“Settled each in his own view,
contending, the skilled make diverse assertions:
‘One who knows this has understood the Dhamma;
rejecting this, one is not consummate.’
“Having contended thus, they dispute
and say: ‘The opponent is a fool, unskilled.’
Which assertion among these is truthful,
for they all claim to be skilled?”
“If one who does not affirm the opponent’s
doctrine
is thereby a fool, a brute,
Reading with Ce and Ee bālo mago as against Be bālomako. deficient in wisdom,
all indeed are fools, utterly deficient in wisdom:
for all these are settled in their views.
“But if by their own view they are cleansed,
There are both negative and affirmative readings of this line. I follow the affirmative reading of Ee sandiṭṭhiyā ce pana vīvadātā, as against the negative readings of Ce sandiṭṭhiyā c’eva na vevadātā and Be sandiṭṭhiyā c’eva na vīvadātā. Pj II glosses on the basis of the negative reading but admits the affirmative as an alternative.
pure in wisdom, skilled, intelligent,there is none among them defective in wisdom,
for their views are similarly taken up.
“I do not say, ‘This is correct,’
as the fools in pairs say to one another.
They all take their own view to be true;
therefore they consider the opponent a fool.”
“That which some say is ‘true, correct,’
others say is ‘hollow, false.’
Having contended thus, they dispute.
Why don’t ascetics speak in unison?”
“Truth, indeed, is one—there is no second;
a person who understands this would not dispute.
I read the text as in Be and Ce, yasmiṃ pajā no vivade pajānaṃ, which is supported by Pj II. Ee has yasmiṃ pajāno vivade pajānaṃ.These proclaim their own diverse truths;
therefore ascetics do not speak in unison.”
“But why do they assert diverse truths,
those proponents who claim to be skilled?
Are those truths actually many and diverse,
or do they follow a line of reasoning?”
“Truths surely are not many and diverse,
except by [mistakenly] perceiving permanent things in
the world.
But having formulated reasoning about views,
they assert the dyad ‘true’ and ‘false.’
“The seen, heard, good behavior and observances,
the sensed—dependent on these, he shows disdain.
Based on a judgment, derisive,
he says: ‘The opponent is a fool, unskilled.’
“As he considers the opponent a fool,
on the same ground he describes himself as ‘skilled.’
Of his own accord, claiming himself skilled,
he disdains the other, yet speaks in the same way.208 (11)
“Inflated by that extremist view,
intoxicated with conceit, thinking himself perfect,
on his own accord he has mentally anointed himself,
for that view of his is taken up in such a manner.
“If one is deficient because of the opponent’s word,
the opponent himself is similarly deficient in wisdom.
But if he is himself a master of knowledge, a wise man,
then there is no fool among ascetics.
“Those who assert a teaching
different from this to be defective
have failed to reach purity:
thus the sectarians speak in separate ways,
for they are attached to their own views.
“‘Here only is purity’ they assert;
they say there is no purification in other teachings.
Thus, too, the sectarians, separately entrenched,
firmly assert their own way there.
“Asserting firmly his own way,
what opponent here could one consider a fool?
He himself would just provoke strife
by calling his opponent a fool of impure character.
“Based on a judgment, taking himself as the
measure,
he enters upon further disputes in the world.
Having abandoned all judgments,
a person does not create strife in the world.”