The Buddha alone, addressing the assembled mendicants
Form
Two terms defined as a matched pair, in the same glossary-like style as SN 22.22
Length
under a 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
★☆☆☆☆ — brief and direct, its two definitions worth sitting with despite their brevity
Why this discourse
This discourse is shorter than SN 22.22 but shares its structure closely: two terms, defined one after the other. What should be completely understood (pariññeyyā dhammā) is named plainly as the five aggregates. And complete understanding (pariññā) itself is defined, perhaps surprisingly given how technical the term can sound elsewhere in Abhidhamma-adjacent literature, in the plainest possible terms: the ending of greed, hate, and delusion. The object of understanding and the content of understanding are both named without elaboration, leaving the definition's compactness to do the teaching.
Reading guide
What should be completely understood, named plainly
The discourse's first half answers its own question directly: the things that should be completely understood are form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness — the five aggregates, named here without the “grasping” qualifier SN 22.22 used for “the burden.”
Complete understanding defined by its result, not its process
The discourse's second half is the more striking definition: complete understanding itself is defined not as a cognitive achievement, a specific insight, or a meditative attainment, but as the ending of the three root poisons — greed, hate, and delusion (rāga, dosa, moha). Understanding, on this definition, is measured by what it removes rather than by what additional knowledge it supplies.
A companion piece to SN 22.22's burden imagery
Read next to SN 22.22, this discourse can be seen as supplying the cognitive counterpart to that discourse's physical imagery: where SN 22.22 described craving's taking up and putting down using the concrete image of a carried burden, this discourse names the same underlying process in more abstract, definitional terms — what must be understood, and what understanding itself consists in.
A pattern the vagga will return to
This discourse's two-part definitional structure recurs in miniature throughout the rest of Bhāravagga — SN 22.31's gloom and its root, and SN 22.32's brittle and not-brittle, both share this same short, paired-definition form, distinct from the longer narrative or argued discourses elsewhere in the vagga.
Key terms
pariññeyyā dhammā — “the things that should be completely understood” — named directly as the five aggregates, without the “grasping” qualifier SN 22.22 used.
pariññā — “complete understanding” — defined here not as a cognitive process but by its result: the ending of greed, hate, and delusion.
rāga — “greed” — the first of the three root poisons whose ending constitutes complete understanding.
dosa — “hate” — the second of the three root poisons.
moha — “delusion” — the third of the three root poisons, completing the standard triad found throughout the canon.
The text
The discourse in full. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, I will teach you the things that should be completely understood, and complete understanding. Listen … And what things should be completely understood? Form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. These are called the things that should be completely understood. And what is complete understanding? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called complete understanding.”
· · ·
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 does this discourse name as "the things that should be completely understood"?
Correct: A. The five aggregates, named without the "grasping" qualifier used in SN 22.22.
Question 2 of 10
How is "complete understanding" (pariññā) itself defined in this discourse?
Correct: A. Defined by its result — what it removes — rather than by a cognitive process.
Question 3 of 10
What three root poisons does this discourse name?
Correct: A. The standard triad found throughout the canon.
Question 4 of 10
How does this discourse's structure compare to SN 22.22's?
Correct: A. Two terms defined in sequence, mirroring SN 22.22's four-term structure at smaller scale.
Question 5 of 10
What relationship can this discourse be read as having to SN 22.22's burden imagery?
Correct: A. Both discourses concern the same underlying process, in different registers.
Question 6 of 10
Which other discourses in this vagga share this discourse's short, paired-definition structure?
Correct: A. A recurring short definitional form distinct from the vagga's longer discourses.
Question 7 of 10
How many aggregates does this discourse's definition include?
Correct: A. Named together as a group.
Question 8 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. The default setting for most of this vagga's discourses.
Question 9 of 10
What does this discourse's definition of understanding by its result, rather than its process, emphasize?
Correct: A. A striking definitional choice worth sitting with despite the discourse's brevity.
Question 10 of 10
What discourse comes immediately after this one?
Correct: A. SN 22.24 extends the same vocabulary of understanding into a positive/negative argument.
