1"Bhikkhus, there are these three bases of talk. What three? (1) Referring to the past, one would say: ‘So it was in the past.’ (2) Referring to the future, one would say: ‘So it will be in the future.’ (3) Referring to the present, one would say: ‘So it is now, at present.’

2"It is in relation to talk, bhikkhus, that a person may be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question that should be answered categorically and he does not answer it categorically; if he is asked a question that should be answered after making a distinction and he answers it without making a distinction; if he is asked a question that should be answered with a counter-question and he answers it without asking a counter-question; if he is asked a question that should be set aside and he does not set it aside, in such a case this person is unfit to talk. [n.464] These are the four methods of formulating questions; see AN4.42. Mp: "(1) A question that should be answered categorically (ekaṁsavyākaṇanīya pañha) is, for example, ‘Is the eye impermanent?’ which should be answered categorically with ‘Yes, it is impermanent.’ (2) A question that should be answered after making a distinction (vibhajjavyākaraṇīya pañha) is, for example, ‘Is the impermanent the eye?’ which should be answered by making a distinction: ‘Not only the eye, but the ear, nose, etc., are also impermanent.’ (3) A question that should be answered with a counter-question (paṭipucchāvyākaraṇīya pañha) is, for example, ‘Does the eye have the same nature as the ear?’ One should answer this by asking, ‘With respect to what?’ If they reply, ‘With respect to seeing,’ one should answer no. If they reply, ‘With respect to impermanence,’ one should answer yes. (4) A question that should be set aside (ṭhapanīya pañha) is, for example, ‘Is the soul the same as the body?’ This should be set aside without answering it, saying, ‘This has not been declared by the Tathāgata.’" In my opinion, better examples of "a question that should be answered after making a distinction" are the Buddha’s response to Subha at MN 99.4, II 197,9–18; his response to the brahmin Ujjaya at AN4.39, II 42,14–28; and the householder Vajjiyamāhita's response to the wanderers at AN10.94, V 190,14–20.

"But if this person is asked a question that should be answered categorically and he answers it categorically; if he is asked a question that should be answered after making a distinction and he answers it after making a distinction; if he is asked a question that should be answered with a counter-question and he answers it with a counter-question; if he is asked a question that should be set aside and he sets it aside, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

3"It is in relation to talk, bhikkhus, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he does not stand firm in regard to his position and the opposing position; if he does not stand firm in his stratagem; if he does not stand firm in an assertion about what is known; if he does not stand firm in the procedure, in such a case this person is unfit to talk. [n.465] "He does not stand firm in the procedure (paṭipadāya na saṇṭhāti): Not having understood the rule (vattaṁ ajānitvā), he asks under circumstances when a question should not be asked. If a question is asked in the courtyard of a memorial shrine (cetiyangana), one should not answer it. So too, one should not answer on the way to the alms round; when walking for alms in the village; when sitting in the meeting hall; when sitting and taking porridge or a meal; when sitting after the meal; and when going to the place where one passes the day. However, when one is sitting in one's day quarters, if someone asks permission and then poses a question, it should be answered; but one should not answer if they do not ask permission. Such is what is meant by: ‘Asking a question without having understood the rule, he does not stand firm in the procedure.’"

"But if this person is asked a question and he stands firm in regard to his position and the opposing position; if he stands firm in his stratagem; if he stands firm in an assertion about what is known; if he stands firm in the procedure, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

4"It is in relation to talk, bhikkhus, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he answers evasively, diverts the discussion to an irrelevant subject, and displays anger, hatred, and bitterness, in such a case this person is unfit to talk.

"But if this person is asked a question and he does not answer evasively, divert the discussion to an irrelevant subject, or display anger, hatred, and bitterness, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

5"It is in relation to talk, bhikkhus, that a person should be understood as either fit to talk or unfit to talk. If this person is asked a question and he overwhelms the questioner, crushes him, ridicules him, and seizes upon a slight error, [n.466] That is, he seizes upon a slight mistake on the other's part as a pretext for criticizing him. in such a case this person is unfit to talk.

"But if this person is asked a question and he does not overwhelm the questioner, or crush him, or ridicule him, or seize upon a slight error, in such a case this person is fit to talk.

6"It is in relation to talk, bhikkhus, that a person should be understood as either having a supporting condition or not having a supporting condition. One who does not lend an ear does not have a supporting condition; one who lends an ear has a supporting condition. One who has a supporting condition directly knows one thing, fully understands one thing, abandons one thing, and realizes one thing. Directly knowing one thing, fully understanding one thing, abandoning one thing, and realizing one thing, he reaches right liberation. [n.467] Mp: "He directly knows one thing, a wholesome Dhamma, the noble path. He fully understands one thing, the truth of suffering. He abandons one thing, all unwholesome qualities. He realizes one thing, the fruit of arahantship or the truth of cessation. By means of knowledge he reaches right liberation, emancipation by the fruit of arahantship."

"This, bhikkhus, is the goal of talk, the goal of discussion, the goal of a supporting condition, the goal of lending an ear, that is, the emancipation of the mind through non-clinging."

7Those who speak with quarrelsome intent,
settled in their opinions, swollen with pride,
ignoble, having assailed virtues, [n.468] Anariyaguṇam āsajja. The line is problematic. As printed, it would be translated: "Having attacked ignoble qualities." But guṇa usually means virtuous qualities. Mp gives an unconvincing explanation: "They give a talk using ignoble qualities to attack qualities." I translate on the supposition that the correct reading of the line should be anariyā guṇam āsajja, "the ignoble ones assail (good) qualities." A Chinese parallel, MĀ 119 at T I 609a8 –b29, closely matches the Pāli in regard to the verses, and the corresponding line (609b15) accords with my interpretation: ("ignoble, they criticize (each others’) virtues").
look for openings to attack one another.

8They mutually delight when their opponent
speaks badly and makes a mistake,
they rejoice in his bewilderment and defeat;
but noble ones don’t engage in such talk.

9If a wise person wants to talk,
having known the time is right,
without quarrelsomeness or pride,
the sagely person should utter
the speech that the noble ones practice,
which is connected with the Dhamma and meaning. [n.469] Dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā yā ariyācaritā kathā. Mp explains dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā thus: "The talk is made by one established in the Dhamma, thus it is established in the Dhamma; and (the talk) is connected with the Dhamma, so it is established in and connected with the Dhamma." Mp thus takes dhammaṭṭha to be a compound of dhamme ṭhita. I translate, however, on the assumption that dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā contains a dvanda compound that should be resolved dhammena ca aṭṭhena ca paṭisaṁyuttā. In explanations of right speech, it is often said that the virtuous person is atthavādī dhammavādī, "one who speaks what is beneficial (or ‘meaningful’), one who speaks on the Dhamma"; see AN3.69, I 204,4; AN10.176 §7, V 267,22. It is unusual—but not exceptional—to find aṭṭha in place of attha with the sense of "meaning" or "benefit"; it would be more unusual to find the termination ṭha embedded inside a compound and followed by a past participle. The Chinese parallel, which I discovered only after I had made my translation, supports my understanding here. At T I 609b19 we read: "talk that has Dhamma and that has meaning: all the talk of the noble ones is like this." The character , like Pāli attha, means both "good" and "meaning," and can mean either "beneficial" or "meaningful."

10Not being insolent or aggressive,
with a mind not elated, [n.470] I read here with Be anunnatena manasā, as against Ce and Ee anupādinnena manasā. Mp (both Ce and Be) glosses with anuddhatena cetasā, which supports anunnatena manasā.
he speaks free from envy
on the basis of right knowledge.
He should approve of what is well expressed
but should not attack what is badly stated.

12-13He should not train in faultfinding
nor seize on the other's mistakes;
he should not overwhelm and crush his opponent,
nor speak mendacious words.
Truly, a discussion among the good
is for the sake of knowledge and confidence.

13Such is the way the noble discuss things;
this is the discussion of the noble ones.
Having understood this, the wise person
should not swell up but should discuss things.

1"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.

2Kathāsampayogena, 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.

3Kathāsampayogena, 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.

4Kathāsampayogena, 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.

5Kathāsampayogena, 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.

6Kathāsampayogena, 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.

7Ye viruddhā sallapanti,
viniviṭṭhā samussitā;
Anariyaguṇamāsajja,
aññoññavivaresino.

8Dubbhāsitaṁ vikkhalitaṁ,
sampamohaṁ parājayaṁ;
Aññoññassābhinandanti,
tadariyo kathanācare.

9Sace cassa kathākāmo,
kālamaññāya paṇḍito;
Dhammaṭṭhapaṭisaṁyuttā,
yā ariyacaritā kathā.

10Taṁ kathaṁ kathaye dhīro,
aviruddho anussito;
Anunnatena manasā,
apaḷāso asāhaso.

11Anusūyāyamāno so,
sammadaññāya bhāsati;
Subhāsitaṁ anumodeyya,
dubbhaṭṭhe nāpasādaye.

12Upārambhaṁ na sikkheyya,
khalitañca na gāhaye;
Nābhihare nābhimadde,
na vācaṁ payutaṁ bhaṇe.

13Aññātatthaṁ pasādatthaṁ,
sataṁ ve hoti mantanā;
Evaṁ kho ariyā mantenti,
esā ariyāna mantanā;
Etadaññāya medhāvī,
na samusseyya mantaye"ti.

---

Sattamaṁ.