English
a person by some not a person. A person by some existing, by some not existing? It should not be said thus... A person exists, exists a person? A person exists, exists by some a person, by some not a person. A person by some exists, by some does not exist? It should not be said thus... A person exists, exists not every person? Yes... A person does not exist, does not exist not every person? It should not be said thus. In the Form-realm, is there a person with form? Yes. In the Sense-desire realm, is there a person with sense-desire? It should not be said thus... In the Form-realm, are there beings with form? Yes. In the Sense-desire realm, are there beings with sense-desire? It should not be said thus... In the Formless-realm, is there a person without form? Yes. In the Sense-desire realm, is there a person with sense-desire? It should not be said thus... In the Formless-realm, are there beings without form? Yes. In the Sense-desire realm, are there beings with sense-desire? It should not be said thus... In the Form-realm, a person with form, in the Formless-realm, a person without form, and is there anyone who, having passed away from the Form-realm, is reborn in the Formless-realm? Yes. The person with form is cut off, the person without form is born? It should not be said thus... In the Form-realm, beings with form, in the Formless-realm, beings without form, and is there anyone who, having passed away from the Form-realm, is reborn in the Formless-realm? Yes. The being with form is cut off, the being without form is born? It should not be said thus... Or "body" or "physical form," or "physical form" or "body," having made the body unpleasant, are these of one meaning, the same, of equal aspect? Yes. Or "person" or "life-principle," or "life-principle" or "person," having made the person unpleasant, are these of one meaning, the same, of equal aspect? Yes. Is the body one thing, the person another? Is it so? Yes. Is the life one thing, the body another? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation. If 'body' or 'form', or 'form' or 'body', having made the body unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, 'person' or 'life-principle', or 'life-principle' or 'person', having made the person unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, the body is one thing, the person another; then indeed it should be said – "the life-principle is one thing, the body another." What you say there – "It should indeed be said – 'body' or 'form', or 'form' or 'body', having made the body unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, 'person' or 'life-principle', or 'life-principle' or 'person', having made the person unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, the body is one thing, the person another,' but it should not be said – 'the life-principle is one thing, the body another'" – that is wrong. But if it should not be said – "the life-principle is one thing, the body another," then indeed it should not be said – "'body' or 'form', or 'form' or 'body', having made the body unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, 'person' or 'life-principle', or 'life-principle' or 'person', having made the person unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, the body is one thing, the person another." What you say there – "It should indeed be said – 'body' or 'form', or 'form' or 'body', having made the body unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, 'person' or 'life-principle', or 'life-principle' or 'person', having made the person unpleasant, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that, the body is one thing, the person another,' but it should not be said – 'the life-principle is one thing, the body another'" – that is wrong... (and so on). Is 'body' or 'form', or 'form' or 'body', having made the body unpleasant, these of one meaning, the same, of equal share, arising from that? Yes. Has it been said by the Blessed One – "There is a person who is committed to his own welfare"? Yes. The body is one thing, the... Is the person different? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation. If it is body or physical form, or physical form or body, having made the body disagreeable, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal parts, arisen from that, it was said by the Blessed One: "There is a person devoted to his own welfare." Therefore, indeed, it should be said: "The body is one thing, the person is another." What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'It is body or physical form, or physical form or body, having made the body disagreeable, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal parts, arisen from that, it was said by the Blessed One: There is a person devoted to his own welfare,' but it should not be said: 'The body is one thing, the person is another,'" that is wrong. If, however, it should not be said: "The body is one thing, the person is another," then indeed it should not be said: "It is body or physical form, or physical form or body, having made the body disagreeable, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal parts, arisen from that, it was said by the Blessed One: 'There is a person devoted to his own welfare.'" What you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'It is body or physical form, or physical form or body, having made the body disagreeable, these are of one meaning, the same, of equal parts, arisen from that, it was said by the Blessed One: There is a person devoted to his own welfare,' but it should not be said: 'The body is one thing, the person is another,'" that is wrong. (Abbreviated) Inquiry into Designation. 11. Inquiry into Going 69. Does the person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? Yes. Does *that* person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? It should not be said thus... (and so on). 70. Does the person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? Yes. Does *another* person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? It should not be said thus... (and so on). 71. Does the person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? Yes. Do *that* one and *another* one transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? Does the individual transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? Yes. Does neither that one transmigrate, nor another transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? It should not be said thus... 73. Does the individual transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? Yes. Does that individual transmigrate, does another individual transmigrate, do both that one and another transmigrate, does neither that one nor another transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? It should not be said thus... 74. Should it not be said: "The individual transmigrates from this world to another world, from another world to this world"? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Having transmigrated at most seven times, the individual becomes an ender of suffering, through the destruction of all fetters"? Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then the individual transmigrates from this world to another world, from another world to this world. 75. Should it not be said: "The individual transmigrates from this world to another world, from another world to this world"? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Beginningless is this, monks, saṃsāra. A prior end is not discerned for beings hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, who transmigrate and wander on"? Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then the individual transmigrates from this world to another world, from another world to this world. 76. Does the individual transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? Yes. Does that very individual transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? It should not be said thus... 77. Does that very individual transmigrate from this world to another world, from another world to this world? Yes. Does someone, having been a human, become a deva? Yes. Is that very human that deva? It should not be said thus... 78. Is that very human that god? Yes. Having been a human, he becomes a god, having been a god, he becomes a human, the one who was human is one, the god is another, that very one who was human transmigrates is wrong... If indeed that very person transmigrates, having fallen from this (world) to the other world, not another, then death will not be, and the destruction of life is not found. Kamma exists, kamma-result exists, the result of deeds done exists, when wholesome and unwholesome (deeds) ripen, that very one transmigrates is wrong. 79. Does that very person transmigrate from this world to the other world, from the other world to this world? Yes. Is there anyone, having been a human, becomes a yakkha, becomes a ghost, becomes a hell-being, becomes an animal, becomes a camel, becomes an ox, becomes a donkey, becomes a pig, becomes a buffalo? Yes. Is that very human that buffalo? It should not be said thus... 80. Is that very human that buffalo? Yes. Having been a human, he becomes a buffalo, having been a buffalo, he becomes a human, the one who was human is one, the buffalo is another, that very one who was human transmigrates is wrong... If indeed that very person transmigrates, having fallen from this (world) to the other world, not another, then death will not be, and the destruction of life is not found. Kamma exists,