English
then indeed it should be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of an ultimate reality." 199. Is it by saying "There is a mother" that for that reason a person is apprehended in the sense of an ultimate reality? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a mother, becomes a mother? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a person, becomes a person? It should not be said thus... is there anyone who, not having been a father...? not having been a brother...? Oh… not having been a sister… not having been a noble… not having been a brahmin… not having been a merchant… not having been a worker… not having been a householder… not having been a renunciant… not having been a deity… not having been a human, becomes a human? Yes. Is there anyone, not having been a person, becomes a person? It should not be said thus… (etc.) 200. Having said "there is a mother," and for that reason, is a person apprehended in the ultimate real sense? Yes. Is there anyone, having been a mother, is not a mother? Yes. Is there anyone, having been a person, is not a person? It should not be said thus… (etc.) Is there anyone, having been a father… having been a brother… having been a sister… having been a noble… having been a brahmin… having been a merchant… having been a worker… having been a householder… having been a renunciant… having been a deity… having been a human, is not a human? Yes. Is there anyone, having been a person, is not a person? It should not be said thus… (etc.) 19. Application of Penetration 201. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense"? Yes. Is there not a stream-enterer? Yes. If there is a stream-enterer, then indeed it should be said: "A person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense." 202. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense"? Yes. Is there not a once-returner… (etc.) an non-returner… an Arahant… one liberated in both ways… one liberated by wisdom… one who is a body-witness… one who has attained view… one liberated by faith… one who follows the Dhamma… one who follows by faith? Yes. If there is one who follows by faith, then indeed it should be said: "A person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense." 203. Having said "there is a stream-enterer," and for that reason, is a person apprehended in the ultimate real sense? Yes. Is there anyone, not having been a stream-enterer, becomes a stream-enterer? Yes. Is there anyone, not having been a person, becomes a person? It should not be said thus… (etc.) 204. Is there anyone, not having become a once-returner, not having become a non-returner, not having become an Arahant, not having become one liberated in both ways, not having become one liberated by wisdom, not having become a body-witness, not having become one attained to view, not having become one liberated by faith, not having become a Dhamma-follower, not having become a faith-follower, who then becomes a faith-follower? Yes. Is there anyone, not having become a person, who then becomes a person? It should not be said so (...). 205. Is it by saying "there is a stream-enterer" that for that reason a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is there anyone, having become a stream-enterer, who is not a stream-enterer? Yes. Is there anyone, having become a person, who is not a person? It should not be said so (...). Is there anyone, having become a once-returner, having become a non-returner, who is not a non-returner? Yes. Is there anyone, having become a person, who is not a person? It should not be said so (...). Inquiry into Penetration. 20. Inquiry into the Sangha 206. Should it not be said: "A person is found in the ultimate sense of reality"? Yes. Are there not four pairs of persons, eight individual persons? Yes. If there are four pairs of persons, eight individual persons, then indeed it should be said: "A person is found in the ultimate sense of reality." 207. Is it by saying "there are four pairs of persons, eight individual persons" that for that reason a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Do the four pairs of persons, eight individual persons, appear due to the appearance of a Buddha? Yes. Does a person appear due to the appearance of a Buddha? It should not be said so (...). Does a person appear due to the appearance of a Buddha? Yes. When the Blessed Buddha has attained final Nibbāna, is the person cut off, is there no person? It should not be said so (...). Inquiry into the Sangha. 21. Inquiry into the Homogeneity of Reality 208. Is a person found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is a person conditioned? It should not be said so (...). Is a person unconditioned? It should not be said so (...). A person... Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? It should not be said thus. 209. Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is there a third category apart from the conditioned and the unconditioned? It should not be said thus... 210. Is there a third category apart from the conditioned and the unconditioned? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Monks, there are these two elements. Which two? The conditioned element and the unconditioned element. These, monks, are the two elements." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said: "There is a third category apart from the conditioned and the unconditioned." 211. Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is the conditioned one thing, the unconditioned another, and the person yet another? It should not be said thus... 212. Are the aggregates conditioned, Nibbana unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Are the aggregates one thing, Nibbana another, and the person yet another? It should not be said thus... 213. Is form conditioned, Nibbana unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is form one thing, Nibbana another, and the person yet another? It should not be said thus. Is feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness conditioned, Nibbana unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is consciousness one thing, Nibbana another, and the person yet another? It should not be said thus... 214. Is the arising of the person discernible, the passing away discernible, and the alteration of what has remained discernible? Yes. Is the person conditioned? It should not be said thus... It has been said by the Blessed One: "Monks, there are these three characteristics of the conditioned. For conditioned phenomena, monks, the arising is discernible, the passing away is discernible, and the alteration of what has remained is discernible." The arising of the person is discernible, the passing away is discernible, the alteration of what has remained is discernible; therefore... Therefore, the person is conditioned. 215. For the person, no arising is discerned, no passing away is discerned, no alteration of what has stood is discerned? Yes. Is the person unconditioned? It should not be said thus… (ellipsis) … It was said by the Blessed One – "These three, monks, are the characteristics of the unconditioned. For unconditioned phenomena, monks, no arising is discerned, no passing away is discerned, no alteration of what has stood is discerned." For the person, no arising is discerned, no passing away is discerned, no alteration of what has stood is discerned; therefore, the person is unconditioned. 216. Is the person who has attained final Nibbāna existent, or non-existent? Existent. Is the person who has attained final Nibbāna eternal? It should not be said thus… (ellipsis) … Non-existent. Is the person who has attained final Nibbāna annihilated? It should not be said thus… (ellipsis) …. 217. Relying on what does the person exist? Relying on existence, he exists. Is existence impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to decay, subject to vanishing, subject to dispassion, subject to cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to decay, subject to vanishing, subject to dispassion, subject to cessation, subject to change? It should not be said thus… (ellipsis) …. 218. Should it not be said – "A person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality"? Yes. But isn't there someone experiencing a pleasant feeling who understands "I am experiencing a pleasant feeling"? Yes. If there is someone experiencing a pleasant feeling who understands "I am experiencing a pleasant feeling," then indeed it should be said – "A person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." 219. Should it not be said – "A person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality"? Yes. But isn't there someone experiencing a painful feeling… (ellipsis) …experiencing a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling who understands "I am experiencing a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling"? Yes. If there is someone experiencing a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling experiencing, "I experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling," he understands. Then indeed it should be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." 220. Is there someone experiencing pleasant feeling, "I experience pleasant feeling," who understands? And because of that reason, is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. He who experiences pleasant feeling, "I experience pleasant feeling," and understands, he is that person. He who experiences pleasant feeling, "I experience pleasant feeling," and does not understand, is he not that person? It should not be said thus... (etc.) He who experiences painful feeling... (etc.) He who experiences neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, "I experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling," and understands, he is that person. He who experiences neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, "I experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling,"