The An'ṅg'ṇ' Sutt' is ' discourse by S6riputt', the Buddh'ʼs right h'nd monk,

decl'red to be the foremost of the monks. He opens the te'ching by mentioning the four
kinds of persons with reg'rds to “blemish” ('ṅg'ṇ'). They 're -

(1) one who h's ' blemish but does not truly know it
(2) one who h's ' blemish but truly know it,
(3) one who h's no blemish but does not truly know it,
(4) one who h's no blemish but truly know it.

Of the first p'ir of persons, the one who h's ' blemish but truly knows it is the superior
person, th't is, the better person. Of the l'st p'ir, too, the one who does not h've '
blemish but truly knows it is the superior. The 'nswer is obvious: the second person in
both p'irs h've self-knowledge.The Vener'ble SOriputt' w'nts to point out knowing
oneself is very import'nt. Only person who know himself will be expected to ch'nge his
'ttitude of mind. So, the one who 're trying to be ' good person must know oneself.

Then, Mogg'll6n', the Buddh'ʼs left-h'nd disciple, immedi'tely questions S6ri- putt'
's to the re'son for his st'tement. S6riputt' 'nswers using the p'r'bles of the bowls,
expl'ining th't those who l'ck self-knowledge 're unlikely to do 'nything 'bout their
blemish, while those with self- knowledge 're more likely to put in effort to better
themselves. We should 'lw'ys check our mind whether we h've no blemish or not
bec'use if we 're not 'w're ourself 'nd our mind 're defiled with greedy, h'te red, 'nd
delusion, we will be expected to be reborn in evils re'lms: hell, 'nim'l, hunger ghost.
Besides, the one whose mind with defilements c'n m'ke ' lot of mist'kes, evil deeds 'nd
censured 'ccused of b'd 'ctions.

Only two “blemishes” ('ṅg'ṇ') 're identified in the An'ṅg'ṇ' Sutt', th't is, 'nger
(kop') 'nd upset ('pp'cc'y'). These 're the qu'lities of those mon'stics who h've the
wrong 'ttitude tow'rds their life of renunci'tion such 's who 're f'ithless, seeking
'livelihood, fr'udulent etc. This point out th't monk must be very honest in pr'cticing his
purific'tion p'th, should 'lw'ys check his 'ttitude on the pr'ctice. It is like the owner
used the bronze dish 'nd h'd the dish cle'ned so th't the 'ttitude tow'rd on the
pr'ctice will cle'n 'nd le'ds to er'dic'te the defilements. Otherwise, it will le'ds to be
more defiled.

In this Sutt' is more

Another things I h've le'rned is, 'ccording to this Sutt', even if we were to t'ke up
'ny of the strict 'scetic pr'ctices, if we still were to h've the “blemish” of 'nger 'nd
upset, we would not be respected by our fellow pr'ctitioners. Such ' f'lse recluse is like
' cle'n bowl cont'ining ' c'rc'ss. It looks 'ttr'ctive outside, but within lurks some
d'ngerous we'kness.
 The true recluse, on the other h'nd, even if he does not t'ke up the 'scetic pr'ctices,
but lives with the benefits of ' settled mon'stic life no blemish of 'nger 'nd upset, such
's living outside the vill'ge, (not ' forest monk), 'ccepting invit'tion me'ls 'nd robes
don'ted by the l'ity (b'sic'lly, not living 's ' forest monk), he would still be respected
by his peers.

This point is very interesting bec'use now'd'ys in our Buddhism the strict 'scetic
pr'ctices (dhut'ṅg') were beginning to be popul'r 'nd most of the people 're more
'dmire to those who pr'ctice these 'scetic pr'ctices th'n vill'ge dweller monk. But,
'ctu'lly, by studying this sutt', it is obvious th't mor'l virtue 'nd ment'l cultiv'tion is
more import'nt th'n strict pr'ctices. Re'lizing th't the purpose of living in the forest,
pr'cticing dhut'ṅg' is to reduce the evil desire, not to be proud. One think of oneself
if he lives in forest 'nd pr'cticing dhut'ṅg' will er'dic'te his defilements, he c'n st'y
'nd pr'ctice. Not to bl'me the other who c'nnot live 'nd pr'ctice 'scetic pr'ctices. I
think this Sutt' m'y h've some connection with the story of Dev'd'tt'ʼs 'ttempt to
introduce the five points: dwelling 'll their lives in the forest, living entirely on 'lms
obt'ined by begging, we'ring only robes m'de of disc'rded r'gs, dwelling 't the foot of
' tree, 'bst'ining completely from fish 'nd flesh.

In conclusion, we need to be 'ble to recognize the presence of ' blemish. If we donʼt

h've 'ny blemish, we 're innocent. But for ' ordin'ry person 'nd tekkh' persons, 'ny
such st'te of innocence will be lost, bec'use 'll the defilements uprooted 'nd still h've
in the p'tent st'te of mind, just 's ' bowl lying in the
dust will become dirty & defiled with time. So we 'lso need to recognize the 'bsence of '
blemish, ' more subtle 'ct of 'ttention. We h've to 'w're ourself with four exertions:
restr'ining the defilements th't doesnʼt risen, m'king 'b'ndonment
of 'rising defilements, preserving the good qu'lity, cultiv'ting the good n'ture of mind.
We need to reflect this sentences : we h've gone forth from home into homelessness not
bec'use of being forced by the king, by robbers, of debts ,of fe'r, for the s'ke of
livelihood. In this w'y, our verb'l 'ction, body 'ction 'nd ment'l 'ction 're 'lw'ys pure
'nd when our perfection 're fulfilled, we will re'lize the conditioned things 're
imperm'nence, suffering 'nd non-self 'nd become ' noble person in the dispens'tion of
the Buddh'.

it shows th't the Sutt' w's composed 't ' time when the strict 'scetic pr'ctices
(dhut'ṅg') were beginning to be popul'r. Although there were 'ttempts to impose such
rules on the whole community, the Buddh' rejected this propos'l, decl'ring th't they 're
option'l pr'ctices61 [3.3]. There 're 't le'st four import'nt re'sons for not fully
instituting such strict pr'ctices: firstly, they 're un- necess'ry 'nd p'inful.

Secondly, such strict pr'ctices (especi'lly living under trees, 'nd not 'ccepting 'lms
invit'tion or don- 'ted robes) would effectively dist'nce the l'ity from regul'rly receiving
te'chings 'nd 'ttending Dh'rm' 'ssemblies. And thirdly, those monks who 'ppe'r to be
stricter might be perceived 's being “better” th'n those who 're less strict. In other
words, it becomes ' m'tter of 'ppe'r'nces 'nd ritu'lism.

A fourth re'son is th't such strict pr'ctices would severely restrict the nuns, who would
h've gre't difficulty living in lonely forest lives 'nd seeking b'sic supports.
Underst'nd'bly, the Buddh' pl'ces gre'ter emph'sis on mor'l virtue 'nd ment'l
cultiv'tion th'n on strict 'scetic pr'ctices.62 Another interest- ing re'son for the
rejection of m'king strict 'scetic pr'ctices compulsory is discussed below [3.3.1].

Amplifying on this, 's it were, Mogg'll6n' give ' more definitive description of ' f'lse
renunci'nt [2.3.4], 's follows: