3.67. Các Vấn Ðề Ðược Nói Ðến

“Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, kathāvatthūni.

Katamāni tīṇi?

Atītaṁ vā, bhikkhave, addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya:

‘evaṁ ahosi atītamaddhānan’ti.

Anāgataṁ vā, bhikkhave, addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya:

‘evaṁ bhavissati anāgatamaddhānan’ti.

Etarahi vā, bhikkhave, paccuppannaṁ addhānaṁ ārabbha kathaṁ katheyya:

‘evaṁ hoti etarahi paccuppannamaddhānan’ti.

Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti.

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.

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.

Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti.

Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ṭhānāṭhāne na saṇṭhāti parikappe na saṇṭhāti aññātavāde na saṇṭhāti paṭipadāya na saṇṭhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti.

Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno ṭhānāṭhāne saṇṭhāti parikappe saṇṭhāti aññātavāde saṇṭhāti paṭipadāya saṇṭhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti.

Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti.

Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno aññenaññaṁ paṭicarati, bahiddhā kathaṁ apanāmeti, kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti.

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.

Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti.

Sacāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno abhiharati abhimaddati anupajagghati khalitaṁ gaṇhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti.

Sace panāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṁ puṭṭho samāno nābhiharati nābhimaddati na anupajagghati na khalitaṁ gaṇhāti, evaṁ santāyaṁ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti.

Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā saupaniso yadi vā anupanisoti.

Anohitasoto, bhikkhave, anupaniso hoti, ohitasoto saupaniso hoti.

So saupaniso samāno abhijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, parijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, pajahati ekaṁ dhammaṁ, sacchikaroti ekaṁ dhammaṁ.

So abhijānanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, parijānanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, pajahanto ekaṁ dhammaṁ, sacchikaronto ekaṁ dhammaṁ sammāvimuttiṁ phusati.

Etadatthā, bhikkhave, kathā;

etadatthā mantanā;

etadatthā upanisā;

etadatthaṁ sotāvadhānaṁ, yadidaṁ anupādā cittassa vimokkhoti.

Ye viruddhā sallapanti,

viniviṭṭhā samussitā;

Anariyaguṇamāsajja,

aññoññavivaresino.

Dubbhāsitaṁ vikkhalitaṁ,

sampamohaṁ parājayaṁ;

Aññoññassābhinandanti,

tadariyo kathanācare.

Sace cassa kathākāmo,

kālamaññāya paṇḍito;

Dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā,

yā ariyacaritā kathā.

Taṁ kathaṁ kathaye dhīro,

aviruddho anussito;

Anunnatena manasā,

apaḷāso asāhaso.

Anusūyāyamāno so,

sammadaññāya bhāsati;

Subhāsitaṁ anumodeyya,

dubbhaṭṭhe nāpasādaye.

Upārambhaṁ na sikkheyya,

khalitañca na gāhaye;

Nābhihare nābhimadde,

na vācaṁ payutaṁ bhaṇe.

Aññātatthaṁ pasādatthaṁ,

sataṁ ve hoti mantanā;

Evaṁ kho ariyā mantenti,

esā ariyāna mantanā;

Etadaññāya medhāvī,

na samusseyya mantaye”ti.

Sattamaṁ.

“Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?

“One may talk about the past, saying, ‘Thus it was in the past.’ One may talk about the future, saying, ‘Thus it will be in the future.’ Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, ‘Thus it is now in the present.’

“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. 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. 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.

“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. 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, doesn’t stand by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. 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.

“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. 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. 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.

“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. 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. 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.

“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn’t lend ear doesn’t draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality. Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.

Those who discuss
when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
seeking to expose each other’s faults,
delight in each other’smisspoken word,
slip, stumble, defeat.
Noble ones don’t speak in that way.

If wise people, knowing the right time, want to speak,
then, words connected with justice,
following the ways of the noble ones:
That’s what the enlightened ones speak,
without anger or arrogance,
with a mind not boiling over,
without vehemence,
without spite.
Without envy
they speak from right knowledge.
They would delight in what’s well-said
and not disparage what’s not.
They don’t study to find fault,
don’t grasp at little mistakes.
don’t put down, don’t crush,
don’t speak random words.

For the purpose of knowledge,
for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,
counsel that’s true:
That’s how noble ones give counsel,
That’s the noble ones’ counsel.
Knowing this, the wise
should give counsel without arrogance.”