When dwelling on views
as "supreme,"
a person makes them
the utmost thing
in the world,
&, from that, calls
all others inferior
and so he's not free
from disputes.
When he sees his advantage
in what's seen, heard, sensed,
or in precepts & practices,
seizing it there
he sees all else
as inferior.
That, too, say the skilled,
is a binding knot: that
in dependence on which
you regard another
as inferior.
So a monk shouldn't be dependent
on what's seen, heard, or sensed,
or on precepts & practices;
nor should he conjure a view in the world
in connection with knowledge
or precepts & practices;
shouldn't take himself
to be "equal";
shouldn't think himself
inferior or superlative.
Abandoning what he had embraced,
abandoning self,[1]
not clinging,
he doesn't make himself dependent
even in connection with knowledge;
doesn't follow a faction
among those who are split;
doesn't fall back
on any view whatsoever.
One who isn't inclined
toward either side
-- becoming or not-,
here or beyond --
who has no entrenchment
when considering what's grasped among doctrines,
hasn't the least
preconceived perception
with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed.
By whom, with what,
should he be pigeonholed
here in the world?
-- this brahmin
who hasn't adopted views.
They don't conjure, don't yearn,
don't adhere even to doctrines.
A brahmin not led
by precepts or practices,
gone to the beyond
-- Such --
doesn't fall back.