Introduction

The ten courses of action (kammapatha) are a central category in early Buddhist ethics.[n.1] Keown 1992/2001: 29 lists the ten courses of action as one out of "four major canonical formulations of moral precepts". In their unwholesome manifestation, these ten courses of action cover:

• three bodily aspects: killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct;
• four verbal aspects: false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossiping;
• three mental aspects: covetousness, ill will, and wrong view.

The Sāleyyaka-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya takes up the potential of the ten courses of action in particular in relation to types of rebirth.[n.2] [8] MN 41 at MN I 285,1 to 290,10. In what follows I translate the Saṃyukta-āgama parallel to the Sāleyyaka-sutta.

---

Translation

[The Discourse at Velāma][n.3] [14] The translated text is SĀ 1042 at T II 272c18 to 273a27; for the title I follow Akanuma 1929/1990: 93. For ease of comparison I adopt the paragraph numbering used in the English translation of the Sāleyyaka-sutta in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 379–385.

1. Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was traveling among the people of the Kosalan country and was staying in a rosewood grove north of the village of Velāma.[n.4] [20] SĀ 1042 at T II 272c19 refers to the 身恕 grove, a grove of Indian rosewood trees (Dalbergia sissoo). SĀ 619 at T II 173b6 and SĀ 1044 at T II 273b10 also refer to such a grove, here located north of two other villages in the Kosalan country, and SĀ 565 at T II 148c12 mentions such a grove found north of a village in the Koliyan country. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra similarly associates an Indian rosewood grove, śiṃśapā, with various locations, each time specified to be "north of the village", uttareṇa grāmasya; cf. fragment S 360 folio 164 R4, folio 170 R3, and folio 178 V5+R1 in Waldschmidt 1950: 14, 17 and 21. The same holds for Pāli discourses; cf., e.g., DN 23 at DN II 316,8, SN 56.31 at SN V 437,20, and AN 3.34 at AN I 136,19. These occurrences give the impression that references to the location of such a grove north of a village are a standard pericope; cf. also von Simson 1965: 72 and Legittimo 2004: 46.

2. The brahmins and householders of the village of Velāma heard that the Blessed One was staying in a rosewood grove north of the village.

3. Having heard this, they gathered and went to where the Buddha was staying, paid respects at his feet, withdrew to sit to one side, and said to the Buddha:

4. "Blessed One, what is the cause, what is the condition for beings to be reborn in hell after the breaking up of the body at death?"

5. The Buddha told the brahmins and householders: "Undertaking unrighteous conduct, undertaking harmful and dangerous conduct is the cause and condition for being reborn in hell after the breaking up of the body at death."

6. The brahmins and householders said to the Buddha: "Undertaking what [type of] unrighteous conduct, harmful and dangerous conduct, will one be reborn in hell after the breaking up of the body at death?"

7–10. The Buddha told the brahmins and householders: "Killing living beings … up to … wrong view, being endowed with the ten unwholesome actions is the cause and condition.

Brahmins, this unrighteous conduct, harmful and dangerous conduct, [leads to] being reborn in hell after the breaking up of the body at death."

The brahmins and householders said to the Buddha: "What is the cause and condition for beings to attain rebirth in heaven after the breaking up of the body at death?"

The Buddha told the brahmins and householders: "Undertaking righteous conduct, undertaking right conduct is the cause and condition for attaining rebirth in heaven after the breaking up of the body at death."

They asked the Blessed One again: "Undertaking what [type of] righteous conduct, right conduct, will one attain rebirth in heaven after the breaking up of the body at death?"

11–14. The Buddha told the brahmins and householders: "That is, abstaining from killing living beings … up to …right view; the ten wholesome courses of action are the cause and condition for attaining rebirth in heaven after the breaking up of the body at death.

15–17. "Brahmins and householders, if one undertakes this righteous conduct, undertakes this right conduct, and wishes to seek [rebirth] in a great family of warriors,[n.5] Adopting the variant 姓 instead of 性; cf. also Yìnshùn 1983c: 756 note 15. in a great family of brahmins, in a great family of householders, one will attain all these places of rebirth. Why is that? It is because of the cause and condition of righteous conduct and right conduct.

18–23. "Again, if one wishes to seek rebirth among the Four Great Kings, the devas of the Thirty-three … up to … the devas that wield power over others' creation, all these places of rebirth will be attained. Why is that? It is because of righteous conduct and right conduct. One who maintains pure morality will naturally attain all that the mind wishes.

24–27. "Again, if one with such righteous conduct and right conduct wishes to seek rebirth in the Brahmā world, that place of rebirth will also be attained. Why is that? It is because one has undertaken righteous conduct and right conduct. Keeping morality perfectly pure and separating the mind from craving and sensual desires, whatever one wishes will certainly be attained.

28–38. "Again, if one wishes to seek a place of rebirth among the radiant [devas], the [devas] of all pervasive purity … up to … the Akaniṭṭha [devas],[n.6] [22] SĀ 1042 at T II 273a15: 阿伽尼吒. this will also be like that. Why is that? It is because of keeping morality perfectly pure and separating the mind from sensual desires.

"Again, if one wishes to seek abiding secluded from sensual desires and evil unwholesome states, with [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation … up to … being endowed with the fourth absorption, all that one will achieve. Why is that? It is because of righteous conduct and right conduct. Keeping morality perfectly pure and separating the mind from craving and sensual desires, whatever one wishes will certainly be attained.

39–42. "Wishing to seek [abiding in] mettā, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, the sphere of [infinite] space, the sphere of [infinite] consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, all these one will attain. Why is that? It is because of righteous conduct and right conduct. Keeping morality perfectly pure and separating the mind from craving and sensual desires, whatever one wishes will certainly be attained.

43. "Wishing to seek the eradication of the three fetters and the attainment of the fruits of stream-entry, of once-return, and of non-return, infinite supernormal powers, the divine ear, knowledge of the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the passing away and rebirth [of beings], knowledge of the destruction of the influxes, all that one will attain. Why is that? It is because of righteous conduct and right conduct. Keeping morality and separating from sensual desires, whatever one wishes will certainly be attained."

44. At that time the brahmins and householders, hearing what the Buddha had said, rejoiced in it and were delighted. They paid their respects and left.

---

Study

A sequential difference between the two versions of the present discourse is that in the Sāleyyaka-sutta the brahmins right away enquire about both types of rebirth, whereas in the Saṃyukta-āgama version translated above they at first just enquire about rebirth in hell. Only when this topic is concluded do they pose the complementary question about rebirth in heaven.

Such variations are typical for material that derives from oral transmission and can be found regularly between different versions of a discourse. Memory is to some extent a constructive effort and not merely reproductive,[n.7] [23] Rosenberg 1987: 81 points out that "memory is … not a reduplicative process … but a procedure of creative reconstruction"; cf. also Anālayo 2015a. hence such differences are only to be expected in the case of oral literature.

The introductory narration in the Sāleyyaka-sutta is also more detailed, as it gives in full the favourable report about the recluse Gotama heard by the brahmins of Sālā that motivated them to visit the Buddha.[n.8] [24] MN 41 at MN I 285,8. The Saṃyukta-āgama version simply mentions that the brahmins had come to know about the Buddha's presence and so went to pay him a visit.[n.9] [25] SĀ 1042 at T II 272c20. The Sāleyyaka-sutta is again more detailed in regard to the behaviour of the brahmins, reporting that on coming into the Buddha's presence some behaved more respectfully and others less respectfully.[n.10] [26] MN 41 at MN I 285,18. For a study of different approach formulas cf. Allon 1997b: 18–190. The Saṃyukta-āgama does not mention such differences. The Sāleyyaka-sutta, moreover, notes that the Buddha was in the presence of a great company of monks, a circumstance not recorded in its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel.[n.11] [27] MN 41 at MN I 285,2: mahatā bhikkhusaṅghena saddhiṃ, an expression that according to the commentary could imply a hundred, a thousand or a hundred thousand monks, Ps II 327,8: sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vā satasahassaṃ vā.

Descriptions of the Buddha's fame and of the behaviour of visitors are standard pericopes in the discourses found in the Pāli Nikāyas and in the Chinese Āgamas, hence these differences between the Sāleyyaka-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel merely show that these pericopes were at times applied to different occasions.

The Sāleyyaka-sutta stands alone in introducing the exposition of each of the ten courses of action by explicitly distinguishing them into three bodily, four verbal, and three mental types.[n.12] [28] MN 41 at MN I 286,10: tividhaṃ … kāyena adhammacariyā … catubbhidaṃ vācaya … tividhaṃ manasā, with the corresponding formulation of their wholesome counterparts in MN 41 at MN I 287,23. Another difference is that the Saṃyukta-āgama version simply enumerates the ten unwholesome courses of action, whereas the Sāleyyaka-sutta offers a detailed exposition of each of these ten courses of action.[n.13] [29] MN 41 at MN I 286,14 and MN I 287,27. This detailed treatment recurs in AN 10.176 at AN V 264,12 and AN V 266,22, in which case it is also found in the corresponding parallel SĀ 1039 at T II 271b20 and T II 271c22.

The Sāleyyaka-sutta is also more detailed in its treatment of rebirth in the heavenly realms that correspond to absorption attainment.[n.14] [31] MN 41 at MN I 289,17. The same type of listing recurs in MN 120 at MN III 102,26+31 and in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1890: 348,19, although here without a counterpart to the devas of limited radiance, which are, however, mentioned in another listing in the same work; cf. Senart 1890: 360,19. Whereas the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse simply lists two realms that correspond to the second and the third absorptions;[n.15] [32] SĀ 1042 at T II 273a15: 光音 and 遍淨, which according to Hirakawa 1997: 155 and 1155 can render ābhāsvara and śubha-kṛtsna. the Sāleyyaka-sutta enumerates a set of subdivisions in regard to these two realms, illustrated in table 6 below.

Table 6: Realms in MN 41

Realms in MN 41:	Corresponding Absorption:
brahmakāyikā devā	1st jhāna
ābhā devā	2nd jhāna in general
parittābhā devā	2nd jhāna weak attainment
appamāṇābhā devā	2nd jhāna medium attainment
ābhassarā devā	2nd jhāna superior attainment
subhā devā	3rd jhāna in general
parittasubhā devā	3rd jhāna weak attainment
appamāṇasubhā devā	3rd jhāna medium attainment
subhakiṇṇā devā	3rd jhāna superior attainment
vehappalā devā	4th jhāna

After first referring to the heavenly realm corresponding to the second absorption in general,[n.16] [33] Ps II 333,7 explains that the ābhā devā are not a separate realm, but an umbrella term for the three sub-realms mentioned, ābhā nāma visuṃ n' atthi, parittābha-appamāṇābha-ābhassarānam etaṃ adhivacanaṃ. the Sāleyyaka-sutta lists three subdivisions of this realm. Again, after referring to the heavenly realm corresponding to the third absorption in general,[n.17] [34] The subhā devā are not listed in Be and Se. the Sāleyyaka-sutta lists also three subdivisions of this realm.

Another and perhaps the most noteworthy difference between the Sāleyyaka-sutta and its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel is their presentation of the potential of the ten wholesome courses of action.

According to the Sāleyyaka-sutta, the ten wholesome courses of action will lead not only to rebirth in a good family or in the celestial realms of the sense-sphere, but also to rebirth in the Brahmā realms, the Pure Abodes, and the formless realms.

Although the Saṃyukta-āgama version works its way through a similar range of possible rebirths, it differs in so far as it offers additional specifications on the requirements for such rebirths. According to the Saṃyukta-āgama presentation, rebirth in the celestial realms of the sense-sphere requires not only undertaking the ten wholesome courses of action, but also pure moral conduct.[n.18] [35] SĀ 1042 at T II 273a11: 行淨戒.

Now pure moral conduct is already implicit in the stipulation to undertake the ten wholesome courses of action. Yet this additional qualification in a way highlights that a celestial rebirth requires higher ethical standards than rebirth in a human family of good standing.[n.19] [36] The Karmavibhaṅga, Kudo 2004: 76,12 and 77,12, similarly highlights the higher ethical standards required for such rebirth, as according to its presentation to undertake the ten wholesome courses of action "well [yet] weakly", subhāvitā mandabhāvitāś ca, is the condition for rebirth as a human, whereas rebirth in a sensual heavenly world requires undertaking the same ten courses of action in a way that is "well completed", susamāptā; cf. Kudo 2004: 78,3 and 79,2. The Śrāvakabhūmi also stipulates purified moral conduct for rebirth in the heavenly spheres of the sensual realm; cf. Shukla 1973: 62,12 and T 1579 at T XXX 406a27.

For rebirth in the Brahmā realms, the Saṃyukta-āgama version stipulates not only pure morality, but also freedom from sensual desires.[n.20] [37] SĀ 1042 at T II 273a13: 持戒清淨, 心離愛欲. This additional stipulation expands on the absence of covetousness mentioned as part of the ten wholesome courses of action and throws into relief the qualitative difference between rebirth in the celestial realms of the sense-sphere and rebirth in the Brahmā realms.[n.21] [38] DN 33 at DN III 260,1 and AN 8.35 at AN IV 241,7 similarly indicate that for an aspiration for rebirth in the Brahmā world to be fulfilled, maintaining morality (sīla) and becoming free from sensuality (vītarāga) are required. The Karmavibhaṅga, Kudo 2004: 78,7 and 79,5, does not explicitly mention freedom from sensuality as a requirement for rebirth in the Brahmā worlds, but only speaks of undertaking the ten courses of action to a degree superior to the degree required for rebirth in a sensual heavenly world.

After covering rebirth in the Brahmā realms up to the highest realm of the Pure Abodes, the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse shows that the same conditions – the ten wholesome courses of action, moral purity, and freedom from sensual desires – also serve as a foundation for attaining the four absorptions here and now. In this way, the Saṃyukta-āgama presentation leads the discussion from the otherworldly benefits, about which the visitors had enquired, to benefits that can be achieved in the present life. Such benefits cover the four absorptions, the four brahmavihāras, the four formless attainments, various supernormal knowledges, and the four stages of awakening.

The Sāleyyaka-sutta also offers such a shift of perspective, although this takes place only in regard to the last benefit mentioned in both versions, the destruction of the influxes. Consequently, whereas in the Saṃyukta-āgama version the formless attainments range among benefits to be achieved here and now, the Sāleyyaka-sutta still presents them from the perspective of rebirth.

A last difference is that, whereas the Sāleyyaka-sutta concludes with the brahmins taking refuge, its Saṃyukta-āgama parallel reports only that the brahmins rejoiced in the Buddha's exposition. Here again the differing use of pericopes would be responsible for the variation.

In fact variations in regard to the conclusion of a discourse can even be found between Pāli versions of the same discourse. Such is the case with the two Kasibhāradvāja-suttas found in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and in the Sutta-nipāta. Although these two discourses agree in content, they differ in their concluding narration.

According to the Saṃyutta-nikāya account Kasibhāradvāja took refuge and declared himself a lay follower, whereas according to the Sutta-nipāta version he requested ordination and became an arahant.[n.22] [40] SN 7.11 at SN I 173,20 and Sn 1.4 at Sn (p.) 16,1. The Chinese parallels SĀ 98 at T II 27b26, SĀ2 264 at T II 466c10, and SĀ3 1 at T II 493b8 agree with Sn 1.4, as they also report that he went forth and became an arahant. This suggests that the information supplied by the reciters at the conclusion of a discourse is less reliable than the contents of the actual discourse.

The above comparison of the Sāleyyaka-sutta and its parallel similarly shows how the process of oral transmission has left its mark on the actual form of each of the two discourses.

Doubling of Discourses

From the perspective of oral transmission, another point worth exploration is that in the Majjhima-nikāya collection the Sāleyyaka-sutta is followed by another nearly identical discourse, the Verañjaka-sutta.

In the Saṃyukta-āgama collection the same situation obtains, as the Chinese parallel to the Sāleyyaka-sutta is also followed by another nearly identical discourse. In view of the close similarity of these two consecutive discourses in the Pāli and Chinese collections, one might wonder if these two pairs go back to a single original. That is, was the same discourse delivered twice, or was it delivered only once and oral transmission led to a doubling of the discourse?

The two Pāli versions take place at different locations, as the Sāleyyaka-sutta has the village Sālā in the Kosalan country as its setting, whereas the Verañjaka-sutta has Jeta's Grove near Sāvatthī as its venue.[n.23] [41] Owing to the different locations, the two Pāli discourses differ also in the way they introduce the Brahmin householders: MN 41 at MN I 285,4 speaks of the "Brahmin householders from Sālā", sāleyyaka brāhmaṇagahapatikā, whereas MN 42 at MN I 290,14 speaks of the "Brahmin householders from Verañjā", verañjakā brāhmaṇagahapatikā, a difference that also affects their respective titles. The Chinese parallels to the Sāleyyaka-sutta and the Verañjaka-sutta, however, take place at the same location.[n.24] [42] SĀ 1042 at T II 272c18 and SĀ 1043 at T II 273a28.

The two Pāli versions also differ from each other in that the Sāleyyaka-sutta mentions the number of monks that were present, whereas neither the Verañjaka-sutta nor the two Chinese versions mention their presence.[n.25] [43] MN 41 at MN I 285,2. Another minor difference is a matter of formulation found in the introductory section of the exposition of the ten types of action, as MN 41 at MN I 286,10 reads adhammacariyā visamacariyā hoti, whereas the corresponding part in MN 42 at MN I 291,25 reads adhammacārī visamacārī hoti. So MN 41 speaks of "conduct", but MN 42 of "one who undertakes conduct."

The two Saṃyukta-āgama discourses differ from each other in the way they describe how the brahmins went from the village to the place where the Buddha was staying. The parallel to the Sāleyyaka-sutta simply mentions that the brahmins went to the Buddha's presence.[n.26] [44] SĀ 1042 at T II 272c21. The parallel to the Verañjaka-sutta depicts the same in more detail, describing how they travelled by vehicle until they had reached the vicinity of the Buddha's place of residence, where they got down and proceeded on foot.[n.27] [45] SĀ 1043 at T II 273b2. This passage in SĀ 1043 parallels a standard pericope used also in other Pāli discourses to describe how someone approaches the Buddha by vehicle; cf., e.g., MN 89 at MN II 119,13. Such a detailed description of the means of transportation is not found in either of the two Pāli parallels.

In this way, the differences between the members of each pair appear to be of a minor nature. Moreover, the differences found between the members of one pair do not recur between the members of the other pair: whereas the Pāli versions differ on the location, the Chinese versions agree on it; whereas the Pāli versions differ on whether monks were present, the Chinese versions agree in this respect; and whereas the Chinese versions differ on whether they describe the brahmins' means of transportation, the Pāli versions agree in not mentioning it.

These variations could just be accidents of oral transmission and it seems possible that during recitation an originally single discourse came to be doubled.

A relatively clear instance of a doubling of a discourse can be found in the Madhyama-āgama collection, which has preserved two parallels to the Vanapattha-sutta.[n.28] [46] MĀ 107 and MĀ 108 at T I 596c26 to 598b5, parallels to MN 17 at MN I 104,17 to 108,11. These two Chinese discourses are nearly identical, and the circumstance that they have only a single Pāli counterpart supports the impression that they probably go back to what was originally a single discourse.

Another instance of a doubling of a discourse can be found in the Saṃyutta-nikāya, which records two instances in which Ānanda received instructions on mindfulness of breathing from the Buddha.[n.29] [47] SN 54.13–14 at SN V 328,23 to 334,18. These two discourses are identical in content and differ only on whether the Buddha gave these instructions after an enquiry by Ānanda or without Ānanda's prompting. Of these two discourses, only the one in which Ānanda enquires about the subject of mindfulness of breathing has a counterpart in the Saṃyukta-āgama.[n.30] [48] SĀ 810 at T II 208a9 to c9. SN 54.13–14 are followed by another two versions of the same discourse, SN 54.15–16 at SN V 334,19 to 340,10, addressed by the Buddha to a group of monks either at their request or without a request. In this case, the Pāli discourse pair has a parallel in the discourse pair SĀ 811– 812 at T II 208c10 to c11. As the Pāli versions do not identify any of the monks, it could simply be that the same discourse has as its audience two different groups of monks (or two different single monks in the Chinese versions).

Given that according to the traditional account Ānanda had such mental retention that he had been able to memorize all the discourses spoken by the Buddha,[n.31] [49] This account can be found in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 968b15, in the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, T 1425 at XXII 491c2, in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 191a19, in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1451 at T XXIV 407a3, in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1435 at T XXIII 449a20, and in the Theravāda Vinaya, Vin II 287,12. According to Th 1024, Ānanda had mastered 84,000 teachings, caturāsīti sahassāni ye me dhammā pavattino, and AN 1.14 at AN I 24,32 reckons Ānanda an outstanding monk disciple for his learning and memory, etad aggaṃ mama sāvakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ bahussutānaṃ … satimantānaṃ, yadidaṃ ānando, qualities of Ānanda similarly highlighted in its counterpart EĀ 4.7 at T II 558a26: 所憶不忘, 多聞廣遠. According to the Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1978: 54,18, already before Ānanda went forth he was predicted to win eminence in remembering what he had heard, anena kumāreṇa śrutidharāṇām agreṇa bhavitavyam iti, a quality that was the outcome of an aspiration made by him in a former life to win such eminence in the future; cf. Gnoli 1978: 66,15 and 67,14. one would not expect him to be shown in need of receiving exactly the same instructions again on a second occasion. As only one of these two instances has a Chinese counterpart, in this case it seems quite probable that the two discourses in the Saṃyutta-nikāya are a doubling of what should be considered a single instance.

In the case of the Sāleyyaka-sutta and the Verañjaka-sutta, however, the Saṃyukta-āgama agrees in presenting this exposition by the Buddha in a pair-wise fashion. Hence comparison with the Chinese versions does not lend support to the hypothesis that the Sāleyyaka-sutta and the Verañjaka-sutta go back to a single discourse. If a doubling happened, it must have happened at an early stage during the transmission of the discourses in order to affect both the Majjhima-nikāya and the Saṃyukta-āgama collections.

Alternatively, perhaps no doubling occurred. After all, an exposition of the ten courses of actions and their potential to lead to heaven or hell should have been a topic of such common interest that it would not be extraordinary for different groups of brahmins to be shown to receive the same exposition from the Buddha. If originally there were indeed two discourses, it is also possible that the effect of oral transmission was such as to make them more similar to each other than they were at the outset.

Looking back on the variations between the Sāleyyaka-sutta and its parallel, what makes the Saṃyukta-āgama version particularly noteworthy is its presentation of the potential of the ten courses of action. The Saṃyukta-āgama version makes it clear that, although the ten wholesome courses of action form the indispensable foundation for any of the rebirths depicted in both versions, the undertaking of these ten courses needs to be supplemented with additional qualities, such as a further enhancement of moral purity or aloofness from the attraction of sensuality in order to lead to higher types of rebirth.

The same would also be implicit in the Pāli version, because to perfect fully the ten courses of action would result in a supreme degree of moral purity and to go beyond covetousness could be understood to cover aloofness from sensual desires. Yet, in the Saṃyukta-āgama version the qualitative differences in the requirements for higher types of rebirth stand out with increased clarity.

Another aspect that stands out with increased clarity in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse is the relevance of the ten wholesome courses of action to the present life. Here, again, this is to some extent implicit in the Sāleyyaka-sutta, which presents the destruction of the influxes as the culmination of its range of benefits of the ten wholesome courses of action.

By taking up a whole range of meditative attainments, covering the absorptions, the brahmavihāras, the immaterial attainments, various supernormal knowledges, and all four stages of awakening, the Saṃyukta-āgama version throws more clearly into relief the potential of the ten wholesome courses of action to ensure fulfilment of any wish, whether such wish be for social status, heavenly pleasures, deep concentration, or liberating insight.