Majjhima Nikāya · Discourse 5

Unblemished

Anaṅgaṇasutta

Setting
Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery, near Sāvatthī
Speakers
Venerable Sāriputta to the assembly, with Venerable Mahāmoggallāna asking questions and offering a closing simile
Form
33 sections in dialogue form. The two foremost disciples — Sāriputta (wisdom) and Mahāmoggallāna (psychic power) — speak together for the first time in the MN
Length
~15 minutes to read
Northern parallel
MA 87 (Madhyama-āgama 87, in the same "stains" chapter as MN 3's parallel)
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — easy to read, painfully easy to recognize yourself in

Why this discourse, fifth

MN 3 introduced Sāriputta speaking after the Buddha leaves. MN 5 takes that one step further: this time Sāriputta speaks without the Buddha appearing at all, and Mahāmoggallāna joins him. It is the first MN discourse where the community's two foremost disciples — the foremost in wisdom and the foremost in psychic power — teach side by side.

The topic is the kind of defilement that is hardest for serious practitioners to see. Not gross greed or hatred — those are obvious — but the subtle ego of monastic life: the wish that you, and not someone else, be the one called on to teach; that you, and not someone else, get the best seat in the refectory; that the laypeople come to honor you, not the colleague in the next cell. Sāriputta lists ten of these wishes with brutal specificity. Anyone who has lived in a community will recognize all ten.

The discourse also delivers one of the canon's most memorable framings of the self-knowledge problem: among practitioners with the same actual condition, the one who knows their condition is better than the one who does not. To know your blemish is the door to giving it up. To not know it — even if there is nothing to know — is to be vulnerable to its formation.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

Among practitioners, what matters is not whether you have a blemish but whether you know — and the subtlest blemishes look exactly like the wishes any serious practitioner is tempted by.

The four-person framework

Sāriputta opens by laying out four kinds of person:

#Has a blemish?Knows it?Verdict
1YesNoWorse
2YesYesBetter (of the two with a blemish)
3NoNoWorse
4NoYesBetter (of the two without)

The framework is counter-intuitive at first. We usually rate people by their condition, not by what they know about their condition. Sāriputta's verdict is the opposite: within each pair, knowing trumps not-knowing. The unblemished person who doesn't know they're unblemished — type 3 — is judged worse than the blemished person who knows they are — type 2. Mahāmoggallāna's question, naturally, is: why?

The bronze cup similes — why knowing matters

Sāriputta answers with four parallel similes, one for each type:

CupTreatmentOutcome
DirtyKept in a dirty place, never cleanedGets dirtier
DirtyUsed and cleaned regularlyGets cleaner
CleanKept in a dirty place, never used or cleanedGets dirty
CleanUsed and cleaned regularlyStays bright

The mechanism is direct. Knowing your blemish moves you to act on it — to "generate enthusiasm, make an effort, rouse up energy" to give it up. Not knowing leaves the blemish to grow, regardless of how light it began. Even a clean cup will get dirty in a dirty place if no one notices and tends to it. Type 3 — the unblemished person unaware of being unblemished — will dwell on attractive surfaces, "focus on the feature of beauty," and let lust enter the mind. Without awareness, even purity decays.

What "blemish" means

Mahāmoggallāna then asks the obvious follow-up: "What is 'blemish' a term for?" Sāriputta's answer is precise: "'Blemish' is a term for the spheres of bad, unskillful wishes." Not gross defilements like greed and hatred — those will be named later — but wishes. The blemish is the subtle preferring of self over not-self in any specific situation. It begins as a wish; if frustrated, becomes anger and bitterness; and that anger and bitterness, Sāriputta says, are the blemishes.

The ten bad wishes — the politics of a sangha

Sāriputta then lists ten specific wishes that arise in monastic life. Read them slowly:

  1. "I hope no one finds out if I commit an offense."
  2. "If they find out, I hope I'm accused in private, not in the middle of the Saṅgha."
  3. "If accused, I hope it's by a peer, not by someone who is not a peer."
  4. "I hope the Teacher questions me alone, not some other monk."
  5. "I hope I'm placed at the front when the monks enter the village for the meal."
  6. "I hope I get the best seat, the best drink, and the best almsfood in the refectory."
  7. "I hope it's me who gives the verses of appreciation after the meal."
  8. "I hope it's me who teaches the laity in the monastery."
  9. "I hope it's me whom the laypeople honor, respect, revere, and venerate."
  10. "I hope I get the nicest robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines."

For each, Sāriputta gives the structural completion: the wish goes unfulfilled, the monk gets angry and bitter, and that anger and that bitterness are blemishes. The list is uncomfortable because the wishes are so reasonable on their surface. None of them is gross sensual greed. Each is the kind of preference any person in a community will recognize having held — the wish to be the one chosen, recognized, asked, served.

The two great similes — what others see

Sāriputta closes the teaching with two contrasting images that frame how others perceive the blemished and the unblemished practitioner.

The carcass cup (§29). A bright bronze cup, brought clean from the smithy, but filled with the carcass of a snake, a dog, or a human and covered with a lid. Paraded through the market. People see the polished outside and say, "What is it you're carrying like a precious treasure?" The lid is lifted. Loathing, revulsion, disgust. Even the hungry will not eat from it.

This is the practitioner whose outer austerity (forest-dwelling, alms-going, rag-robes, shabby robes) is visible but whose unskillful wishes remain. The community sees through the polish. Their spiritual companions do not honor them — not because of any failure in the outward forms, but because the inner spoilage is detectable.

The fine-rice cup (§30). The same bright cup, now filled with carefully cleaned rice, soups, and sauces. Paraded through the market. The lid is lifted. Liking, attraction, relish. Even the replete want to eat from it.

This is the practitioner whose outer life may be ordinary (village-dwelling, accepting meal invitations, wearing householder-offered robes), but whose unskillful wishes are gone. Their spiritual companions honor them — not because of the outer marks, but because the inner cleanness is detectable.

Together the two similes do something subtle: they decouple visible austerity from actual purity. A community can be fooled momentarily by the surface; over time, it sees what is inside. The teaching is also a warning to any monastic tempted to use forms of asceticism as a stage prop — Sāriputta is naming the temptation directly.

Mahāmoggallāna's wheelwright simile

The discourse ends with an unexpected turn. Mahāmoggallāna says a simile has struck him, and Sāriputta invites him to share it. Mahāmoggallāna recalls watching a wheelwright named Samīti planing a chariot-wheel rim. A bystander, the ascetic Paṇḍuputta (himself a former wheelwright), silently thought, "I hope he planes out exactly the flaws I can see — the crooks, the bends, the imperfections in the core." And the wheelwright, working freely, planed them out precisely as the watcher had hoped. The bystander, amazed, exclaimed: "He planes like he knows my heart with his heart!"

Mahāmoggallāna applies the simile to Sāriputta: the faithless monastic who entered the order for material reasons is being planed by this very discourse. Sāriputta's teaching, like the wheelwright's hand, removes exactly the flaws a careful observer would have wanted removed. The discourse ends with Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna agreeing with each other's fine words — the only place in the Majjhima Nikāya where two senior disciples close a discourse in mutual appreciation.

A modern parallel

The ten wishes are not specific to monastics. Any professional community runs on a version of them: I hope I'm the one consulted on this case; I hope I'm asked to speak; I hope my work is noticed; I hope my office is the better one. The discourse's diagnostic power is that it names these wishes as wishes, not as ambitions or healthy professional pride. The mark of a blemish is not the content of the wish but its structure: I want this for me, and not for someone else. The remedy is not to suppress ambition but to recognize the structure when it arises — and to notice that frustration of these wishes is what hardens into anger and bitterness.

Three questions Western students often ask

"Isn't this list just naming healthy professional ambition? Aren't some of these wishes okay?" The discourse's framing is precise. The blemish is not the wish that any particular outcome happen, but the wish that it happen for me and not for someone else. A monastic who wishes the Dharma be taught well in this assembly does not have a blemish. A monastic who wishes they personally teach it, and is angered when another is chosen, does.

"Why is the unblemished person who doesn't know that they're unblemished judged worse than the blemished one who knows?" Because the unblemished-unaware person, lacking the discipline of self-examination, will drift into blemish. Sāriputta says they will "focus on the feature of beauty," and lust will enter the mind. Without ongoing awareness, the cup will get dirty in the dirty room — even a clean cup. Purity that is not held in awareness is purity that will not last.

"What does it mean that Mahāmoggallāna's simile is praised at the end? Isn't Sāriputta the teacher here?" The closing — "these two spiritual giants agreed with each others' fine words" — is a quiet structural statement about the maturity of the sangha. The two foremost disciples can teach side by side, each adding to the other's exposition, without rank or rivalry. MN 3 showed that the Dharma is not in the Buddha's voice alone. MN 5 shows that even among the senior disciples it is collaborative.

Key terms

aṅgaṇa — blemish, stain. Literally a mark on otherwise clean ground. In this discourse, a term for the subtle "spheres of bad, unskillful wishes" that arise in a serious practitioner.
anaṅgaṇa — unblemished. The title of the discourse. The privative an- + aṅgaṇa: a practitioner whose wishes for self-over-other have been given up.
pāpaka akusala icchā — bad, unskillful wishes. The specific term Sāriputta uses to define what a "blemish" is. The three words together: pāpaka (harmful) + akusala (unskillful) + icchā (wish, desire). Together they cover the full register of subtle preferring.
kodha — anger. What arises when an unfulfilled wish is recognized as unfulfilled. Sāriputta is clear: that anger, and the bitterness that follows, are themselves the blemishes.
upanāha — bitterness, resentment, "grudge held." The companion to anger, often translated as the hardening of anger over time. Both are listed as blemishes.
brāhmaṇa — in the discourse used in its old sense: a person of true spiritual worth (not the social caste). Sāriputta uses "spiritual companions" (sabrahmacārī) — those living the holy life alongside the practitioner — for who sees and judges.
subhanimitta — the "feature of beauty," the sign of the beautiful. What the unblemished-unaware practitioner focuses on, and through which lust enters the mind. The technical Pāli term for what an undefended attention rests on.
sabrahmacārī — spiritual companions, fellow practitioners. The community whose perception of the practitioner is the implicit audience of the entire discourse: the practitioner's sabrahmacārī are the ones who do or do not honor them.

The text

MN 5 has 33 sections in three movements: the four-person framework with its four bronze-cup similes (§§1–8), Sāriputta's definition of "blemish" with the ten specific wishes and the two contrasting cup similes (§§9–30), and Mahāmoggallāna's wheelwright simile with Sāriputta's closing exposition (§§31–33). Some of the ten wish-examples (§§18–24, 26–27) are abbreviated in Sujato's print form. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

The four-person framework

§1So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. There Sāriputta addressed the mendicants: "Reverends, mendicants!" "Reverend," they replied. Sāriputta said this:

§2"Reverends, these four individuals are found in the world. What four? One individual with a blemish doesn't truly understand: 'There is a blemish in me.' But another individual with a blemish does truly understand: 'There is a blemish in me.' One individual without a blemish doesn't truly understand: 'There is no blemish in me.' But another individual without a blemish does truly understand: 'There is no blemish in me.' In this case, of the two individuals with a blemish, the one who doesn't understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is better. And of the two individuals without a blemish, the one who doesn't understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is better."

§3When he said this, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna said to him: "What is the cause, Reverend Sāriputta, what is the reason why, of the two individuals with a blemish, one is said to be worse and one better? And what is the cause, what is the reason why, of the two individuals without a blemish, one is said to be worse and one better?"

The four bronze-cup similes

§4"Reverends, take the case of the individual who has a blemish and does not understand it. You can expect that they won't generate enthusiasm, make an effort, or rouse up energy to give up that blemish. And they will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted mind. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy covered with dirt or stains. And the owners neither used it or had it cleaned, but kept it in a dirty place. Over time, wouldn't that bronze cup get even dirtier and more stained?" "Yes, reverend." "In the same way, take the case of the individual who has a blemish and does not understand it. You can expect that … they will die with a corrupted mind.

§5Take the case of the individual who has a blemish and does understand it. You can expect that they will generate enthusiasm, make an effort, and rouse up energy to give up that blemish. And they will die without greed, hate, and delusion, unblemished, with an uncorrupted mind. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy covered with dirt or stains. But the owners used it and had it cleaned, and didn't keep it in a dirty place. Over time, wouldn't that bronze cup get cleaner and brighter?" "Yes, reverend." "In the same way, take the case of the individual who has a blemish and does understand it. You can expect that … they will die with an uncorrupted mind.

§6Take the case of the individual who doesn't have a blemish but does not understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind. And they will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted mind. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy clean and bright. And the owners neither used it or had it cleaned, but kept it in a dirty place. Over time, wouldn't that bronze cup get dirtier and more stained?" "Yes, reverend." "In the same way, take the case of the individual who has no blemish and does not understand it. You can expect that … they will die with a corrupted mind.

§7Take the case of the individual who doesn't have a blemish and does understand it. You can expect that they won't focus on the feature of beauty, and because of that, lust won't infect their mind. And they will die without greed, hate, and delusion, unblemished, with an uncorrupted mind. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy clean and bright. And the owners used it and had it cleaned, and didn't keep it in a dirty place. Over time, wouldn't that bronze cup get cleaner and brighter?" "Yes, reverend." "In the same way, take the case of the individual who doesn't have a blemish and does understand it. You can expect that … they will die with an uncorrupted mind.

§8This is the cause, this is the reason why, of the two individuals with a blemish, one is said to be worse and one better. And this is the cause, this is the reason why, of the two individuals without a blemish, one is said to be worse and one better."

What "blemish" means

§9"Reverend, the word 'blemish' is spoken of. But what is 'blemish' a term for?" "Reverend, 'blemish' is a term for the spheres of bad, unskillful wishes.

§10It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'If I commit an offense, I hope the mendicants don't find out!' But it's possible that the mendicants do find out that that mendicant has committed an offense. Thinking, 'The mendicants have found out about my offense,' they get angry and bitter. And that anger and that bitterness are both blemishes.

§11It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'If I commit an offense, I hope the mendicants accuse me in private, not in the middle of the Saṅgha.' But it's possible that the mendicants do accuse that mendicant in the middle of the Saṅgha …

§12It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'If I commit an offense, I hope I'm accused by a peer, not by someone who is not a peer.' But it's possible that someone who is not a peer accuses that mendicant …

§13It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'Oh, I hope the Teacher will teach the mendicants by repeatedly questioning me alone, not some other mendicant.' But it's possible that the Teacher will teach the mendicants by repeatedly questioning some other mendicant …

§14It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'Oh, I hope the mendicants will enter the village for the meal putting me at the very front, not some other mendicant.' But it's possible that the mendicants will enter the village for the meal putting some other mendicant at the very front …

§15It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'Oh, I hope that I alone get the best seat, the best drink, and the best almsfood in the refectory, not some other mendicant.' But it's possible that some other mendicant gets the best seat, the best drink, and the best almsfood in the refectory …

§16It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'I hope that I alone give the verses of appreciation after eating in the refectory, not some other mendicant.' But it's possible that some other mendicant gives the verses of appreciation after eating in the refectory …

§17It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'Oh, I hope that I might teach the Dhamma to the monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen in the monastery, not some other mendicant.'

§§18–20 — The same wish-and-frustration structure, repeated for: the mendicants teaching others instead, the nuns teaching, the laymen teaching, the laywomen teaching. Each ends with the same conclusion: anger and bitterness arise; that anger and that bitterness are blemishes.

§21It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'Oh, I hope that the monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen will honor, respect, revere, and venerate me alone, not some other mendicant.'

§§22–24 — Repeated for the four communities (monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen) honoring some other mendicant instead. Same conclusion: anger, bitterness, blemishes.

§25It's possible that some mendicant might wish: 'I hope I get the nicest robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick, not some other mendicant.' But it's possible that some other mendicant gets the nicest robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick …

§§26–27Thinking, 'Some other mendicant has got the nicest robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick', they get angry and bitter. And that anger and that bitterness are both blemishes.

§28'Blemish' is a term for these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes.

What others see — the carcass cup and the fine-rice cup

§29Suppose these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be not given up by a mendicant. Even though they dwell in the wilderness, in remote lodgings, eat only almsfood, wander indiscriminately for almsfood, wear rag robes, and wear shabby robes, their spiritual companions don't honor, respect, revere, and venerate them. Why is that? It's because these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be not given up by that venerable. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy clean and bright. The owners were to prepare it with the carcass of a snake, a dog, or a human, cover it with a bronze lid, and parade it through the market-place. When people saw it they'd say: 'Oh my, what is it that you're carrying like a precious treasure?' So they'd open up the lid for people to look inside. But as soon as they saw it they were filled with loathing, revulsion, and disgust. Not even those who were hungry wanted to eat it, let alone those who were replete. In the same way, when these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be not given up by a mendicant … their spiritual companions don't honor, respect, revere, and venerate them. Why is that? It's because these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be not given up by that venerable.

§30Suppose these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be given up by a mendicant. Even though they dwell within a village, accept invitations to a meal, and wear robes offered by householders, their spiritual companions honor, respect, revere, and venerate them. Why is that? It's because these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be given up by that venerable. Suppose a bronze cup was brought from a shop or smithy clean and bright. The owners were to prepare it with boiled fine rice with the dark grains picked out and served with many soups and sauces, cover it with a bronze lid, and parade it through the market-place. When people saw it they'd say: 'Oh my, what is it that you're carrying like a precious treasure?' So they'd open up the lid for people to look inside. And as soon as they saw it they were filled with liking, attraction, and relish. Even those who were replete wanted to eat it, let alone those who were hungry. In the same way, when these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be given up by a mendicant … their spiritual companions honor, respect, revere, and venerate them. Why is that? It's because these spheres of bad, unskillful wishes are seen and heard to be given up by that venerable."

Mahāmoggallāna's wheelwright simile

§31When he said this, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna said to him, "Reverend Sāriputta, a simile strikes me." "Then speak as you feel inspired," said Sāriputta. "Reverend, this one time I was staying right here in Rājagaha, the Mountainfold. Then I robed up in the morning and, taking my bowl and robe, entered Rājagaha for alms. Now at that time Samīti of the wainwrights was planing the rim of a chariot wheel. The Ājīvaka ascetic Paṇḍuputta, who was formerly of the wainwrights, was standing by, and this thought came to his mind: 'Oh, I hope Samīti the wainwright planes out the crooks, bends, and flaws in this rim. Then the rim will be rid of crooks, bends, and flaws, pure, and consolidated in the core.' And Samīti planed out the flaws in the rim just as Paṇḍuputta thought. Then Paṇḍuputta expressed his gladness: 'He planes like he knows my heart with his heart!'

§32In the same way, there are those faithless individuals who went forth from the lay life to homelessness not out of faith but to earn a livelihood. They're devious, deceitful, and sneaky. They're restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, and loose-tongued. They do not guard their sense doors or eat in moderation, and they are not dedicated to wakefulness. They don't care about the ascetic life, and don't keenly respect the training. They're indulgent and slack, leaders in backsliding, neglecting seclusion, lazy, and lacking energy. They're unmindful, lacking situational awareness and immersion, with straying minds, witless and idiotic. Venerable Sāriputta planes their faults with this exposition of the teaching as if he knows my heart with his heart! But there are those gentlemen who went forth from the lay life to homelessness out of faith. They're not devious, deceitful, and sneaky. They're not restless, insolent, fickle, scurrilous, and loose-tongued. They guard their sense doors and eat in moderation, and they are dedicated to wakefulness. They care about the ascetic life, and keenly respect the training. They're not indulgent or slack, nor are they leaders in backsliding, neglecting seclusion. They're energetic and determined. They're mindful, with situational awareness, immersion, and unified minds; wise and clever. Hearing this exposition of the teaching from Venerable Sāriputta, they drink it up and devour it, as it were. And in speech and thought they say: 'It's good, sirs, that he draws his spiritual companions away from the unskillful and establishes them in the skillful.'

§33Suppose there was a woman or man who was young, youthful, and fond of adornments, and had bathed their head. Presented with a garland of lotuses, jasmine, or liana flowers, they would take them in both hands and place them on the crown of the head. In the same way, those gentlemen who went forth from the lay life to homelessness out of faith … say: 'It's good, sirs, that he draws his spiritual companions away from the unskillful and establishes them in the skillful.'"

And so these two spiritual giants agreed with each others' fine words.

· · ·

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
Who delivers MN 5, and who else speaks in it?
Correct: C. This is the first MN discourse where two senior disciples teach side by side — the foremost in wisdom and the foremost in psychic power. Continues the structural move begun in MN 3, where Sāriputta first spoke after the Buddha withdrew.
Question 2 of 10
The opening four-person framework distinguishes four kinds of person. What two variables generate them?
Correct: C. Two binary axes: blemish present or absent, awareness of it present or absent. Four combinations.
Question 3 of 10
Within each pair (blemished, or unblemished), which person does Sāriputta judge as better?
Correct: B. Even the unblemished-unaware person is judged worse than the blemished-aware one. The discourse is making a counter-intuitive claim: knowledge of your condition matters more than the condition itself. Awareness is what moves you to act — to clean the cup, or to keep it clean.
Question 4 of 10
Sāriputta gives four bronze-cup similes — one for each type of person. Which outcome is correctly matched?
Correct: D. The four outcomes follow strict cause-and-effect: kept in a dirty place + not cleaned → dirtier; used + cleaned → cleaner. The cup's starting condition matters less than how it is then treated. The same is true of the practitioner: the blemished-aware practitioner who works on their blemishes is moving toward purity, regardless of where they started.
Question 5 of 10
When Mahāmoggallāna asks what "blemish" is a term for, Sāriputta answers precisely. What does he say?
Correct: C. Pāpaka akusala icchā — bad, unskillful wishes. Sāriputta is being specific. The blemish is not the gross defilement but the subtle preferring of self over not-self in any given situation. It begins as a wish; when frustrated, becomes anger and bitterness; and that anger and bitterness are themselves the blemishes.
Question 6 of 10
Which of the following is NOT among the ten specific wishes Sāriputta lists?
Correct: D. The first three are all explicitly on Sāriputta's list. The fourth is plausible-sounding but not in the discourse — Sāriputta's ten wishes are all about social recognition within monastic life, not meditative attainment. The blemish is the wish for self-over-other in community matters, where it is hardest to see.
Question 7 of 10
The "carcass cup" simile (§29) makes a specific point about appearances. What is it?
Correct: B. The cup is bright; the contents are putrid. A practitioner can be visibly austere (forest, alms, rag robes) but inwardly full of the wishes Sāriputta has just listed. Their spiritual companions, over time, see what is inside. The simile is also a warning to any monastic tempted to use forms of asceticism as performance.
Question 8 of 10
In Mahāmoggallāna's wheelwright simile, the ascetic Paṇḍuputta watches Samīti planing a wheel rim and exclaims, "He planes like he knows my heart with his heart!" What is Mahāmoggallāna's point?
Correct: C. The simile is praise for Sāriputta's exposition: it does the work of "planing out" the faithless practitioner's faults precisely, as if reading the hearts of those who can see clearly. The discourse's faults-list (§32) is the planing the simile names.
Question 9 of 10
How does the discourse end?
Correct: B. A unique closing. The two senior disciples mutually approve each other's teaching. The phrase "two spiritual giants" (lit. nāgā, "great beings") signals what the canon's editors are doing — placing this discourse as the first demonstration that the sangha's senior leadership is itself capable of carrying and refining the Dharma in dialogue.
Question 10 of 10
A scenario. You are at a team meeting at work. You realize you are silently hoping that the senior partner calls on YOU to explain the case, not on your colleague. Is this a blemish in Sāriputta's sense?
Correct: C. The blemish is structural, not professional. The wish that the Dharma be well taught in this assembly is not a blemish. The wish that you in particular teach it, and the bitterness that arises if you don't, is. The discourse generalizes far beyond the monastic context — any community where recognition is distributed (work, academia, family) runs on a version of these ten wishes.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0