The third of four discourses built on the same body-hairs-as-weapon structure
Length
under 1 minute to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — the first discourse in this sequence to name a non-hunting, non-butchery cause
Why this discourse
This discourse continues the sword-spear sequence with arrows: a man whose body hairs are arrows, rising and falling on his own body. The cause named marks a genuine break from the pattern so far — kāraṇika, “a punisher,” the first occupation in this saṃyutta not directly tied to hunting or butchering animals.
Reading guide
The same weapon-and-body structure, a different domain of harm
Arrows replace spears in the identical self-inflicted pattern, but this discourse's cause shifts entirely away from animal killing to human punishment, widening what this saṃyutta treats as producing this specific consequence.
Kāraṇika as an officially sanctioned role, not a private wrong
A punisher or torturer (often understood as someone carrying out judicially sanctioned punishment) represents harm inflicted under some form of social or legal authority, distinct from the private, individual acts of killing named in the discourses before it.
A structural link to the arrows striking his own body
The specific correspondence between inflicting punishment with implements and being struck by arrows growing from his own body carries a directness comparable to SN 19.3's bird hunter now hunted by birds, even though the weapon here is his own hair rather than an external attacker.
Widening the saṃyutta's moral scope beyond animal harm
Every cause named in SN 19.1 through 19.6 involved killing animals; this discourse's punisher introduces harm done to other people as a comparably weighty cause, confirming the saṃyutta's interest extends beyond animal slaughter specifically.
The third of four, approaching the sequence's most elaborate variant
With one more discourse remaining in this run before SN 19.9 breaks the pattern with a significantly more detailed variant, this discourse marks the sequence's approach toward its close.
Key terms
usulomaṁ purisaṁ vehāsaṁ gacchantaṁ — “a man whose body hairs were arrows, flying through the air” — this discourse's title image, continuing the sword-spear-arrow sequence.
kāraṇiko — “a punisher” — the first occupation in this series not tied to hunting or butchering animals, marking a genuine widening of this saṃyutta's causes.
uppatitvā uppatitvā — “rising up again and again” — the same repeated action described in SN 19.5-6, unchanged here.
…pe… — the peyyāla elision mark — the same compression convention continuing from the discourses before this one.
sattamaṁ — “the seventh” — this discourse's closing numbering tag.
The text
The discourse as preserved in the source, elided around SN 19.1's fuller frame narrative. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1“Just now, reverend, as I was descending from Vulture’s Peak Mountain I saw a man whose body hairs were arrows flying through the air. And those arrows kept rising up and falling on his body as he screamed in pain. …” … “That being used to be a punisher right here in Rājagaha. …”
· · ·
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 weapon does this discourse use, continuing the sequence from SN 19.5-6?
Correct: A. Sword, spear, and now arrow, continuing the same self-inflicted body-hairs pattern.
Question 2 of 10
What occupation does this discourse name as the cause?
Correct: A. A genuine break from the animal-killing pattern established in the discourses before it.
Question 3 of 10
How does a punisher's role differ from the private acts of killing named earlier in this saṃyutta?
Correct: A. Distinguishing officially sanctioned harm from the individual killing named in earlier discourses.
Question 4 of 10
What correspondence does this reading guide note between the punisher's past deed and his present torment?
Correct: A. A parallel structure of harm returning in a related form, even without an external attacker.
Question 5 of 10
What does this discourse's cause suggest about the saṃyutta's moral scope?
Correct: A. Widening what this saṃyutta treats as producing this specific consequence.
Question 6 of 10
What position does this discourse hold in the four-part sequence begun at SN 19.5?
Correct: A. One more discourse remains before SN 19.9 breaks the established pattern.
Question 7 of 10
What action does the weapon perform in this discourse, matching SN 19.5-6?
Correct: A. The same repeated, cyclical torment described throughout this four-part sequence.
Question 8 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. The setting shared throughout this saṃyutta.
Question 9 of 10
Who are the two speakers in this discourse?
Correct: A. The same pair continuing throughout this saṃyutta.
