There are some who dispute corrupted at heart, and those who dispute their hearts set on truth, but a sage doesn't enter a dispute that's arisen, which is why he is nowhere constrained. Now, how would one led on by desire, entrenched in his likes, forming his own conclusions, overcome his own views? He'd dispute in line with the way that he knows. Whoever boasts to others, unasked, of his practices, precepts, is, say the skilled, ignoble by nature — he who speaks of himself of his own accord. But a monk at peace, fully unbound in himself, who doesn't boast of his precepts — "That's how I am" —say the skilled, is noble by nature — he with no vanity with regard to the world. One whose doctrines aren't clean — fabricated, formed, given preference when he sees it to his own advantage — relies on a peace dependent on what can be shaken. Because entrenchments [1] in views aren't easily overcome when considering what's grasped among doctrines, that's why a person embraces or rejects a doctrine — in light of these very entrenchments. Now, one who is cleansed [2] has no preconceived view about states of becoming or not- anywhere in the world. Having abandoned conceit [3] & illusion, by what means would he go? [4] He isn't involved. For one who's involved gets into disputes over doctrines, but how — in connection with what — [5] would you argue with one uninvolved? He has nothing embraced or rejected, [6] has sloughed off every view right here — every one.