Saṃyutta Nikāya · Discourse 24.6

Acting

Karotosutta — Sotāpattivagga

Setting
Sāvatthī
Speakers
The Buddha addressing the mendicants
Form
A view asserting that no action, however extreme, carries moral consequence, diagnosed by the standard catechism
Length
~2 minutes 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 view's imagery is disturbing, though the diagnostic that follows is by now familiar

Why this discourse

The second of four consecutive discourses examining doctrine closely matching a named teacher in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) — here, a view asserting that action itself carries no moral weight whatsoever, closely tracking the amoralism (akiriyavāda, "the doctrine of non-doing") DN 2 attributes to Pūraṇa Kassapa. Where SN 24.5 denied that giving or karma have any meaning, this discourse goes further: neither virtue nor atrocity produces any outcome at all.

Reading guide

No wrong in punishment, torture, or theft

"The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate..." — extending through killing, theft, burglary, highway robbery, adultery, and lying, each declared to produce "no evil... and no outcome of evil."

An escalation into the grotesque

The view intensifies through two vivid images: reducing every living creature on earth to "one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram" produces no evil outcome, and going along the Ganges killing and torturing while encouraging others to do the same likewise produces nothing — matched by an equally stark claim that going along the opposite bank giving and sacrificing produces "no merit... and no outcome of merit" either.

This double-sided symmetry is the view's real force: it is not merely permissive toward atrocity, it denies that generosity accomplishes anything either — action of any kind, in either moral direction, is declared entirely inert.

A view closely tracking Pūraṇa Kassapa's doctrine

The Sāmaññaphala Sutta attributes strikingly similar language, including comparable imagery of the Ganges' two banks, to Pūraṇa Kassapa, another of the six teachers King Ajātasattu consults — a doctrine traditionally labeled akiriyavāda, "the doctrine of non-doing" or amoralism, distinct from SN 24.5's annihilationism though the two overlap in denying moral consequence.

The same six grounds, applied once more

As with every discourse in this vagga, the view is traced to grasping the aggregates and the sixth cognitive ground, each shown impermanent, and a noble disciple who gives up doubt on these grounds and the four truths declared a stream-enterer.

Key terms

karoto na karīyati pāpaṁ — "the one who acts does nothing wrong" — this view's core amoral claim
akiriyavāda — the doctrine of non-doing — the traditional label for this view's position, distinct from SN 24.5's annihilationism
khuradhārena cakkena — "with a razor-edged chakram" — the view's most extreme single image, reducing all living creatures to one mass
Pūraṇa Kassapa — a teacher whose doctrine, as reported in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2), closely tracks this discourse's view
upādāya... abhinivissa — grasping... and insisting on — this vagga's standing two-condition formula

The text

The complete discourse: the amoral manifesto in full, then the aggregate catechism and stream-enterer conclusion. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. Nothing bad is done when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit’?” “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”

§2“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong … there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong … there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “That which is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind: is that permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would such a view arise?” “No, sir.”

§3“When a noble disciple has given up doubt regarding these six grounds, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, assured, destined for awakening.”

· · ·

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's view assert about action?
Correct: A. Extending through punishment, torture, theft, and killing, all declared to produce no outcome.
Question 2 of 10
What double-sided image gives this view its real force?
Correct: A. Denying that generosity accomplishes anything, not merely permitting atrocity.
Question 3 of 10
What technical term names this view's position?
Correct: A. Distinct from SN 24.5's annihilationism, though the two overlap in denying moral consequence.
Question 4 of 10
Which teacher named in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta is associated with closely similar doctrine, including comparable Ganges imagery?
Correct: A. Another of the six teachers King Ajātasattu consults in DN 2.
Question 5 of 10
What is the view's most extreme single image?
Correct: A. Declared to produce no evil outcome whatsoever.
Question 6 of 10
How does this discourse's view differ from SN 24.5's nihilism?
Correct: A. Amoralism specifically, though the two views overlap in denying moral consequence.
Question 7 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Matching the setting of most of this book's discourses.
Question 8 of 10
What happens to the diagnostic catechism in this discourse?
Correct: A. Grasping the aggregates and the sixth cognitive ground, each shown impermanent.
Question 9 of 10
What position in this vagga's four-discourse run of named-teacher doctrines does this discourse occupy?
Correct: A. SN 24.5 through SN 24.8 form this consecutive run.
Question 10 of 10
What does this discourse's conclusion certify?
Correct: A. This vagga's standing stream-enterer formula, unchanged regardless of the view examined.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0