Sutta Nipata

For one who gets involved <j>is embroiled in disputes about teachings— but how to dispute with the uninvolved? <j>About what? For picking up and putting down <j>is not what they do; they have shaken off all views in this very life.

“I see someone pure, perfectly healthy; it is vision that grants a person purity.” Recalling this notion of the ultimate, they believe in the notion <j>that there is one who observes purity.

If a person were granted purity through what is seen, or if by a notion they could give up suffering, then one with attachments is purified by another: their view betrays them as one who asserts thus.

The brahmin speaks not of purity from another in terms of what has been seen, heard, or thought; <j>or by precepts or vows. They are unsullied in the midst of good and evil, letting go what was picked up, <j>without creating anything new here.

Having let go the last they lay hold of the next; following impulse, they don’t pass the chain. They grab on and let loose like a monkey grabbing and releasing a branch.

Having undertaken their own vows, a personage visits various teachers, <j>being attached to perception. One who knows, having comprehended the truth <j>through the knowledges, does not visit various teachers, being of vast wisdom.

They are remote from all things seen, heard, or thought. Seeing them living openly, how could anyone in this world judge them?

They don’t make things up or promote them, or speak of the uttermost purity. After untying the tight knot of grasping they long for nothing in the world.

The brahmin has stepped over the perimeter; knowing and seeing, they adopt nothing. Neither in love with passion <j>nor besotted by dispassion, there is nothing here they adopt as the ultimate.

If, maintaining that theirs is the “ultimate” view, a personage makes it out to be highest in the world; then they declare all others are “lesser”; that’s why they’re not beyond disputes.

If they see an advantage for themselves in what’s seen, heard, or thought; <j>or in precepts or vows, in that case, having adopted that one alone, they see all others as inferior.

Those who are skilled say that, too, is a knot, relying on which people see others as lesser. That’s why a mendicant ought not rely on what’s seen, heard, or thought, <j>or on precepts and vows.

Nor would they form a view about the world through a notion or through precepts and vows. They would never represent themselves as “equal”, nor conceive themselves “worse” or “better”.

What was picked up has been set down <j>and is not grasped again; they form no dependency even on notions. They follow no side among the factions, and believe in no view at all.

One here who has no wish for either end— for any state of existence in this life or the next— has adopted no dogma at all after judging among the teachings.

For them not even the tiniest idea is formulated here regarding what is seen, heard, or thought. That brahmin does not grasp any view— how could anyone in this world judge them?

They don’t make things up or promote them, and don’t subscribe to any of the doctrines. The brahmin has no need to be led by precept or vow; gone to the far shore, one such does not return.

Short, alas, is this life; you die before a hundred years. Even if you live a little longer, you still die of old age.

People grieve over belongings, yet there is no such thing as permanent possessions. Separation is a fact of life; when you see this, you wouldn’t stay living at home.

Whatever a person thinks of as belonging to them, that too is given up when they die. Knowing this, an astute follower of mine would not be bent on ownership.

Just as, upon awakening, a person does not see what they encountered in a dream; so too you do not see your loved ones when they are dead and gone.

You used to see and hear those folk, and call them by their name. Yet the name is all that’s left to tell of a personage when they’re gone.

Those who are greedy for belongings don’t give up sorrow, lamentation, and stinginess. That’s why the sages, seers of sanctuary, left possessions behind and wandered.

For a mendicant who lives withdrawn, frequenting a secluded seat, they say it’s fitting to not show themselves in a home.

The sage is independent everywhere, they don’t form likes or dislikes. Lamentation and stinginess slip off them like water from a leaf.

Like a droplet slips from a lotus-leaf, like water from a lotus flower; the sage doesn’t cling to that which is seen or heard or thought.

For the one who is cleansed does not conceive in terms of things seen, heard, or thought. They do not wish to be purified by another; they are neither passionate <j>nor growing dispassioned.

“When someone indulges in sex,” said Venerable Tissametteyya, “tell us, good fellow: what trouble befalls them? After hearing your instruction, we shall train in seclusion.”

“When someone indulges in sex,” replied the Buddha, “they forget their instructions and go the wrong way— that is something ignoble in them.

Someone who formerly lived alone and then resorts to sex is like a chariot careening off-track; in the world they call them a low, ordinary person.

Their former fame and reputation also fall away. Seeing this, they’d train to give up sex.

Oppressed by thoughts, they brood like a wretch. When they hear what others are saying, that sort is embarrassed.

Then they lash out with verbal daggers when reproached by others. This is their great blind spot; they sink to lies.

They once were considered astute, committed to the solitary life. But then they indulged in sex, dragged along by desire like a dullard.

Knowing this danger in falling from a former state here, a sage would firmly resolve to wander alone, and would not resort to sex.

They’d train themselves only in seclusion; this, for the noble ones, is highest. One who’d not think themselves ‘best’ due to that has truly drawn near to extinguishment.

People tied to sensual pleasures envy them: the isolated, wandering sage who has crossed the flood, unconcerned for sensual pleasures.”

“Here alone is purity,” they say, denying that there is purification in other teachings. Speaking of the beauty <j>in that which they depend on, each one is dogmatic about <j>their own idiosyncratic interpretation.

Desiring debate, they plunge into an assembly, where each takes the other as a fool. Relying on others they state their contention, desiring praise while claiming to be skilled.

Addicted to debating in the midst of the assembly, their need for praise makes them nervous. But when they’re repudiated they get embarrassed; upset at criticism, they find fault in others.

If their doctrine is said to be weak, and judges declare it repudiated, the loser weeps and wails, moaning, “They beat me.”

When these disputes come up among ascetics, they get excited or dejected. Seeing this, refrain from contention, for the only purpose is praise and profit.

But if, having declared their doctrine, they are praised there in the midst of the assembly, they laugh and gloat because of it, having got what they wanted.

Their pride is their downfall, yet they speak from conceit and arrogance. Seeing this, one ought not dispute, for those who are skilled say this is no way to purity.

As a warrior, after feasting on royal food, goes roaring, looking for someone to fight— go off and find an opponent, Sūra, for here, as before, there is no one to combat.

When someone disputes about a view they’ve adopted, saying, “This is the only truth,” say to them, “Here you’ll have no adversary when a dispute has come up.”

There are those who live far from the crowd, not countering views with view. Who is there to argue with you, Pasūra, among those who grasp nothing here as the highest?

And so you come along speculating, thinking up theories in your mind. Now that you’ve challenged <j>someone who is cleansed, you’ll not be able to respond.

“Even when I saw the sirens <j>Craving, Malignancy, and Lust, I had no desire for sex. What is this body full of piss and shit? I wouldn’t even want to touch it with my foot.”

“If you do not want a gem such as this, a lady desired by many lords of men, then what manner of theory, <j>precepts and vows, livelihood, and rebirth in a new life do you assert?”

“After judging among the teachings,” said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya, “none have been adopted thinking, ‘I assert this.’ Seeing views without adopting any, searching, I saw inner peace.”

“O sage, you speak of judgments you have formed,” said Māgaṇḍiya, “without having adopted any of those views. As to that matter of ‘inner peace’— how is that described by the attentive?”

“Purity is spoken of not as due to view,” said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya, “learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows; nor without view, learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows. Having relinquished these, not adopting them, peaceful, independent, one would not pray <j>for another life.”

“It seems purity is spoken of not as due to view,” said Māgaṇḍiya, “learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows; nor without view, learning, knowledge, or precepts and vows. If so, I think this teaching is sheer folly; some believe that purity comes from view.”

“Continuing to question while relying on a view,” said the Buddha to Māgaṇḍiya, “you’ve become confused by all you’ve adopted. From this you’ve not glimpsed the slightest idea, which is why you consider the teaching folly.

If you think that ‘I’m equal, special, or worse’, you’ll dispute about that. Not wavering due to the three discriminations, they have no thought, ‘I’m equal or special’.

Why would that brahmin say, ‘It’s true’, or with whom would they dispute, ‘It’s false’? There is no equal or unequal in them, so who would they take on in debate?

After leaving their bastion to migrate without abode, a sage doesn’t get close to anyone in town. Rid of sensual pleasures, not expecting, they wouldn’t get in arguments with people.

A spiritual giant would not take up for debate the things in the world from which they live secluded. As a prickly lotus born in the water is unsullied by water and mud, so the greedless sage, proponent of peace, is unsmeared by sensuality and the world.

A knowledge master does not become conceited due to view or thought, <j>for they are not determined by that. They’ve no need for deeds or learning, they’re not indoctrinated in dogmas.

There are no ties for one detached from ideas; there are no delusions for one freed by wisdom. But those who have adopted ideas and views wander the world causing conflict.”

“Seeing how, behaving how, is one said to be at peace? When asked, Gotama, please tell me about the ultimate person.”

“Rid of craving before the breakup,” said the Buddha, “not dependent on the first beginning, unfathomable in the middle, they are not governed by anything.

Unangry, unafraid, not boastful or regretful, thoughtful in counsel, not restless— truly that sage is controlled in speech.

Rid of attachment to the future, they don’t grieve for the past. A seer of seclusion in the midst of contacts is not led astray among views.

Withdrawn, free of deceit, they’re not envious or stingy, nor rude or disgusting, or given to slander.

Not swept up in pleasures, or given to arrogance, they’re gentle and articulate, neither hungering nor growing dispassionate.

Not training for desire for profit, nor getting annoyed at lack of profit; they are not hostile due to craving, for they are not greedy for flavors.

Equanimous, ever mindful, they never conceive themselves in the world as equal, special, or less than; they have no pretensions.

They have no dependencies, understanding the teaching, they are independent. No craving is found in them to continue existence or to end it.

I declare them to be at peace, unconcerned for sensual pleasures. No ties are found in them, they have crossed over clinging.

They have no children or livestock, nor possess fields or lands. No picking up or putting down is found in them.

That by which one might describe an ordinary person or ascetics and brahmins has no importance to them, which is why they’re unperturbed by words.

Freed of greed, not stingy, a sage doesn’t speak of themselves as being among superiors, inferiors, or equals. One not prone to creation <j>does not return to creation.

They who have nothing in the world of their own do not grieve for that which is not, or drift among the teachings; that’s who is said to be at peace.”

“Where do quarrels and disputes come from? And lamentation and sorrow, and stinginess? What of conceit and arrogance, and slander too— tell me please, where do they come from?”

“Quarrels and disputes come from what we hold dear, as do lamentation and sorrow, stinginess, conceit and arrogance. Quarrels and disputes are linked to stinginess, and when disputes have arisen there is slander.”

“So where do things held dear <j>in the world spring from? And the lusts that are loose in the world? Where spring the hopes and aims a man has for lives to come?”

“What we hold dear in the world spring from desire, as do the lusts that are loose in the world. From there spring the hopes and aims a man has for lives to come.”

“So where does desire in the world spring from? And evaluations, too, where do they come from? And anger, lies, and indecision, and other things spoken of by the Ascetic?”

“What they call pleasure and pain in the world— based on that, desire comes about. Seeing the manifestation and vanishing of forms, a personage makes evaluations in the world.

Anger, lies, and indecision— these things are, too, when that pair is present. One who is indecisive should train <j>in the path of knowledge; it is from knowledge <j>that the Ascetic speaks of these things.”

“Where do pleasure and pain spring from? When what is absent do these things not occur? And also, on the topic of <j>manifesting and vanishing— tell me where they spring from.”

“Pleasure and pain spring from contact; when contact is absent they do not occur. And on the topic of <j>manifesting and vanishing— I tell you they spring from there.”

“So where does contact in the world spring from? And possessions, too, where do they come from? When what is absent is there no possessiveness? When what vanishes do contacts not strike?”

“Name and form cause contact; possessions spring from wishing; when wishing is absent there is no possessiveness; when form vanishes, contacts don’t strike.”

“Form vanishes for one proceeding how? And how do happiness and suffering vanish? Tell me how they vanish; I think we ought to know these things.”

“Without normal perception <j>or distorted perception; not lacking perception, <j>nor perceiving what has vanished. Form vanishes for one proceeding thus; for judgments due to proliferation <j>spring from perception.”

“Whatever I asked you have explained to me. I ask you once more, please tell me this: Do some astute folk here say that this <j>is the highest extent of purity of the spirit? Or do they say it is something else?”

“Some astute folk do say that this <j>is the highest extent of purity of the spirit. But some of them, claiming to be experts, speak of an occasion when there is no residue.

Knowing that these states are dependent, and knowing what they depend on, <j>the inquiring sage, having understood, is freed, and enters no dispute. The attentive do not proceed to life after life.”

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

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?”

“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 makes you pristine— pure in wisdom, expert and thoughtful— 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 dispute; why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”

“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.”

“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?”

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