Abiding by their own views, some (people), having got into
contest, assert themselves to be
the (only) expert (saying), '(He) who understands this, he knows the
Dhamma; he who reviles this, he is not perfect.'
So having got into contest they dispute: 'The opponent (is) a
fool, an ignorant (person),' so they say. Which one of these, pray, is
the true doctrine (vâda)? for all these assert themselves (to be the
He who does not acknowledge an opponent's doctrine (dhamma), he is
a fool, a beast, one of poor understanding, all are fools with a very
poor understanding; all these abide by their (own) views.
They are surely purified by their own view, they are of a pure
understanding, expert, thoughtful, amongst them there is no one of poor
understanding, their view is quite perfect!
I do not say, 'This is the reality,' which fools say mutually to
each other; they made their own views the truth, therefore they hold
others to be fools.
What some say is the truth, the reality, that others say is void,
false, so having disagreed they dispute. Why do not the Sama/n/as say
one (and the same thing)?
For the truth is one, there is not a second, about which one
intelligent man might dispute with another intelligent man; (but) they
themselves praise different truths, therefore the Sama/n/as do not say
one and the same thing).
Why do the disputants that assert themselves (to be the only)
expert, proclaim different truths? Have many different truths been heard
of, or do they (only) follow (their own) reasoning?
There are not many different truths in the world, no eternal ones
except consciousness; but having reasoned on the (philosophical) views
they proclaim a double Dhamma, truth and falsehood.
In regard to what has been seen, or heard, virtue and (holy)
works, or what has been thought, and on account of these (views) looking
(upon others) with contempt, standing in (their) resolutions joyful,
they say that the opponent is a fool and an ignorant person(?)
Because he holds another (to be) a fool, therefore he calls
himself expert, in his own opinion he is one that tells what is
propitious, others he blames, so he said. (?)
He is full of his overbearing (philosophical) view, mad with
pride, thinking himself perfect, he is in his own opinion anointed with
the spirit (of genius), for his (philosopbical) view is quite complete.
If he according to another's report is low, then (he says) the
other is also of a low understanding, and if he himself is accomplished
and wise, there is not any fool amongst the Sama/n/as.
'Those who preach a doctrine (dhamma) different from this, fall
short of purity and are imperfect,' so the Titthiyas say repeatedly, for
they are inflamed by passion for their own (philosophical) views.
Here they maintain purity, in other doctrines (dhamma) they do
not allow purity; so the Titthiyas, entering extensively (upon details),
say that in their own way there is something firm.
And saying that there is something firm in his own way he holds
his opponent to be a fool; thus he himself brings on strife, calling his
opponent a fool and impure (asuddhadhamma).
Standing in (his) resolution, having himself measured (teachers,
&c.), he still more enters into dispute in the world; but having left
all resolutions nobody will excite strife in the world.
Back to Top