The Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle

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

“Sakaṁsakaṁdiṭṭhiparibbasānā, Viggayha nānā kusalā vadanti; Yo evaṁ jānāti sa vedi dhammaṁ, Idaṁ paṭikkosamakevalī so.

“Each maintaining their own view,“Sakaṁsakaṁdiṭṭhiparibbasānā, those who are skilled disagree, arguing:Viggayha nānā kusalā vadanti; ‘Whoever sees it this way <j>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.Yo evaṁ jānāti sa vedi dhammaṁ, those who reject this are inadequate.’Idaṁ paṭikkosamakevalī so.

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?”

Evampi viggayha vivādayanti, Bālo paro akkusaloti cāhu; *akkusaloti → akusaloti (si, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)Sacco nu vādo katamo imesaṁ, Sabbeva hīme kusalāvadānā”.

So arguing, they dispute,Evampi viggayha vivādayanti, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’Bālo paro akkusaloti cāhu; *akkusaloti → akusaloti (si, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)Which of these is a true statement,Sacco nu vādo katamo imesaṁ, for all of them profess to be experts?”Sabbeva hīme kusalāvadānā”.

“If not accepting another’s teachingmakes you a useless fool lacking wisdom,*Preferring omako over mago (“beast”), which seems harsh.then they’re all fools lacking wisdom,for they all maintain their own view.

“Parassa ce dhammamanānujānaṁ, Bālomako hoti nihīnapañño; *Bālomako → bālo mago (bj, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1, mr)Sabbeva bālā sunihīnapaññā, Sabbevime diṭṭhiparibbasānā.

“If not accepting another’s teaching“Parassa ce dhammamanānujānaṁ, makes you a useless fool lacking wisdom,*Preferring omako over mago (“beast”), which seems harsh.Bālomako hoti nihīnapañño; *Bālomako → bālo mago (bj, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1, mr)then they’re all fools lacking wisdom,Sabbeva bālā sunihīnapaññā, for they all maintain their own view.Sabbevime diṭṭhiparibbasānā.

But if having your own view makes you pristine—pure in wisdom, expert and intelligent—then none of them lack wisdom,for such is the view they have all embraced.

Sandiṭṭhiyā ceva na vīvadātā, Saṁsuddhapaññā kusalā mutīmā; Na tesaṁ koci parihīnapañño, *parihīnapañño → koci nihīnapañño (bj, sya-all); kocipi nihīnapañño (mr) | te → nānāto (mr)Diṭṭhī hi tesampi tathā samattā.

But if having your own view makes you pristine—Sandiṭṭhiyā ceva na vīvadātā, pure in wisdom, expert and intelligent—Saṁsuddhapaññā kusalā mutīmā; then none of them lack wisdom,Na tesaṁ koci parihīnapañño, *parihīnapañño → koci nihīnapañño (bj, sya-all); kocipi nihīnapañño (mr) | te → nānāto (mr)for such is the view they have all embraced.Diṭṭhī hi tesampi tathā samattā.

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.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.Each 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.which is why they take the other as a fool.”

Na vāhametaṁ tathiyanti brūmi, *tathiyanti → tathivanti (sya-all, mr)Yamāhu bālā mithu aññamaññaṁ; Sakaṁ sakaṁ diṭṭhimakaṁsu saccaṁ, Tasmā hi bāloti paraṁ dahanti”.

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.Na vāhametaṁ tathiyanti brūmi, *tathiyanti → tathivanti (sya-all, mr)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.Yamāhu bālā mithu aññamaññaṁ; Each 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.Sakaṁ sakaṁ diṭṭhimakaṁsu saccaṁ, which is why they take the other as a fool.”Tasmā hi bāloti paraṁ dahanti”.

“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?”

“Yamāhu saccaṁ tathiyanti eke, Tamāhu aññe tucchaṁ musāti; *aññe → aññepi (sya-all mnd12:37 [Cūḷabyūhasuttaniddesa]); aññe ca (?)Evampi vigayha vivādayanti, Kasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“What some say is true and correct,“Yamāhu saccaṁ tathiyanti eke, others say is hollow and false.Tamāhu aññe tucchaṁ musāti; *aññe → aññepi (sya-all mnd12:37 [Cūḷabyūhasuttaniddesa]); aññe ca (?)So arguing, they dispute;Evampi vigayha vivādayanti, why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”Kasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“The truth is one, there is no second,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.But those ascetics each boast of different truths;that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”

“Ekañhi saccaṁ na dutīyamatthi, Yasmiṁ pajā no vivade pajānaṁ; Nānā te saccāni sayaṁ thunanti, Tasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“The truth is one, there is no second,“Ekañhi saccaṁ na dutīyamatthi, 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.Yasmiṁ pajā no vivade pajānaṁ; But those ascetics each boast of different truths;Nānā te saccāni sayaṁ thunanti, that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”Tasmā na ekaṁ samaṇā vadanti”.

“But why do they speak of different truths,these proponents who profess to be experts?Are there really so many different truths,*Read su tāni.or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”

“Kasmā nu saccāni vadanti nānā, Pavādiyāse kusalāvadānā; Saccāni sutāni bahūni nānā, Udāhu te takkamanussaranti”.

“But why do they speak of different truths,“Kasmā nu saccāni vadanti nānā, these proponents who profess to be experts?Pavādiyāse kusalāvadānā; Are there really so many different truths,*Read su tāni.Saccāni sutāni bahūni nānā, or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”Udāhu te takkamanussaranti”.

“No, there are not many different truthsthat, apart from perception, <j>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”.Having formed their reasoning <j>regarding different views,they say there are two things: true and false.

“Na heva saccāni bahūni nānā, Aññatra saññāya niccāni loke; Takkañca diṭṭhīsu pakappayitvā, Saccaṁ musāti dvayadhammamāhu.

“No, there are not many different truths“Na heva saccāni bahūni nānā, that, apart from perception, <j>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”.Aññatra saññāya niccāni loke; Having formed their reasoning <j>regarding different views,Takkañca diṭṭhīsu pakappayitvā, they say there are two things: true and false.Saccaṁ musāti dvayadhammamāhu.

The seen, heard, or thought, <j>or precepts or vows—*This verse begins a rather striking pattern where the first couplet is essentially restated in the second couplet.based on these they show disdain.Standing in judgment, they scoff,saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’

Diṭṭhe sute sīlavate mute vā, Ete ca nissāya vimānadassī; Vinicchaye ṭhatvā pahassamāno, Bālo paro akkusaloti cāha.

The seen, heard, or thought, <j>or precepts or vows—*This verse begins a rather striking pattern where the first couplet is essentially restated in the second couplet.Diṭṭhe sute sīlavate mute vā, based on these they show disdain.Ete ca nissāya vimānadassī; Standing in judgment, they scoff,Vinicchaye ṭhatvā pahassamāno, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’Bālo paro akkusaloti cāha.

They take the other as a fool on the same grounds*Again the two couplets repeat the same meaning.that they speak of themselves as an expert.Professing to be expert on their own authority,they disdain the other while saying the same thing.

Yeneva bāloti paraṁ dahāti, Tenātumānaṁ kusaloti cāha; Sayamattanā so kusalāvadāno, Aññaṁ vimāneti tadeva pāva.

They take the other as a fool on the same grounds*Again the two couplets repeat the same meaning.Yeneva bāloti paraṁ dahāti, that they speak of themselves as an expert.Tenātumānaṁ kusaloti cāha; Professing to be expert on their own authority,Sayamattanā so kusalāvadāno, they disdain the other while saying the same thing.Aññaṁ vimāneti tadeva pāva.

They are perfect, <j>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.

Atisāradiṭṭhiyā so samatto, *Atisāradiṭṭhiyā → atīsaraṁditthiyā (pts-vp-pli1); atisāradiṭṭhiyāva (csp1ed, csp2ed)Mānena matto paripuṇṇamānī; Sayameva sāmaṁ manasābhisitto, Diṭṭhī hi sā tassa tathā samattā.

They are perfect, <j>according to their own extreme view;Atisāradiṭṭhiyā so samatto, *Atisāradiṭṭhiyā → atīsaraṁditthiyā (pts-vp-pli1); atisāradiṭṭhiyāva (csp1ed, csp2ed)drunk on conceit, imagining themselves proficient.Mānena matto paripuṇṇamānī; They have anointed themselves in their own mind,Sayameva sāmaṁ manasābhisitto, for such is the view they have embraced.Diṭṭhī hi sā tassa tathā samattā.

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, <j>an attentive one,*This must refer back to the previous verse, where sayaṁ means “on one’s own account”.then there are no fools among the ascetics.

Parassa ce hi vacasā nihīno, Tumo sahā hoti nihīnapañño; Atha ce sayaṁ vedagū hoti dhīro, Na koci bālo samaṇesu atthi.

If the word of your opponent makes you deficient,Parassa ce hi vacasā nihīno, then they too are lacking wisdom.Tumo sahā hoti nihīnapañño; But if on your own authority you’re a knowledge master, <j>an attentive one,*This must refer back to the previous verse, where sayaṁ means “on one’s own account”.Atha ce sayaṁ vedagū hoti dhīro, then there are no fools among the ascetics.Na koci bālo samaṇesu atthi.

‘Those who proclaim a teaching other than thishave fallen short of purity, and are inadequate’:so say each one of the sectarians,for they are deeply attached to their own view.

Aññaṁ ito yābhivadanti dhammaṁ, Aparaddhā suddhimakevalī te; *suddhimakevalī te → suddhimakevali te (bj); suddhimakevalīno (si, pts-vp-pli1)Evampi titthyā puthuso vadanti, Sandiṭṭhirāgena hi tebhirattā. *tebhirattā → tyābhirattā (sya-all, mr)

‘Those who proclaim a teaching other than thisAññaṁ ito yābhivadanti dhammaṁ, have fallen short of purity, and are inadequate’:Aparaddhā suddhimakevalī te; *suddhimakevalī te → suddhimakevali te (bj); suddhimakevalīno (si, pts-vp-pli1)so say each one of the sectarians,Evampi titthyā puthuso vadanti, for they are deeply attached to their own view.Sandiṭṭhirāgena hi tebhirattā. *tebhirattā → tyābhirattā (sya-all, mr)

‘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 <j>of their own journey.

Idheva suddhiṁ iti vādayanti, Nāññesu dhammesu visuddhimāhu; Evampi titthyā puthuso niviṭṭhā, Sakāyane tattha daḷhaṁ vadānā.

‘Here alone is purity,’ they say,Idheva suddhiṁ iti vādayanti, denying that there is purification in other teachings.Nāññesu dhammesu visuddhimāhu; Thus each one of the sectarians, being dogmatic,Evampi titthyā puthuso niviṭṭhā, speaks forcefully within the context <j>of their own journey.Sakāyane tattha daḷhaṁ vadānā.

But in that case, so long as they are speaking forcefully <j>of their own journey,how can they take the other as a fool?They are the ones who provoke conflictwhen they call the other a fool <j>with an impure teaching.

Sakāyane vāpi daḷhaṁ vadāno, Kamettha bāloti paraṁ daheyya; Sayaṁva so medhagamāvaheyya, *medhagamāvaheyya → medhagaṁ āvaheyya (bj, sya-all); medhakaṁ āvaheyya (pts-vp-pli1)Paraṁ vadaṁ bālamasuddhidhammaṁ.

But in that case, so long as they are speaking forcefully <j>of their own journey,Sakāyane vāpi daḷhaṁ vadāno, how can they take the other as a fool?Kamettha bāloti paraṁ daheyya; They are the ones who provoke conflictSayaṁva so medhagamāvaheyya, *medhagamāvaheyya → medhagaṁ āvaheyya (bj, sya-all); medhakaṁ āvaheyya (pts-vp-pli1)when they call the other a fool <j>with an impure teaching.Paraṁ vadaṁ bālamasuddhidhammaṁ.

Standing in judgment, <j>measuring by their own standard,they dispute with the world more and more.*Here uddhaṁ has the sense “further, all the more”.But a personage who has given up all judgmentscreates no conflict in the world.”

Vinicchaye ṭhatvā sayaṁ pamāya, Uddhaṁsa lokasmiṁ vivādameti; *Uddhaṁsa → uddhaṁ so (bj, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)Hitvāna sabbāni vinicchayāni, Na medhagaṁ kubbati jantu loke”ti.

Standing in judgment, <j>measuring by their own standard,Vinicchaye ṭhatvā sayaṁ pamāya, they dispute with the world more and more.*Here uddhaṁ has the sense “further, all the more”.Uddhaṁsa lokasmiṁ vivādameti; *Uddhaṁsa → uddhaṁ so (bj, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)But a personage who has given up all judgmentsHitvāna sabbāni vinicchayāni, creates no conflict in the world.”Na medhagaṁ kubbati jantu loke”ti.