Other Translations: Deutsch , Français
From: , ,
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.67 Numbered Discourses 3.67Numbered Discourses 3.67
7. Mahāvagga 7. The Great Chapter 7. The Great Chapter
Kathāvatthusutta Topics for Discussion Topics of Discussion
“Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, kathāvatthūni. “Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. “There are, mendicants, these three topics of discussion.
Katamāni tīṇi? Which three? What three?
Atītaṁ vā, bhikkhave, addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya: “One may talk about the past, saying, You might discuss the past:
‘evaṁ ahosi atītamaddhānan’ti. ‘Thus it was in the past.’ ‘That is how it was in the past.’
Anāgataṁ vā, bhikkhave, addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya: One may talk about the future, saying, You might discuss the future:
‘evaṁ bhavissati anāgatamaddhānan’ti. ‘Thus it will be in the future.’ ‘That is how it will be in the future.’
Etarahi vā, bhikkhave, paccuppannaṁ addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya: Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, Or you might discuss the present:
‘evaṁ hoti etarahi paccuppannamaddhānan’ti. ‘Thus it is now in the present.’ ‘This is how it is at present.’
Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ekaṁsabyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ na ekaṁsena byākaroti, vibhajjabyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ na vibhajja byākaroti, paṭipucchābyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ na paṭipucchā byākaroti, ṭhapanīyaṁ pañhaṁ na ṭhapeti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn’t give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn’t give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn’t put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if it needs to be answered categorically and they don’t answer it categorically; or if it needs analysis and they answer without analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer without a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they don’t set it aside, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion.
Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ekaṁsabyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ ekaṁsena byākaroti, vibhajjabyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ vibhajja byākaroti, paṭipucchābyākaraṇīyaṁ pañhaṁ paṭipucchā byākaroti, ṭhapanīyaṁ pañhaṁ ṭhapeti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if it needs to be answered categorically and they answer it categorically; or if it needs analysis and they answer after analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer with a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they set it aside, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.
Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ṭhānāṭhāne na saṇṭhāti parikappe na saṇṭhāti aññātavāde na saṇṭhāti paṭipadāya na saṇṭhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn’t stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn’t stand by teachings known to be true,1 doesn’t stand by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they’re not consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion.
Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ṭhānāṭhāne saṇṭhāti parikappe saṇṭhāti aññātavāde saṇṭhāti paṭipadāya saṇṭhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they are consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.
Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno aññenaññaṁ paṭicarati, bahiddhā kathaṁ apanāmeti, kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion.
Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno na aññenaññaṁ paṭicarati na bahiddhā kathaṁ apanāmeti, na kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they don’t dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.
Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. You can know whether or not an individual is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno abhiharati abhimaddati anupajagghati khalitaṁ gaṇhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti. If a person, when asked a question, puts down (the questioner), crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that individual is not competent to hold a discussion.
Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno nābhiharati nābhimaddati na anupajagghati na khalitaṁ gaṇhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down (the questioner), doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with. When an individual is asked a question, if they don’t intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that individual is competent to hold a discussion.
Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā saupaniso yadi vā anupanisoti. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. You can know whether or not an individual has what’s required by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
Anohitasoto, bhikkhave, anupaniso hoti, ohitasoto saupaniso hoti. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn’t lend ear doesn’t draw near. If they actively listen they have what’s required; if they don’t actively listen they don’t have what’s required.
So saupaniso samāno abhijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, parijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, pajahati ekaṁ dhammaṁ, sacchikaroti ekaṁ dhammaṁ. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.2 Someone who has what’s required directly knows one thing, completely understands one thing, gives up one thing, and realizes one thing—
So abhijānanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, parijānanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, pajahanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, sacchikaronto ekaṁ dhammaṁ sammāvimuttiṁ phusati. Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. and then they experience complete freedom.
Etadatthā, bhikkhave, kathā; For that’s the purpose of discussion, This is the purpose of discussion,
etadatthā mantanā; that’s the purpose of counsel, consultation,
etadatthā upanisā; that’s the purpose of drawing near, sitting close,
etadatthaṁ sotāvadhānaṁ, yadidaṁ anupādā cittassa vimokkhoti. that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance. and listening well, that is, the liberation of the mind by not grasping.
Ye viruddhā sallapanti, Those who discuss Those who converse with hostility,
viniviṭṭhā samussitā; when angered, dogmatic, arrogant, too sure of themselves, arrogant,
Anariyaguṇamāsajja, following what’s not the noble ones’ way, ignoble, attacking virtues,
aññoññavivaresino. seeking to expose each other’s faults, they look for flaws in each other.
Dubbhāsitaṁ vikkhalitaṁ, delight in each other’s misspoken word, They rejoice together when their opponent
sampamohaṁ parājayaṁ; slip, stumble, defeat. speaks poorly and makes a mistake,
Aññoññassābhinandanti, Noble ones becoming confused and defeated—
tadariyo kathanācare. don’t speak in that way. but the noble ones don’t discuss like this.
Sace cassa kathākāmo, If wise people, knowing the right time, If an astute person wants to hold a discussion
kālamaññāya paṇḍito; want to speak, connected with the teaching and its meaning—
Dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā, then, words connected with justice, the kind of discussion that noble ones hold—
yā ariyacaritā kathā. following the ways of the noble ones: then that attentive one should start the discussion,
Taṁ kathaṁ kathaye dhīro, That’s what the enlightened ones speak, knowing when the time is right,
aviruddho anussito; without anger or arrogance, neither hostile nor arrogant.
Anunnatena manasā, with a mind not boiling over, Not over-excited,
apaḷāso asāhaso. without vehemence, without spite. contemptuous, or aggressive,
Anusūyāyamāno so, Without envy or with a mind full of jealousy,
sammadaññāya bhāsati; they speak from right knowledge. they’d speak from what they rightly know.
Subhāsitaṁ anumodeyya, They would delight in what’s well-said They agree with what was well spoken,
dubbhaṭṭhe nāpasādaye. and not disparage what’s not. without criticizing what was poorly said.
Upārambhaṁ na sikkheyya, They don’t study to find fault, They’d not persist in finding faults,
khalitañca na gāhaye; don’t grasp at little mistakes. nor seize on trivial mistakes,
Nābhihare nābhimadde, don’t put down, don’t crush, neither intimidating nor crushing the other,
na vācaṁ payutaṁ bhaṇe. don’t speak random words. nor would they speak suggestively.
Aññātatthaṁ pasādatthaṁ, For the purpose of knowledge, Good people consult
sataṁ ve hoti mantanā; for the purpose of (inspiring) clear confidence, counsel that’s true: for the sake of knowledge and clarity.
Evaṁ kho ariyā mantenti, That’s how noble ones give counsel. That’s how the noble ones consult,
esā ariyāna mantanā; That’s the noble ones’ counsel. this is a noble consultation.
Etadaññāya medhāvī, Knowing this, the intelligent Knowing this, an intelligent person
na samusseyya mantaye”ti. should give counsel without arrogance.” would consult without arrogance.”
Sattamaṁ.