Snp 4.12 — The Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

Sectarian philosophers who each maintain their own view as the sole truth and dismiss every rival view as foolish are caught in a self-defeating structure: since all of them are doing exactly the same thing to each other, the very standard they use to call the other side foolish, if applied honestly, would have to convict them all equally — or none of them at all.

A scene of mutual accusation

The discourse opens with a vivid picture: “each maintaining their own view, those who are skilled disagree, arguing” that only their own way of seeing amounts to real understanding, and that anyone who rejects it is “inadequate.” So arguing, they call each other fools and amateurs, each side certain of its own expertise. The questioner puts the obvious problem to the Buddha directly: which of these mutually exclusive claims is actually true, given that every single speaker professes to be the expert?

A dilemma with no comfortable exit

The Buddha’s answer is a clean logical trap rather than a verdict on any particular view. If refusing to accept another’s teaching makes someone “a useless fool lacking wisdom,” then every single one of these debaters is a fool, since each one rejects all the others’ teachings in favor of their own. But if, instead, holding one’s own view makes a person “pristine… expert and intelligent,” then none of them lack wisdom, since holding one’s own view is exactly what all of them are doing. Either horn of the dilemma dissolves the very distinction — fool versus expert — the debaters are trying to establish between themselves. The Buddha states plainly that he does not accept that it is correct for them to call each other fools on these grounds.

Is there really more than one truth?

Pressed further — if ascetics disagree this sharply, are there genuinely many different truths, or are they just following their own private reasoning? — the Buddha answers that the truth is “one, there is no second,” and that anyone who actually understood it would have nothing left to dispute about. What the debaters have instead are reasonings built up around differing views, from which they generate a bare binary of “true” and “false” and use it to show disdain for one another, standing in judgment based only on what each has personally seen, heard, thought, or vowed — not on the truth itself, which by definition could not produce this many mutually contradictory claimants.

Anointing oneself, and the only real way out

The later verses sharpen the psychological portrait: each sectarian, “drunk on conceit,” has effectively “anointed” themselves an expert in their own mind, and disdains everyone else on the very same self-granted authority they use to certify themselves. Each insists “here alone is purity,” denying that any other path could purify anyone — and by doing so, the discourse observes, they are the ones actually manufacturing the conflict, since calling a rival “a fool with an impure teaching” is itself a provocation, not a neutral description. The discourse’s final line offers the only way out of the whole structure: not a better argument, but someone who has “given up all judgments” of this kind entirely, and so “creates no conflict in the world.”

Key terms

viyūha — literally an army “arrayed” or drawn up in battle formation — the discourse’s title image for the standoff of rival philosophical camps, each fixed in position.

the dilemma of mutual accusation — the Buddha’s central argument: the standard used to call a rival a fool, if applied consistently, either convicts every debater equally or convicts none of them, since all are doing the same thing to each other.

“the truth is one, there is no second” — the discourse’s claim that genuine understanding would leave nothing to dispute about, distinguishing real truth from the many competing claims sectarians make in its name.

“anointed themselves” — the discourse’s image for how each dogmatic thinker self-certifies as an expert, using the very authority they grant themselves as the basis for dismissing everyone else.

“given up all judgments” — the discourse’s closing description of the one way out of the entire structure of mutual accusation — not by winning the argument, but by no longer playing the game that produces it.

The text

The discourse in full, all seventeen verses. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Verse 1“Each maintaining their own view,
those who are skilled disagree, arguing:
‘Whoever sees it this way understands the teaching;
those who reject this are inadequate.’

Verse 2So arguing, they dispute,
saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’
Which of these is a true statement,
for all of them profess to be experts?”

Verse 3“If not accepting another’s teaching
makes you a useless fool lacking wisdom,
then they’re all fools lacking wisdom,
for they all maintain their own view.

Verse 4But if having your own view makes you pristine—
pure in wisdom, expert and intelligent—
then none of them lack wisdom,
for such is the view they have all embraced.

Verse 5I do not say that it is correct
when they call each other fools.
Each has built up their own view to be the truth,
which is why they take the other as a fool.”

Verse 6“What some say is true and correct,
others say is hollow and false.
So arguing, they dispute;
why don’t ascetics say the same thing?”

Verse 7“The truth is one, there is no second,
understanding which folk would not dispute.
But those ascetics each boast of different truths;
that’s why they don’t say the same thing.”

Verse 8“But why do they speak of different truths,
these proponents who profess to be experts?
Are there really so many different truths,
or do they just follow their own lines of reasoning?”

Verse 9“No, there are not many different truths
that, apart from perception, are lasting in the world.
Having formed their reasoning regarding different views,
they say there are two things: true and false.

Verse 10The seen, heard, or thought, or precepts or vows—
based on these they show disdain.
Standing in judgment, they scoff,
saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’

Verse 11They take the other as a fool on the same grounds
that they speak of themselves as an expert.
Professing to be expert on their own authority,
they disdain the other while saying the same thing.

Verse 12They are perfect, according to their own extreme view;
drunk on conceit, imagining themselves proficient.
They have anointed themselves in their own mind,
for such is the view they have embraced.

Verse 13If the word of your opponent makes you deficient,
then they too are lacking wisdom.
But if on your own authority you’re a knowledge master, an attentive one,
then there are no fools among the ascetics.

Verse 14‘Those who proclaim a teaching other than this
have fallen short of purity, and are inadequate’:
so say each one of the sectarians,
for they are deeply attached to their own view.

Verse 15‘Here alone is purity,’ they say,
denying that there is purification in other teachings.
Thus each one of the sectarians, being dogmatic,
speaks forcefully within the context of their own journey.

Verse 16But in that case, so long as they are speaking forcefully of their own journey,
how can they take the other as a fool?
They are the ones who provoke conflict
when they call the other a fool with an impure teaching.

Verse 17Standing in judgment, measuring by their own standard,
they dispute with the world more and more.
But a personage who has given up all judgments
creates no conflict in the world.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10

What scene opens the discourse?

Correct: B. So arguing, they call each other fools and amateurs, each certain of their own expertise.

Question 2 of 10

What question does the questioner put to the Buddha about these disputing philosophers?

Correct: C. This sets up the Buddha’s dilemma-based reply.

Question 3 of 10

What is the first horn of the Buddha’s dilemma regarding calling someone a fool for rejecting another’s teaching?

Correct: A. This is the first branch of the logical trap the Buddha lays out.

Question 4 of 10

What is the second horn of the dilemma?

Correct: D. Either horn dissolves the very distinction between fool and expert the debaters are trying to establish.

Question 5 of 10

When asked whether there are really many different truths, what does the Buddha answer?

Correct: B. What debaters actually have instead is reasoning built around differing views, generating a bare “true” versus “false” binary.

Question 6 of 10

On what basis does the discourse say sectarians show disdain for each other?

Correct: C. The discourse contrasts this personal, partial basis with what genuine understanding of a single truth would actually look like.

Question 7 of 10

How does the discourse describe each dogmatic sectarian’s self-certification?

Correct: A. This self-granted authority is exactly what they then use to dismiss everyone else.

Question 8 of 10

According to the discourse, who is actually responsible for manufacturing conflict among the sectarians?

Correct: D. Insisting “here alone is purity” while denying purification elsewhere is what generates the conflict.

Question 9 of 10

What does the discourse offer as the only real way out of this entire structure?

Correct: B. The exit is not a better argument but no longer playing the game that produces the conflict.

Question 10 of 10

According to the reading guide, what does the title image of being “arrayed for battle” (viyūha) refer to?

Correct: C. The companion Mahāviyūhasutta (Snp 4.13) develops the same image and critique at greater length.

Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0

The Shorter Discourse on Arrayed For Battle

Why this discourse, the twelfth