Le Hoang Da
Buddhist Scholar
Refraining from taking life, the first of the Ten Wholesome Actions.
In the moment before harm occurs, moral restraint becomes compassion.
I. Introduction
Throughout the historical development of Buddhist thought, the Ten Wholesome Actions (daśa-kuśala-karmapatha) have occupied a foundational position within both ethical structure and the path of cultivation. From the early Nikāya collections to the Mahāyāna sūtras, the tripartite framework of bodily, verbal, and mental actions—organized in the stable 3–4–3 structure—has been consistently preserved as a normative template for distinguishing wholesome from unwholesome conduct and for orienting spiritual life.
The juxtaposition of the Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) in the Majjhima Nikāya and the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra reveals a significant doctrinal variation in the interpretation of this shared ethical framework. Although both texts preserve the same catalogue of ten wholesome actions, they situate it within different doctrinal emphases and soteriological horizons.
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, the ten wholesome actions are presented as a direct and practical ethical structure addressing the problem of karmic rebirth. Causality is articulated in a linear manner: bodily, verbal, and mental actions correspond to their respective results. The culmination of this trajectory lies in the eradication of the taints (āsavas) and the attainment of liberation in this very life. The doctrinal presentation remains concise, focusing on conduct and consequence without extended metaphysical elaboration.
By contrast, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra situates the same ethical catalogue within a broader discursive framework in which mind is described as the source of all differentiation. The ten wholesome actions are portrayed as the foundational ground of the entire path, encompassing Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas. Each wholesome action not only leads to favorable rebirth but may also, when dedicated toward unsurpassed awakening, function as a condition for the attainment of Buddhahood. The ethical structure is thus integrated into a more expansive and systematically articulated soteriological vision.
This article does not seek to posit a rupture between early Buddhism and the Mahāyāna, nor to collapse the two texts into a model of doctrinal uniformity. Instead, it undertakes a comparative analysis along two principal axes:
- The ethical architecture of the Ten Wholesome Actions.
- The doctrinal framework and soteriological horizon within which each text situates them.
By examining discursive context, structural presentation, the role of mind, the mechanism of dedication of merit, and the ultimate aim of the path, the study clarifies both the underlying continuity of the ethical foundation and the systematic differences in its doctrinal expansion.
Placed on a shared analytical plane, the relationship between the two texts can be understood not as replacement, but as the reinterpretation and expansion of a stable ethical grammar within different historical and doctrinal settings.
II. Discursive Context and Intended Audience
Any comparison between the two texts must take into account their respective discursive contexts and intended audiences. The setting in which a teaching is delivered often shapes its tone, structure, and degree of doctrinal expansion.
1. The Sāleyyaka Sutta: Ethical Instruction in a Social Setting
The Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) in the Majjhima Nikāya unfolds within a relatively simple narrative setting. The Buddha is traveling in the Kosala region and encounters Brahmin householders in the village of Sāla. Their central concern is direct and practical: the conditions that lead beings to unfortunate rebirths or to fortunate destinations after death.
This concern is fundamentally ethical and social rather than metaphysical. It reflects the widespread interest of lay communities in understanding the consequences of action in both present and future lives. The Buddha’s response is structured in a concise and linear manner: bodily, verbal, and mental actions correspond to their respective karmic results.
Notably, the text does not extend into ontological or cosmological speculation. Mind is not examined as a metaphysical principle; instead, emphasis is placed on concrete actions and their specific consequences. The language remains straightforward, the argument direct, and the pedagogical aim oriented toward shaping ethical conduct within the framework of social life.
Within this context, the Sāleyyaka Sutta functions as a highly practical ethical discourse, appropriate to an audience of lay practitioners seeking a clear account of karmic causality.
2. The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra: Instruction within a Cosmological Framework
By contrast, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra is situated within a markedly different narrative environment: the palace of the Dragon King, attended by assemblies of monks and Bodhisattvas. From its opening, the text asserts that all differentiation within saṃsāra arises from the operations of mind, describing mind as formless, non-substantial, and the basis upon which phenomena appear like illusions.
The setting is no longer a social inquiry into fortunate or unfortunate rebirth, but a cosmologically and metaphysically framed exposition. The ten wholesome actions are presented not merely as basic ethical norms but as the foundational ground of the entire path of practice, encompassing Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas.
The rhetorical style is solemn and systematic, characterized by extensive enumeration and doctrinal layering. Each wholesome action is elaborated in terms of multiple levels of merit and frequently accompanied by the condition that, when dedicated toward unsurpassed awakening (anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi), it becomes a cause for supreme attainment. This suggests an implied audience that extends beyond laypersons seeking merit to practitioners oriented toward the expansive ideal of Buddhahood.
3. The Impact of Context on Doctrinal Structure
The divergence in discursive context directly influences the presentation of doctrine:
- In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, the ten wholesome actions are articulated as a direct response to a concrete ethical concern.
- In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, the same ethical structure is embedded within a comprehensive and integrative framework, serving as the foundation of the entire process of Buddhahood.
Before proceeding to a detailed structural and doctrinal analysis, it is therefore necessary to recognize that the two texts differ not only in the extent of elaboration but also in the discursive space within which they operate. This contextual distinction helps explain how an identical ethical catalogue can assume distinct doctrinal inflections within different textual traditions.
III. The 3–4–3 Ethical Structure: Architectural Continuity
One of the most striking features that emerges when placing the Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) of the Majjhima Nikāya alongside the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra is their complete structural correspondence in the classification of the ten actions.
Both texts organize their material according to the same model:
- Three actions of body (kāya)
- Four actions of speech (vācī)
- Three actions of mind (mano)
This 3–4–3 distribution is not merely enumerative. It reflects a systematic and comprehensive analytical framework for understanding human conduct within the Buddhist tradition.
1. The Three Bodily Actions: Social Order and the Principle of Non-Harm
Both texts begin with three fundamental forms of conduct:
- Abstaining from killing
- Abstaining from stealing
- Abstaining from sexual misconduct
These actions directly regulate behaviors capable of causing physical harm or violating property and familial relations. At the social level, they safeguard bodily security, material stability, and the integrity of family structures—core elements of communal order.
Their placement at the beginning of the list indicates a foundational principle: Buddhist ethics begins with non-harm and the restraint of the most visibly destructive forms of conduct. Notably, both the content and the sequence of these three actions remain entirely unchanged across the two texts.
2. The Four Verbal Actions: The Structure of Communicative Space
The next group consists of four forms of verbal conduct:
- Abstaining from false speech
- Abstaining from divisive speech
- Abstaining from harsh speech
- Abstaining from idle or frivolous speech
If the three bodily actions concern physical security, the four verbal actions regulate communicative space and social trust. Speech possesses the power to build or fracture community; the allocation of four categories to verbal conduct underscores the ethical significance of communication within the broader moral structure.
Both texts preserve the content and order of these four verbal actions without modification. There is no restructuring or supplementation at the level of the ethical catalogue itself.
3. The Three Mental Actions: The Depth of Intention and Cognition
The final group consists of three fundamental mental states:
- Non-covetousness
- Non-ill will
- Non-delusion (or wrong view in the Nikāya formulation)
This constitutes the deepest layer of the karmic structure. While bodily and verbal actions regulate external expression, mental actions govern intention and cognitive orientation.
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, wrong view is defined specifically as the denial of karmic causality, the afterlife, and awakened beings. In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, delusion is portrayed as the fundamental state of confusion that sustains saṃsāra and must be eradicated. Despite variations in emphasis, the structural position of this element remains fixed at the conclusion of the list.
Ending with mental actions implies that all bodily and verbal conduct ultimately arises from the mind.
4. The Systematic Coherence of the 3–4–3 Model
The 3–4–3 structure is not an arbitrary classification. It reflects a comprehensive view of human agency: all actions proceed through three channels—body, speech, and mind—and these three channels encompass the full range of karmic expression.
The order itself reveals an internal logic:
- Body: tangible and immediately observable actions
- Speech: actions mediating between inner intention and social interaction
- Mind: subtle and invisible yet decisively formative actions
The progression moves from the coarse to the subtle, from external manifestation to inner motivation. Both texts preserve this order without inversion, numerical alteration, or structural redesign.
This continuity suggests that the 3–4–3 model had already become a normative ethical template sufficiently stable to be transmitted across differing doctrinal and historical contexts.
5. The Significance of Structural Correspondence
The complete structural correspondence of the 3–4–3 framework indicates that both texts operate within the same ethical architecture. At the level of classification, there is no redesign of the ten wholesome actions between the two traditions.
Accordingly, any doctrinal divergence between the Sāleyyaka Sutta and the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra cannot be located in the ethical catalogue itself. Rather, it must be sought in the interpretive elaboration of that shared structure—in the degree of systematization, the metaphysical framing, and the soteriological horizon within which it is situated.
IV. Ethical Emphasis and the Mechanism of Karmic Causality
If Section III demonstrated the architectural correspondence of the ethical framework, Section IV clarifies how each text interprets the significance of that structure within its understanding of karmic causality. Although both share the same catalogue of ten wholesome actions, they differ in how the mechanism of karma is articulated and in the ethical emphasis that accompanies it.
1. The Sāleyyaka Sutta: Linear and Direct Causality
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) of the Majjhima Nikāya, the ten wholesome and ten unwholesome actions are presented as behaviors that generate corresponding results in a direct and immediate manner. The argumentative structure may be summarized as follows:
- Unwholesome conduct (of body, speech, and mind) → rebirth in unfortunate realms
- Wholesome conduct → rebirth in fortunate realms
- At the highest level → eradication of the taints and liberation in this very life
Karmic causality is thus articulated in a linear model: actions correspond to results. The text does not enumerate detailed subsidiary benefits for each wholesome act but emphasizes the general trajectory of post-mortem destiny and spiritual development.
Importantly, causality in the Sāleyyaka Sutta is not framed as a complex metaphysical mechanism. Rather, it appears as an ethical–psychological principle. Greed, hatred, and wrong view are not merely internal states; they function as immediate motivations for action and thereby shape rebirth.
The emphasis lies on the self-operating nature of karma: there is no divine judge, no predestined fate—only actions and their corresponding consequences.
2. The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra: Micro-Elaboration and Expansion of Causality
In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, karmic causality remains a foundational principle. However, its presentation becomes more detailed and systematized.
Each wholesome action is not only said to result in favorable rebirth but is further analyzed in terms of multiple specific merits. For example, abstaining from killing may lead to:
- Physical well-being
- The cultivation of compassion
- Freedom from fear
- Protection by celestial beings
- Longevity
- And various additional benefits
Such enumerations create a “micro-map” of karma. Causality is not merely affirmed at the level of general direction but articulated in a layered and differentiated manner.
This indicates a shift in emphasis. Rather than focusing solely on the trajectory of rebirth, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra is concerned with the full spectrum of benefits that a single wholesome action may generate, both in present life and future existences.
3. Karma as Ethical Principle or as System of Merit Accumulation
From these two modes of presentation, a subtle distinction emerges:
- In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, karma is articulated primarily as an ethical principle: wholesome action leads to favorable results, unwholesome action to unfavorable ones.
- In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, karma also functions as a structured system of merit accumulation that can be layered, expanded, and integrated into higher stages of practice.
This does not imply a modification of the law of karma itself. The principle remains intact. What changes is the scope of its articulation: each action is understood as capable of generating multiple tiers of results and serving as a foundation for progressively higher spiritual attainments.
4. The Centrality of Mental Action in the Karmic Mechanism
Both texts place mental action at the core of karmic production. Greed, hatred, and delusion (or wrong view) are not peripheral factors but the roots from which all conduct arises.
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, wrong view is defined as the denial of karmic causality, the afterlife, and awakened beings; as such, it becomes a direct cause of unwholesome rebirth. In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, delusion is portrayed as the obscuring condition that prevents wisdom and perpetuates saṃsāra.
Despite differences in elaboration, both texts converge on a central insight: karmic causality is not merely a matter of external behavior but fundamentally rooted in cognition and intention.
5. Provisional Synthesis
From the comparison above, three neutral observations may be drawn:
- Both texts preserve karmic causality as the foundation of Buddhist ethics.
- The Sāleyyaka Sutta emphasizes the linear and direct correspondence between action and result.
- The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra elaborates and expands the articulation of the same principle into a more differentiated and systematic framework.
At the level of karmic mechanism, therefore, the divergence does not concern the alteration of the law of karma itself but rather its interpretive development and degree of systematization.
V. The Metaphysical Framing of Mind: From Ethical Action to the Ontology of Karma
The divergence between the two texts does not concern only the degree of elaboration of karmic results but also the manner in which each text positions the role of mind within the structure of karma. While the Sāleyyaka Sutta centers its discussion on action and ethical consequence, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra expands the framework into a metaphysical horizon in which mind becomes the point of departure for the entire process of saṃsāra.
1. The Sāleyyaka Sutta: Mind as Ethical Motivation
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) of the Majjhima Nikāya, mind appears primarily in the form of mental actions: greed, hatred, and wrong view. These states function as the motivating causes of bodily and verbal conduct, which in turn lead to corresponding rebirths.
The text, however, does not develop an account of mind as a metaphysical reality. There is no extended analysis of emptiness, non-self, or the ontological status of phenomena. Mind is treated as the center of ethical motivation rather than as an object of ontological inquiry.
In this sense, the Sāleyyaka Sutta operates within a psychological–ethical framework:
- Mind gives rise to intention (cetanā).
- Intention shapes action.
- Action generates karma and leads to result.
Such a framework accords with the practical orientation of the discourse: to guide correct conduct in lived experience and to open the path toward the eradication of the taints.
2. The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra: Mind as Cosmological Foundation
By contrast, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra opens with an explicitly metaphysical assertion: all differentiation within saṃsāra arises from the operations of mind; mind is formless, elusive, and devoid of fixed self-nature.
Here, mind is not merely the motivational source of action but the explanatory ground of the entire structure of existence. The distinction between wholesome and unwholesome, suffering and happiness, ordinary and awakened beings is ultimately traced back to the functioning of mind.
This framing relocates the ten wholesome actions beyond the sphere of purely social or ethical regulation and situates them within a broader ontological horizon. Wholesome conduct is not simply a means of avoiding unfortunate rebirth but the manifestation of a purified mind approaching awakening.
3. From Ethical Psychology to the Metaphysics of Karma
The difference between the two texts may thus be described as a shift in emphasis:
- In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, mind functions as the origin of ethical intention.
- In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, mind becomes the principle that explains the cosmos and the dynamics of saṃsāra.
This distinction does not imply that the Sāleyyaka Sutta denies any deeper metaphysical dimension of mind. Rather, it indicates that such concerns are not foregrounded within its immediate pedagogical objective. The aim of the Sāleyyaka Sutta is to clarify the relationship between conduct, rebirth, and liberation; the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, by contrast, integrates ethical practice into a comprehensive soteriological and cosmological system.
4. The Significance of Metaphysical Expansion
Situating the ten wholesome actions within a metaphysical account of mind yields two important consequences:
- Ethics becomes not merely the regulation of external behavior but a means of transforming the very structure of consciousness.
- Karma is understood not only as action producing result but as the expression of a cognitive process that can be purified and reoriented.
At this level, the divergence between the two texts does not concern the ethical catalogue itself but the ontological positioning of that catalogue within a broader account of reality.
5. Provisional Assessment
Three neutral observations may be drawn:
- Both texts affirm that mind is the root of karma.
- The Sāleyyaka Sutta presents mind primarily as ethical motivation.
- The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra expands mind into a cosmological and ontological foundation.
The distinction therefore lies in the degree and scope of elaboration rather than in any alteration of the ten wholesome actions themselves.
VI. The Soteriological Horizon: Arahantship and Buddhahood
Having examined the ethical structure and the mechanism of karmic causality, a further question arises: toward what ultimate end do the ten wholesome actions lead? It is at this point that the divergence between the two texts becomes most evident—not in the ethical catalogue itself, but in the soteriological horizon within which it is situated.
1. The Sāleyyaka Sutta: The Ideal of the Cessation of the Taints
In the Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) of the Majjhima Nikāya, the ten wholesome actions lead to two principal outcomes:
- Rebirth in fortunate realms (human or celestial).
- At the highest level, the eradication of the taints (āsavas) and liberation in this very life.
The decisive emphasis lies not on heavenly rebirth but on the cessation of saṃsāra. Ethical conduct functions as a necessary condition for the purification of mind and the elimination of ignorance.
The soteriological structure may be summarized as follows:
- Wholesome conduct → fortunate rebirth
- Deeper cultivation → eradication of the taints
- Eradication of the taints → liberation
The ultimate ideal is the Arahant, one who has brought rebirth to an end. The ten wholesome actions serve as the ethical foundation upon which this trajectory can begin and stabilize.
2. The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra: The Ideal of Buddhahood and Complete Fulfillment
In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, wholesome conduct likewise leads to favorable rebirth, but this is not presented as the final goal. Each wholesome action is extended by an additional dimension: when dedicated toward unsurpassed awakening (anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi), it becomes a condition for supreme attainment.
The same act, when situated within the Bodhisattva path, contributes to the cultivation of the qualities of a Buddha, including perfected wisdom, skillful means, and the capacity to liberate beings.
The soteriological structure in this text may therefore be described as:
- Wholesome conduct → worldly merit
- Dedication of merit → accumulation of spiritual qualities
- Fulfillment of merit → attainment of Buddhahood
Notably, the ten wholesome actions are not merely the beginning of the path but are described as the foundational ground of the entire trajectory, extending from Śrāvaka practice to full Buddhahood.
3. Divergence in Soteriological Dimension
The divergence between the two texts does not lie in an affirmation or denial of karmic causality, but in the vision of the ultimate destination of spiritual practice.
- In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, the ultimate aim is cessation: the complete eradication of the taints and the end of rebirth.
- In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, the ultimate aim is fulfillment: the complete realization of the qualities of Buddhahood.
Both texts regard heavenly rebirth as an intermediate stage rather than the final goal. However, their respective conceptions of ultimacy differ:
- One emphasizes liberation from saṃsāra.
- The other emphasizes omniscient awakening and the salvific ideal.
4. The Significance of This Divergence
From an analytical perspective, several observations may be drawn:
- In the Sāleyyaka Sutta, the ten wholesome actions serve the ideal of individual liberation.
- In the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra, they are integrated into the Bodhisattva ideal and the attainment of Buddhahood.
- The ethical catalogue remains unchanged, yet the soteriological horizon expands considerably.
This divergence does not alter the foundational structure of karma but repositions the role of the ten wholesome actions within the overall path of practice.
5. Provisional Synthesis
Section VI thus reveals a shift in emphasis:
- From the ideal of cessation (the arahant ideal)
- To the ideal of complete awakening (the Buddhahood ideal)
Nevertheless, both texts agree that the ten wholesome actions constitute an indispensable condition for spiritual development. The divergence lies in the final destination rather than in the ethical foundation itself.
VII. Historical Context and the Development of Tradition: Two Texts within the Flow of Buddhism
Having examined structure and doctrinal content, situating the two texts within their historical context helps clarify why the same catalogue of ten wholesome actions is articulated with differing emphases. The divergence is not merely stylistic; it reflects distinct intellectual conditions and stages of internal development within the Buddhist tradition.
1. The Sāleyyaka Sutta in the Formation of Ethical Normativity
The Sāleyyaka Sutta (MN 41) of the Majjhima Nikāya reflects a relatively early phase in the formation of the canonical tradition, when the primary concern of the teaching was the establishment of ethical foundations and the affirmation of karmic causality as an autonomous principle.
In the intellectual climate of ancient India, śramaṇa and Brahmanical traditions were engaged in debate concerning karma, rebirth, and ultimate liberation. The presentation of the ten wholesome actions in a clear and direct structure served several functions:
- Distinguishing the Buddhist teaching from Vedic theistic models of divine reward and punishment.
- Affirming the self-operating character of karma.
- Establishing normative ethical standards for both lay communities and the monastic saṅgha.
At this stage, the teaching had not yet developed into elaborate philosophical systems. Its emphasis lay on practical applicability and ethical clarity within lived experience.
2. The Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra within Systematization and Sectarian Debate
By contrast, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra emerged within a considerably more developed intellectual environment.
From approximately the first century BCE onward, Buddhism entered a period of extensive doctrinal systematization. Various schools developed detailed Abhidharma frameworks and engaged in debates concerning:
- The ontological status of dharmas
- The existence of dharmas across the three times
- The relationship between non-self and karmic continuity
- The structure of liberation
Within this milieu, many Mahāyāna sūtras arose and began to reinterpret early doctrinal elements within an expanded horizon. This development need not be understood as oppositional; rather, it reflects a phase of internal reflection and philosophical deepening within the tradition.
The features of the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra—its micro-elaboration of merit, its portrayal of the ten wholesome actions as foundational for Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas alike, and its integration of these actions into the Bodhisattva ideal—may be understood as characteristic of a period in which the teaching had entered a stage of systematic integration and expansion of its soteriological vision.
3. From Ethical Norm to Systemic Integration
Seen within this historical framework, the divergence between the two texts may be interpreted as representing two phases within a continuous developmental trajectory:
- An early phase focused on the direct establishment of ethical normativity and karmic causality.
- A later phase integrating that normativity into a broader philosophical and soteriological system.
Significantly, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra does not alter the catalogue of the ten wholesome actions. The preservation of the 3–4–3 structure indicates a conscious continuity with earlier tradition, even as the horizon of interpretation expands.
4. Methodological Clarification
It should be noted that situating Mahāyāna sūtras within the historical development and systematization of Buddhist thought does not entail a denial of their traditional authority, nor does it constitute a judgment concerning the question of “Buddha-word” in confessional terms.
The present analysis operates on the level of historical-textual inquiry and intellectual development. Its aim is to clarify how core elements of the teaching were interpreted and repositioned across different phases of the Buddhist tradition.
VIII. Conclusion: Stability of Foundation and Expansion of Horizon
The comparison between the Sāleyyaka Sutta and the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra reveals a notable pattern: the divergence between the two texts does not lie in the foundational structure of ethics, but in the manner in which that foundation is interpreted and situated within the broader path of practice.
At the architectural level, the ten wholesome actions are preserved intact in their 3–4–3 configuration. There is no alteration of the catalogue, no replacement of core principles. This continuity demonstrates a deep stability in the ethical normativity of the Buddhist tradition, irrespective of shifts in historical context or doctrinal development.
Differences emerge at higher interpretive levels:
- In the articulation of karmic causality: from a linear model to a micro-elaboration of merit.
- In the metaphysical framing of mind: from ethical motivation to cosmological foundation.
- In the soteriological horizon: from the ideal of the eradication of the taints to the ideal of the full realization of Buddhahood.
Yet these differences do not undermine the early-established ethical foundation. Rather than signaling doctrinal rupture, the analysis points to a process of internal repositioning and expansion: the same structure of ten wholesome actions is situated within progressively broader soteriological horizons as the tradition develops.
From this perspective, the Ten Wholesome Actions Sūtra does not replace the Sāleyyaka Sutta, but receives and extends the ethical foundation articulated in the early phase. This development reflects the dynamic capacity of the Buddhist tradition for self-interpretation—preserving fundamental elements while integrating them into increasingly comprehensive conceptual frameworks.
Accordingly, instead of opposing the two texts as separate systems, they may be understood as two expressions along a single axis of thought: one establishing the foundation, the other expanding the horizon. Continuity, therefore, lies not in complete doctrinal uniformity but in the stability of the foundation throughout the process of development.
Bibliography
Collins, Steven. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravāda Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Gombrich, Richard. What the Buddha Thought. London: Equinox, 2009.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism. Translated by Paul Groner. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990.
Keown, Damien. The Nature of Buddhist Ethics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.
Ten Wholesome Actions Sutra (佛說十善業道經).
Taishō Tripiṭaka, no. 600. In Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1935.
Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009.