English
Is form one thing and a person another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and form is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said: ‘Form is one thing and a person is another.’ What you say there: ‘It should be said that a person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and form is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality therefore, it should not be said 'form is one thing, the person is another' that is wrong. If it should not be said 'form is one thing, the person is another', then it should not be said 'the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and form is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'. What you say there – 'it should be said 'the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and form is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality', but it should not be said 'form is one thing, the person is another'' – that is wrong. 18. Is the person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and feeling apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality...? ...and perception apprehended...? ...and formations apprehended...? ...and consciousness apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is consciousness one thing, the person another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then it should be said 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another'. What you say there – 'it should be said 'the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality', but it should not be said 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another'' – that is wrong. If it should not be said 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another', then it should not be said 'the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality'. What you say there – 'it should be said 'the person is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality', but it should not be said 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another'' – that is wrong. 19. Is the person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and the eye-base apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality...? ...and the ear-base apprehended...? ...and the nose-base apprehended...? ...ji- (incomplete) And the tongue sense-base is found, and the body sense-base is found, and the form sense-base is found, and the sound sense-base is found, and the smell sense-base is found, and the taste sense-base is found, and the tangible sense-base is found, and the mind sense-base is found, and the mental objects sense-base is found, in the sense of ultimate reality. 20. And the eye element is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the ear element is found, and the nose element is found, and the tongue element is found, and the body element is found, and the form element is found, and the sound element is found, and the smell element is found, and the taste element is found, and the tangible element is found, and the eye-consciousness element is found, and the ear-consciousness element is found, and the nose-consciousness element is found, and the tongue-consciousness element is found, and the body-consciousness element is found, and the mind element is found, and the mind-consciousness element is found, and the mental objects element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. 21. And the eye faculty is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the ear faculty is found, and the nose faculty is found, and the tongue faculty is found, and the body faculty is found, and the mind faculty is found, and the life faculty is found, and the femininity faculty is found, and the masculinity faculty is found, and the pleasure faculty is found, and the pain faculty is found, and the joy faculty is found, and the grief faculty is found, and the equanimity faculty is found, and the faith faculty is found, and the energy faculty is found, and the mindfulness faculty is found, and the concentration faculty is found, and the wisdom faculty is found, and the faculty of knowing the unknown is found, and the faculty of final knowledge is found, and the faculty of one who knows is found, in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Another, the faculty of one who knows. Is the person one thing, the faculty of knowing another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed it should be said: “The faculty of knowing is one thing, the person another.” What you say there: “It should be said: ‘A person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘The faculty of knowing is one thing, the person another’” – is wrong. But if it should not be said: “The faculty of knowing is one thing, the person another,” then indeed it should not be said: “A person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in the ultimate sense of reality.” What you say there: “It should be said: ‘A person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘The faculty of knowing is one thing, the person another’” – is wrong… Is the person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes, it is. It was said by the Blessed One: “There is a person practicing for their own good.” And is form found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes, it is. Is form one thing, the person another? It should not be said so. Understand the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One: “There is a person practicing for their own good,” and form is found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed it should be said: “Form is one thing, the person another.” What you say there: “It should be said: ‘It was said by the Blessed One: “There is a person practicing for their own good,” and form is found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘Form is one thing, the person another’” – is wrong. But if it should not be said: “Form is one thing, the person another,” then indeed it should not be said: “It was said by the Blessed One: ‘There is a person practicing for their own good,’ devoted to his own harm,' and form is found in the ultimate sense of reality." What you say there – "It should be said – 'It was said by the Blessed One – there is a person devoted to his own harm, and form is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said – 'form is one thing, the person is another'" is wrong. (and so on). 23. Is a person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One – "There is a person devoted to his own harm," and feeling is found... (and so on)... and perception is found... (and so on)... and formations are found... (and so on)... and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is consciousness one thing, the person another? It should not be said so. Understand the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One – "There is a person devoted to his own harm," and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed it should be said – "Consciousness is one thing, the person is another." What you say there – "It should be said – 'It was said by the Blessed One – there is a person devoted to his own harm, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said – 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another'" is wrong. If, however, it should not be said – "Consciousness is one thing, the person is another," then indeed it should not be said – "It was said by the Blessed One – 'there is a person devoted to his own harm,' and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense of reality." What you say there – "It should be said – 'It was said by the Blessed One – there is a person devoted to his own harm, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said – 'consciousness is one thing, the person is another'" is wrong. (and so on). 24. Is a person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One – "There is a person devoted to his own harm," and the eye-base is found in the ultimate sense of reality... (and so on)... and the ear-base is found... (and so on)... and the mind-base is found... in the sense of ultimate reality… 25. The eye-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The body-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The form-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The tangible-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The eye-consciousness-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The mind-consciousness-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The phenomena-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality. 26. The eye-faculty is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The ear-faculty is found in the sense of ultimate reality. The faculty of one who knows is found in the sense of ultimate reality. 27. Is a person not found in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One: "There is a person practicing for their own good." And is the faculty of one who knows found in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who knows one thing, and a person another? It should not be said thus. Understand the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One: "There is a person practicing for their own good," and the faculty of one who knows is found in the sense of ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said: