There are some ascetics and brahmins who are equivocators. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to evasiveness and equivocation on four grounds. And what are the four grounds on which they rely?

It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might be wrong. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with false speech they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to evasiveness and equivocation: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the first ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to evasiveness and equivocation.

And what is the second ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. If I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful I might feel desire or greed or hate or repulsion. That would be grasping on my part. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with grasping they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to evasiveness and equivocation: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the second ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to evasiveness and equivocation.

And what is the third ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin doesn’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. They think: ‘I don’t truly understand what is skillful and what is unskillful. Suppose I were to declare that something was skillful or unskillful. There are clever ascetics and brahmins who are subtle, accomplished in the doctrines of others, hair-splitters. You’d think they live to demolish convictions with their intellect. They might pursue, press, and grill me about that. I’d be stumped by such a grilling. That would be stressful for me, and that stress would be an obstacle.’ So from fear and disgust with examination they avoid stating whether something is skillful or unskillful. Whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to evasiveness and equivocation: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the third ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to evasiveness and equivocation.

And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin is dull and stupid. Because of that, whenever they’re asked a question, they resort to evasiveness and equivocation: ‘Suppose you were to ask me whether there is another world. If I believed there was, I would say so. But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so. Suppose you were to ask me whether there is no other world … whether there both is and is not another world … whether there neither is nor is not another world … whether there are beings who are reborn spontaneously … whether there are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … whether there both are and are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … whether there neither are nor are not beings who are reborn spontaneously … whether there is fruit and result of good and bad deeds … whether there is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … whether there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … whether there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad deeds … whether a Realized One exists after death … whether a Realized One doesn’t exist after death … whether a Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death … whether a Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. If I believed there was, I would say so. But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely when resorting to evasiveness and equivocation.

These are the four grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins who are equivocators resort to evasiveness and equivocation whenever they’re asked a question. Any ascetics and brahmins who resort to equivocation do so on one or other of these four grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.