Snp 4.12

Cūḷabyūhasutta

“Sakaṁsakaṁdiṭṭhiparibbasānā, Viggayha nānā kusalā vadanti; Yo evaṁ jānāti sa vedi dhammaṁ, Idaṁ paṭikkosamakevalī so.

The Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle

“Each maintaining their own view, those who are skilled disagree, arguing: ‘Whoever sees it this way understands the teaching; those who reject this are inadequate.’

Evampi viggayha vivādayanti, Bālo paro akkusaloti cāhu; Sacco nu vādo katamo imesaṁ, Sabbeva hīme kusalāvadānā”.

So arguing, they dispute, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’ Which of these is a true statement, for all of them profess to be experts?”

“Parassa ce dhammamanānujānaṁ, Bālomako hoti nihīnapañño; Sabbeva bālā sunihīnapaññā, Sabbevime diṭṭhiparibbasānā.

“If not accepting another’s teaching makes you a useless fool lacking wisdom, then they’re all fools lacking wisdom, for they all maintain their own view.

Sandiṭṭhiyā ceva na vīvadātā, Saṁsuddhapaññā kusalā mutīmā; Na tesaṁ koci parihīnapañño, Diṭṭhī hi tesampi tathā samattā.

But if having your own view makes you pristine— pure in wisdom, expert and thoughtful— then none of them lack wisdom, for such is the view they have all embraced.

Na vāhametaṁ tathiyanti brūmi, Yamāhu bālā mithu aññamaññaṁ; Sakaṁ sakaṁ diṭṭhimakaṁsu saccaṁ, Tasmā hi bāloti paraṁ dahanti”.

I do not say that it is correct when they call each other fools. Each has built up their own view to be the truth, which is why they take the other as a fool.”

“Yamāhu saccaṁ tathiyanti eke, Tamāhu aññe tucchaṁ musāti; Evampi vigayha vivādayanti, Kasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“What some say is true and correct, others say is hollow and false. So arguing, they dispute; why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”

“Ekañhi saccaṁ na dutīyamatthi, Yasmiṁ pajā no vivade pajānaṁ; Nānā te saccāni sayaṁ thunanti, Tasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“The truth is one, there is no second, understanding which folk would not dispute. But those ascetics each boast of different truths; that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”

“Kasmā nu saccāni vadanti nānā, Pavādiyāse kusalāvadānā; Saccāni sutāni bahūni nānā, Udāhu te takkamanussaranti”.

“But why do they speak of different truths, these proponents who profess to be experts? Are there really so many different truths, or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”

“Na heva saccāni bahūni nānā, Aññatra saññāya niccāni loke; Takkañca diṭṭhīsu pakappayitvā, Saccaṁ musāti dvayadhammamāhu.

“No, there are not many different truths that, apart from perception, are lasting in the world. Having formed their reasoning regarding different views, they say there are two things: true and false.

Diṭṭhe sute sīlavate mute vā, Ete ca nissāya vimānadassī; Vinicchaye ṭhatvā pahassamāno, Bālo paro akkusaloti cāha.

The seen, heard, or thought, or precepts or vows— based on these they show disdain. Standing in judgment, they scoff, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’

Yeneva bāloti paraṁ dahāti, Tenātumānaṁ kusaloti cāha; Sayamattanā so kusalāvadāno, Aññaṁ vimāneti tadeva pāva.

They take the other as a fool on the same grounds that they speak of themselves as an expert. Professing to be expert on their own authority, they disdain the other while saying the same thing.

Atisāradiṭṭhiyā so samatto, Mānena matto paripuṇṇamānī; Sayameva sāmaṁ manasābhisitto, Diṭṭhī hi sā tassa tathā samattā.

They are perfect, according to their own extreme view; drunk on conceit, imagining themselves proficient. They have anointed themselves in their own mind, for such is the view they have embraced.

Parassa ce hi vacasā nihīno, Tumo sahā hoti nihīnapañño; Atha ce sayaṁ vedagū hoti dhīro, Na koci bālo samaṇesu atthi.

If the word of your opponent makes you deficient, then they too are lacking wisdom. But if on your own authority you’re a knowledge master, an attentive one, then there are no fools among the ascetics.

Aññaṁ ito yābhivadanti dhammaṁ, Aparaddhā suddhimakevalī te; Evampi titthyā puthuso vadanti, Sandiṭṭhirāgena hi tebhirattā.

‘Those who proclaim a teaching other than this have fallen short of purity, and are inadequate’: so say each one of the sectarians, for they are deeply attached to their own view.

Idheva suddhiṁ iti vādayanti, Nāññesu dhammesu visuddhimāhu; Evampi titthyā puthuso niviṭṭhā, Sakāyane tattha daḷhaṁ vadānā.

‘Here alone is purity,’ they say, denying that there is purification in other teachings. Thus each one of the sectarians, being dogmatic, speaks forcefully within the context of their own journey.

Sakāyane vāpi daḷhaṁ vadāno, Kamettha bāloti paraṁ daheyya; Sayaṁva so medhagamāvaheyya, Paraṁ vadaṁ bālamasuddhidhammaṁ.

But in that case, so long as they are speaking forcefully of their own journey, how can they take the other as a fool? They are the ones who provoke conflict when they call the other a fool with an impure teaching.

Vinicchaye ṭhatvā sayaṁ pamāya, Uddhaṁsa lokasmiṁ vivādameti; Hitvāna sabbāni vinicchayāni, Na medhagaṁ kubbati jantu loke”ti.

Standing in judgment, measuring by their own standard, they dispute with the world more and more. But a personage who has given up all judgments creates no conflict in the world.”