Sāvajjasutta — Kammavagga — the twenty-fourth chapter of the Fours
Setting
None stated; the Kammavagga gives no location for this discourse, and it is addressed to the mendicants directly
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
Two parallel statements, placement in hell or heaven, on a tetrad of blameworthy or blameless conduct and view
Length
under a minute to read
Northern parallel
This reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number for this discourse
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — a brief return to a familiar formula, with new vocabulary
Why this discourse
After eight discourses on the four kinds of deeds, this chapter briefly returns to the yathābhataṁ nikkhitto formula first met at AN 4.212 — placement in hell or heaven as if delivered there — filling its familiar three-conduct-plus-view tetrad with a new pair of adjectives: blameworthy and blameless.
Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Blameworthy conduct in body, speech, and mind, plus blameworthy view, delivers a person to hell as if placed there; the blameless counterparts deliver them to heaven.
A familiar template, a new pair of terms
Sāvajjena kāyakammena, sāvajjāya vacīkammena, sāvajjena manokammena, sāvajjāya diṭṭhiyā — blameworthy deeds by body, speech, and mind, and blameworthy view. This is the same three-conduct-plus-view tetrad first read at AN 4.212 and repeated with substitutions across AN 4.213, AN 4.222, and AN 4.223, now filled with yet another pair of qualifying adjectives: sāvajja and anavajja, blameworthy and blameless, rather than the earlier discourses’ plain duccarita/sucarita, bad/good.
Why blame, specifically
Sāvajja was already met in this series at AN 4.222, where the fool sāvajjo ca hoti sānuvajjo viññūnaṁ, deserves blame and criticism from sensible people, under the khata formula. This discourse takes that same quality of blameworthiness and, rather than treating it as a consequence a person incurs, makes it a description of the conduct itself — deeds and a view that are blameworthy in their own character, not merely deeds that later earn blame.
A short discourse that ties two formulas together
Read alongside AN 4.222, this discourse shows the same vocabulary, sāvajja, doing work in both this chapter’s hell/heaven formula and the previous chapter’s khata formula — further evidence, consistent with what this series observed at AN 4.227, that specific terms move freely between the different consequence-formulas this collection uses, while the formulas themselves stay distinct.
Key terms
sāvajja / anavajja — “blameworthy” and “blameless” — the pair of qualifying terms filling this discourse’s tetrad, already met describing a consequence at AN 4.222.
yathābhataṁ nikkhitto — “placed as if delivered there” — the formula from AN 4.212, briefly returning after this chapter’s run of deed-focused discourses.
kāyakamma, vacīkamma, manokamma — deeds by body, speech, and mind — the same threefold division of conduct used throughout this series, here termed kamma rather than carita.
diṭṭhi — “view” — the fourth, closing item of the tetrad, as at AN 4.212.
sānuvajja — “deserving criticism” — the related term from AN 4.222’s khata formula, describing consequence rather than character.
The text
The discourse in full: hell for the four, heaven for their opposites. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
Placed in hell
§1“Mendicants, someone with four qualities is placed in hell as if delivered there. What four? Blameworthy deeds by way of body, speech, and mind, and blameworthy view. Someone with these four qualities is placed in hell as if delivered there.
Placed in heaven
§2Someone with four qualities is placed in heaven as if delivered there. What four? Blameless deeds by way of body, speech, and mind, and blameless view. Someone with these four qualities is placed in heaven as if delivered there.”
· · ·
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
What formula does this discourse return to?
Correct: B. Briefly resurfacing after this chapter's run of deed-focused discourses.
Question 2 of 10
What pair of terms fills this discourse's tetrad?
Correct: B. A new qualifying pair on the same three-conduct-plus-view template.
Question 3 of 10
Where was sāvajja already used in this series?
Correct: B. There it described what a fool deserves; here it describes the conduct's own character.
Question 4 of 10
What does the guide say this discourse shows about how vocabulary moves through the collection?
Correct: B. Consistent with the pattern already observed at AN 4.227's diṭṭha-suta-muta-viññāta vocabulary.
Question 5 of 10
What tetrad template does this discourse reuse?
Correct: B. The same template already filled with different vocabulary at AN 4.213, AN 4.222, and AN 4.223.
Question 6 of 10
What three modes of conduct are named in this discourse's tetrad?
Correct: B. The standard threefold division running throughout this series.
Question 7 of 10
What discourse immediately follows this one, using a related but different pair of terms?
Correct: B. Vocabulary shared with AN 4.233's kamma teaching, not with this discourse's blame vocabulary.
Question 8 of 10
What is the fourth, closing item of this discourse's tetrad?
Correct: B. As at AN 4.212, the tetrad's original template.
Question 9 of 10
How is conduct described in this discourse, compared to the plain duccarita/sucarita of AN 4.212?
Correct: B. A new qualifying pair filling the same structural slot.
Question 10 of 10
What term describes the consequence a fool incurs at AN 4.222, related to this discourse's vocabulary?
Correct: B. The same root as this discourse's sāvajja, applied there to consequence rather than character.
