1.
Abiding by their own views, some (people), having got into contest, assert themselves to be the (only) expert (saying), '(He) who understands this, he knows the Dhamma; he who reviles this, he is not perfect.'

2.
So having got into contest they dispute: 'The opponent (is) a fool, an ignorant (person),' so they say. Which one of these, pray, is the true doctrine (vâda)? for all these assert themselves (to be the only) expert.

3.
He who does not acknowledge an opponent's doctrine (dhamma), he is a fool, a beast, one of poor understanding, all are fools with a very poor understanding; all these abide by their (own) views.

4.
They are surely purified by their own view, they are of a pure understanding, expert, thoughtful, amongst them there is no one of poor understanding, their view is quite perfect!

5.
I do not say, 'This is the reality,' which fools say mutually to each other; they made their own views the truth, therefore they hold others to be fools.

6.
What some say is the truth, the reality, that others say is void, false, so having disagreed they dispute. Why do not the Sama/n/as say one (and the same thing)?

7.
For the truth is one, there is not a second, about which one intelligent man might dispute with another intelligent man; (but) they themselves praise different truths, therefore the Sama/n/as do not say one and the same thing).

8.
Why do the disputants that assert themselves (to be the only) expert, proclaim different truths? Have many different truths been heard of, or do they (only) follow (their own) reasoning?

9.
There are not many different truths in the world, no eternal ones except consciousness; but having reasoned on the (philosophical) views they proclaim a double Dhamma, truth and falsehood.

10.
In regard to what has been seen, or heard, virtue and (holy) works, or what has been thought, and on account of these (views) looking (upon others) with contempt, standing in (their) resolutions joyful, they say that the opponent is a fool and an ignorant person(?)

11.
Because he holds another (to be) a fool, therefore he calls himself expert, in his own opinion he is one that tells what is propitious, others he blames, so he said. (?)

12.
He is full of his overbearing (philosophical) view, mad with pride, thinking himself perfect, he is in his own opinion anointed with the spirit (of genius), for his (philosopbical) view is quite complete.

13.
If he according to another's report is low, then (he says) the other is also of a low understanding, and if he himself is accomplished and wise, there is not any fool amongst the Sama/n/as.

14.
'Those who preach a doctrine (dhamma) different from this, fall short of purity and are imperfect,' so the Titthiyas say repeatedly, for they are inflamed by passion for their own (philosophical) views.

15.
Here they maintain purity, in other doctrines (dhamma) they do not allow purity; so the Titthiyas, entering extensively (upon details), say that in their own way there is something firm.

16.
And saying that there is something firm in his own way he holds his opponent to be a fool; thus he himself brings on strife, calling his opponent a fool and impure (asuddhadhamma).

17.
Standing in (his) resolution, having himself measured (teachers, &c.), he still more enters into dispute in the world; but having left all resolutions nobody will excite strife in the world.