English
Homage to that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, The Book of Controversies 1. The Controversy on the Person 1. In the sense of ultimate reality 1. Affirmative and Negative 1. [By this mark, the question of one's own proponent is shown] Is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. If that is ultimate reality, is that person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then it should indeed be said: "If that is ultimate reality, that person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'If that is ultimate reality, that person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'" is wrong. If it should not be said: "If that is ultimate reality, that person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality," then it should indeed not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'If that is ultimate reality, that person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'" is wrong. The five affirmative points. 2. [By this mark, the question of the opponent is shown] Is a person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. If that is ultimate reality, is that person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? It should not be said so. Understand the counter-argument. If a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then it should indeed be said: "If that is ultimate reality, that person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." What you say it should be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'' — that is wrong. But if it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' then indeed, it should not be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality.' What you say there: 'It should be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'' — that is wrong. The fourfold refutation. 3. If you, however, think: 'It should be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality',' then by that, you, making such a statement there, should be refuted thus. Now we refute you. And you are well refuted. If a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then indeed, it should be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality.' What you say there: 'It should be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'' — that is wrong. But if it should not be said: 'That ultimate reality, from that, the person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' then indeed, it should not be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality.' What you say there: 'It should be said: 'A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said – ‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is not found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning.’ This of yours is wrong. The Quadruple Refutation. 4. If this is badly refuted, then indeed, be skilled there. It should indeed be said – ‘‘A person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning,’’ but it should not be said – ‘‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning.’’ And we, by you, there, with that declaration, declaring thus, should not be refuted thus. Yet you refute me. And we are badly refuted. If a person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning, then indeed, it should be said – ‘‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning.’’ What you say there – ‘‘It should indeed be said – ‘A person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning,’ but it should not be said – ‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning’’’ – is wrong. But if it should not be said – ‘‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning,’’ then indeed, it should not be said – ‘‘A person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning.’’ What you say there – ‘‘It should indeed be said – ‘‘A person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning,’ but it should not be said – ‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning’’’ – this of yours is wrong. The Quadruple Application. 5. It should not be refuted thus. Therefore, what you refute – ‘‘If a person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning, then indeed, it should be said – ‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning, from that, that person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning.’ What you say there – ‘‘It should indeed be said – ‘‘A person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, supreme meaning, but it should not be said – ‘Whatever is ultimate reality, supreme meaning... ...is, from that, that person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality"— that is wrong. If it should not be said: "That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality," then indeed it should not be said: "The person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'The person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality'"— that of yours is wrong. Therefore, those refutations you made, those refutations are ill-done. Well-done is the counter-argument. Well-done is the presentation. The fourfold conclusion. The first refutation. 1. Pure ultimate reality. 2. The reverse-affirmative. 6. Is the person not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality? Yes. That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, is the person not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said: "That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'The person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality'"— that is wrong. If it should not be said: "That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality," then indeed it should not be said: "The person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'The person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'That which is a true ultimate reality, from that, that person is not apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality'"— that is wrong. The fivefold reverse. 7. The person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate... By ultimate reality? Yes. That which is true ultimate reality, is the person found by that true ultimate reality? It should not be said so. Understand the counter-argument. If the person is found by ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said – "That which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality." What you say there – "It should indeed be said – 'the person is found by ultimate reality,' but it should not be said – 'that which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "That which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality," then indeed it should not be said – "the person is found by ultimate reality." What you say there – "It should indeed be said – 'the person is found by ultimate reality,' but it should not be said – 'that which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality'" – is wrong. The fourfold counter-argument. 8. But if you think – "It should indeed be said – 'the person is found by ultimate reality,' but it should not be said – 'that which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality'," then by that assertion of yours, you making such an admission should be thus refuted. Now we refute you. And you are well refuted. If the person is found by ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said – "That which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality." What you say there –