.
That distinction is the most useful thing in the discourse. Corruption gets disgust because it is a moral condition that contaminates by association. Bad temper gets equanimity because it is a hazard that injures on contact. Two problems, two attitudes, and the same practical conclusion — distance — reached by different routes.
And the third
The person to keep company with is simply ethical, of good character — no further qualification, and a much lower bar than AN 3.26’s superior in ethics, immersion, and wisdom.
The reason is the mirror of the first: even if you do not follow their example, you get a good reputation. The whole discourse runs on the same prudential logic in both directions, which is consistent if unedifying, and honest about what it is doing.
The verse it shares with AN 3.26
The closing verse is identical to the previous discourse’s: associate with an inferior and go downhill, with an equal and never decline, with the best and quickly rise.
Reading the two discourses in sequence shows what a shared verse does in this literature. The prose of AN 3.26 sorts by attainment and adds an exception for kindness; the prose of AN 3.27 sorts by character and adds a distinction between disgust and equanimity. The verse fits both and captures neither qualification. It is a mnemonic, not a summary, and the two discourses it closes are more careful than it is.
Key terms
The text
The one to be disgusted by
§1“These three individuals are found in the world. What three? There is an individual you should be disgusted by, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them. There is an individual you should regard with equanimity, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them. There is an individual you should associate with, accompany, and attend. Who is the individual you should be disgusted by, and not associate with, accompany, or attend? It’s an individual who is unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, with suspicious behavior, underhand, no true ascetic or spiritual practitioner—though claiming to be one—rotten inside, festering, and depraved. You should be disgusted by such an individual, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them. Why is that? Even if you don’t follow the example of such an individual, you still get a bad reputation: ‘That individual has bad friends, companions, and associates.’ They’re like a snake that’s been living in a pile of dung. Even if it doesn’t bite, it’ll still rub off on you. In the same way, even if you don’t follow the example of such an individual, you still get a bad reputation: ‘That individual has bad friends, companions, and associates.’ That’s why you should be disgusted by such an individual, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them.
The one to regard with equanimity
§2Who is the individual you should regard with equanimity, and not associate with, accompany, or attend? It’s an individual who is irritable and bad-tempered. Even when lightly criticized they lose their temper, becoming annoyed, hostile, and hard-hearted, and they display annoyance, hate, and bitterness. They’re like a festering sore, which, when you hit it with a stick or a stone, discharges even more. In the same way, someone is irritable and bad-tempered. They’re like a firebrand of pale-moon ebony, which, when you hit it with a stick or a stone, sizzles and crackles even more. In the same way, someone is irritable and bad-tempered. They’re like a sewer, which, when you stir it with a stick or a stone, stinks even more. In the same way, an individual is irritable and bad-tempered. Even when lightly criticized they lose their temper, becoming annoyed, hostile, and hard-hearted, and they display annoyance, hate, and bitterness. You should regard such an individual with equanimity, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them. Why is that? Thinking, ‘They might abuse or insult me, or do me harm.’ That’s why you should regard such an individual with equanimity, and you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend them.
The one to keep company with
§3Who is the individual you should associate with, accompany, and attend? It’s an individual who is ethical, of good character. You should associate with, accompany, and attend such an individual. Why is that? Even if you don’t follow the example of such an individual, you still get a good reputation: ‘That individual has good friends, companions, and associates.’ That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend such an individual. These are the three individuals found in the world.
In verse
§4A man who associates with an inferior goes downhill, but associating with an equal, you’ll never decline; following the best, you’ll quickly rise up, so you should keep company with people better than you.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.