SuttaCentral
In my opinion, that is the biggest offence a person can make: spreading false dhamma around. The dhamma is subtle, easy to misinterpret and transform into mahayana. A person doing that while Buddha was still alive, not even waiting a couple of centuries to do it, is quite a bad thing to do. And it was also important to give an example to other monks about how bad it was.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.079.than.html
Thanissaroâs translations generally seem to have a tinge of astringent flavor. For example, from the Padhana Sutta:
Dhiratthu mama jÄ«vitaáč
I spit on my life.
In SC (Snp 3.2), the translation is by ĂÄáčamoli and it goes shame upon life. In Thag 20.1, it looks like dhiratthu is translated as âdamnâ.
one explanation of Buddhaâs harshness could be that these monks had had a history of per/insistence in skewing his teaching or holding on to wrong views (being in this respect someone like Udayi of the Vinaya), which simply didnât make it to the narrative of the suttas
It is true that we donât know for sure what the Buddha would or would not say, however we do have passages in the Suttas that help shedding light on his standards. In the case of speech, what comes to mind is MN 58 where the Jain leader sends Abhaya to refute Gotama exposing his alleged hypocrisy:
Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: âLord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?â If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, âThe Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,â then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? ⊠But if Gotama ⊠answers, âThe Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,â then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that âDevadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurableâ?
And of course at the end of an interesting maieutic exchange with the prince, Gotama makes the point
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
And the motive behind this is clearly the welfare of people, not winning over somebody or asserting his power.
Also, I do not think the pali term moghapurisa variously translated as âmisguidedâ or âworthlessâ is harsh or abusive. It is found also in the Vinaya when it comes to rebuking somebody for committing a âfoolishâ, inappropriate act that can have serious consequences, the scene is very similar to the Sati-Arittha case, e.g.:
âIs it true, as is said, that you, Upananda, sat down ⊠with a woman?â
âIt is true, lord.â
The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked him, saying:
âHow can you, foolish man, sit down ⊠with a woman? Foolish man, it is not for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased ⊠And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
And I like to think the tone of voice and general expression is not that of a Victorian headmaster âŠ
yeah the tone could be that of a pity and disappointment rather than of aggressive insult for the sake of offense and humiliation
âThis world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about âmy self.â He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. SN 12.15
Phew. Just reading the words gives me a taste of relief, of release, of peace. The same taste I get from the beautiful and powerful verses of the Atthakavagga . âHis knowledge is indipendent of othersâ. So nobody has to convince anyone of anything. And this shift of perspective is not something to believe in (much less defend), but something to live from.
The implication seems to be that views (ditthi) are a âfloodâ and an âoutflowâ inextricably linked with passion, ignorance and self-concern; but to an open, hindrances-free mind, passion and self-concern (as all defilement) are a burden and a tangle, and and illness, rather than being forever justified and rationalized as normality, or as a stressful means to a peaceful end.
As a masterful expression of this shift of perspective, the Buddha praises Anathapindika in AN 10.93 - who does not fall into the trap of giving a lecture on Buddhist truth, but simply states âI know which way freedom liesâ. Does that mean we should all either mimic Anathapindika, or else shut up? Perhaps not . But I take it as a reminder, and a pointer to what really matters.
Often I find myself confronted with the challenge of reading, or hearing, some fellow psychologists, say, expressing views on Buddhism, meditation, Mindfulness, etc. which I perceive as potentially confusing for others, or perhaps blurring some finer, but fundamental points of Dhamma. The unease I feel then is complex, and would be off-point to explain here. In the past, I used to feel very worried when seeing monastics, particularly, teaching in ways that seemed dogmatic, or plain âwrongâ in terms of what I was learning from the Suttas. Not to mention the anxiety that could arise from the notion of my own ignorance, and quite possibly making wrong assessments myself.
The challenge lies in the awareness that whatever I might say, think or write about the Dhamma, would not be Dhamma if the contact with the ethical qualities that support right view and express it in the world (such as modesty, humility, contentment, kindness and ardent right effort to address and abandon unskilful states in myself) were temporarily lost, or obscured.
So, yes, sometime something needs to be said or written. But Iâve got a better chance for it to arise at the right time, and in the appropriate way, when the unease is being dealt with in the mind, rather than engaging in discussion on false pretence of âscholarly debateâ, prompted by the unease. Above all, I found that keeping my mouth shut and do the work, sharpens the awareness of context and role, so that things are naturally kept within the boundaries of oneâs own competence and understanding, rather than coming from self-importance, worry, and the like.
Iâve been reading some posts here about the role of debate in the suttas, and also right speech on forums, and it made me think that maybe itâs not just a matter of being polite and respectful (thatâs nice of course, but as someone pointed out perceptions may vary according to culture)
So thanks for bringing up this Discourse from Sutta Nipata, DKervick! And thanks for listening to this 
I think itâs very different to scald people as a fool because they donât agree with your view (which I believe the Buddha didnât do) and scalding people because they misrepresent your view (as we have examples of the Buddha doing, which I accept).
I do not generally accept many versed discourses, or verses in discourses, because of the advice at SN 20.7. Having read this one, it is not an exception.
I agree the Buddha does not say âThis is how it isâ, as this sutta claims, but then the sutta has him do that more than once, first example is: âIndeed the truth is one, thereâs not anotherâ.
Secondly this sutta has the Buddha criticise others: âbut the Samaáčas proclaim their varied âtruthsâ and so they speak not in the same wayâ, where as the clear advice from the Buddha in MN 139, is NOT to criticise others (especially not to their faces, i.e. backstab), but ONLY to criticise behaviour. Correction: especially if it is not to their faces.
with ordinary people itâs still motivated by egoistic tendencies, attachment to self, a sense of self-importance, only with the awakened beings itâs different
I love all of the Atthakavagga, it can literally bring me to tears of joy. The teachings on views and non clinging have helped me cultivate sensing phassa and the arising of views like no other.
My question is: whoâs translation is being quoted here? With sincere respect, I must admit that Iâm not very inspired by the translation. I find it rather clunky and dry. Perhaps itâs because I envision these as written to speak to one in a moving, poetic way.
I notice you express it as a truth, thus I take it you are speaking from experience, congratulations. If not, then I encourage the training the Buddha gave to stop arrogance, âif you believe something, say âI believe thisâ, not âthis is the truthâ, that is safe guarding the truthâ
I donât accept the common understanding that the Buddha taught there is no-self (which is first clearly taught in the commentaries), but rather âall conditioned things are not soulâ.
best wishes
My understanding is that the Buddha taught there is the self. He went into a great detail to explain how the self gets created.
Metta
I find that interesting.
I would agree if you used âegoâ instead of self, where your âselfâ and my âegoâ would to me mean, the five CLINGING aggregates.
certainly i speak from personal experience, but i donât think experience of an ordinary person, which is meant here, deserves any congratulations, itâs so common and ubiquitous
any view anybody expresses is their own view, stressing this fact isnât always necessary, it can be implied
regardless of what i think of the anatta doctrine, neither did i in my response declare my position on it, it was just about attachment to self whether itâs real or fabricated or otherwise
I was referring to this.
Yes, Iâm familiar with the common approach of not having to own views and express them as oneâs view, but Iâve taken on the training the Buddha gave to safeguard the truth, in which one does exactly the opposite.
this i guess is an inference from the fact of eradication of attachment to self by awakened beings
do you assume that such beings are still able to act out of selfish motives or that ordinary people are able to act out of purely unselfish motives, or both?
Laurence Khantipalo Mills translated it.
Each abiding in their own views,
The many experts quarrel, claiming,
âKnowing this, one understands the Dhamma.
Rejecting it, one is imperfect.â
Quarreling, they argue,
âMy opponent is unskilled and a fool!â
As they are each called âexpertsâ,
Which of their claims is true?
This is Gil Fronsdalâs translation of the same verses (The Buddha before Buddhism, 2016). Thereâs a certain flow to it; perhaps not âmoving and poeticâ, as you put it, but good, in my view.
It is also interesting the way GF translates Cƫិabyƫhasutta as The Shorter Discourse of the Dead End, based on a secondary meaning of byƫha or vyƫha SuttaCentral
Thank you for Gil Fronsdalâs translation of the verse. I realize now that I wasnât clear with my question. I was referring to the entire sutta, not just the one verse.
I have Fronsdalâs book and think most of his interpretations are very good. It seems that his personality and the way he handles the dhamma makes it more human. Iâve noticed the difference in other translations as well, how they get filtered through the lens of the person translating. True of any sutta, but a stark contrast between a sutta recounting a discourse and the poetic style of the Atthakavagga. To me, thatâs the beauty of a poem: its meter and the words chosen carefully to convey its message eloquently so that it can both quicken the dhamma and be remembered. Iâve found Stephen Batchelor translations of four of the Atthakavagga chapters are particularly good in this way.