Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
The lord of the gods cannot be a model, and there are two separate reasons why, either of which is enough.
What has changed
The narrative frame is gone: no inspection, no ministers, no census. The discourse opens directly with Sakka’s verse and moves straight to the verdict, which means the reader is meant to arrive already knowing AN 3.37 and to notice one clause.
In AN 3.37 the disqualifier was not free of greed, hate, and delusion — a statement about what is still present in Sakka. Here it is not exempt from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress; he is not exempt from suffering — a statement about what is still going to happen to him.
The two are related but not the same. The first names a defilement; the second names a predicament. A being could in principle be told that his mind is impure, which is a reproach, or that his situation is unresolved, which is not. The second discourse chooses the second and it is noticeably gentler in tone while being no less final.
Why it matters that it is Sakka
Sakka is not a foil. Throughout the canon he is the most devout of the gods: he asks the Buddha questions, he is a stream-enterer by some accounts, and he is generally on the right side of every story he appears in. The verse quoted here is him doing his job well, encouraging observance among the gods.
Choosing him is what makes the point general. If the discourse had disqualified a wicked deity it would have said nothing. Disqualifying the best available god says that the issue is structural: as long as birth, aging, and death are still ahead of you, you are not a destination, however admirable you are and however good your advice is.
It also quietly settles the question of where the gods sit in this religion. They are real, they are powerful, they are worth being polite to, and they are fellow travelers with unfinished business. The distance from that to worship is not a short one.
The one who may say it
The perfected mendicant gets the verse, with the qualification stated in the same terms: because that mendicant is exempt from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. He is exempt from suffering, I say.
The phrase I say, vadāmi, is doing something. This is a claim the Buddha is making on his own authority about somebody else’s condition, and the canon marks such claims rather than leaving them impersonal.
The list of what the mendicant is exempt from is the standard formula for suffering in the first noble truth, given in full. So the credential being asserted is not seniority, learning, or virtue. It is having finished with the thing the whole teaching is about.
Reading the pair
Together the two discourses give a complete answer to a question people ask constantly in religious life: who is worth following? The answer comes in two parts, and either is sufficient to disqualify.
Is there still greed, hate, or delusion in this person? Then their advice may be sound and their example is not. Is this person still subject to aging, sickness, sorrow, and death in the way everybody is? Then whatever they have, it is not the thing that solves that.
The test is severe enough that almost nobody passes it, which is the intended effect. The canon’s standing recommendation to laypeople is not to find a perfected teacher but to rely on the teaching, examine it, and keep good company — see AN 3.65, later in this chapter of the collection, for the fullest statement of that.
Using it
Teach the two discourses as one lesson. Read AN 3.37 in full, then read AN 3.38 aloud and ask a class to find the change; it takes about thirty seconds and they will remember the point far longer than if they were told it.
Then the harder question, which is the reason the pair exists: why would the compilers keep two versions differing by one clause? Because the disqualification is not a single fact about Sakka but a class of facts, and the discourse is showing the class by giving two of its members.
Key terms
The text
Sakka’s verse
§1–2“Once upon a time, mendicants, Sakka, lord of gods, guiding the gods of the thirty-three, spoke this verse: ‘Whoever wants to be like me would observe the sabbath complete in all eight factors, on the fourteenth and the fifteenth days, and the eighth day of the fortnight, as well as on the fortnightly special displays.’
§3But that verse was poorly sung by Sakka, lord of gods, not well sung; poorly spoken, not well spoken. Why is that? Because Sakka, lord of gods, is not exempt from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. He is not exempt from suffering, I say.
The same verse, reassigned
§4–5But for a mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their heart’s goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—it is appropriate to say: ‘Whoever wants to be like me would observe the sabbath, complete in all eight factors, on the fourteenth and the fifteenth days, and the eighth day of the fortnight, as well as on the fortnightly special displays.’
§6Why is that? Because that mendicant is exempt from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. He is exempt from suffering, I say.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.