Itivuttaka · Discourse 30

Mortifying

Tapanīyasutta

Collection
Book of the Twos (Dukanipāta), Chapter One — Iti 30 of this book
Setting
No location or interlocutor is given — only the Itivuttaka’s stock opening and closing formula
Form
A prose statement naming two mortifying things, then a two-quatrain verse restating the point and naming its final consequence
Length
< 1 minute to read
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — short and direct

Why this discourse, thirtieth

It would be easy to assume that regret over wrongdoing and regret over missed goodness are really the same feeling wearing two names. This discourse treats them as genuinely separate: two distinct things it calls mortifying, each capable of scorching a person’s peace of mind on its own, whether or not the other is present as well.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

There are two mortifying things: someone who has not done good and skillful deeds that keep them safe, but has done bad deeds, violence, and sin, is mortified by the thought “I haven’t done good things” and mortified again by the thought “I have done bad things” — two separate torments named together.

A burning word

The discourse’s title, tapanīya, “mortifying,” shares its root with tapa, the word for ascetic austerity or self-imposed burning effort. There is a quiet irony in the connection: the “burning” described here is not a disciplined practice chosen for spiritual purposes, but an involuntary self-reproach that simply arises, unbidden, in someone who has neglected good conduct and taken up bad conduct instead. It is a kind of heat a person inflicts on themselves through neglect, rather than one they take on deliberately.

Two separate torments, not one

It would be easy to read “not having done good” and “having done bad” as two descriptions of a single failing. The discourse is careful to keep them apart: “thinking, ‘I haven’t done good things,’ they’re mortified; thinking, ‘I have done bad things,’ they’re mortified.” Each thought is presented as producing its own distinct mortification. This matters because it means the discourse is not only concerned with active wrongdoing; simply failing to build up good, protective qualities is treated as its own separate source of later regret, even apart from whatever bad deeds were or weren’t committed.

The verse’s final line

The verse extends the prose’s two-part diagnosis into a stated consequence: having done bad by way of body, speech, and mind, “and whatever else is corrupt,” not having done good deeds, and having done much bad, “that witless person” is reborn in hell when the body breaks up. The verse’s language is stronger than the prose’s — where the prose stays with the felt experience of mortification in the present, the verse follows the pattern through to its result after death, using the same stock “body breaks up” formula found across this collection.

Presumably one half of another pair

Following the pattern already established at the very start of this book — Iti 28 and Iti 29, on living in suffering and living in happiness — this discourse’s title and content strongly suggest it is meant to be read alongside a positive counterpart. The Itivuttaka’s table of contents lists exactly such a discourse immediately next, titled “Not Mortifying,” which would be expected to name the reverse condition: having done good, and refrained from bad, as free of this particular self-reproach.

Key terms

tapanīya — “mortifying, scorching with remorse”: the discourse’s title, sharing a root with tapa, ascetic burning effort.
akatakalyāṇo, akatakusalo — “one who hasn’t done good, hasn’t done skillful things”: the first half of the two-part diagnosis.
katapāpo, kataluddo, katakibbiso — “one who has done bad, done violence, done sin”: the second half, describing active wrongdoing rather than mere omission.
duppañño — “witless, lacking wisdom”: the verse’s description of the person who ends up reborn in hell.
niraya — “hell”: the stated destination in the verse’s closing line, reached “when the body breaks up.”

The text

The discourse in full: the prose naming the two mortifying things, and the verse extending the diagnosis to its result. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.

§2“These two things, mendicants, are mortifying. What two? It’s when someone hasn’t done good and skillful things that keep them safe, but has done bad things, violence and sin. Thinking, ‘I haven’t done good things’, they’re mortified. Thinking, ‘I have done bad things’, they’re mortified. These are the two things that are mortifying.”

The Buddha spoke this matter. On this it is said:

§3“Having done bad things
by way of body,
speech, and mind,
and whatever else is corrupt;

§4not having done good deeds,
and having done many bad,
when their body breaks up, that witless person
is reborn in hell.”

§5This too is a matter that was spoken by the Blessed One: that is what I heard.

· · ·

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 two things does this discourse name as “mortifying”?
Correct: C. The two things named explicitly in the prose.
Question 2 of 10
According to the reading guide, does the discourse treat “not having done good” and “having done bad” as the same feeling?
Correct: B. “Thinking, ‘I haven’t done good things’, they’re mortified. Thinking, ‘I have done bad things’, they’re mortified” — two separate statements.
Question 3 of 10
What does the reading guide note about the word tapanīya, “mortifying”?
Correct: A. A quiet irony: the same root describes both disciplined ascetic burning and involuntary regret.
Question 4 of 10
What does the verse add regarding bad deeds?
Correct: D. The verse broadens the bad deeds to all three doors of action: body, speech, and mind.
Question 5 of 10
What final consequence does the verse state?
Correct: B. The verse follows the pattern through to its result after death.
Question 6 of 10
What word does the verse use to describe the person reborn in hell?
Correct: C. “When their body breaks up, that witless person is reborn in hell.”
Question 7 of 10
According to the reading guide, what discourse does the Itivuttaka’s table of contents list immediately after this one?
Correct: A. Following the Iti 28/29 pattern, a positive counterpart titled “Not Mortifying” is listed next in the collection.
Question 8 of 10
Where does this discourse sit in the Itivuttaka?
Correct: D. Iti 30, in the same opening chapter as Iti 28 and 29.
Question 9 of 10
What kind of good deeds does the prose say this mortified person has failed to do?
Correct: B. “Hasn’t done good and skillful things that keep them safe.”
Question 10 of 10
What closing formula ends the discourse?
Correct: C. The standard closing formula shared by every discourse in the collection.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0