English
Six roots of disputes, Six things connected with lust and desire, Six grounds for opposition, Six aggregates of craving, Six kinds of disrespect, Six conditions of decline, And again six conditions of decline, Six investigations connected with joy, Six investigations connected with sorrow, Six investigations connected with equanimity, Six kinds of joy connected with the household life, Six kinds of sorrow connected with the household life, Six kinds of equanimity connected with the household life, Six views. The Sixes. Seven underlying tendencies, Seven fetters, Seven obsessions, Seven unwholesome things, Seven kinds of misconduct, Seven kinds of conceit, Seven views. The Sevens. Eight bases of defilement, Eight grounds for laziness, Repulsion of the mind towards the eight worldly conditions, Eight un-Aryan practices, Eight wrongnesses, Eight faults of a person, Eight theories of non-perception, Eight theories of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The Eights. Nine grounds for resentment, Nine impurities of a person, Nine kinds of conceit, Nine things rooted in craving, Nine agitations, Nine conceivings, Nine throbbings, Nine proliferations, Nine conditioned things. The Nines. Ten bases of defilement, Ten grounds for resentment, Ten courses of unwholesome action, Ten fetters, Ten wrongnesses, Wrong view based on ten things, Extremist view based on ten things. The Tens. Eighteen craving-dominated thoughts. Eighteen craving-proliferations based on what is internal, Eighteen craving-proliferations based on what is external, Having combined and compacted them, there are thirty-six craving-proliferations. Thus, thirty-six craving-proliferations of the past, thirty-six craving-proliferations of the future, thirty-six craving-proliferations of the present, having combined and compacted them, there are one hundred and eight craving-proliferations, and the sixty-two kinds of views spoken of by the Blessed One in the Brahma-net discourse. Khuddakavatthuvibhaṅgaṃ. Dhammahadayavibhaṅgo How many aggregates? How many sense-spheres? How many elements? How many truths? How many faculties? How many roots? How many nutriments? How many contacts? How many feelings? How many perceptions? How many volitions? How many minds? Five aggregates, twelve sense-spheres, eighteen elements, four truths, twenty-two faculties, nine roots, four nutriments, seven contacts, seven feelings, seven perceptions, seven volitions, seven minds. Dhammahadayavibhaṅgaṃ. Vibhaṅgamātikā is finished. 4. Puggalapaññattimātikā Six designations – the designation of aggregates, the designation of sense-spheres, the designation of elements, the designation of truths, the designation of faculties, the designation of a person. Puggalapaññattimātikā is finished. 5. Kathāvatthumātikā Discourse on Persons The pure truth-assertion, direct and reverse. Is a person found in truth, in the highest sense? Yes. Is that which is true, the highest sense, thereby a person found in truth, in the highest sense? That should not be said. Understand the refutation – if a person is found in truth, in the highest sense, then indeed it should be said, "that which is true, the highest sense, thereby a person is found in truth, in the highest sense." What you said there, "it should be said 'a person is found in truth, in the highest sense,' but it should not be said 'that which is true, That the ultimate truth, from that the person is found by ultimate truth, is false. But if it should not be said, "That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is found by ultimate truth," then it should not be said, "The person is found by ultimate truth." That which you say there, "It should be said, 'The person is found by ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is found by ultimate truth,'" is false. Progressive set of five. The person is not found by ultimate truth? Yes. That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth? It should not be said in that way. Understand the counter-argument: If the person is not found by ultimate truth, then it should be said, "That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth." That which you say there, "It should be said, 'The person is not found by ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth,'" is false. But if it should not be said, "That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth," then it should not be said, "The person is not found by ultimate truth." That which you say there, "It should be said, 'The person is not found by ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth,'" is false. Set of four counter-arguments. If you think, "It should be said, 'The person is not found by ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is the ultimate truth, from that the person is not found by ultimate truth,'" then for you there... Because of that thesis, asserting thus, you should be refuted thus. Now we refute you, and you are well refuted. If a person is not found in ultimate reality, then it should be said, "From ultimate reality, that person is not found in ultimate reality." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found in ultimate reality,' but it should not be said, 'From ultimate reality, that person is not found in ultimate reality,'" is false. If it should not be said, "From ultimate reality, that person is not found in ultimate reality," then it should not be said, "A person is not found in ultimate reality." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found in ultimate reality,' but it should not be said, 'From ultimate reality, that person is not found in ultimate reality,'" this is your falsehood. The fourfold refutation. If this is poorly refuted, you are skilled there thus, "It should be said, 'A person is found in ultimate reality,' but it should not be said, 'From ultimate reality, that person is found in ultimate reality,'" but we should not be refuted by you there, because of that thesis, asserting thus. Now you refute me, and we are poorly refuted. If a person is found in ultimate reality, then it should be said, "From ultimate reality, that person is found in ultimate reality." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is found in ultimate reality,' but it should not be said, 'From ultimate reality, that person is found in ultimate reality,'" is false. If it should not be said, "From ultimate reality, that person is "A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth?" But surely it should not be said, "A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,'" this is your wrong. The Upholding Tetrad. It should not be refuted thus. Therefore, what you refute: If a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth, then surely it should be said, "From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,'" is wrong. If, however, it should not be said, "From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth," then surely it should not be said, "A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is found in the ultimate sense of truth,'" this is your wrong. Therefore, those refutations that were done, those refutations are poorly done. The counter-refutation is well done. The presentation is well done. The Refuting Tetrad. The first refutation. The Affirmation of the Opposite of Pure Ultimate Truth A person is not found in the ultimate sense of truth? Yes. From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is not found in the ultimate sense of truth? It should not be said thus. Understand the refutation: If a person is not found in the ultimate sense of truth, then surely it should be said, "From that which is the ultimate sense of truth, from that a person is not found in the ultimate sense of truth." Thus, what you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is not found in ultimate truth,'" is wrong. But if it should not be said, "That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is not found in ultimate truth," then indeed it should not be said, "A person is not found in ultimate truth." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is not found in ultimate truth,'" is wrong. The fivefold counter-thesis. Is a person found in ultimate truth? Yes. That which is ultimate truth, from that is a person found in ultimate truth? This should certainly not be said. Understand the rejoinder: If a person is found in ultimate truth, then indeed it should be said, "That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is found in ultimate truth." What you say there, "It should be said, 'A person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is found in ultimate truth,'" is wrong. But if it should not be said,