Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
A monastic’s ethics determines how they look, what contact with them does, and whether giving to them is worth anything — at every age.
The two fabrics
Potthaka is coarse cloth of jute or hemp: sacking. Kāsika is the fine cloth of Kāsi, Benares, which the collection has already used as the mark of luxury — the young Bodhisatta’s turbans and robes at AN 3.39 were from Kāsi.
Three qualities each, and the third is the one the discourse works hardest: ugly or beautiful; unpleasant or pleasant to touch; worthless or valuable.
The new, worn in, worn out triad is what makes the simile more than an insult. Sacking does not improve with age and neither does fine cloth deteriorate into worthlessness; a worn-out length of Kāsi cloth still gets wrapped around something precious, and worn-out jute scrubs a cauldron. The claim is about a constant property rather than a condition.
The three applications
Ugly is unethical conduct, and it is asserted directly — a monastic of bad character is ugly, I say.
Unpleasant to touch is the effect of association: if you associate with, accompany, and attend to them, following their example, it’ll be for your lasting harm and suffering. Touch here is company, and the quality is not about the person in isolation but about what proximity to them does.
Worthless is the donor’s side: robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines given to them are not very fruitful or beneficial for the donor. This is the flip side of AN 3.96–98, which described what makes a monastic a field of merit. Here is what happens when the field is bad.
All three are then repeated at three seniorities — junior, middle, senior — which is the same three-tier structure AN 3.91 used for whom the Buddha praises. The collection uses it whenever a claim about monastics has to be stated without exempting the powerful.
The two scenes
This is where the discourse becomes uncomfortable, and the discomfort is worth keeping.
When an unethical senior monastic speaks in the assembly, the mendicants say: what’s an incompetent fool like you got to say? How on earth could you imagine you’ve got something worth saying! He becomes angry and upset, blurts out things, and the Saṅgha throws him out — as if they were throwing jute canvas away on the rubbish heap.
When an ethical senior monastic speaks, they say: venerables, be quiet! The senior mendicant is speaking on the teaching and training.
Two things should be said about the first scene. It is a description of collective contempt and the discourse does not criticize it; the mendicants’ jeering is reported as what happens and the expulsion is presented as appropriate. That is the same pattern as the mockery of Sarabha at AN 3.64, and it should be named the same way — a canon that condemns harsh speech contains scenes of harsh speech going unrebuked.
And it is worth noticing the causal order. The jeering comes first and the outburst second; the man is provoked into the words that get him expelled. Whether the discourse intends that as a description of how such a person is finally revealed, or simply reports a sequence, it does not say. A teacher can put the question to a class without answering it.
What the discourse does not include
There is no correction, no rehabilitation, and no procedure. AN 3.91 has a monk confess an internal fault and be told his handling of it is growth; AN 3.84 has a monk admit he cannot manage and be given something he can do. Neither appears here.
That absence is worth pointing out rather than filling in, because a reader who knows only this discourse will get the collection wrong. The Threes contain a discourse in which somebody who has failed is helped, and a discourse in which somebody who has failed is thrown out, and it does not reconcile them.
The nearest thing to a reconciliation is the variable. In AN 3.84 and AN 3.91 the person says something — I’m not able, I made a mistake. Here the unethical monastic says nothing about himself until he is provoked, and what he says then is not that.
Using it
The closing instruction is the usable part and it is unusually direct: we will be like cloth from Kāsi, not like jute canvas. That is an instruction about what to be, not what to do, and the three qualities specify it.
For a teacher the second and third qualities are the transferable ones. Is being around this person good for the people around them? And is what is invested in them producing anything? Both questions are asked from outside, which is what the whole simile is about: cloth is judged by whoever has to use it.
Key terms
The text
Jute canvas
§1“Jute canvas is ugly, unpleasant to touch, and worthless whether it’s new, worn in, or worn out. They use worn out jute canvas for scrubbing cauldrons, or else they just throw it away on the rubbish heap.
§2In the same way, if a junior mendicant is unethical, of bad character, this is how they’re ugly, I say. That individual is just as ugly as jute canvas. If you associate with, accompany, and attend to them, following their example, it’ll be for your lasting harm and suffering. This is how they’re unpleasant to touch, I say. That individual is just as unpleasant to touch as jute canvas. Any robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick that they receive are not very fruitful or beneficial for the donor. This is how they’re worthless, I say. That individual is just as worthless as jute canvas. If a middle mendicant is unethical, of bad character, this is how they’re ugly, I say. … If a senior mendicant is unethical, of bad character, this is how they’re ugly, I say. … If you associate with, accompany, and attend to them, following their example, it’ll be for your lasting harm and suffering. …
§3If such a senior mendicant speaks among the Saṅgha, the mendicants say: ‘What’s an incompetent fool like you got to say? How on earth could you imagine you’ve got something worth saying!’ They become angry and upset, and blurt out things that make the Saṅgha throw them out, as if they were throwing jute canvas away on the rubbish heap.
Cloth from Kāsi
§4Cloth from Kāsi is beautiful, pleasant to touch, and valuable whether it’s new, worn in, or worn out. They use worn out cloth from Kāsi for wrapping, or else they place it in a fragrant casket.
§5In the same way, if a junior mendicant is ethical, of good character, this is how they’re beautiful, I say. That individual is just as beautiful as cloth from Kāsi. If you associate with, accompany, and attend to such an individual, following their example, it will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. This is how they’re pleasant to touch, I say. That individual is just as pleasant to touch as cloth from Kāsi. Any robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick that they receive are very fruitful and beneficial for the donor. This is how they’re valuable, I say. That individual is just as valuable as cloth from Kāsi. If a middle mendicant is ethical, of good character, this is how they’re beautiful, I say. … If a senior mendicant is ethical, of good character, this is how they’re beautiful, I say. …
§6If such a senior mendicant speaks in the midst of the Saṅgha, the mendicants say: ‘Venerables, be quiet! The senior mendicant is speaking on the teaching and training.’ So you should train like this: ‘We will be like cloth from Kāsi, not like jute canvas.’ That’s how you should train.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.