Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 5.249

A Charnel Ground

Sivathikasutta — Duccaritavagga — the twenty-fifth 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 alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
an extended simile, applied to conduct rather than identity
Length
~3.5 minutes to read
Northern parallel
not identified in this collection
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — vivid and worth reading against this collection's harder passages

Why this discourse

This discourse uses the same rhetorical structure as AN 5.229–230's Black Snake similes — naming five qualities of an unpleasant thing, then applying them directly to a person — but grounds the comparison entirely in someone's own chosen conduct, applicable to anyone, rather than in an unchangeable identity.

Reading guide

Five drawbacks of a literal charnel ground

Filthy, stinking, frightening, a gathering place for savage spirits, and a weeping place for many people — the genuine, unpleasant qualities of a place where the dead were left, in the ancient Indian context this discourse draws on.

Applied to a person — by their conduct, not their identity

‘In the same way’, the discourse says, an individual (puggala, a gender-neutral term) with filthy conduct by body, speech, and mind shares these same five qualities — but crucially, the basis of the comparison is explicitly named as their own conduct, something chosen and changeable, not an inherited or unchangeable trait.

Each quality explained through its actual social mechanism

Unlike AN 5.229's bare assertion, this discourse walks through exactly how each quality manifests: filthy conduct produces a bad reputation (‘stinking’); good-hearted companions avoid such a person from a distance (‘frightening’); they end up living only among others of similarly poor character (‘gathering place for savage spirits’); and companions who witness this openly lament having to live alongside them (‘weeping place’).

A meaningful contrast with AN 5.229-230

Read against this project's earlier treatment of AN 5.229–230, this discourse's structure is genuinely different in one crucial respect: it applies its unflattering comparison to a person's own actions, available to anyone regardless of who they are, rather than asserting the comparison as true of an entire class of people by nature.

Still worth reading carefully

This discourse remains a harsh comparison, and this guide doesn't soften that; but the difference between ‘these are the consequences of choices anyone could make’ and ‘this is what a whole group of people inherently is’ is a real and significant one, worth naming explicitly rather than passing over.

Key terms

sivathika — “a charnel ground” — this discourse's title concept, a place where the dead were left in the ancient Indian context.
sivathikūpama puggala — “an individual like a charnel ground” — the comparison's direct object, explicitly grounded in conduct, using the gender-neutral term for ‘person’.
asuci kāyakammena, vacīkammena, manokammena samannāgato — “possessing filthy conduct by body, speech, and mind” — the explicit basis of the comparison, one's own actions.
pesalā sabrahmacārī — “good-hearted spiritual companions” — those who avoid, and later lament having to live with, such a person.
vāḷānaṁ amanussānaṁ āvāso — “a gathering place for savage spirits” — both the charnel ground's literal danger and, applied to a person, their tendency to gather with others of similar character.

The text

The discourse in full: five drawbacks of a charnel ground, and the same five, explained, for a person of filthy conduct. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Five drawbacks of a charnel ground

§1“Mendicants, there are these five drawbacks to a charnel ground. What five? It’s filthy, stinking, frightening, a gathering place for savage monsters, and a weeping place for many people. These are the five drawbacks of a charnel ground.

The same five, applied to a person's conduct

§2In the same way there are five drawbacks of an individual like a charnel ground. What five? To start with, an individual has filthy conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. This is how they’re filthy, I say. That individual is just as filthy as a charnel ground. Because of their filthy conduct, they get a bad reputation. This is how they’re stinky, I say. That individual is just as stinky as a charnel ground. Because of their filthy conduct, good-hearted spiritual companions avoid them from afar. That’s how they’re frightening, I say. That individual is just as frightening as a charnel ground. Because of their filthy conduct, they live together with individuals of a similar character. This is how they gather with savage monsters, I say. That individual is just as much a gathering place of savage monsters as a charnel ground. Because of their filthy conduct, when good-hearted spiritual companions see them they complain: ‘Oh, it’s so painful for us to have to live together with such as these.’ This is how there’s weeping, I say. This person is just as much a weeping place for many people as a charnel ground. These are the five drawbacks of an individual like a charnel ground.”

· · ·

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 five qualities does this discourse name for a literal charnel ground?
Correct: A. The genuine, unpleasant qualities of the place this discourse describes.
Question 2 of 10
What is explicitly named as the basis of comparison to a person?
Correct: A. A crucial difference from this project's earlier, harder similes.
Question 3 of 10
How does this discourse explain 'stinking', applied to a person?
Correct: A. Each quality is walked through its actual social mechanism, unlike AN 5.229's bare assertion.
Question 4 of 10
How does this discourse's structure differ meaningfully from AN 5.229-230's?
Correct: A. A real and significant distinction, worth naming explicitly.
Question 5 of 10
What term does this discourse use for the person being compared, and what does that term signal?
Correct: A. Distinct from AN 5.229-230's demographic-specific comparison.
Question 6 of 10
How does 'good-hearted companions' respond to this discourse's 'frightening' quality?
Correct: A. The social mechanism explaining this discourse's third quality.
Question 7 of 10
How does this discourse explain 'a gathering place for savage spirits', applied to a person?
Correct: A. A social consequence, not a supernatural claim about the person.
Question 8 of 10
Does this guide describe this discourse as gentle or free of harshness?
Correct: A. The distinction is real, but the comparison itself is still harsh.
Question 9 of 10
What does 'pesalā sabrahmacārī' mean?
Correct: A. Those who avoid, and later lament living with, a person of filthy conduct.
Question 10 of 10
What chapter does this discourse belong to?
Correct: A. 'Bad Conduct', this session's twenty-fifth chapter.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0