Paṭhamavohārasutta — Āpattibhayavagga — the twenty-fifth chapter of the Fours
Setting
None stated; the Āpattibhayavagga gives no location for this discourse, and it is addressed to the mendicants directly
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
A single sentence naming one of four possible false claims about experience
Length
under a minute to read
Northern parallel
This reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number for this discourse
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — brief on its own, and best understood as one quarter of a set
Why this discourse
Claiming to have seen, heard, thought, or known something one has not is named here as one of the four ignoble expressions. This is the diṭṭha-suta-muta-viññāta vocabulary’s fourth appearance in this series, after AN 4.24, the mirrored pair at AN 4.217–218, and the mirrored pair at AN 4.227–228. This time the treatment is different in kind: rather than pairing a false claim with its opposite in one discourse, this chapter gives each of the four possible combinations its own, separate discourse.
Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Claiming to have seen, heard, thought, or known something one has not is one of the four ignoble ways of speaking.
A vocabulary's fourth appearance, and its most atomized
Adiṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, asute sutavāditā, amute mutavāditā, aviññāte viññātavāditā — the identical false claim already read at AN 4.217 and AN 4.227. What has changed is the unit of composition. AN 4.217 and AN 4.227 each paired this claim with its mirror — truthful denial — inside a single discourse, using the hell/heaven and khata formulas respectively. This chapter instead gives the false claim its own discourse entirely, and will give each of the remaining three combinations — truthful denial, false denial, truthful claim — a discourse of its own in turn.
Noble and ignoble, a new frame again
The formula here is neither the hell/heaven formula nor the khata formula but a third: anariyavohāra, ignoble expression, opposed to ariyavohāra, noble expression. This is the vocabulary's third distinct framing across four appearances in this series — unaffectedness at AN 4.24, destination at AN 4.217, character and social standing at AN 4.227, and now the simple ethical register of noble or ignoble speech.
Four appearances, four different shapes
Laid end to end, this vocabulary’s history in this series is itself worth surveying: introduced whole at AN 4.24 to describe a Realized One’s poise; split into a mirrored pair under the hell/heaven formula at AN 4.217–218; split into a mirrored pair again under the khata formula at AN 4.227–228; and now split into four fully separate, unpaired discourses under a noble/ignoble frame. The same four terms have now been organized three different ways — whole, paired, and atomized — without the terms themselves ever changing.
Key terms
anariyavohāra / ariyavohāra — “ignoble expression” and “noble expression” — this chapter's frame for the diṭṭha-suta-muta-viññāta vocabulary, distinct from the hell/heaven and khata formulas used earlier.
adiṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā — “claiming to have seen what one has not seen” — identical wording to AN 4.217 and AN 4.227.
diṭṭha suta muta viññāta — “seen, heard, sensed, known” — first defined at AN 4.24, now met a fourth time, atomized into four separate discourses.
vohāra — “expression, way of speaking” — the term naming this discourse and the three that follow it.
musāvāda — “false speech” — the general fault this specific claim narrows to a testimony about one's own experience.
The text
The discourse in full: one of the four ignoble expressions, named. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
An ignoble expression
§1“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions. What four? Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t. These are the four ignoble expressions.”
· · ·
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 false claim does this discourse name?
Correct: B. Identical wording to AN 4.217 and AN 4.227.
Question 2 of 10
How many times has the diṭṭha-suta-muta-viññāta vocabulary now appeared in this series, including this discourse?
Correct: B. Its most atomized treatment yet.
Question 3 of 10
What formula does this discourse use, distinct from the earlier two treatments?
Correct: B. The vocabulary's third distinct framing across four appearances.
Question 4 of 10
How does this discourse's structure differ from AN 4.217 and AN 4.227?
Correct: B. Each of the four combinations will get its own discourse in this chapter.
Question 5 of 10
What did AN 4.24 originally use this vocabulary to describe?
Correct: B. The vocabulary's first and most different appearance in this series.
Question 6 of 10
What three frames has this vocabulary now been given across its four appearances?
Correct: B. The same four terms organized differently each time, without the terms themselves changing.
Question 7 of 10
What three organizational shapes has this vocabulary taken across this series?
Correct: B. Whole at AN 4.24, paired at AN 4.217–218 and AN 4.227–228, atomized starting here.
Question 8 of 10
What is muta, the third of the four terms?
Correct: B. One quarter of the fixed fourfold division of experience, unchanged across all four appearances.
Question 9 of 10
What discourse follows this one, giving a different combination its own treatment?
Correct: B. Continuing the atomized, one-combination-per-discourse pattern.
Question 10 of 10
What word names this discourse and the three that follow it?
Correct: B. Distinct from vohārapatha, the term used at AN 4.217–218 and AN 4.227–228.
