There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
nowhere constrained.
Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows.
Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature —
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.
But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
— "That's how I am" —
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature —
he with no vanity
with regard to the world.
One whose doctrines aren't clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.
Because entrenchments1 in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed2
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming
or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit3 & illusion,
by what means would he go?4
He isn't involved.
For one who's involved
gets into disputes
over doctrines,
but how — in connection with what — 5
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,6
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.
When reflecting on this sutta, can it be said there is too much debate on Buddhist forums?
