Question
Each attached to their own views,
They dispute, and the experts say,
“Whoever knows this understands the Dhamma,
Whoever rejects it is imprefect.”Arguing like this, they disagree, saying
“My opponent is a fool, and is no expert”
Which of these doctrines is the truth,
Since all of them say they are experts?Buddha
If by not accepting another’s teaching
One became a fool of debased wisdom
Then, honestly, all are fools of debased wisdom,
Since all are attached to views.But if people are washed by their own views,
With pure wisdom, experts, thoughtful,
Then none of them has debased wisdom,
For their views are perfect.I don’t say, “This is how it is”,
Like the fools who oppose each other.
Each of them makes out that their view is the truth,
So they treat their opponent as a fool.Question
What some say is the truth,
Others say is false.
So they argue, disagreeing;
Why don’t the ascetics teach one truth?Buddha
Indeed the truth is one, there’s not another,
about this the One who Knows
does not dispute with another,
but the Samaṇas proclaim their varied “truths”
and so they speak not in the same way.Why do they speak such varied truths,
these so-called experts disputatious—
Are there really many and various truths
Or do they just rehearse their logic?Buddha
Indeed, there are not many and varied truths
differing from perception of the ever-true in the world;
but they work upon their views with logic:
“Truth! Falsehood!” So they speak in dualities.Based on what is seen, heard,
On precepts and vows, or what is cognized,
They look down on others.
Convinced of their own theories,
pleased with themselves,
They say, “My opponent is a fool, no expert.”They consider themselves expert for the same reasons
That they despise their opponent as a fool.
Calling themselves experts, they despise the other,
Yet they speak the very same way.And since perfected in some extreme view,
puffed with pride and maddened by conceit,
he anoints himself as though the master-mind,
likewise thinking his view’s perfected too.If their opponent says they are deficient,
They too are of deficient understanding.
But if they are wise and knowledgeable,
Then there are no fools among the ascetics.“Anyone who teaches a doctrine other than this,
Has fallen short of purity and perfection.”
This is what followers of other paths say,
Passionately defending their very different views.“Here alone is purity,” so they say,
“There is no purity in the teachings of others.”
This is what followers of other paths strongly assert,
Each entrenched in their own different path.Strongly asserting their own path,
What opponent would they take to be a fool?
They would only bring trouble on themselves
By calling an opponent a fool of impure teachings.Convinced of their own theories,
Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories,
They don’t have any problems with the world.
snp.4.12 Suttanipata
Smaller Discourse on Quarrelling
- Translator: Laurence Khantipalo Mills
The Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle
“Each maintaining their own view,the experts disagree, arguing:
‘Whoever sees it this way has understood the teaching;
those who reject this are inadequate.’
So arguing, they quarrel,
saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’
Which one of these speaks true,
for they all claim to be an expert?”
“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.
But if having your own view is what makes you pristine—
pure in wisdom, expert and intelligent—
then none of them lack wisdom,
for such is the view they have all embraced.
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.”
“What some say is true and correct,
others say is hollow and false.
So arguing, they quarrel;
why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”
“The truth is one, there is no second,
understanding which folk would not argue.
But those ascetics each boast of different truths;
that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”
“But why do they speak of different truths,
these proponents who claim to be experts?
Are there really so many different truths,
or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”
“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.
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!’
They take the other as a fool on the same grounds
that they speak of themselves as an expert.
Claiming to be an expert on their own authority,
they disdain the other while saying the same thing.
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.
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, a wise person,
then there are no fools among the ascetics.
‘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.
‘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.
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.
Standing in judgment, measuring by their own standard,
they keep getting into disputes with the world.
But a person who has given up all judgments
creates no conflict in the world.”