Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
The four footprints cannot be denied by anyone who also wants to call someone a genuine ascetic, because denying them means praising the opposite.
The setting matters
This is not a talk to mendicants. The Buddha comes out of retreat, walks to the paribbājakārāma — the wanderers’ own residence — sits on a seat made ready, and addresses them as wanderers. Three are named, including Sakuludāyī, who appears elsewhere in the canon in long philosophical exchanges.
The venue is theirs and the audience is not his. Reading the discourse without that in view makes it sound like triumphalism among friends; reading it with the setting in view makes it what it is, which is a public argument made on someone else’s ground.
The shape of the argument
It is a reductio, and a clean one. If you reject the footprint of contentment, then you must honor and praise ascetics who covet sensual pleasures with acute lust. If you reject good will, you must praise those with ill will and malicious intent. And so for mindfulness and immersion.
The argument does not claim the four are self-evidently good or that the Buddha’s teaching is true. It claims something narrower and much harder to refuse: that these four are entailed by anyone’s notion of a genuine ascetic, whatever else they hold. Reject them and you are not disagreeing with the Buddha; you are committed to praising a greedy, hateful, heedless, scattered holy man.
That is why the challenge is safe to issue in a rival monastery. It does not require the audience to concede anything Buddhist. It only requires them to have a concept of a good ascetic at all.
“We’ll see how powerful they are”
Passāmi tesaṁ pāṭihīraṁ — let us see their marvel, their demonstration. The tone is unmistakably combative, and it would be dishonest to soften it. This is a challenge to public debate in a culture where such debates were a serious institution with reputations attached.
It is worth setting alongside AN 4.25, five discourses earlier, which said the spiritual life is not lived for the benefit of winning debates. The two are compatible — one may argue without arguing for the sake of winning — but the reader should feel the friction rather than have it explained away. This discourse is confident in a way the collection elsewhere warns about.
The historical observation
The most striking sentence comes near the end: even the loud and bold advocates of the doctrines of no-cause, inaction, and nihilism did not imagine that these four could be criticized — for fear of being blamed, provoked, and faulted.
The three named positions are those of the well-known non-Buddhist teachers of the period: ahetuvāda, that there is no cause; akiriyavāda, that action has no moral consequence; natthikavāda, that there is nothing after death. These are the most radical positions available in the debate culture the discourse is addressing.
And the observation is empirical rather than doctrinal: even they did not attack these four, and the reason given is social — fear of blame. The discourse is making an argument from consensus and is candid that the consensus was enforced by reputation. That candor is worth pointing out; it is a more sophisticated move than a simple appeal to universal agreement.
The four again, and the verse
The four are AN 4.29’s exactly: contentment, good will, right mindfulness, right immersion, in the same frame of primordial and uncorrupted. The two discourses are a pair — the list stated internally, then the list defended externally.
The verse compresses the four into three lines and adds the label: one who has good will, ever mindful, serene within, training to remove desire, is called a diligent one, appamatta. Diligence is the collection’s standard summary virtue, and the four footprints turn out to be its content.
This closes the Uruvelavagga, which began with the newly awakened Buddha wondering what he could revere and ends with him defending, in a rival monastery, four things nobody reputable was willing to attack. The chapter is about authority throughout: where it comes from, who has it, and what it rests on.
Key terms
The text
At the wanderers’ monastery
§1At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, on the Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Now at that time several very well-known wanderers were residing in the monastery of the wanderers on the bank of the Serpentine river. They included Annabhāra, Varadhara, Sakuludāyī, and other very well-known wanderers. Then in the late afternoon, the Buddha came out of retreat and went to the wanderer’s monastery on the banks of the Serpentine river, He sat down on the seat spread out, and said to the wanderers:
Four footprints of the Dhamma
§2“Wanderers, these four footprints of the Dhamma are primordial, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. They are uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What four? Contentment … Good will … Right mindfulness … Right immersion … These four footprints of the Dhamma are primordial, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. They are uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them.
The challenge
§3Wanderers, if someone should say: ‘I’ll deny this Dhamma footprint of contentment, and describe a true ascetic or brahmin who covets sensual pleasures with acute lust.’ Then I’d say to them: ‘Let them come, speak, and discuss. We’ll see how powerful they are.’ It is quite impossible to deny this Dhamma footprint of contentment, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who covets sensual pleasures with acute lust.
§4If someone should say: ‘I’ll deny this Dhamma footprint of good will, and describe a true ascetic or brahmin who has ill will and malicious intent.’ Then I’d say to them: ‘Let them come, speak, and discuss. We’ll see how powerful they are.’ It is quite impossible to deny this Dhamma footprint of good will, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who has ill will and malicious intent. If someone should say: ‘I’ll deny this Dhamma footprint of right mindfulness, and describe a true ascetic or brahmin who is unmindful, with no situational awareness.’ Then I’d say to them: ‘Let them come, speak, and discuss. We’ll see how powerful they are.’ It is quite impossible to deny this Dhamma footprint of right mindfulness, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who is unmindful, with no situational awareness. If someone should say: ‘I’ll deny this Dhamma footprint of right immersion, and describe a true ascetic or brahmin who is scattered, with straying mind.’ Then I’d say to them: ‘Let them come, speak, and discuss. We’ll see how powerful they are.’ It is quite impossible to deny this Dhamma footprint of right immersion, and point out a true ascetic or brahmin who is scattered, with straying mind.
Four grounds of rebuttal
§5If anyone imagines they can criticize and reject these four footprints of the Dhamma, they deserve rebuttal and criticism on four legitimate grounds in this very life. What four? If you reject the Dhamma footprint of contentment, then you must honor and praise those ascetics and brahmins who covet sensual pleasures with acute lust. If you reject the Dhamma footprint of good will, you must honor and praise those ascetics and brahmins who have ill will and malicious intent. If you reject the Dhamma footprint of right mindfulness, then you must honor and praise those ascetics and brahmins who are unmindful, with no situational awareness. If you reject the Dhamma footprint of right immersion, you must honor and praise those ascetics and brahmins who are scattered, with straying minds.
§6If anyone imagines they can criticize and reject these four footprints of the Dhamma, they deserve rebuttal and criticism on four legitimate grounds in this very life. Even those those who were loud and bold advocates of the doctrines of no-cause, inaction, and nihilism didn’t imagine that these four footprints of the Dhamma should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of being blamed, provoked, and faulted.
The verse
§7One who has good will, ever mindful, serene within, training to remove desire, is called ‘a diligent one’.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.