Kulasutta — Abhiññāvagga — the twenty-sixth chapter of the Fours
Setting
None stated; the Abhiññāvagga 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, four reasons families lose wealth and four reasons they keep it
Length
under a minute to read
Northern parallel
Practical household advice of this kind appears elsewhere in the canon, notably in material addressed to laypeople such as DN 31; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — refreshingly ordinary, with no soteriological content at all
Why this discourse
Not every discourse in this collection is about liberation. This one is straightforward household economics: families lose their wealth when they don't look for what's lost, don't repair what's old, eat and drink to excess, or put an unethical person in charge — and keep it when they do the opposite. Nothing here mentions kamma, rebirth, or the path; it is simply practical.
Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Families stay wealthy or lose their wealth for entirely ordinary, practical reasons: attentiveness to loss and decay, moderation, and who is put in charge.
Four reasons wealth does not last
Not looking for what is lost, not repairing what is old, eating and drinking to excess, and placing an unethical person — woman or man — in a position of authority over the household. Each is a failure of ordinary attention or ordinary restraint, not a moral or spiritual failing in the sense this collection usually means.
Four reasons it does
The mirror image, exactly: looking for what is lost, repairing what is old, eating and drinking in moderation, and placing an ethical person in charge. The parallel structure is worth noting for its completeness — every item in the first list has a precise, practical opposite in the second, with nothing added or left over.
Notably absent: religion
This discourse is worth reading for what it does not say. It gives no instruction about giving, no reference to merit, no mention of what happens after death, and no connection drawn to the eightfold path or any other structure this collection otherwise leans on constantly. It treats household economic stability as a subject worth teaching about entirely on its own terms, governed by ordinary practical causes rather than religious ones.
A gender-neutral instruction, stated plainly
Both the failing and the qualifying case name the person put in charge as itthiṁ vā purisaṁ vā, ‘a woman or a man’, without preference or comment. The discourse’s concern is competence and ethics in household management, and it states without qualification that either a woman or a man can supply or fail to supply it.
Key terms
naṭṭhagavesanā — “looking for what is lost” — the first practical factor, on both the negative and positive side.
jiṇṇapaṭisaṅkharaṇā — “repairing old things” — ordinary maintenance, treated as a factor in whether wealth endures.
bhojane amattaññutā / mattaññutā — “not knowing moderation in eating and drinking” and its opposite — excess versus restraint, the third factor.
dussīlaṁ itthiṁ vā purisaṁ vā ādhipaccaṁ ṭhapenti — “placing an unethical woman or man in authority” — the fourth factor, named without gender preference on either side of the discourse.
kula — “family, household” — the unit of concern in this discourse, and the term naming it.
The text
The discourse in full: four reasons wealth is lost, four reasons it endures. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
Why families lose wealth
§1“Mendicants, when families don’t stay wealthy for long, it’s always for one or more of these four reasons. What four? They don’t look for what’s lost; they don’t repair old things; they eat and drink too much; or they put an unethical woman or man in charge. When families don’t stay wealthy for long, it’s always for one or more of these four reasons.
Why families keep wealth
§2When families do stay wealthy for long, it’s always for one or more of these four reasons. What four? They look for what’s lost; they repair old things; they eat and drink in moderation; and they put an ethical woman or man in charge. When families do stay wealthy for long, it’s always for one or more of these four reasons.”
· · ·
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 four reasons does this discourse give for families losing wealth?
Correct: B. Ordinary, practical failures rather than moral or spiritual ones in the collection's usual sense.
Question 2 of 10
What is notably absent from this discourse, according to the guide?
Correct: B. Household economic stability treated on its own practical terms.
Question 3 of 10
How does this discourse describe the person who might be placed in charge of a household?
Correct: B. The discourse's concern is competence and ethics, stated without qualification for either gender.
Question 4 of 10
How complete is the parallel between the negative and positive lists, per the guide?
Correct: B. Nothing added or left over between the two halves.
Question 5 of 10
What kind of failure does "not repairing old things" represent?
Correct: B. Practical, not religious, in character.
Question 6 of 10
Where else in the canon does this reading guide note a parallel for this kind of practical household advice?
Correct: B. A recognized genre within the canon, distinct from strictly soteriological teaching.
Question 7 of 10
What third factor concerns moderation?
Correct: B. Excess versus restraint, the discourse's third practical factor.
Question 8 of 10
What formula or larger structure does this discourse connect to, according to the guide?
Correct: B. A rare case of purely secular, practical teaching in this collection.
Question 9 of 10
What discourse follows this one, returning to more familiar territory?
Correct: B. Using a horse simile to describe a mendicant worthy of offerings.
Question 10 of 10
What is the term for "family, household" that names this discourse?
Correct: B. The unit of concern throughout this discourse.
