Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Fondness and hate for third parties are generated reactively, by how others treat people we already feel something about, and both are uprooted together at awakening.
Four things, all born the same way
The pattern is identical across all four cases, and worth stating exactly because the symmetry is the point. Someone likes, loves, and cares for an individual. Others treat that individual with liking and care — and fondness for those others springs up: these others like the individual I like. Or others treat that individual with disliking and loathing — and hate for those others springs up: these others dislike the individual I like.
The same structure runs in reverse for someone already disliked: others disliking them too produces fondness for those others; others liking them produces hate. Four cells, one mechanism — feeling toward a third party generated entirely by whether their treatment of someone already loved or hated agrees or conflicts with one’s own.
What this says about how affection actually spreads
It is worth being direct about how unflattering this mechanism is once it is stated plainly. None of the four cases describe forming a view of someone based on their own qualities or their treatment of oneself. All four describe feeling generated purely by triangulation — agreement or disagreement with a prior attachment doing all the work.
The discourse does not moralize about this directly; it simply lays out the mechanism with the same flat structure four times, and lets a reader recognize how much of ordinary social feeling runs on exactly this reactive circuit rather than on direct acquaintance.
Suspended in absorption, uprooted at awakening
None of the four arise during any of the four absorptions — the mechanism simply does not operate while the mind is immersed. But the discourse is precise about the difference between suspension and removal: what does not arise during absorption can still arise once the absorption ends.
Full awakening is different in kind. At that point, any fondness born of fondness, hate born of fondness, fondness born of hate, or hate born of hate is given up, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future — the identical formula used for the shadow permanently destroyed in AN 4.195, several discourses earlier in this same chapter. What absorption merely pauses, awakening removes at the source.
Four more pairs, and where their vocabulary comes from
The discourse then defines a mendicant who doesn’t draw close or push back or fume or ignite or burn up, and works through each of the four pairs in turn — and a reader who has come through this chapter and the ones before it will recognize every one of them from somewhere else.
Drawing close is regarding any of the five aggregates as self, self as having them, them in self, or self in them — the standard formula for self-view met repeatedly across this nipāta. Pushing back is met with language identical to AN 4.164’s impatient practice, several chapters back: someone abuses, annoys, or argues, and the mendicant abuses, annoys, or argues right back.
Fuming and igniting are defined by reproducing, verbatim, the eighteen interior and eighteen exterior currents of craving from AN 4.199, the discourse immediately before this one: the entire ‘I am’ list for fuming, the entire ‘I am because of this’ list for igniting. And burning up is defined by whether the conceit ‘I am’ itself has been cut off at the root — the same conceit AN 4.177 examined in Rāhula’s elements meditation, several chapters earlier still.
A closing discourse that closes by gathering
It is worth naming directly what this final section is doing, because it is unusual even for a collection built from repeated formulas. Nothing here is newly invented vocabulary; every piece of the definition of drawing close, pushing back, fuming, igniting, and burning up is borrowed intact from a discourse this reader has already met, most of them from this very chapter.
That makes AN 4.200 function as something closer to an index than an original teaching: a final discourse that takes apart the vocabulary the chapter, and to some extent the whole nipāta, has been building, and reassembles it into one last classification. A reader who has followed the Fours in order will find this discourse’s closing section legible in a way a reader meeting it cold could not — which is itself a fitting way for ‘the Great Chapter’ to end, twenty chapters and two hundred discourses into this nipāta.
Key terms
The text
Fondness born of fondness
§1“Mendicants, these four things are born. What four? Fondness is born of fondness, hate is born of fondness, fondness is born of hate, and hate is born of hate. And how is fondness born of fondness? It’s when someone likes, loves, and cares for an individual. Others treat them with liking, love, and care. They think: ‘These others like the individual I like.’ And so fondness for them springs up. That’s how fondness is born of fondness.
Hate born of fondness
§2And how is hate born of fondness? It’s when someone likes, loves, and cares for an individual. Others treat them with disliking, loathing, and detestation. They think: ‘These others dislike the individual I like.’ And so hate for them springs up. That’s how hate is born of fondness.
Fondness born of hate
§3And how is fondness born of hate? It’s when someone dislikes, loathes, and detests an individual. Others treat them with disliking, loathing, and detestation. They think: ‘These others dislike the individual I dislike.’ And so fondness for them springs up. That’s how fondness is born of hate.
Hate born of hate
§4And how is hate born of hate? It’s when someone dislikes, loathes, and detests an individual. Others treat them with liking, love, and care. They think: ‘These others like the individual I dislike.’ And so hate for them springs up. That’s how hate is born of hate. These are the four things that are born of fondness and hate.
Suspended in absorption, uprooted at awakening
§5A time comes when a mendicant … enters and remains in the first absorption. At that time they have no fondness born of fondness, hate born of fondness, fondness born of hate, or hate born of hate. A time comes when a mendicant … enters and remains in the second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption. At that time they have no fondness born of fondness, hate born of fondness, fondness born of hate, or hate born of hate. A time comes when a mendicant realizes the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements. At that time any fondness born of fondness, hate born of fondness, fondness born of hate, or hate born of hate is given up, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. This is called a mendicant who doesn’t draw close or push back or fume or ignite or burn up.
Drawing close, and not
§6And how does a mendicant draw close? It’s when a mendicant regards form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They regard feeling as self, self as having feeling, feeling in self, or self in feeling. They regard perception as self, self as having perception, perception in self, or self in perception. They regard choices as self, self as having choices, choices in self, or self in choices. They regard consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how a mendicant draws close. And how does a mendicant not draw close? It’s when a mendicant doesn’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling as self, self as having feeling, feeling in self, or self in feeling. They don’t regard perception as self, self as having perception, perception in self, or self in perception. They don’t regard choices as self, self as having choices, choices in self, or self in choices. They don’t regard consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how a mendicant doesn’t draw close.
Pushing back, and not
§7And how does a mendicant push back? It’s when someone abuses, annoys, or argues with a mendicant, and the mendicant abuses, annoys, or argues back at them. That’s how a mendicant pushes back. And how does a mendicant not push back? It’s when someone abuses, annoys, or argues with a mendicant, and the mendicant doesn’t abuse, annoy, or argue back at them. That’s how a mendicant doesn’t push back.
Fuming, and not
§8And how does a mendicant fume? When there is the concept ‘I am’, there are the concepts ‘I am such’, ‘I am thus’, ‘I am otherwise’; ‘I am fleeting’, ‘I am lasting’; ‘mine’, ‘such is mine’, ‘thus is mine’, ‘otherwise is mine’; ‘also mine’, ‘such is also mine’, ‘thus is also mine’, ‘otherwise is also mine’; ‘I will be’, ‘I will be such’, ‘I will be thus’, ‘I will be otherwise’. That’s how a mendicant fumes. And how does a mendicant not fume? When there is no concept ‘I am’, there are no concepts ‘I am such’, ‘I am thus’, ‘I am otherwise’; ‘I am fleeting’, ‘I am lasting’; ‘mine’, ‘such is mine’, ‘thus is mine’, ‘otherwise is mine’; ‘also mine’, ‘such is also mine’, ‘thus is also mine’, ‘otherwise is also mine’; ‘I will be’, ‘I will be such’, ‘I will be thus’, ‘I will be otherwise’. That’s how a mendicant doesn’t fume.
Igniting, and not
§9And how is a mendicant ignited? When there is the concept ‘I am because of this’, there are the concepts ‘I am such because of this’, ‘I am thus because of this’, ‘I am otherwise because of this’; ‘I am fleeting because of this’, ‘I am lasting because of this’; ‘mine because of this’, ‘such is mine because of this’, ‘thus is mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is mine because of this’; ‘also mine because of this’, ‘such is also mine because of this’, ‘thus is also mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is also mine because of this’; ‘I will be because of this’, ‘I will be such because of this’, ‘I will be thus because of this’, ‘I will be otherwise because of this’. That’s how a mendicant is ignited. And how is a mendicant not ignited? When there is no concept ‘I am because of this’, there are no concepts ‘I am such because of this’, ‘I am thus because of this’, ‘I am otherwise because of this’; ‘I am fleeting because of this’, ‘I am lasting because of this’; ‘mine because of this’, ‘such is mine because of this’, ‘thus is mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is mine because of this’; ‘also mine because of this’, ‘such is also mine because of this’, ‘thus is also mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is also mine because of this’; ‘I will be because of this’, ‘I will be such because of this’, ‘I will be thus because of this’, ‘I will be otherwise because of this’. That’s how a mendicant is not ignited.
Burning up, and not
§10And how does a mendicant burn up? It’s when a mendicant hasn’t given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. That’s how a mendicant is burned up. And how does a mendicant not burn up? It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. That’s how a mendicant is not burned up.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.