I hadn’t planned on doing a session this short, but I was caught off guard by these two consecutive passages a few days ago and thought them worthy of at least week. The two words in question here are neyyattha (in need of interpretation) and nītattha (explicit), and it does not seem as though they appear anywhere else in the suttas, save a single mention in the obscurity of the Netti, deep in the KN.
What do we make of these? Is there some vindication here for those who have often insisted upon a lack of clarity at times in certain discourses? What is a case of a discourse in need of interpretation? Does this mean there is a time and a place for extra detail to bring out the meaning?
Let’s discuss.
Aṅguttara Nikāya
Bālavagga (Chapter on Fools) AN 2.24-25
Translated by Ven. Bodhi
- 24
“Bhikkhus, these two misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation. These two misrepresent the Tathāgata.”
25
“Bhikkhus, these two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata.”