Tatiyaabhabbaṭṭhānasutta — Sītivagga — the ninth chapter of the Sixes, continuing the Second Fifty
Setting
None stated in the source
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
A single six-item list, the third of this tetrad, substantially overlapping AN 6.87's content from earlier in this chapter
Length
under 1 minute to read
Northern parallel
The five heinous deeds as an irreversible barrier to stream-entry recur throughout the Chinese Āgamas and Vinaya literature; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — names the same severe fixed list as AN 6.87, worth checking against that discourse rather than assuming an unrelated new list
Why this discourse
AN 6.94 breaks this tetrad's pattern of unrelated content: checked term by term against AN 6.87 earlier in this same chapter, its five heinous deeds are identical, though now framed as impossibilities for one accomplished in view rather than as obstacles to receiving the teaching, and closing on a different sixth item: dedicating oneself to another teacher.
Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
An individual accomplished in view cannot murder their mother, father, or an arahant; cannot maliciously shed a Buddha's blood; cannot cause a schism in the Saṅgha; and cannot dedicate themselves to another teacher.
The same five heinous deeds as AN 6.87, differently framed
Checked against AN 6.87's list — matricide, patricide, killing an arahant, wounding a Buddha, and causing schism — this discourse's first five substantive items are identical in content. Where AN 6.87 framed them as things blocking someone from stepping onto the sure path while listening to the teaching, this discourse frames them as things the already-accomplished simply cannot do.
A new sixth item, not AN 6.87's intellectual triad
AN 6.87 closed its list with three qualities of intellectual dullness. This discourse instead closes with a single item unique to this framing: an individual accomplished in view cannot dedicate themselves to another teacher (aññaṁ satthāraṁ uddiseyya) — a claim about settled conviction rather than capability, distinct in kind from the preceding five severe acts.
Why the same content recurs under a different frame
As with AN 6.89–91's fetters restated three ways, this discourse's partial overlap with AN 6.87 is not a copying error but a genre convention this collection returns to repeatedly: the same severe content can appear once as an obstacle to be avoided and again as a settled incapacity of the already-accomplished, each serving a distinct rhetorical purpose.
Key terms
mātā vā pitā vā arahaṁ vā — “mother, father, or a perfected one” — identical to AN 6.87's first compressed item, the first three of the five heinous deeds.
Tathāgatassa lohitaṁ uppādeti, saṅghabheda — “sheds a Realized One's blood, causes a schism in the Saṅgha” — the fourth and fifth heinous deeds, identical to AN 6.87.
aññaṁ satthāraṁ uddiseyya — “dedicate themselves to another teacher” — this discourse's own, distinct sixth item, absent from AN 6.87's version of the same five deeds.
diṭṭhisampanna puggalo — “an individual accomplished in view” — the same subject as AN 6.89–91 and this entire tetrad.
abhabbaṭṭhāna — “a thing that can't be done” — this tetrad's shared title term, here applied to content substantially shared with AN 6.87.
The text
The discourse in full: the five heinous deeds plus dedicating oneself to another teacher, named as incapacities. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
Six things that can't be done
§1“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done. What six? An individual accomplished in view can’t murder their mother or father or a perfected one. They can’t maliciously shed the blood of the Realized One. They can’t cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They can’t dedicate themselves to another teacher. These are the six things that can’t be done.”
· · ·
Self-check quiz
7 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 7
How does AN 6.94's content compare to AN 6.87's, checked term by term?
Correct: B. A genuine overlap in content between two discourses in this same chapter.
Question 2 of 7
How does this discourse's framing of the five heinous deeds differ from AN 6.87's?
Correct: B. The same severe content serving two distinct rhetorical purposes across the chapter.
Question 3 of 7
What sixth item closes this discourse's list, replacing AN 6.87's intellectual triad?
Correct: B. A claim about settled conviction, distinct in kind from the five preceding acts.
Question 4 of 7
According to the guide, why does this content recur across two discourses in this same chapter?
Correct: B. A pattern already met with AN 6.89–91's fetters restated three separate ways.
Question 5 of 7
Is a setting stated for AN 6.94?
Correct: B. A bare formula, matching this tetrad's other discourses.
Question 6 of 7
What is the standard term for the fixed set of five deeds this discourse names?
Correct: B. The same heinous-deeds set already named at AN 6.87 earlier in this chapter.
Question 7 of 7
Does AN 6.94 include a paired reversal or negative half?
Correct: B. Matching this tetrad's consistent one-sided form.
