Other Translations: Deutsch
From: , ,
Sutta Nipāta 4.12 Sutta Nipāta 4.12Anthology of Discourses 4.12
Cūḷabyūhasutta The Lesser ArrayThe Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle
“Sakaṁsakaṁdiṭṭhiparibbasānā, “Dwelling on their own views,“Each maintaining their own view,
Viggayha nānā kusalā vadanti; quarreling, different skilled people say:those who are skilled disagree, arguing:
Yo evaṁ jānāti sa vedi dhammaṁ, ‘Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.‘Whoever sees it this way understands the teaching; Here, as often in the Aṭṭhakavagga, jānāti implies different ways of knowing, which may be right or wrong (to degrees). We can “see” things differently, but we can’t “know” them differently.
Idaṁ paṭikkosamakevalī so. Whoever rejects this, is imperfect.’those who reject this are inadequate.’
Evampi viggayha vivādayanti, Thus quarreling, they dispute:So arguing, they dispute,
Bālo paro akkusaloti cāhu; ‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’
Sacco nu vādo katamo imesaṁ, Which of these statements is trueWhich of these is a true statement,
Sabbeva hīme kusalāvadānā”. when all of them say they are skilled?”for all of them profess to be experts?”
“Parassa ce dhammamanānujānaṁ, “If, in not accepting an opponent’s doctrine,“If not accepting another’s teaching
Bālomako hoti nihīnapañño; one’s a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,makes you a useless fool lacking wisdom, Preferring omako over mago (“beast”), which seems harsh.
Sabbeva bālā sunihīnapaññā, then all are fools of inferior discernment—then they’re all fools lacking wisdom,
Sabbevime diṭṭhiparibbasānā. all of these who dwell on their views.for they all maintain their own view.
Sandiṭṭhiyā ceva na vīvadātā, But if, in siding with a view, one’s cleansed,But if having your own view makes you pristine—
Saṁsuddhapaññā kusalā mutīmā; with discernment made pure, sensible, skilled,pure in wisdom, expert and thoughtful—
Na tesaṁ koci parihīnapañño, then none of them are of inferior discernment,then none of them lack wisdom,
Diṭṭhī hi tesampi tathā samattā. for all of them have their own views.for such is the view they have all embraced.
Na vāhametaṁ tathiyanti brūmi, I don’t say, ‘That’s how it is,’I do not say that it is correct I think “this is correct” refers, not to the assertion of a view, but to the assertion that the other is a fool. Niddesa takes it to mean the assertion of one of the 62 views, but this seems to be reading into the text.
Yamāhu bālā mithu aññamaññaṁ; the way fools tell one another.when they call each other fools. Here I take bālā as the quoted speech, as in the lines above and below. The commentary supplies the expected quotation indicator: ‘bālo’ti āhu. If we take bālā as subject of the verb here, per Bodhi, Norman, and Ñāṇadīpa, then the Buddha is adopting the reductive language of those he seeks to counter, obscuring the sense of the verse.
Sakaṁ sakaṁ diṭṭhimakaṁsu saccaṁ, They each make out their views to be trueEach has built up their own view to be the truth, It’s important to maintain the past sense of akaṁsu here: a view is something they have constructed and built up over time; it has solidified and become part of them, which is why it’s so hard to give up.
Tasmā hi bāloti paraṁ dahanti”. and so regard their opponents as fools.”which is why they take the other as a fool.”
“Yamāhu saccaṁ tathiyanti eke, “What some say is true —‘That’s how it is’—“What some say is true and correct,
Tamāhu aññe tucchaṁ musāti; others say is ‘falsehood, a lie.’others say is hollow and false.
Evampi vigayha vivādayanti, Thus quarreling, they dispute.So arguing, they dispute;
Kasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”. Why can’t contemplatives say one thing & the same?”why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”
“Ekañhi saccaṁ na dutīyamatthi, “The truth is one,“The truth is one”: This statement should be kept in mind throughout the following verses, as it forms the background to the discussion of how people who theorize their conjectures speak of the pair, true and false. The Buddha is not denying that there is such a thing as true and false, or that some statements correspond more truly to reality than others. He avoids defending his own teachings in debates, not because there are many different truths, but because—as he says in Sn 4:8, the purpose of debates is not to arrive at truth but to gain praise. In this way, it encourages the debater to get entrenched in his views. All entrenched views, regardless of how true or false their content might be, behave in line with the truth of conditioned phenomena as explained in the preceding sutta. They lead to conceit, conflict, and states of becoming. When they are viewed in this way—as events in a causal chain rather than as true or false depictions of other events (or as events rather than signs)—the tendency to hold to or become entrenched in them is diminished. This allows for a practitioner to hold to the truths of right view for the sake of putting an end to suffering and stress, and then to put aside any attachment to those truths once they have performed their duty. On this point, see MN 22 and AN 10:93, and the essay, “Truths with Consequences.”“The truth is one, there is no second,
Yasmiṁ pajā no vivade pajānaṁ; there is no second about which a person who knows it would argue with one who knows.understanding which folk would not dispute. The readings and interpretation of this line is tricky; see discussions in Norman and Bodhi. Niddesa and Arthapada are in agreement, and I follow.
Nānā te saccāni sayaṁ thunanti, Contemplatives promote their various own truths,But those ascetics each boast of different truths;
Tasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”. that’s why they don’t say one thing & the same.”that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”
“Kasmā nu saccāni vadanti nānā, “But why do they say various truths,“But why do they speak of different truths,
Pavādiyāse kusalāvadānā; those who say they are skilled?these proponents who profess to be experts?
Saccāni sutāni bahūni nānā, Have they learned many various truthsAre there really so many different truths, Read su tāni.
Udāhu te takkamanussaranti”. or do they follow conjecture?”or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”
“Na heva saccāni bahūni nānā, “Apart from their perception“No, there are not many different truths
Aññatra saññāya niccāni loke; there are no many various constant truths in the world.On the role of perception in leading to conflicting views, see the preceding sutta.that, apart from perception, are lasting in the world. The Niddesa glosses aññatra saññāya niccaggāhā, which is translated by Bodhi as “apart from the grasping of permanence by perception”. But this seems impossible to me: saññāya is an ablative constructed with aññatra, and niccāni surely agrees with saccāni. Further, the sense of this reading is a stretch, as we haven’t dealt with impermanence at all so far. I think the allusion is, rather, to the idea of dhammaniyāmatā, the “fixity” or “regularity” of the Dhamma as an “eternal truth”.
Takkañca diṭṭhīsu pakappayitvā, Theorizing conjectures with regard to views,Having formed their reasoning regarding different views,
Saccaṁ musāti dvayadhammamāhu. they speak of a pair: true & false.they say there are two things: true and false.
Diṭṭhe sute sīlavate mute vā, Dependent on what’s seen, heard, & sensed,The seen, heard, or thought, or precepts or vows—This verse begins a rather striking pattern where the first couplet is essentially restated in the second couplet.
Ete ca nissāya vimānadassī; dependent on habits & practices, one shows disdain [for others].based on these they show disdain.
Vinicchaye ṭhatvā pahassamāno, Taking a stance on his decisions, praising himself, he says,Standing in judgment, they scoff,
Bālo paro akkusaloti cāha. ‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’
Yeneva bāloti paraṁ dahāti, That by which he regards his opponents as foolsThey take the other as a fool on the same grounds Again the two couplets repeat the same meaning.
Tenātumānaṁ kusaloti cāha; is that by which he says he is skilled.that they speak of themselves as an expert.
Sayamattanā so kusalāvadāno, Calling himself skilled,Professing to be expert on their own authority,
Aññaṁ vimāneti tadeva pāva. he despises another who speaks the same way.they disdain the other while saying the same thing.
Atisāradiṭṭhiyā so samatto, Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,They are perfect, according to their own extreme view;
Mānena matto paripuṇṇamānī; drunk with conceit, imagining himself perfect,drunk on conceit, imagining themselves proficient.
Sayameva sāmaṁ manasābhisitto, he has consecrated, with his own mind,They have anointed themselves in their own mind,
Diṭṭhī hi sā tassa tathā samattā. himself as well as his view.for such is the view they have embraced.
Parassa ce hi vacasā nihīno, If, by an opponent’s word, one’s inferior,If the word of your opponent makes you deficient,
Tumo sahā hoti nihīnapañño; the opponent’s of inferior discernment as well.then they too are lacking wisdom.
Atha ce sayaṁ vedagū hoti dhīro, But if, by one’s own word one’s an attainer-of-knowledge, enlightened,But if on your own authority you’re a knowledge master, an attentive one, This must refer back to the previous verse, where sayaṁ means “on one’s own account”.
Na koci bālo samaṇesu atthi. no one among contemplatives is a fool.then there are no fools among the ascetics.
Aññaṁ ito yābhivadanti dhammaṁ, ‘Those who approve of a doctrine other than this‘Those who proclaim a teaching other than this
Aparaddhā suddhimakevalī te; are lacking in purity, imperfect.’have fallen short of purity, and are inadequate’:
Evampi titthyā puthuso vadanti, That’s what the many sectarians say,so say each one of the sectarians,
Sandiṭṭhirāgena hi tebhirattā. for they’re smitten with passion for their own views.for they are deeply attached to their own view.
Idheva suddhiṁ iti vādayanti, ‘Only here is there purity,’ that’s what they say.‘Here alone is purity,’ they say,
Nāññesu dhammesu visuddhimāhu; ‘In no other doctrine is purity,’ they say.denying that there is purification in other teachings.
Evampi titthyā puthuso niviṭṭhā, That’s how the many sectarians are entrenched,Thus each one of the sectarians, being dogmatic,
Sakāyane tattha daḷhaṁ vadānā. speaking firmly there concerning their own path.speaks forcefully within the context of their own journey.
Sakāyane vāpi daḷhaṁ vadāno, Speaking firmly concerning your own path,But in that case, so long as they are speaking forcefully of their own journey,
Kamettha bāloti paraṁ daheyya; what opponent here would you take as a fool?how can they take the other as a fool?
Sayaṁva so medhagamāvaheyya, You’d simply bring strife on yourselfThey are the ones who provoke conflict
Paraṁ vadaṁ bālamasuddhidhammaṁ. if you said your opponent’s a fool with an impure doctrine.when they call the other a fool with an impure teaching.
Vinicchaye ṭhatvā sayaṁ pamāya, Taking a stance on your decisions,Standing in judgment, measuring by their own standard,
Uddhaṁsa lokasmiṁ vivādameti; & yourself as your measure, you dispute further down into the world.they dispute with the world more and more. Here uddhaṁ has the sense “further, all the more”.
Hitvāna sabbāni vinicchayāni, But a person who’s abandoned all decisionsBut a personage who has given up all judgments
Na medhagaṁ kubbati jantu loke”ti. creates no strife in the world.”creates no conflict in the world.”
Cūḷabyūhasuttaṁ dvādasamaṁ. The Lesser Array, the twelfth.vv. 878–894.