The Three Poisons: Examine the Roots of Conduct

When a Buddhist teaching names the three poisons, ask how each one shapes an action. Attachment, hostility and ignorance have different features. Learning those distinctions can make a review of your own conduct more specific than calling an entire day “good” or “bad.”

Why describe them as roots?

In the Mūla Sutta, AN 3:70, the Buddha identifies greed, aversion and delusion as unskillful roots. The discourse follows their effects through bodily, verbal and mental conduct, including the harm inflicted when someone pursues power over others. It also describes the opposing skillful roots: freedom from greed, aversion and delusion. [1]

The subject is therefore more than an unpleasant feeling. Ask what conduct follows from the state of mind. If you are examining an argument, include what you said or did, not only how justified you felt at the time.

Keep that inquiry directed toward what you can examine honestly. A disagreement does not give you direct access to another person's motives.

What distinguishes the three?

Alexander Berzin's explanation of ethical rules gives these distinctions within its account of destructive action:

• Attachment, longing desire and greed: exaggerating an object's positive qualities, whether wanting to obtain it, refusing to release it or continually wanting more.
• Hostility or anger: exaggerating negative qualities while wanting to reject or harm the disliked object or person.
• Naivety or ignorance: not knowing, or misunderstanding, behavioral cause and effect; at a deeper level, misunderstanding how persons and phenomena exist.

Berzin also distinguishes the analyses of Vasubandhu and Asanga. The three poisons are important motivations, but his presentation does not make them an exhaustive checklist of everything that can make an action destructive. [2]

Keep the terms from the text you are studying beside its explanation. The Pali translation linked here uses greed, aversion and delusion; Berzin uses a related set of English terms in a Tibetan Buddhist teaching context. Ask a teacher about the scope before assuming every translation maps word for word.

Review one action with its details attached

Suppose a repair shop returns a lamp later than you expected and you begin writing a review. Separate the facts you know from the additions you are making. You know when the lamp arrived. Check the agreed date before describing a broken promise.

Then review the proposed action. Does the message request a practical change, or are you adding an insult because you want the person to feel small? Are you ignoring the likely effect on the person who will receive it? Write the question down before deciding how to respond.

This is an editorial example of examining conduct. It does not establish which mental factor is present in every disagreement. You can ask about the delay and still examine the way you make that request.

Include your response to correction

AN 3:70 connects skillful conduct with acknowledging what is factual and making an effort to untangle what is baseless. Its account of unskillful conduct includes refusing to acknowledge a factual correction. [1]

In the repair-shop example, suppose you discover that your review gave the wrong agreed date. Correct that fact in the review. A review that ends with noticing irritation but leaves a false accusation uncorrected has unfinished practical work.

Our right-speech article discusses truth, benefit and timing. The ethical-discipline guide places restraint alongside learning and helping others.

Keep a study question open

Berzin also considers how considerate behavior can include saying no. [2]

If you are unsure how to apply the teaching, bring a specific example to a teacher. Describe the situation, the action considered and the term you do not understand. Leave room for a more precise explanation than the first label you chose.

Sources and further reading

1. Roots, Mūla Sutta, AN 3:70. Pali discourse in Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation on dhammatalks.org; unskillful and skillful roots, conduct and factual correction.
2. Lam-rim 36: Thinking about Ethical Rules. Alexander Berzin, Study Buddhism; definitions, differences of analysis and ethical reflection.

Sources checked October 28, 2026. Written with AI assistance and checked against the linked texts. The examples and brief review are supplied by this site; they do not replace instruction from a qualified teacher.