English
"The faculty of one who knows is one thing, and a person is another." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: '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,' but it should not be said: 'The faculty of one who knows is one thing, and a person is another'" — that is wrong. But if it should not be said: "The faculty of one who knows is one thing, and a person is another," then indeed it should not be said: "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." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: '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,' but it should not be said: 'The faculty of one who knows is one thing, and a person is another'" — that is wrong. …and so on…. Simple Connection. 6. Comparison Connection 28. Form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and feeling is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, is form one thing and feeling another? Yes. A person is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is form one thing and a person another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and feeling is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is one thing and feeling another, and a person is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality; then indeed it should be said – "form is one thing and a person another." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and feeling is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is one thing and feeling another, and a person is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said – 'form is one thing and a person another'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "form is one thing and a person another," then indeed it should not be said – "form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and feeling is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is one thing and feeling another, and a person is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and feeling is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is one thing and feeling another, and a person is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said – 'form is one thing and a person another'" – is wrong…and so on…. 29. Form is apprehended in the ultimate sense of reality, and perception is apprehended…and so on… and volitional formations are apprehended ... and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense. Is form one thing and consciousness another? Yes. Is the person found in the ultimate sense, and form found in the ultimate sense? Yes. Is form one thing and the person another? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation. If form is found in the ultimate sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense, form is one thing, consciousness another, the person is found in the ultimate sense, and form is found in the ultimate sense; then indeed it should be said: "Form is one thing, the person another." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'Form is found in the ultimate sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense, form is one thing, consciousness another, the person is found in the ultimate sense, and form is found in the ultimate sense,' but it should not be said: 'Form is one thing, the person another'" — that is wrong. But if it should not be said: "Form is one thing, the person another," then indeed it should not be said: "Form is found in the ultimate sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense, form is one thing, consciousness another, the person is found in the ultimate sense, and form is found in the ultimate sense." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'Form is found in the ultimate sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate sense, form is one thing, consciousness another, the person is found in the ultimate sense, and form is found in the ultimate sense,' but it should not be said: 'Form is one thing, the person another'" — that is wrong... 30. Feeling is found in the ultimate sense, and perception is found... and formations are found... and consciousness is found... and form is found in the ultimate sense. In the ultimate real sense… 31. Perception is found in the ultimate real sense, and mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and form is found in the ultimate real sense, and feeling is found in the ultimate real sense. 32. Mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and form is found in the ultimate real sense, and feeling is found in the ultimate real sense, and perception is found in the ultimate real sense. 33. Consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and form is found in the ultimate real sense, and feeling is found in the ultimate real sense, and perception is found in the ultimate real sense, and mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense. Is consciousness one thing, and mental formations another? Yes. Is a person found in the ultimate real sense, and consciousness found in the ultimate real sense? Yes. Is consciousness one thing, and a person another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense, consciousness is one thing, mental formations are another; a person is found in the ultimate real sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense; then indeed it should be said: "Consciousness is one thing, a person is another." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'Consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense, consciousness is one thing, mental formations are another, a person is found in the ultimate real sense, and consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense,' but it should not be said: 'Consciousness is one thing, a person is another'" — that is wrong. But if it should not be said: "Consciousness is one thing, a person is another," then indeed it should not be said: "Consciousness is found in the ultimate real sense, and mental formations are found in the ultimate real sense, consciousness is one thing, mental formations are another, a person is found in the ultimate real sense, in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the sense of ultimate reality. What you say there: "It should be said: 'Consciousness is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and formations are found in the sense of ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing, formations are another; a person is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the sense of ultimate reality,' but it should not be said: 'Consciousness is one thing, a person is another'" is wrong... and so on. 34. The eye-base is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the ear-base is found... and so on... and the mind-object-base is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on... the ear-base is found... and so on... the mind-object-base is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the eye-base is found... and so on... and the mind-base is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on. 35. The eye-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the ear-element is found... and so on... and the mind-object-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on... the ear-element is found... and so on... the mind-object-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the eye-element is found... and so on... and the mind-consciousness-element is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on. 36. The eye-faculty is found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the ear-faculty is found... and so on... and the faculty of one who has known is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on... the ear-faculty is found... and so on... the faculty of one who has known is found in the sense of ultimate reality... and so on... and the eye-faculty is found... and so on... and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the sense of ultimate reality. Is the faculty of one who has known one thing, and the faculty of final knowledge another? Yes. Is a person found in the sense of ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has known is found in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has known one thing, and a person another? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the faculty of one who has known is found in the sense of ultimate reality... In ultimate reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in ultimate reality. One is the faculty of having known, another is the faculty of knowing. The person is found in ultimate reality, and the faculty of having known is found in ultimate reality. Therefore, indeed, it should be said: "One is the faculty of having known, another is the person." What you say there: "It should be said: 'The faculty of having known is found in ultimate reality, and the faculty of knowing is found in ultimate reality, one is the faculty of having known, another is the faculty of knowing,