English
"That which is ultimate truth, from that a person is found in ultimate truth," then indeed it should not be said, "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. The fourfold rejoinder. But if you think, "It should be said, 'A person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not "The ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is found by the ultimate truth." Therefore, with that reason and proposition of yours, thus asserting, you should be refuted thus. Now we refute you, and you are thoroughly refuted: If a person is found by the ultimate truth, then it should be said, "The ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is found by the ultimate truth." What you say there, "It should be said that 'a person is found by the ultimate truth,' but it should not be said that 'the ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is found by the ultimate truth,'" is false. But if it should not be said, "The ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is found by the ultimate truth," then it should not be said that "a person is found by the ultimate truth." What you say there, "It should be said that 'a person is found by the ultimate truth,' but it should not be said that 'the ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is found by the ultimate truth,'" this is your falsehood. The fourfold refutation. If, being poorly refuted, he is still skilled there, "It should be said that 'a person is not found by the ultimate truth,' but it should not be said that 'the ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is not found by the ultimate truth,'" then we should not be refuted by you with that reason and proposition of yours, thus asserting. Now if you refute me, we are poorly refuted: If a person is not found by the ultimate truth, then it should be said, "The ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is not found by the ultimate truth." What you say there, "It should be said that 'a person is not found by the ultimate truth,' but it should not be said that 'the ultimate truth is the real truth, from that the person is not found by the ultimate truth,'" "The ultimate truth is the real truth," is false. But if it should not be said, "From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth," then it should certainly not be said, "A person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth." What you assert there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,'" that is false. The Uprooting Tetrad. It should not be refuted thus. Therefore, what you refute: if a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth, then it should certainly be said, "From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth." What you assert there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,'" is false. But if it should not be said, "From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth," then it should certainly not be said, "A person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth." What you assert there, "It should be said, 'A person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,' but it should not be said, 'From that which is the ultimate truth, the real truth, a person is not found by the ultimate truth, the real truth,'" that is false. Therefore, those refutations that were done, those refutations are poorly done. The counter-move is well done, the explanation is well done. The Departure Tetrad. The second refutation. Affirmative Reversal of the Truth-Reality Occasion Is a person found by the ultimate truth, the real truth? Yes. Is a person found everywhere by the ultimate truth, the real truth? It should certainly not be said so. Know the refutation: if a person is found by the ultimate truth, the real truth, then it should certainly be said, It should be said, "everywhere a person is found in ultimate truth." You say, "It should be said, 'a person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'everywhere a person is found in ultimate truth.'" That is wrong. If it should not be said, "everywhere a person is found in ultimate truth," then it certainly should not be said, "a person is found in ultimate truth." You say, "It should be said, 'a person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'everywhere a person is found in ultimate truth.'" That is wrong... Third refutation. Reversal of the affirmation of truth in time: Is a person found in ultimate truth? Yes. Is a person always found in ultimate truth? That should not be said. Understand the refutation: if a person is found in ultimate truth, then it certainly should be said, "a person is always found in ultimate truth." You say, "It should be said, 'a person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'a person is always found in ultimate truth.'" That is wrong. If it should not be said, "a person is always found in ultimate truth," then it certainly should not be said, "a person is found in ultimate truth." You say, "It should be said, 'a person is found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be said, 'a person is always found in ultimate truth.'" That is wrong... Fourth refutation. Reversal of the affirmation of truth in parts: Is a person found in ultimate truth? Yes. Is a person found in all things in ultimate truth? That should not be said. Understand the refutation: if a person is found Is it true, ultimately and really, that a person is found? Then surely you should say, "In all things a person is found, ultimately and really." But you say, "A person is found, ultimately and really," "But you should not say, 'In all things a person is found, ultimately and really'?" False. If you should not say, "In all things a person is found, ultimately and really," then surely you should not say, "A person is found, ultimately and really." But you say, "A person is found, ultimately and really," "But you should not say, 'In all things a person is found, ultimately and really'?" False... The fifth refutation. Affirmation contrary to the place, ultimately and really. Is it true that a person is not found, ultimately and really? Yes. Is it true that everywhere a person is not found, ultimately and really? That cannot be said. Understand the refutation: If a person is not found, ultimately and really, then surely you should say, "Everywhere a person is not found, ultimately and really." But you say, "A person is not found, ultimately and really," "But you should not say, 'Everywhere a person is not found, ultimately and really'?" False. If you should not say, "Everywhere a person is not found, ultimately and really," then surely you should not say, "A person is not found, ultimately and really." But you say, "A person is not found, ultimately and really," "But you should not say, 'Everywhere a person is not found, ultimately and really'?" False... The sixth refutation. Affirmation contrary to the time, ultimately and really. Is it true that a person is not found, ultimately and really? Yes. Is it true that always a person is not found, ultimately and really? That cannot be said. Should be stated. Understand the refutation: if a person is not found in ultimate truth, then indeed it should be stated, "a person is always not found in ultimate truth." That you say there, "it should be stated 'a person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be stated 'a person is always not found in ultimate truth,'" is wrong. But if it should not be stated, "a person is always not found in ultimate truth," then indeed it should not be stated, "a person is not found in ultimate truth." That you say there, "it should be stated 'a person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be stated 'a person is always not found in ultimate truth,'" is wrong...pe.... Seventh refutation. Affirmation contrary to the ultimate truth of parts. A person is not found in ultimate truth? Yes. A person is not found in all in ultimate truth? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation: if a person is not found in ultimate truth, then indeed it should be stated, "a person is not found in all in ultimate truth." That you say there, "it should be stated 'a person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be stated 'a person is not found in all in ultimate truth,'" is wrong. But if it should not be stated, "a person is not found in all in ultimate truth," then indeed it should not be stated, "a person is not found in ultimate truth." That you say there, "it should be stated 'a person is not found in ultimate truth,' but it should not be stated 'a person is not found in all in ultimate truth,'" is wrong...pe.... Eighth refutation. The Kathāvatthu matrix is finished. 6. The Pairs Matrix Root Pairs Fourfold Method of the Wholesome Term Whatever things are wholesome... Whatever things are wholesome, all of them have wholesome roots. Or whatever has wholesome roots, all those things are wholesome. Whatever wholesome things there are, all of them have one root with the wholesome root. Or whatever has one root with the wholesome root, all those things are wholesome. Whatever things have one root with the wholesome root, all of them have mutual roots with the wholesome root.