When it comes to the view of the ascetics and brahmins to whom some things are acceptable to me and some things are not, a sensible person reflects like this: ‘I have the view that some things are acceptable and some things are not. Suppose I were to obstinately stick to this view and insist, “This is the only truth, other ideas are silly.” Then I’d argue with two people—an ascetic or brahmin to whom everything is acceptable, and an ascetic or brahmin to whom nothing is acceptable. And when there’s arguing, there’s quarreling; when there’s quarreling there’s anguish; and when there’s anguish there’s harm.’ So, considering in themselves the potential for arguing, quarreling, anguish, and harm, they give up that view by not grasping another view. That’s how those views are given up and let go.
“Dwelling on
their own views,
quarreling,
different skilled people say:
‘Whoever knows this, understands Dhamma.
Whoever rejects this, is
imperfect.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute:
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
Which of these statements is true
when all of them say they are skilled?”
“If, in not accepting
an opponent’s doctrine,
one’s a fool, a beast of inferior discernment,
then all are fools of inferior discernment—
all of these
who dwell on their views.
But if, in siding with a view,
one’s cleansed,
with discernment made pure,
sensible, skilled,
then none of them
are of inferior discernment,
for all of them
have their own views.
I don’t say, ‘That’s how it is,’
the way fools tell one another.
They each make out their views to be true
and so regard their opponents as fools.”
“What some say is true
—’That’s how it is’—
others say is ‘falsehood, a lie.’
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can’t contemplatives
say one thing & the same?”
“The truth is one,1
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various own truths,
that’s why they don’t say
one thing & the same.”
“But why do they say
various truths,
those who say they are skilled?
Have they learned many various truths
or do they follow conjecture?”
“Apart from their perception
there are no
many
various
constant truths
in the world.2
Theorizing conjectures
with regard to views,
they speak of a pair: true
& false.
Dependent on what’s seen,
heard,
& sensed,
dependent on habits & practices,
one shows disdain [for others].
Taking a stance on his decisions,
praising himself, he says,
‘My opponent’s a fool & unskilled.’
That by which
he regards his opponents as fools
is that by which
he says he is skilled.
Calling himself skilled,
he despises another
who speaks the same way.
Agreeing on a view gone out of bounds,
drunk with conceit, imagining himself perfect,
he has consecrated, with his own mind,
himself
as well as his view.
If, by an opponent’s word,
one’s inferior,
the opponent’s
of inferior discernment as well.
But if, by one’s own word
one’s an attainer-of-knowledge, enlightened,
no one
among contemplatives
is a fool.
‘Those who approve of a doctrine other than this
are lacking in purity,
imperfect.’
That’s what the many sectarians say,
for they’re smitten with passion
for their own views.
‘Only here is there purity,’
that’s what they say.
‘In no other doctrine
is purity,’ they say.
That’s how the many sectarians
are entrenched,
speaking firmly there
concerning their own path.
Speaking firmly concerning your own path,
what opponent here would you take as a fool?
You’d simply bring strife on yourself
if you said your opponent’s a fool
with an impure doctrine.
Taking a stance on your decisions,
& yourself as your measure,
you dispute further down
into the world.
But a person who’s abandoned
all decisions
creates no strife
in the world.”
Snp 4.12: Lesser array
Trans. coming from dhammatalks.org
(With some spaces altered in the paste)
“Those who, dwelling on views,
dispute, saying, ‘Only this is true’:
Do they all incur blame,
or also earn praise there?”
“[The praise:] It’s such a small thing,
not at all appeasing.1
I speak of two fruits of dispute;
and seeing this, you shouldn’t dispute—
seeing the state
where there’s no dispute
as secure.
One who knows
doesn’t enter into
any conventions
born of the run-of-the mill
at all.
One who’s uninvolved:
When he’s forming no predilection
for what’s seen, for what’s heard,
why would he get
involved?2
Those for whom habits
are ultimate
say that purity’s
a matter of self-restraint.
Undertaking a practice,
they devote themselves to it:
‘Let’s train just in this,
and then there would be purity.’
Those who say they are skilled
are [thus] led on to becoming.
But if one of them falls
from his habits or practice,
he trembles,
having failed in his actions.
He hopes for, longs for, purity,
like a caravan leader lost
far from home.
But one who’s abandoned
habits & practices3
—all—
things that are blamable, blameless,4
not hoping for ‘pure’ or ‘impure,’5
would live in kindness & peace,
without taking up peace,6
detached.
Dependent
on taboos, austerities,
or what’s seen, heard, or sensed,
they speak of purity
through wandering further on
through becoming & not-,
their craving not gone
for becoming & not-.7
For one who aspires has longings
& trembling with regard to theorizings.
But one who here
has no passing away & arising:
Why would he tremble?
For what would he long?”
“The teaching some say is ‘supreme,’
is the very one others call ‘lowly.’
Which statement is true
when all of these claim to be skilled?”
“They say their own teaching is perfect
while the doctrine of others is lowly.
Thus quarreling, they dispute,
each saying his agreed-on opinion
is true.
If something, because of an opponent’s say-so,
were lowly,
then none among teachings would be
superlative,
for many say
that another’s teaching’s inferior
when firmly asserting their own.
If their worship of their teaching were true,
in line with the way they praise their own path,
then all doctrines
would be true—
for purity’s theirs, according to each.
The brahman has nothing
led by another,
when considering what’s grasped
among doctrines.
Thus he has gone
beyond disputes,
for he doesn’t regard as best
the knowledge of a doctrine,
any other doctrine.8
‘I know. I see. That’s just how it is!’—
Some believe purity’s in terms of view.
But even if a person has seen,
what good does it do him?
Having slipped past,
they speak of purity
in connection with something
or somebody else.
A person, in seeing,
sees name-&-form.
Having seen, he’ll know
only these things.
No matter if he’s seen little, a lot,
the skilled don’t say purity’s
in connection with that.
A person entrenched in his teachings,
preferring a theorized view,
isn’t easy to discipline.
Whatever he depends on
he describes it as lovely,
says that it’s purity,
that there he saw truth.
The brahman, evaluating,
doesn’t enter into a theory,
doesn’t follow views,
isn’t tied even to knowledge.9
And on knowing
whatever’s conventional, commonplace,
he remains equanimous:
‘That’s what others hold onto.’
Having untied the knots
here in the world,
the sage here in the world10
doesn’t follow a faction
when disputes have arisen.
At peace among those not at peace,
he’s equanimous, doesn’t hold on:
‘That’s what others hold onto.’
Giving up old effluents,
not forming new,
neither pursuing desire,
nor entrenched in his teachings,
he’s totally released
from viewpoints,
enlightened.
He doesn’t adhere to the world,
is without self-rebuke;
is enemy-free11
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.
His burden laid down,
the sage totally released
is improper :: is theory-free
hasn’t stopped :: isn’t impassioned
isn’t worth wanting :: doesn’t
desire,”12
the Blessed One said.
Snp 4.13: Greater array
Trans. coming from dhammatalks.org
(With some spaces altered in the paste)
For me this is really problematic. i see worth in arguing. People here in the Netherlands have argued a lot about the welbeing of animals, animal rights, etc. Oke that comes with trouble, with resistance, often tiresome, and? Is that bad? Many animals., biljons, now have a better life then before.
But without arguing such things just do not happen.
I appreciate this perspective. I wholly concur. I’m in a culture where people often couch such conversation in story-telling to the exclusion of debate. I mean, it’s not that story-telling is not useful as a way to illustrate things. And, of course, there are many other alternatives to outright debate. But perhaps because my culture overuses forms of non-debate to discuss such things, I feel like debate is a breath of fresh air – no, a thousand breaths of fresh air.
What is your culture ?
Sikkhakamo, I live in the southeastern United States. Debate is regarded as impoliteness (especially within white people’s circles). Straight talk is largely avoided. When it does happen, it is usually done unskillfully because children don’t learn how to debate; by the time they are adults it shows up with aggression and lack of curiosity. I realize everyone is a product of their own culture and there are positives and negatives for any one culture or another.
Anyway, this is one of the reasons I appreciate this forum. And I am learning some things from this particular nibbāna/jhāna thread.
I was ignoring that within the U.S.A there was a culture of blocage to debate. My thinking was more “BethL might live in South-East Asia that’s why she says that”.
Thank you for the information. Are you the only Dhamma practicioner in your circle ? Sorry for my curiosity …
When I was in High School in the 80’s, we had a subject “Moral Science” as part of our curriculum which was taught by a Jesuit priest. Occasionally, he would have us form two teams, give us 10 minutes to think about an ethical dilemma and then debate each other for/ against the topic.
The catch was that 15 minutes into the debate, once he saw our passions grow warm and our relative positions solidifying… he’d ask us to switch sides. 
Can you imagine the mental clashing of gears when a 16 year old is suddenly forced to flip their worldview on a dime?
In hindsight, I can now see that what I learnt from this teacher was:
- There are no permanent views, only viewpoints.
- Viewpoints depend on one’s frame of reference. Alter that and you land up with a different viewpoint.
- A viewpoint is a construct representative of one’s model of Reality, it is not the absolute Truth. What do you do when the evidence changes? Update your model !
- There are points which are undeniably valid and irrefutable. And then there is bombastic and rhetoric. One should know the difference.
- One’s nature as an intelligent human being is to pick the flaws in the other’s argument. One should also examine one’s own position as critically (if not more critically) than one examines others.
- Its important to realize that the other person is just like me - and their viewpoint is just as logical and dear to them as is mine to me. Respect is important!
- Searching for common ground while debating is the path to Knowledge and Wisdom. How else will we get new information? Sure, we get passionate and upset at times - but we are all human aren’t we?
Hi,
It took me a while to realize this myself, so perhaps this is helpful:
When the medium is text, whether books or the internet, I find I have to be more attentive to not project anything onto others, not assume certain emotions behind their words. Sometimes arguments clearly come from a bad place. But often, I found, it is easy to think that people are arguing in a way the Buddha said not to, while where they actually come from is a kind and compassionate place, with genuine interest to discuss the dhamma.
Often people (me included) are just being direct in their typing, omitting pleasantries for sake of time/readability. It’s not that they are being brusque, although it may appear so. But it appears so simply because we can’t read their body language.
Discussing the dhamma is a blessing, the Mangala Sutta says. So when we’re coming from a good place, it’s a good thing to do, as you say. Note that the Buddha instructs us not to say things like “you are wrong, I’m right”. But “I think this is wrong, this is right” isn’t a problem, if coming from the right place.
Best thing to do, in my opinion, is always give people the benefit of the doubt.
So, arguing my point would be like trying to beat the air.
Read ? Reading is like chaining the mind to a tasty fruit.
Contemplate, perhaps. Maybe not. Certainties can corrupt reality.
Nekkhamma pāramī, should we practice.
" Everything that a monk continues to pursue with his thought and his meditation, it becomes the inclination of his consciousness: If a monk continues to pursue a thought imbued with
renunciation, abandoning a thought imbued with sensuality, his mind is aligned by this thought imbued with renunciation.
He continues to pursue a thought imbued with will
benevolent, abandoning a thought impregnated with bad will, his mind is aligned by this thought imbued with
benevolent will. If a monk continues to pursue a thought imbued with innocence, abandoning a thought imprinted with harmfulness, his mind aligned by this thought imbued with innocence. "
This is how, among other practices, the future Buddha trained in the development of nekkhamma pāramī.
Je ne comprends pas très clairement les idées que tu essayes de me partager mon ami, si c’est le cas que tu essayes de m’en partager.
Mais je suis d’accord avec l’idée qu’on ne doit pas être trop attaché aux livres et qu’une contemplation doit être comme une bonne parole: vraie, bénéfique, faite au bon moment et faite avec bienveillance (et rajoute le facteur d’être affectueuse en ce qui concerne une bonne parole).
Mais je te recommende vraiment les livres et les audios d’Ajaan Thanissaro. Ce n’est pas pour ton mal que je te dis ça, au contraire. Moi-même j’en suis un fan.
Cependant, il faut les écouter et les lire avec du respect pour soi, pour le discours ou le livre et pour l’ajaan. Puis ensuite retenir et pratiquer tout en gardant ce respect-là.