Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Nothing should be accepted on the authority of its source, only on what a person finds for themselves when they test it — and that method is itself the ‘trick’ Bhaddiya was warned about.
A rumor, asked about directly
Bhaddiya reports the accusation without softening it: the ascetic Gotama is deceitful. He knows a conversion trick, and uses it to convert the disciples of those of other religions. He then asks, carefully and respectfully, whether people who repeat this are misrepresenting the Buddha, and whether there is any legitimate ground for the criticism.
The question is not hostile. Bhaddiya is not accusing the Buddha himself; he is reporting what he has heard and asking the one person positioned to answer it directly whether it is fair.
The same instruction given to the Kālāmas
The Buddha’s answer is worth recognizing for what it is: the identical list of ten things not to rely on that appears in the discourse to the Kālāmas of Kesamutta — oral transmission, lineage, testament, canonical authority, logic, inference, reasoned train of thought, acceptance of a view after deliberation, the appearance of competence, and the thought ‘the ascetic is our respected teacher’.
There is a small, exact detail worth knowing here for anyone reading these pages in order: the page template every discourse in this project is built from is sliced out of the very file that carries that other, more famous version of this same teaching — AN 3.65, the discourse to the Kālāmas. The connection is not an accident of translation; the method the Buddha gives Bhaddiya is, word for word, the method underneath the format of the page you are reading it on.
In place of authority, the standard offered is entirely first-person: when you know for yourself that certain things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and lead to harm when undertaken, give them up. When you know for yourself that other things are skillful, blameless, praised, and lead to welfare, take them up and keep them.
The method, tested twice
The Buddha does not leave the instruction abstract. He walks Bhaddiya through it live, as a series of direct questions Bhaddiya answers himself: does greed arise for a person’s welfare or harm? Harm. Does a greedy person, overcome by greed, kill, steal, commit adultery, lie, and encourage others to do the same, to their lasting harm? Yes. The same sequence runs for hate, delusion, and aggression.
Then the whole test is applied in the opposite direction: does contentment, love, understanding, benevolence arise for welfare or harm? Welfare. Does a benevolent person, not overcome by aggression, refrain from killing, stealing, adultery, and lying, to their lasting welfare? Yes. Each time, the Buddha closes the loop explicitly: so, Bhaddiya, when we said ‘don’t go by oral transmission…’ — that’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
Nothing here asks Bhaddiya to trust an assertion. Every step is a question Bhaddiya answers from his own observation of how greed, hate, delusion, and aggression actually work, and how contentment, love, understanding, and benevolence actually work. The method is demonstrated by being used, not described and then trusted.
Conversion, and a careful denial of authority
Bhaddiya converts — excellent, sir… may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life — and the Buddha immediately does something unusual with the moment. He asks Bhaddiya directly: did I ever say to you, ‘be my disciple, and I will be your teacher’? Bhaddiya answers: no.
That question is the hinge the whole discourse turns on. The Buddha is establishing, on the record, that he made no claim on Bhaddiya at any point in the exchange — and yet, he notes, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent him with precisely the accusation Bhaddiya arrived with. The rumor is not just false in general; it is false in a way this specific conversation has just demonstrated, live.
Reclaiming the accusation
What follows is the discourse’s most memorable turn. Bhaddiya, delighted, declares: sir, this conversion trick is excellent. This conversion trick is lovely! — and wishes it on everyone he loves, then on all four social classes, then, escalating further himself, on the whole world.
The Buddha does not correct the word Bhaddiya uses. He agrees with it and extends it further than Bhaddiya went: if the whole world — with its gods, Māras, and divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans — were to be converted by this, for giving up unskillful qualities and embracing skillful ones, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness… if these great sal trees were to be converted by this… if they were sentient. How much more then a human being!
That closing image — wishing the method could work even on trees, since it would do them no harm to have it, if only they could receive it — is one of the warmest and strangest hyperboles in this nipāta. The accusation Bhaddiya arrived with has been fully accepted as true and turned into the discourse’s own name for itself: yes, this is a trick, and it is a good one, and the only thing wrong with the rumor was thinking that was an insult.
Key terms
The text
The rumor
§1At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof. Then Bhaddiya the Licchavi went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama is deceitful. He knows a conversion trick, and uses it to convert the disciples of those of other religions.’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism?”
Not by authority, but by testing for yourself
§2“Please, Bhaddiya, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.
Testing greed, hate, delusion, aggression
§3What do you think, Bhaddiya? Does greed come up in a person for their welfare or harm?” “Harm, sir.” “A greedy individual—overcome by greed—kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” “Yes, sir.” “What do you think, Bhaddiya? Does hate … or delusion … or aggression come up in a person for their welfare or harm?” “Harm, sir.” “An aggressive individual kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” “Yes, sir.” “What do you think, Bhaddiya, are these things skillful or unskillful?” “Unskillful, sir.” “Blameworthy or blameless?” “Blameworthy, sir.” “Criticized or praised by sensible people?” “Criticized by sensible people, sir.” “When you undertake them, do they lead to harm and suffering, or not? Or how do you see this?” “When you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering. That’s how we see it.” “So, Bhaddiya, when we said: ‘Please, Bhaddiya, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering”, then you should give them up.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it. Please, Bhaddiya, don’t rely on oral transmission …
Testing contentment, love, understanding, benevolence
§4What do you think, Bhaddiya? Does contentment … love … understanding … benevolence come up in a person for their welfare or harm?” “Welfare, sir.” “An individual who is benevolent—not overcome by aggression—doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?” “Yes, sir.” “What do you think, Bhaddiya, are these things skillful or unskillful?” “Skillful, sir.” “Blameworthy or blameless?” “Blameless, sir.” “Criticized or praised by sensible people?” “Praised by sensible people, sir.” “When you undertake them, do they lead to welfare and happiness, or not? Or how do you see this?” “When you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness. That’s how we see it.” “So, Bhaddiya, when we said: ‘Please, Bhaddiya, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned train of thought, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after deliberation, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think “The ascetic is our respected teacher.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness”, then you should acquire them and keep them.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
Bhaddiya converts
§5The good and true persons in the world encourage their disciples: ‘Please, my friend, live rid of greed. Then you won’t act out of greed by way of body, speech, or mind. Live rid of hate … delusion … aggression. Then you won’t act out of hate … delusion … aggression by way of body, speech, or mind.” When he said this, Bhaddiya the Licchavi said to the Buddha, “Excellent, sir! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”
The trick, reclaimed
§6“Well, Bhaddiya, did I say to you: ‘Please, Bhaddiya, be my disciple, and I will be your teacher’?” “No, sir.” “Though I state and assert this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the incorrect, hollow, false, untruthful claim: ‘The ascetic Gotama is deceitful. He knows a conversion trick, and uses it to convert the disciples of those of other religions.’” “Sir, this conversion trick is excellent. This conversion trick is lovely! If my loved ones—relatives and kin—were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. If all the aristocrats, brahmins, peasants, and menials were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness.” “That’s so true, Bhaddiya! That’s so true, Bhaddiya! If all the aristocrats, brahmins, peasants, and menials were to be converted by this, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. If the whole world—with its gods, Māras, and divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—were to be converted by this, for giving up unskillful qualities and embracing skillful qualities, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness. If these great sal trees were to be converted by this, for giving up unskillful qualities and embracing skillful qualities, it would be for their lasting welfare and happiness—if they were sentient. How much more then a human being!”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.