Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 5.178

Kings

Rājāsutta — Upāsakavagga — the eighteenth chapter of the Fives

Setting
None stated; the discourse continues from AN 5.1, whose setting at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove is understood to hold
Speakers
The Buddha, in dialogue with the mendicants
Form
five repeated Socratic exchanges, one per precept
Length
~4 minutes to read
Northern parallel
not identified in this collection
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — long but repetitive, an accessible argument

Why this discourse

A clever, almost legal argument for the five precepts: the Buddha asks whether anyone has ever been punished by a king simply for keeping a precept, and, getting a firm no each time, draws the conclusion that abstaining from harm has never once put anyone at odds with ordinary secular law — only breaking the precepts does that.

Reading guide

A five-fold Socratic drumbeat

For each of the five precepts in turn, the Buddha asks the mendicants: have you ever seen or heard of someone arrested and punished by kings specifically for having given up killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, or intoxicants? Each time, the answer is a flat no.

What actually draws punishment

The Buddha then draws the real contrast: kings do arrest and punish people — but for the actual bad deed itself (murder, theft, adultery, fraud, drunk-and-disorderly crime), never for the corresponding restraint. The mendicants confirm they've seen exactly this.

Precepts and secular law, aligned rather than opposed

The argument's real force is structural: ordinary legal and social consequence never falls on someone for keeping a precept, only for breaking the underlying norm the precept protects — suggesting the five precepts track, rather than conflict with, everyday social expectations most people already hold.

The intoxicants case, elaborated further

The fifth iteration, on intoxicants, adds a further layer: someone punished for drunkenness is typically punished because, while under the influence, they committed one of the other four offenses — murder, theft, adultery, or fraud — making explicit how the fifth precept's violation compounds the risk of violating the other four.

A companion to AN 5.174's inner argument

Where AN 5.174 argued that breaking the precepts generates fear and enmity from within, this discourse argues the same point from outside: the precepts align with what secular authority itself already punishes and protects, giving the same conclusion two independent kinds of support.

Key terms

rājāno — “kings” — this discourse's title concept, representing secular authority and law.
veramaṇihetu — “for the sake of abstinence” — the (never observed) hypothetical basis for punishing someone who keeps a precept.
pāpakammaṁ — “bad deed” — what kings are actually informed of and act on, rather than restraint.
hananti vā bandhanti vā pabbājenti vā — “execute, imprison, or banish” — the range of punishments named for the actual offenses.
yathāpaccayaṁ — “whatever the case requires” — the discourse's phrase covering additional forms of punishment beyond the three named.

The text

The discourse in full: the five-fold argument, one exchange per precept. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Killing

§1“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up killing living creatures, and the kings have them arrested for that, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person has murdered a man or a woman.’ The kings have them arrested for killing, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires. Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?” “Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”

Stealing

§2“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up stealing, and the kings have them arrested for that …?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person took something from a village or wilderness, with the intention to commit theft.’ The kings have them arrested for stealing … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?” “Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”

Sexual misconduct

§3“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up sexual misconduct, and the kings have them arrested for that …?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person had sexual relations with women or maidens under someone else’s protection.’ The kings have them arrested for that … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?” “Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”

Lying

§4“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up lying, and the kings have them arrested for that …?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘This person has ruined a householder or householder’s child by lying.’ The kings have them arrested for that … Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?” “Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”

Intoxicants

§5“What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of a person who has given up beer, wine, and liquor intoxicants, and the kings have them arrested for that, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing. Rather, the kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘While under the influence of beer, wine, and liquor intoxicants, this person murdered a woman or a man. Or they stole something from a village or wilderness. Or they had sexual relations with women or maidens under someone else’s protection. Or they ruined a householder or householder’s child by lying.’ The kings have them arrested for being under the influence of beer, wine, and liquor intoxicants, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires. Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?” “Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.”

· · ·

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 question does the Buddha ask the mendicants for each of the five precepts?
Correct: A. A Socratic question repeated for each of the five precepts.
Question 2 of 10
How do the mendicants answer each time?
Correct: A. A consistent negative answer across all five precepts.
Question 3 of 10
What does the Buddha say actually draws punishment from kings?
Correct: A. Murder, theft, adultery, fraud, and drunk-and-disorderly conduct.
Question 4 of 10
What is this discourse's central argument?
Correct: A. Ordinary legal consequence never falls on someone for keeping a precept.
Question 5 of 10
What additional layer does the fifth iteration, on intoxicants, add?
Correct: A. Making explicit how breaking the fifth precept compounds risk to the other four.
Question 6 of 10
How does this discourse relate to AN 5.174's argument?
Correct: A. Two independent kinds of support for the same underlying conclusion.
Question 7 of 10
What does 'veramaṇihetu' mean?
Correct: A. A hypothetical the discourse shows never actually occurs.
Question 8 of 10
What three forms of punishment does the discourse name for actual offenses?
Correct: A. Or 'whatever the case requires', per the discourse's own phrasing.
Question 9 of 10
What structural form does this discourse take?
Correct: A. A deliberate rhetorical drumbeat across all five precepts.
Question 10 of 10
What chapter does this discourse belong to?
Correct: A. 'A Lay Follower', this session's eighteenth chapter.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0