English
and does not understand, is he not that person? It should not be said thus... (etc.) 221. 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. Is pleasant feeling one thing, and he who experiences pleasant feeling, "I experience pleasant feeling," and understands, another? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is painful feeling one thing... (etc.) Is neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one thing, and he who experiences neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, "I experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling," and understands, another? It should not be said thus... (etc.) 222. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body? Yes. If there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body, then indeed it should be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." 223. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who dwells contemplating feelings in feelings... (etc.) mind in mind... phenomena in phenomena? Is there? Yes. If there is someone who dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena, then indeed it should be said – "A person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." 224. Is it by saying that there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body, and for that reason a person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality? Yes. He who dwells contemplating the body in the body, he alone is a person; he who does not dwell contemplating the body in the body, he is not a person? It should not be said thus... etc. He who dwells contemplating feelings... etc. mind... phenomena in phenomena, he alone is a person; he who does not dwell contemplating phenomena in phenomena, he is not a person? It should not be said thus... etc. 225. Is it by saying that there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body, and for that reason a person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality? Yes. Is the body one thing, and he who dwells contemplating the body in the body another? It should not be said thus... etc. Are feelings one thing... mind another... phenomena another, and he who dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena another? It should not be said thus... etc. 226. Is a person apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One – "Look upon the world as empty, Mogharāja, ever mindful; Having removed the view of self, thus may you cross over death; The King of Death does not see one who thus looks upon the world." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then it should not be said – "A person is apprehended in the sense of a true ultimate reality." 227. Does a person look upon? Yes. Does he look upon with form, or without form? He looks upon with form. Is that the soul, that the body? It should not be said thus... etc. If he looks upon without form, is the soul one thing, the body another? It should not be said thus... etc. 228. Does a person look upon? Yes. Does he look upon from within, or having gone outside? He looks upon from within. Is that the life, that the body? It should not be said thus... (etc.) ... Having gone outside, one observes (it)? Is the life one, the body another? It should not be said thus... (etc.) .... 229. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality?" Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is unchangeable? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One: "There is a person who is practicing for his own benefit." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality. 230. Should it not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality?" Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is unchangeable? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One: "One person, monks, arising in the world, arises for the welfare of many, for the happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, for the welfare, for the happiness of gods and humans." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality. 231. Is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is unchangeable? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One: "All phenomena are non-self." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then it should not be said: "A person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality." 232. Is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is unchangeable? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One: "Only suffering arises when arising, and only suffering ceases when ceasing. One does not doubt, one does not waver, and one's knowledge here is independent of others. To this extent, Kaccāna, there is right view." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then it should not be said – "A person is found in the ultimate sense." 233. Is a person found in the ultimate sense? Yes. Did not the bhikkhunī Vajirā say this to Māra the Evil One – "Why do you assume 'being,' Māra, is it your view? This is a heap of pure formations, no being is found here. Just as with an assemblage of parts, the word 'chariot' arises; So when the aggregates exist, the convention 'being' arises. Only suffering arises, suffering persists and vanishes; Nothing but suffering arises, nothing but suffering ceases." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then it should not be said – "A person is found in the ultimate sense." 234. Is a person found in the ultimate sense? Yes. Did not Venerable Ānanda say this to the Blessed One – "'Empty is the world, empty is the world,' Venerable sir, it is said. To what extent, Venerable sir, is it said, 'Empty is the world'?" "Because, Ānanda, it is empty of self or what belongs to self, therefore it is called 'empty world.' And what, Ānanda, is empty of self or what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self or what belongs to self, forms are empty... (and so on)... eye-consciousness is empty... eye-contact is empty... and whatever feeling arises dependent on eye-contact, whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful, that too is empty of self or what belongs to self, the ear is empty... (and so on)... sounds are empty... the nose is empty... smells are empty... the tongue is empty... tastes are empty... the body is empty... tactile objects are empty... the mind is empty... mental objects are empty... mind-consciousness is empty... mind-contact is empty... and whatever feeling arises dependent on mind-contact, whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful, that too is empty of self or what belongs to self. Because, Ānanda... it is empty of self or of what belongs to self, therefore it is said 'the world is empty'. Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then it should not be said – "the person is apprehended in a true and ultimate sense." 235. Is the person apprehended in a true and ultimate sense? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is not different? Yes. Has it been said by the Blessed One – "Monks, when there is self, would there be 'this is mine'?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Monks, when there is what belongs to self, would there be 'this is my self'?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Monks, when self and what belongs to self are not apprehended as true and real, and this view-point: 'This is the world, this is the self, after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, I shall stand fast just like eternity' – 'Is this not, monks, entirely and completely a doctrine of fools'?" "What else could it be, venerable sir? Indeed, venerable sir, it is entirely and completely a doctrine of fools." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then it should not be said – "the person is apprehended in a true and ultimate sense." 236. Is the person apprehended in a true and ultimate sense? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is, a speaker of what is so, a speaker of what is not otherwise, a speaker of what is not different? Yes. Has it been said by the Blessed One – "Seniya, there are these three teachers existing, present in the world. Which three? Here, Seniya, a certain teacher declares the self to be true and real in this very life, and declares the self to be true and real in the next life. "But here, Seniya, a certain teacher declares the self to be true and real in this very life, but does not declare the self to be true and real in the next life. "But here, Seniya, a certain teacher in this very life he does not declare himself as truly and really existing in this present life, nor does he declare himself as truly and really existing in the life to come. “Therein, Seniya, that teacher who declares himself as truly and really existing in this present life, and declares himself as truly and really existing in the life to come— this, Seniya, is called a teacher of eternalism. “Therein, Seniya, that teacher who declares himself as truly and really existing in this present life, but does not declare himself as truly and really existing in the life to come—