English
with pleasant result? Yes. Is also the wholesome person fruitful, with result, with desirable fruit, with pleasing fruit, with delightful fruit, a non-seeping fruit, with pleasant outcome, with pleasant result? It should not be said thus. 102. Is the designation of a person made by taking consciousness as a basis? Yes. Is the designation of an unwholesome person made by taking unwholesome consciousness as a basis? It should not be said thus. Is the designation of an unwholesome person made by taking unwholesome consciousness as a basis? Yes. Is unwholesome consciousness fruitful, with result, with undesirable fruit, with unpleasing fruit, with undelightful fruit, a seeping fruit, with painful outcome, with painful result? Yes. Is also the unwholesome person fruitful, with result, with undesirable fruit, with unpleasing fruit, with undelightful fruit, a seeping fruit, with painful outcome, with painful result? It should not be said thus. 103. Is the designation of a person made by taking consciousness as a basis? Yes. Is the designation of an indeterminate person made by taking indeterminate consciousness as a basis? It should not be said thus. Is the designation of an indeterminate person made by taking indeterminate consciousness as a basis? Yes. Is indeterminate consciousness impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to decay, subject to vanishing, subject to dispassion, subject to cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is also the indeterminate person impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to decay, subject to vanishing, subject to dispassion, subject to cessation, subject to change? It should not be said thus. 104. Is it said "a person with eyes" by taking the eye as a basis? Yes. When the eye has ceased, is it said "a person with eyes has ceased"? It should not be said thus. by taking the ear as a basis... by taking the nose as a basis... by taking the tongue as a basis... by taking the body as a basis... by taking the mind as a basis, is it said "a person with mind"? Yes. When the mind has ceased, is it said "a person with mind has ceased"? It should not be said thus. 105. Is it said "a person with wrong view" by taking wrong view as a basis? Yes. Wrong When wrong view has ceased, is it said, "The person with wrong view has ceased"? No, it should not be said thus. Based on wrong intention... based on wrong speech... based on wrong action... based on wrong livelihood... based on wrong effort... based on wrong mindfulness... based on wrong concentration, is it said, "The person with wrong concentration"? Yes. When wrong concentration has ceased, is it said, "The person with wrong concentration has ceased"? No, it should not be said thus. 106. Based on right view, is it said, "The person with right view"? Yes. When right view has ceased, is it said, "The person with right view has ceased"? No, it should not be said thus. ... Based on right intention... based on right speech... based on right action... based on right livelihood... based on right effort... based on right mindfulness... based on right concentration, is it said, "The person with right concentration"? Yes. When right concentration has ceased, is it said, "The person with right concentration has ceased"? No, it should not be said thus. ... 107. Based on form, based on feeling, is there a designation of a person? Yes. Based on two aggregates, is there a designation of two persons? No, it should not be said thus. ... Based on form, based on feeling, based on perception, based on mental formations, based on consciousness, is there a designation of a person? Yes. Based on five aggregates, is there a designation of five persons? No, it should not be said thus. ... 108. Based on the eye-base, based on the ear-base, is there a designation of a person? Yes. Based on two bases, is there a designation of two persons? No, it should not be said thus. ... Based on the eye-base, based on the ear-base... ... based on the mind-base, is there a designation of a person? Yes. Based on twelve bases, is there a designation of twelve persons? No, it should not be said thus. ... 109. Based on the eye-element, based on the ear-element... Is there a designation of a person based on an element? Yes. Is there a designation of two persons based on two elements? It should not be said so (and so on). Is there a designation of a person based on the eye-element, based on the ear-element... based on the dhamma-element? Yes. Is there a designation of eighteen persons based on eighteen elements? It should not be said so (and so on). 110. Is there a designation of a person based on the eye-faculty, based on the ear-faculty? Yes. Is there a designation of two persons based on two faculties? It should not be said so (and so on). Is there a designation of a person based on the eye-faculty, based on the ear-faculty... based on the faculty of one who knows? Yes. Is there a designation of twenty-two persons based on twenty-two faculties? It should not be said so (and so on). 111. Is there a designation of one person based on the one-constituent existence? Yes. Is there a designation of four persons based on the four-constituent existence? It should not be said so (and so on). Is there a designation of one person based on the one-constituent existence? Yes. Is there a designation of five persons based on the five-constituent existence? It should not be said so (and so on). Is there only one person in the one-constituent existence? Yes. Are there only four persons in the four-constituent existence? It should not be said so (and so on). Is there only one person in the one-constituent existence? Yes. Are there only five persons in the five-constituent existence? It should not be said so (and so on). 112. Just as there is a designation of shade based on a tree, so too is there a designation of a person based on form? Just as there is a designation of shade based on a tree, and the tree is impermanent and the shade is impermanent, so too is there a designation of a person based on form, and form is impermanent and the person is impermanent? It should not be said so (and so on). Just as there is a designation of shade based on a tree, and the tree is one thing and the shade is another, so too is there a designation of a person based on form, and another... Is form a different person? It should not be said thus…pe…. 113. Just as, by taking a village, there is the designation of a villager, even so, by taking form, is there the designation of a person? Just as, by taking a village, there is the designation of a villager, a village is one thing, a villager is another, even so, by taking form, there is the designation of a person, is form one thing, a person another? It should not be said thus…pe…. 114. Just as, by taking a kingdom, there is the designation of a king, even so, by taking form, is there the designation of a person? Just as, by taking a kingdom, there is the designation of a king, a kingdom is one thing, a king is another, even so, by taking form, there is the designation of a person, is form one thing, a person another? It should not be said thus…pe…. 115. Just as a fetter is not the one fettered, he who has the fetter is the one fettered, even so, is form not the one having form, he who has form is the one having form? Just as a fetter is not the one fettered, he who has the fetter is the one fettered, a fetter is one thing, the one fettered is another, even so, form is not the one having form, he who has form is the one having form, is form one thing, the one having form another? It should not be said thus…pe…. 116. Is there the designation of a person in each and every mind-moment? Yes. Does a person arise, live, die, pass away, and reappear in each and every mind-moment? It should not be said thus…pe… When a second mind-moment has arisen, should it not be said "it is the same" or "it is another"? Yes. When a second mind-moment has arisen, should it not be said "a boy" or "a girl"? It should be said. Understand the refutation. If, when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should not be said "it is the same" or "it is another," then indeed it should be said, "when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should not be said 'a boy' or 'a girl'." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said, 'when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should not be said "it is the same" or "it is another," [but] when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should be said "a boy" or "a girl"'" – is wrong. But if, when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should be said "a boy" or "a girl," then indeed it should be said, "when a second mind-moment has arisen, it should be said 'it is the same'." or another." What you say there: "It should be said: 'When the second thought arises, it should not be said: "he" or "another," When the second thought arises, it should be said: "boy" or "girl"'" is wrong. 117. When the second thought arises, should it not be said: "he" or "another"? Yes. When the second thought arises, should it not be said: "woman" or "man," "householder" or "monastic," "deva" or "human"? It should be said. Understand the refutation. If, when the second thought arises, it should not be said: "he" or "another," then indeed it should be said: "When the second thought arises, it should not be said: 'deva' or 'human'." What you say there: "It should be said: 'When the second thought arises, it should not be said: "he" or "another," When the second thought arises, it should be said: "deva" or "human"'" is wrong. Or if, when the second thought arises, it should be said: "deva" or "human," then indeed it should be said: "When the second thought arises, it should be said: 'he' or 'another'." What you say there: "It should be said: 'When the second thought arises, it should not be said: "he" or "another," When the second thought arises, it should be said: "deva" or "human"'" is wrong...and so on.... 118. Should it not be said: