Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
None of six outward mendicant categories — wilderness dwelling, village dwelling, eating only almsfood, accepting invitations, wearing rag robes, or wearing robes offered by householders — determines whether a mendicant is praiseworthy or reprehensible; what determines it, in every category, is whether that mendicant is restless and undisciplined or mindful and composed.
A gentle but direct correction of a donor's confidence
The Buddha does not reject Dārukammika's generosity or his intention; he specifically challenges the criteria Dārukammika uses to select recipients, pointing out that a comfortable lay life — sandalwood, garlands, gold — makes it “hard for you to know who is perfected or on the path to perfection” simply because that lay life gives no direct access to another person's inner state.
Six categories, one shared criterion applied to each
The Buddha runs through six mendicant circumstances in parallel — wilderness or village dwelling, eating only almsfood or accepting invitations, wearing rag robes or householder-donated robes — and for every single one, states the identical structure: if the mendicant is “restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, loose-tongued,” they are reprehensible regardless of category; if they have “established mindfulness, situational awareness and immersion,” they are praiseworthy regardless of category.
Undermining, not reversing, a simple hierarchy
The discourse does not argue that village-dwelling or householder-robed mendicants are actually better than their wilderness or rag-robed counterparts — that would simply invert the mistake. It insists instead that the category itself carries no information at all about the individual's actual conduct, in either direction.
A conversion built on correction, not doctrine
The discourse closes with the Buddha's direct encouragement — “go ahead, householder, give gifts to the Saṅgha” — and Dārukammika's resolution to do so from that day forward. Unlike several other conversions in this chapter and the last, this one follows not a doctrinal argument or a demonstrated meditative point but a practical correction of how to select whom to give to.
Key terms
The text
Dārukammika's giving practice
§1So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Ñātika in the brick house. Then the householder Dārukammika went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him, “Householder, I wonder whether your family gives gifts?” “It does, sir. Gifts are given to those mendicants who are perfected or on the path to perfection; they live in the wilderness, eat only almsfood, and wear rag robes.” “Householder, as a layman enjoying sensual pleasures, living at home with your children, using sandalwood imported from Kāsi, wearing garlands, fragrance, and makeup, and accepting gold and currency, it’s hard for you to know who is perfected or on the path to perfection.
Wilderness and village; almsfood and invitations
§2If a mendicant living in the wilderness is restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, loose-tongued, unmindful, lacking situational awareness and immersion, with straying mind and undisciplined faculties, then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant living in the wilderness is not restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, or loose-tongued, but has established mindfulness, situational awareness and immersion, with unified mind and restrained faculties, then in this respect they’re praiseworthy. If a mendicant who lives within a village is restless … then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant who lives within a village is not restless … then in this respect they’re praiseworthy. If a mendicant who eats only almsfood is restless … then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant who eats only almsfood is not restless … then in this respect they’re praiseworthy. If a mendicant who accepts invitations is restless … then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant who accepts invitations is not restless … then in this respect they’re praiseworthy.
Rag robes and householder-donated robes; the conclusion
§3If a mendicant who wears rag robes is restless … then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant who wears rag robes is not restless … then in this respect they’re praiseworthy. If a mendicant who wears robes offered by householders is restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, loose-tongued, unmindful, lacking situational awareness and immersion, with straying mind and undisciplined faculties, then in this respect they’re reprehensible. If a mendicant who wears robes offered by householders is not restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, or loose-tongued, but has established mindfulness, situational awareness and immersion, with unified mind and restrained faculties, then in this respect they’re praiseworthy. Go ahead, householder, give gifts to the Saṅgha. Your mind will become bright and clear, and when your body breaks up, after death, you’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.” “Sir, from this day forth I will give gifts to the Saṅgha.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.