Cunda, I have explained to you as they should be explained the views that some rely on regarding the first beginning. Shall I explain them to you in the wrong way? I have explained to you as they should be explained the views that some rely on regarding the final end. Shall I explain them to you in the wrong way? What are the views that some rely on regarding the first beginning? There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal. This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘The self and the cosmos are not eternal, or both eternal and not eternal, or neither eternal nor not eternal. The self and the cosmos are made by oneself, or made by another, or made by both oneself and another, or they have arisen anomalously, not made by oneself or another. Pleasure and pain are eternal, or not eternal, or both eternal and not eternal, or neither eternal nor not eternal. Pleasure and pain are made by oneself, or made by another, or made by both oneself and another, or they have arisen anomalously, not made by oneself or another. This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’

Regarding this, I go up to the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that the self and the cosmos are eternal, and say, ‘Reverends, is this what you say, “The self and the cosmos are eternal”?’ But when they say, ‘Yes! This is the only truth, anything else is futile,’ I don’t grant that. Why is that? Because there are beings who have different opinions on this topic. I don’t see any such expositions that are equal to my own, still less superior. Rather, I am the one who is superior when it comes to the higher exposition.