With Ghoṭamukha

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

Of four kinds of person — one who torments himself, one who torments others, one who torments both, and one who torments neither — the last is best, for all beings want happiness and recoil from pain; and that person, who harms no one, is found among those gone forth and is perfected by the whole gradual path, “living without wishes, quenched, cooled, experiencing bliss.”

The four kinds of person

Udena’s framework sorts the religious and worldly lives of his time by a single question: who gets hurt? The four are:

The sorting is morally clarifying. Self-mortification and animal sacrifice were, in the brahmanical and ascetic world, respected forms of religious seriousness; here they are placed in the same category as the butcher and the executioner, judged by the suffering they cause. Holiness is not measured by how much one suffers or how grand the ritual, but by whether anyone — oneself or another — is being tormented.

The criterion the brahmin gives

Ghoṭamukha’s reason for preferring the fourth person is the ethical heart of the discourse, and he states it himself: each of the first three torments a being “even though they want to be happy and recoil from pain.” The self-mortifier hurts himself, though he too wants happiness; the cruel-livelihood man hurts others, though they too want happiness; the sacrificer hurts both. Only the fourth tortures no one. The principle is universal and disarmingly simple: every being, without exception, wants to be happy and shrinks from pain — and so a way of life is good or bad according to whether it respects that universal wish or violates it. This is the same root from which loving-kindness grows (“as I wish to be happy, so do all beings”), and the same standard the Buddha gives Rāhula in MN 61: judge an act by whether it harms. That a skeptical brahmin arrives at this criterion on his own shows how natural it is — it is not an esoteric doctrine but a moral intuition anyone can recognise once it is named.

The skeptic refuted by himself

Having drawn out the brahmin’s preference, Udena springs a gentle trap. “That fourth person — in which group do you usually find him: among householders obsessed with possessions, or among those who have gone forth?” “Among those who have gone forth,” Ghoṭamukha answers without thinking. And Udena simply holds up the contradiction: “Just now you said there is no such thing as a principled renunciate life.” The brahmin has, by his own admission, located the best of the four kinds of person in precisely the renunciate life he claimed was a sham. He concedes at once: “There is such a thing as a principled renunciate life; that is what I now think.” The cynicism dissolves not because it was out-argued, but because the brahmin’s own values, followed honestly, pointed the other way. He had dismissed the holy life in the abstract while quietly admiring exactly what it produces.

The path that harms no one

Asked to explain the fourth person in detail, Udena lays out the entire gradual training — the same arc found in MN 51 and MN 27. A Realized One arises; a person hears the teaching, goes forth, and undertakes the noble ethics — refraining from killing, stealing, lying, harsh and divisive speech, from accepting money, goods, or beings, from cruel and dishonest trades; content “like a bird, whose wings are its only burden”; guarding the senses; mindful in every act; abandoning the five hindrances; entering the four absorptions; and finally realising the three knowledges — past lives, the divine eye, and the ending of the defilements — until “rebirth is ended.” The detail matters here for one reason: every step of this path is a step in not harming. It begins with harmlessness toward all beings and ends in a freedom that troubles no one, including oneself — the perfect realisation of the fourth person. The holy life is not, as Ghoṭamukha first thought, a pretentious austerity; it is the one way of living that fully honours the wish of every being to be happy and free of pain.

Udena’s humility, and the gift redirected

Convinced, Ghoṭamukha goes for refuge “to Udena” — and Udena, like Mahākaccāna in MN 84, refuses the honour: “Do not go for refuge to me; go to the Buddha to whom I went for refuge.” “Where is he?” “He has attained final extinguishment.” So this is the world after the Buddha, in which the refuge must be taken in a teacher no longer present — and Ghoṭamukha takes it gladly: “If the Buddha were a hundred leagues away I would go to see him; since he is quenched, I go for refuge to that quenched Buddha.” Then a small, telling coda on giving. The brahmin offers Udena his royal daily allowance; Udena declines (monks take no money). He offers to build Udena a dwelling; Udena redirects it: “Build an assembly hall for the Saṅgha at Pāṭaliputta.” Ghoṭamukha is delighted — “now I am even more pleased, since you turn me toward giving to the community” — and builds the hall still known, the text notes, as “the Ghoṭamukhī.” A monk who wants nothing for himself, who turns every honour and gift away from his own person and toward the Buddha and the Saṅgha, is the living proof of the fourth person he has just described — the one who, harming and grasping at nothing, is content like a bird with only its wings to carry.

Key terms