English
'form is in the person'" – that is wrong... 48. Is the person found in the ultimate sense? Yes. Is feeling the person...? Is the person in feeling...? Is the person apart from feeling...? Is feeling in the person...? Is perception the person...? Is the person in perception...? Is the person apart from perception...? Is perception in the person...? Are formations the person...? Is the person in formations...? Is the person apart from formations...? Are formations in the person...? Is consciousness the person...? Is the person in consciousness...? Is the person apart from consciousness...? Is consciousness in the person...? Is it consciousness? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation. If a person is found in the ultimate sense, then indeed it should be said – "consciousness is in the person." What you say there – "it should be said – 'a person is found in the ultimate sense,' but it should not be said – 'consciousness is in the person'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "consciousness is in the person," then indeed it should not be said – "a person is found in the ultimate sense." What you say there – "it should be said – 'a person is found in the ultimate sense,' but it should not be said – 'consciousness is in the person'" – is wrong... 49. Is a person found in the ultimate sense? Yes. Is the eye-base the person? ... Is the person in the eye-base? ... Is the person apart from the eye-base? ... Is the eye-base in the person? ... Is the mind-base the person? ... Is the person in the mind-base? ... Is the person apart from the mind-base? ... Is the mind-base in the person? ... Is the eye-element the person? ... Is the person in the eye-element? ... Is the person apart from the eye-element? ... Is the eye-element in the person? ... Is the mind-element the person? ... Is the person in the mind-element? ... Is the person apart from the mind-element? ... Is the mind-element in the person? ... Is the eye-faculty the person? ... Is the person in the eye-faculty? ... Is the person apart from the eye-faculty? ... Is the eye-faculty in the person? ... Is the faculty of one who knows the person? ... Is the person in the faculty of one who knows? ... Is the person apart from the faculty of one who knows? ... Is the faculty of one who knows in the person? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation. If a person is found in the ultimate sense, then indeed it should be said – "the faculty of one who knows is in the person." What you say there – "it should be said – 'a person is found in the ultimate sense,' but it should not be said – 'the faculty of one who knows is in the person'" ...is wrong. If it should not be said: "The faculty of knowing the unknown is in the person," then it should certainly not be said: "The person is found in the ultimate sense of reality." As to what you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'The person is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said: 'The faculty of knowing the unknown is in the person'" is wrong... (and so on). 50. Is the person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Has it been said by the Blessed One: "There is a person who is practicing for their own benefit"? Yes. Is form the person? It should not be said so. Understand the counter-argument. If it has been said by the Blessed One: "There is a person who is practicing for their own benefit," then it should certainly be said: "Form is the person." As to what you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'It has been said by the Blessed One: there is a person who is practicing for their own benefit,' but it should not be said: 'Form is the person'" is wrong. If it should not be said: "Form is the person," then it should certainly not be said: "It has been said by the Blessed One: 'There is a person who is practicing for their own benefit.'" As to what you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'It has been said by the Blessed One: there is a person who is practicing for their own benefit,' but it should not be said: 'Form is the person'" is wrong... (and so on). 51. Is the person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Has it been said by the Blessed One: "There is a person who is practicing for their own benefit"? Yes. Is the person in form? (and so on) Is the person apart from form? (and so on) Is form in the person? (and so on) Is feeling the person? (and so on) Is the person in feeling? (and so on) Is the person apart from feeling? (and so on) Is feeling in the person? (and so on) Is perception the person? (and so on) Is the person in perception? (and so on) Is the person apart from perception? (and so on) Is perception in the person? (and so on) Are formations the person? (and so on) Is the person in formations? (and so on) Is the person apart from formations? (and so on) Are formations in the person? (and so on) Is consciousness the person? (and so on) Is the person in consciousness? (and so on) Is the person apart from consciousness? (and so on) Is consciousness in the person? It should not be said so. to be said. Understand the refutation. If it was said by the Blessed One – “There is a person who is practicing for his own benefit,” then indeed it should be said – “Consciousness is in the person.” That which you say there – “It should indeed be said – ‘It was said by the Blessed One – there is a person who is practicing for his own benefit,’ but it should not be said – ‘Consciousness is in the person’” – that is wrong. If it should not be said – “Consciousness is in the person,” then indeed it should not be said – “It was said by the Blessed One – ‘There is a person who is practicing for his own benefit.’” That which you say there – “It should indeed be said – ‘It was said by the Blessed One – there is a person who is practicing for his own benefit,’ but it should not be said – ‘Consciousness is in the person’” – that is wrong… (and so on)… 52. Is a person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Was it said by the Blessed One – “There is a person who is practicing for his own benefit”? Yes. Is the eye-base a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the eye-base?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the eye-base?… (and so on)… Is the eye-base in a person?… (and so on)… Is the dhamma-base a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the dhamma-base?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the dhamma-base?… (and so on)… Is the dhamma-base in a person?… (and so on)… Is the eye-element a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the eye-element?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the eye-element?… (and so on)… Is the eye-element in a person?… (and so on)… Is the dhamma-element a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the dhamma-element?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the dhamma-element?… (and so on)… Is the dhamma-element in a person?… (and so on)… Is the eye-faculty a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the eye-faculty?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the eye-faculty?… (and so on)… Is the eye-faculty in a person?… (and so on)… Is the faculty of one who knows the unknown a person?… (and so on)… Is a person in the faculty of one who knows the unknown?… (and so on)… Is a person apart from the faculty of one who knows the unknown?… (and so on)… Is the faculty of one who knows the unknown in a person? No, it should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If it was said by the Blessed One – “There is a person who is practicing for his own benefit,” then indeed it should be said – “The faculty of one who knows the unknown is in the person.” That which you say there – – "It should be said: 'It was said by the Blessed One: There is a person who has entered the path for his own welfare,' but it should not be said: 'In the person is the faculty of knowing what is not yet known'" – this is wrong. If it should not be said: "In the person is the faculty of knowing what is not yet known," then indeed, it should not be said: "It was said by the Blessed One: 'There is a person who has entered the path for his own welfare.'" What you say there: "It should be said: 'It was said by the Blessed One: There is a person who has entered the path for his own welfare,' but it should not be said: 'In the person is the faculty of knowing what is not yet known'" – this is wrong... and so on. The Quadrilateral Conjunction. 8. Discourse on the Meaning of Characteristics 53. Is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person with conditions... and so on... Is a person without conditions... Is a person conditioned... Is a person unconditioned... Is a person eternal... Is a person non-eternal... Is a person with a sign... Is a person without a sign? It should not be said so. (Abbreviated) 54. Is a person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Was it said by the Blessed One: "There is a person who has entered the path for his own welfare"? Yes. Is a person with conditions... and so on... Is a person without conditions... Is a person conditioned... Is a person unconditioned... Is a person eternal... Is a person non-eternal... Is a person with a sign... Is a person without a sign? It should not be said so. (Abbreviated) Discourse on the Meaning of Characteristics. 9. Clarification of Terms 55. Is a person apprehended? Is a person apprehended? A person is apprehended. By some, a person is apprehended, by some, not a person. Is a person apprehended by some, not apprehended by some? It should not be said so... and so on. 56. Is a person real? Is a person real? A person is real. By some, a person is real, by some, not a person. Is a person real by some, not real by some? It should not be said so... and so on. 57. Is a person existing? Is a person existing? A person is existing. By some, a person is existing, by some, not a person. Is a person existing by some... Existing, by some not existing? It should not be said thus... A person existing, an existing person? A person existing, existing by some,