Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 3.68

Followers of Other Religions

Aññatitthiyasutta — Mahāvagga — the seventh chapter of the Threes

Setting
None stated; the discourse continues from AN 3.1, whose setting at Sāvatthī is understood to hold
Speakers
The Buddha and the mendicants
Form
A hypothetical question from outsiders, a prepared answer, and six causes given in two matched sets
Length
~4 minutes to read
Northern parallel
The analysis of the three roots by their causes and antidotes is preserved in the Chinese Āgamas and became standard in the meditation manuals as the antidotes 對治; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★★☆☆ — schematic, and one of the most practically loaded discourses in the chapter

Why this discourse

The Buddha asks his monks what they would say if wanderers of other religions asked them what the difference is between greed, hate, and delusion. They admit they do not know, and he gives them the answer to carry: greed is mildly blameworthy but slow to fade; hate is very blameworthy but quick to fade; delusion is very blameworthy and slow to fade. Then he gives what feeds each and what ends it — which is the whole of Buddhist antidote practice in six lines.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

The three roots differ in how bad they are and in how long they last, and each has its own food and its own remedy.

The frame: a question from outside

The discourse is set up as preparation for an encounter that has not happened yet. If wanderers of other religions were to ask … how would you answer them?

The monks reply with the standard formula — our teachings are rooted in the Buddha, he is our guide and refuge, may he clarify it — which is an honest admission that they do not know. The canon uses this formula often and it is worth pointing out that it is not treated as a failure.

The framing tells you what kind of material this is: an answer designed to be given to somebody outside the tradition. That is why it contains no technical terms that would need explaining, and why it is built around comparisons rather than doctrine.

Two axes, not one

The answer sorts the three roots on two independent scales: how blameworthy, and how quickly they fade.

Greed is mildly blameworthy but slow to fade away. Hate is very blameworthy but quick to fade away. Delusion is very blameworthy and slow to fade away.

That produces a genuinely useful ranking rather than a moral league table. Hate does the most obvious damage and passes; greed does less visible damage and stays; delusion does the most damage and stays longest, which is why it is treated everywhere in the canon as the fundamental one.

The practical implication is worth drawing out for a class. Anger is easy to notice, widely condemned, and short-lived. Greed is socially tolerated, often admired, and durable. A person judging their own condition by how bad their episodes look will systematically overweight the first and miss the second, and the discourse is set up to correct exactly that error.

The fourth logical possibility — mildly blameworthy and quick to fade — is not on the list, because no root occupies it.

What feeds each

Subhanimitta, the beautiful feature of things, feeds greed. Paṭighanimitta, the feature of aversion, feeds hate. And ayoniso manasikāra, irrational application of mind, feeds delusion.

Nimitta is the aspect or sign a mind takes hold of — the same word AN 3.32 used for everything external. The claim is not that beautiful things cause greed. It is that greed grows when the mind is applied irrationally to the beautiful aspect of something, which is a claim about attention rather than about objects.

The third breaks the pattern. Greed and hate each have their own feature; delusion has no feature of its own, only ayoniso manasikāra itself — unwise attention in general. That asymmetry is doing something: delusion is not a reaction to a kind of object at all, which is why it is harder to see and slower to go.

What ends each, and one honest warning

The antidotes are matched: asubhanimitta, the ugly feature of things, for greed; mettā cetovimutti, the heart’s release by love, for hate; and yoniso manasikāra, rational application of mind, for delusion.

This is the origin of the whole antidote scheme that later meditation manuals build on — 對治 in the Chinese literature, where a specific practice is prescribed against a specific defilement. Zhiyi’s manuals take it as a working structure.

The first antidote needs a warning, and the tradition itself supplies one. Contemplating the unattractive aspects of the body is a real practice and it can go badly wrong: the monastic code’s own origin story for one of its gravest rules describes monks who practiced it and became so disgusted with their bodies that they sought their own deaths. That episode is preserved in the Vinaya, not invented by critics.

For a modern classroom the caution is straightforward and should be given plainly. A practice aimed at loosening desire, taught to somebody who already hates their body or restricts their eating, will not loosen desire; it will feed something else. The discourse names the antidote for a person overcome by greed, and it is not a general instruction to think badly of bodies.

The second antidote has no such hazard and is worth naming as the model: the remedy for hate is not the ugly aspect of the hated person but a cultivated heart of love, which is a positive practice replacing a negative one rather than an opposing disgust.

Using it

The two-axis table is the thing to teach, and it takes two minutes to draw. Blame on one axis, persistence on the other, three roots placed, and the empty fourth cell noticed.

Then the six causes as a matched set: what makes each grow is a way of paying attention, and what makes each stop is another way of paying attention. Nothing in the list is about circumstances, and nothing is about other people. That is the discourse’s actual claim, and it is available to anybody regardless of what they believe about the rest of the teaching.

Key terms

appasāvajja mahāsāvajja — “mildly blameworthy, very blameworthy” — the first of the two axes on which the three roots are sorted.
dandhavirāgī khippavirāgī — “slow to fade, quick to fade” — the second axis, and the one that makes greed more dangerous than its low blame suggests.
subhanimitta — “the beautiful feature” — what greed grows on when the mind is applied to it irrationally. A claim about attention, not about objects.
ayoniso manasikāra — “irrational application of mind” — what feeds delusion, and the only one of the three causes that names no feature of its own.
mettā cetovimutti — “the heart’s release by love” — the antidote to hate, and a positive practice replacing a negative one rather than an opposing disgust.

The text

The discourse in full. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

If they were to ask

§1“Mendicants, if wanderers of other religions were to ask: ‘There are these three things. What three? Greed, hate, and delusion. These are the three things. What’s the difference between them?’ How would you answer them?” “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. He is our guide and our refuge. Sir, may the Buddha himself please clarify the meaning of this. The mendicants will listen and remember it.” “Well then, mendicants, listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.” “Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

The answer to give

§2“Mendicants, if wanderers of other religions were to ask: ‘There are these three things. What three? Greed, hate, and delusion. These are the three things. What’s the difference between them?’ You should answer them: ‘Greed, reverends, is mildly blameworthy, but slow to fade away. Hate is very blameworthy, but quick to fade away. Delusion is very blameworthy, and slow to fade away.’

What makes each grow

§3And if they ask: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why greed arises, and once arisen it increases and grows?’ You should say: ‘The beautiful feature of things. When you apply the mind irrationally to the beautiful feature of things, greed arises, and once arisen it increases and grows. This is the cause, this is the reason why greed arises, and once arisen it increases and grows.’

§4And if they ask: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why hate arises, and once arisen it increases and grows?’ You should say: ‘The feature of aversion. When you apply the mind irrationally to the feature of aversion, hate arises, and once arisen it increases and grows. This is the cause, this is the reason why hate arises, and once arisen it increases and grows.’

§5And if they ask: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why delusion arises, and once arisen it increases and grows?’ You should say: ‘Irrational application of mind. When you apply the mind irrationally, delusion arises, and once arisen it increases and grows. This is the cause, this is the reason why delusion arises, and once arisen it increases and grows.’

And what ends it

§6And if they ask, ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why greed doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up?’ You should say: ‘The ugly feature of things. When you apply the mind rationally on the ugly feature of things, greed doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up. This is the cause, this is the reason why greed doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up.’

§7And if they ask, ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why hate doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up?’ You should say: ‘The heart’s release by love.’ When you apply the mind rationally on the heart’s release by love, hate doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up. This is the cause, this is the reason why hate doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up.’

§8And if they ask, ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why delusion doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up?’ You should say: ‘Rational application of mind. When you apply the mind rationally, delusion doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up. This is the cause, this is the reason why delusion doesn’t arise, or if it’s already arisen it’s given up.’”

· · ·

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
How is the discourse framed?
Correct: B. Which is why it contains no technical terms needing explanation.
Question 2 of 10
What do the monks say when asked how they would answer?
Correct: B. The canon uses this formula often and does not treat it as a failure.
Question 3 of 10
On which two scales are the three roots sorted?
Correct: C. Two independent axes, not one.
Question 4 of 10
Where does greed fall?
Correct: B. Less visible damage, and it stays.
Question 5 of 10
Where does delusion fall?
Correct: A. The most damage and the longest duration.
Question 6 of 10
What practical error does the guide say the scheme corrects?
Correct: B. The fourth logical cell — mildly blameworthy and quick to fade — is empty.
Question 7 of 10
What feeds greed?
Correct: B. Nimitta is the aspect a mind takes hold of.
Question 8 of 10
How does the third cause break the pattern?
Correct: B. Delusion is not a reaction to a kind of object, which is why it is harder to see.
Question 9 of 10
What warning does the guide give about the antidote to greed?
Correct: B. Taught to somebody who already hates their body, it will feed something else.
Question 10 of 10
Why does the guide call the second antidote the model?
Correct: B. And it carries none of the first antidote’s hazard.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0