[112] Householders, regarding this, a wise person reflects thus: 'If indeed there is no doing (kiriyā) of deeds, then this good individual, with the breaking up of the body, after death, will have kept himself safe. But if indeed there is doing, then this good individual, with the breaking up of the body, after death, will be reborn in a state of deprivation, a bad destination, a place of ruin, hell. Now granted that there be no doing—let the word of those honorable ascetics and brahmins be true—even so, this good individual is, in this very life, blameworthy in the eyes of the wise as an immoral individual, one of wrong view, a proponent of the doctrine of non-action (akiriyavāda). But if indeed there really is doing, then for this good individual there is a losing throw (kaliggāha) on both counts: in that in this very life he is blameworthy in the eyes of the wise, and in that with the breaking up of the body, after death, he will be reborn in a state of deprivation, a bad destination, a place of ruin, hell.' Thus this incontrovertible teaching (apaṇṇaka dhamma), badly grasped and badly undertaken by him, pervades one side only and stands there; it neglects the wholesome position.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.