“A pure one I see”, free completely from disease,
so by “seeing” such (it is said) one attains to purity.
Convinced about this and holding it highest
that one relies on this knowledge
while contemplating purity.

But if a person by seeings’ purified
or if through such knowledge could leave dukkha aside
then one with assets still by another could be purified:
this view betrays one who speaks in this way.

The Brahmin says not that “by another, one is purified”—
not by sights or by sounds, rites and vows and what’s sensed.
Such person’s not stuck upon merit or evil,
with selfishness renounced, constructing nothing here.

Former (things) let go, then to other (things) attached,
following craving, their bondage, they do not overcross,
so they (continue) with grasping and discarding,
as monkey letting go a branch to seize upon another.

A person undertaking (holy) vows goes high and low—
they waver, fettered by conditional perceptions.
But one who has learnt well and the Dharma penetrated
goes not up and down—
that one of wisdom profound.

Within all the dharmas whether seen or they’re heard,
or otherwise sensed, this one fights not at all,
that one who sees them nakedly while faring to the end,
by whom in the world could he be described?

They neither form views, show nothing’s preferred,
nor do they claim a purity supreme,
having loosened craving’s knot with which they were bound,
no longer they have longing for what’s in the world.

Having Known, having Seen, there’s nothing to be grasped
by a Brahmin gone beyond all limitations,
neither lustful with lusts nor to lustlessness attached—
in this there is nothing that’s grasped as the highest.