“Yamidaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā ekaṁsena akaraṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyaduccaritaṁ vacīduccaritaṁ manoduccaritaṁ tasmiṁ akaraṇīye kayiramāne ko ādīnavo pāṭikaṅkho”ti?  “But, sir, if someone does these things that should not be done, what drawbacks should they expect?” 
“Yamidaṁ, ānanda, mayā ekaṁsena akaraṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyaduccaritaṁ vacīduccaritaṁ manoduccaritaṁ tasmiṁ akaraṇīye kayiramāne ayaṁ ādīnavo pāṭikaṅkho— 
“They should expect these drawbacks. 
Yamidaṁ, ānanda, mayā ekaṁsena akaraṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyaduccaritaṁ vacīduccaritaṁ manoduccaritaṁ tasmiṁ akaraṇīye kayiramāne ayaṁ ādīnavo pāṭikaṅkho”ti. 
These are the drawbacks they should expect.” 
“Yamidaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā ekaṁsena karaṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyasucaritaṁ vacīsucaritaṁ manosucaritaṁ tasmiṁ karaṇīye kayiramāne ko ānisaṁso pāṭikaṅkho”ti? 
“But, sir, if someone does these things that should be done, what benefits should they expect?” 
“Yamidaṁ, ānanda, mayā ekaṁsena karaṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyasucaritaṁ vacīsucaritaṁ manosucaritaṁ tasmiṁ karaṇīye kayiramāne ayaṁ ānisaṁso pāṭikaṅkho— 
“They should expect these benefits. 
Yamidaṁ, ānanda, mayā ekaṁsena karaṇīyaṁ akkhātaṁ kāyasucaritaṁ vacīsucaritaṁ manosucaritaṁ tasmiṁ karaṇīye kayiramāne ayaṁ ānisaṁso pāṭikaṅkho”ti. 
These are the benefits they should expect.” 

“Na khvettha, sāriputta, sukaraṁ ekaṁsena byākātuṁ:  “In this matter, Sāriputta, it’s not easy to categorically declare that 
Na khvettha, sāriputta, sukaraṁ ekaṁsena byākātuṁ: 
In this matter, it’s not easy to categorically declare that 
Na khvettha, sāriputta, sukaraṁ ekaṁsena byākātuṁ: 
In this matter, it’s not easy to categorically declare that 
Na khvettha, sāriputta, sukaraṁ ekaṁsena byākātuṁ: 
In this matter, it’s not easy to categorically declare that 

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.  When a person 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 person 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. 
When a person 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 person is competent to hold a discussion. 

Kathañhi nāma yaṁ mayā ekaṁsena byākataṁ tattha dvejjhaṁ āpajjissati.  How on earth can he take something that I have declared categorically to be ambiguous? 

ekaṁsena, upāli, dhāreyyāsi:  Categorically, you should remember these things as 
ekaṁsena, upāli, dhāreyyāsi: 
Categorically, you should remember these things as 

ekaṁsena, gotami, dhāreyyāsi:  Categorically, you should remember these things as 
ekaṁsena, gotami, dhāreyyāsi: 
Categorically, you should remember these things as 

“saccaṁ kira, gahapati, samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosati upavadatī”ti?  “Is it really true, householder? Does the ascetic Gotama criticize all forms of mortification? Does he categorically condemn and denounce those fervent mortifiers who live rough?” 
“Na kho, bhante, bhagavā sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati napi sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosati upavadati. 
“No, sirs, the Buddha does not criticize all forms of mortification. Nor does he categorically condemn and denounce those fervent mortifiers who live rough. 

Apavadateva bhavaṁ soṇadaṇḍo vaṇṇaṁ, apavadati mante, apavadati jātiṁ, ekaṁsena bhavaṁ soṇadaṇḍo samaṇasseva gotamassa vādaṁ anupakkhandatī”ti.  You’re just condemning appearance, the hymns, and birth! You’re totally going over to the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine!” 
‘apavadateva bhavaṁ soṇadaṇḍo vaṇṇaṁ, apavadati mante, apavadati jātiṁ, ekaṁsena bhavaṁ soṇadaṇḍo samaṇasseva gotamassa vādaṁ anupakkhandatī’ti. 
‘You’re just condemning appearance, the hymns, and birth! You’re totally going over to the ascetic Gotama’s doctrine!’ 

‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosati upavadatī’ti.  ‘The ascetic Gotama criticizes all fervent mortification. He categorically condemns and denounces all fervent mortifiers who live rough.’ 
Ye te, bho gotama, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosati upavadatī’ti, kacci te bhoto gotamassa vuttavādino, na ca bhavantaṁ gotamaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkhanti, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākaronti, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgacchati? 
Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism? 
“Ye te, kassapa, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosati upavadatī’ti, na me te vuttavādino, abbhācikkhanti ca pana maṁ te asatā abhūtena. 
“Kassapa, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false, baseless, and untrue. 
Yohaṁ, kassapa, imesaṁ tapassīnaṁ evaṁ āgatiñca gatiñca cutiñca upapattiñca yathābhūtaṁ pajānāmi, sohaṁ kiṁ sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahissāmi, sabbaṁ vā tapassiṁ lūkhājīviṁ ekaṁsena upakkosissāmi upavadissāmi? 
Since I truly understand the coming and going, passing away and rebirth of these fervent mortifiers in this way, how could I criticize all forms of mortification, or categorically condemn and denounce those fervent mortifiers who live rough? 

Yaṁ kho panetaṁ, ānanda, tathāgatena cattaṁ vantaṁ muttaṁ pahīnaṁ paṭinissaṭṭhaṁ ossaṭṭho āyusaṅkhāro, ekaṁsena vācā bhāsitā:  The Realized One has discarded, eliminated, released, given up, relinquished, and surrendered the life force. He has categorically stated: 

‘Bhagavatā cassa, bhante, esā vācā ekaṁsena odhāritā—  ‘Sir, the Buddha has categorically asserted that 

Ahañceva kho pana ajānanto apassanto ekaṁsena ādāya vohareyyaṁ—  Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, 
Ahañceva kho pana ajānanto apassanto ekaṁsena ādāya vohareyyaṁ— 
Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, 

“yadidaṁ, bho gotama, brāhmaṇānaṁ porāṇaṁ mantapadaṁ itihitihaparamparāya piṭakasampadāya, tattha ca brāhmaṇā ekaṁsena niṭṭhaṁ gacchanti:  “Mister Gotama, regarding that which by the lineage of testament and by canonical authority is the ancient hymnal of the brahmins, the brahmins come to the categorical conclusion: 
Saccamanurakkhatā, bhāradvāja, viññunā purisena nālamettha ekaṁsena niṭṭhaṁ gantuṁ: 
For a sensible person who is preserving truth this is not sufficient to come to the categorical conclusion: 
iti vadaṁ saccamanurakkhati, na tveva tāva ekaṁsena niṭṭhaṁ gacchati: 
But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: 
iti vadaṁ saccamanurakkhati, na tveva tāva ekaṁsena niṭṭhaṁ gacchati: 
But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: 

atha khvettha viññunā purisena ekaṁsena niṭṭhaṁ gantabbaṁ yadidaṁ:  a sensible person would come to the categorical conclusion in this matter that 

Iminā ca, ānanda, samiddhinā moghapurisena potaliputtassa paribbājakassa vibhajjabyākaraṇīyo pañho ekaṁsena byākato”ti.  The wanderer Potaliputta’s question should have been answered after analyzing it, but this futile man answered categorically.” 

“yagghe bhavaṁ jāneyya, samaṇo mahākaccāno brāhmaṇānaṁ mante ekaṁsena apavadati, paṭikkosatī”ti?  “Please, master, you should know this. The ascetic Mahākaccāna condemns and rejects outright the hymns of the brahmins!” 

“sutaṁ metaṁ, bhante, ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhajīviṁ ekaṁsena upavadati upakkosatī’ti.  “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama criticizes all forms of mortification. He categorically condemns and denounces those fervent mortifiers who live rough.’ 
Ye te, bhante, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhajīviṁ ekaṁsena upavadati upakkosatī’ti, kacci te, bhante, bhagavato vuttavādino, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkhanti, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākaronti, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgacchatī”ti? 
Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuttal and criticism?” 
“Ye te, gāmaṇi, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaṁ tapaṁ garahati, sabbaṁ tapassiṁ lūkhajīviṁ ekaṁsena upavadati upakkosatī’ti, na me te vuttavādino, abbhācikkhanti ca pana maṁ te asatā tucchā abhūtena. 
“Chief, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false, hollow, and untrue.