Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One

Canon of the Higher Teaching

Points of Controversy

1. Discussion on the Existence of 'Person'

1. Pure Highest Truth

1. Conformity and Reverse

1. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Pentad of Conformity.

2. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Counter-argument.

3. But if you think - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,'" by that, for you there, by this acknowledgment, one acknowledging thus should be refuted thus. Then we refute you. And you are well refuted.

If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Refutation.

4. If this is wrongly refuted, then just so see there. It should be said indeed - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," but it should not be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." And we, by you there, by this acknowledgment, acknowledging thus, should not be refuted thus. Yet you refute me. And we are wrongly refuted.

If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Application.

5. That should not be refuted thus. If so, what you refute - "If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality.' What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Conclusion.

The First Refutation.

1. Pure Highest Truth

2. Reverse and Conformity

6. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Pentad of Opposition.

7. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Counter-argument.

8. But if you think - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,'" by that, for you there, by this acknowledgment, one acknowledging thus should be refuted thus. Then we refute you. And you are well refuted.

9. If this is wrongly refuted, then just so see there. It should be said indeed - "A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," but it should not be said - "That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." And we, by you there, by this acknowledgment, acknowledging thus, should not be refuted thus. Yet you refute me. And we are wrongly refuted.

The Tetrad of Application.

10. That should not be refuted thus. If so, what you refute - "If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - 'That which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality.' What you say there - 'It should be said indeed - a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, but it should not be said - that which is the highest truth and ultimate reality, from that is that person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

The Tetrad of Conclusion.

The Second Refutation.

2. Highest Truth with Permission

1. Conformity and Reverse

11. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Third Refutation.

3. Highest Truth with Time

1. Conformity and Reverse

12. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person always found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is always found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is always found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is always found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is always found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Fourth Refutation.

4. Highest Truth with Constituent

1. Conformity and Reverse

13. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Fifth Refutation.

2. Highest Truth with Permission

2. Reverse and Conformity

14. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person not found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is not found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is not found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is not found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is not found everywhere in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Sixth Refutation.

3. Highest Truth with Time

2. Reverse and Conformity

15. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person always not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is always not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is always not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is always not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is always not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Seventh Refutation.

4. Highest Truth with Constituent

2. Reverse and Conformity

16. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person not found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is not found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is not found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "A person is not found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'A person is not found in all in the highest truth and ultimate reality'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Eighth Refutation.

5. The Pure Comparison

17. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

18. A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. and perception is found, etc. and activities are found, etc. and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is consciousness one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

19. A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. and the ear sense base is found... and the nose sense base is found... and the tongue sense base is found... and the body sense base is found... and the visible form sense base is found... and the sound sense base is found... and the odour sense base is found... and the flavour sense base is found... and the touch sense base is found... and the mind sense base is found... and the mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

20. And the eye-element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. And the ear-element is found... And the nose-element is found... And the tongue-element is found... And the body-element is found... And the material element is found... And the sound-element is found... And the odour-element is found... And the flavour-element is found... And the touch-element is found... And the eye-consciousness element is found... And the ear-consciousness element is found... And the nose-consciousness element is found... And the tongue-consciousness element is found... And the body-consciousness element is found... And the mind-element is found... And the mind-consciousness element is found... And the element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

21. And the eye-faculty is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. and the ear-faculty is found... and the nose-faculty is found... and the tongue-faculty is found... and the body faculty is found... and the mind faculty is found... and the life faculty is found... and the femininity faculty is found... and the masculinity faculty is found... and the faculty of pleasantness is found... and the faculty of pain is found... and the pleasure faculty is found... and the faculty of displeasure is found... and the equanimity faculty is found... and the faith faculty is found... and the energy faculty is found... and the mindfulness faculty is found... and the concentration faculty is found... and the wisdom faculty is found... and the faculty of "I shall know the unknown" is found... and the faculty of final knowledge is found... and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

22. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

23. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and feeling is found, etc. and perception is found, etc. and activities are found, etc. and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is consciousness one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

24. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and the eye sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. and the ear sense base is found, etc. and the mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

25. And the eye-element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. And the body-element is found, etc. And the material element is found, etc. And the touch-element is found, etc. And the eye-consciousness element is found, etc. And the mind-consciousness element is found, etc. And the element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

26. And the eye-faculty is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. And the ear-faculty is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. And the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

27. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Simple Comparison.

6. The Comparison by Simile

28. Is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is feeling found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is materiality one thing and feeling another? Yes. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

29. Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and perception is found, etc. and activities are found, etc. and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, is materiality one thing and consciousness another? Yes. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and consciousness is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and consciousness is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and consciousness is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and consciousness is another, and a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

30. Feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and perception is found, etc. and activities are found, etc. and consciousness is found, etc. and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

31. Perception is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found, etc. and consciousness is found, etc. and materiality is found, etc. and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

32. Activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found, etc. and materiality is found, etc. and feeling is found, etc. and perception is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

33. Consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found, etc. and feeling is found, etc. and perception is found, etc. and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing and activities are another? Yes. A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is consciousness one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing and activities are another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing and activities are another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Consciousness is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing and activities are another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, consciousness is one thing and activities are another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

34. The eye sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear sense base is found, etc. and the mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear sense base is found, etc. The mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye sense base is found, etc. and the mind sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

35. The eye-element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear-element is found, etc. And the element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear-element is found, etc. The element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye-element is found, etc. And the mind-consciousness element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

36. The eye-faculty is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear-faculty is found, etc. And the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear-faculty is found, etc. The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. And the eye-faculty is found, etc. And the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the faculty of final knowledge another? Yes. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is the faculty of one who has final knowledge found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

37. Is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is feeling found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and is materiality one thing and feeling another? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and is materiality found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - materiality is one thing and the person is another. What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, it was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, it was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is one thing and feeling is another, it was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

38. Materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and perception is found... and activities are found... and consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality... etc.

39. Feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and perception is found... and activities are found... and consciousness is found... and materiality is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

40. Perception is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and activities are found... and consciousness is found... and materiality is found... and feeling is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

41. Activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and consciousness is found... and materiality is found... and feeling is found... and perception is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

42. Consciousness is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and materiality is found... and feeling is found... and perception is found... and activities are found in the highest truth and ultimate reality... etc.

43. The eye sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear sense base is found, etc. and the mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear sense base is found, etc. The mind-object sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye sense base is found, etc. and the mind sense base is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

44. The eye-element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear-element is found, etc. And the element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear-element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The element of phenomena is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye-element is found, etc. And the mind-consciousness element is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc.

45. The eye-faculty is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the ear-faculty is found, etc. And the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, etc. The ear-faculty is found, etc. The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the eye-faculty is found, etc. And the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the faculty of final knowledge another? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, it was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, it was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare,' and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, and the faculty of final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the faculty of final knowledge is another, it was said by the Blessed One - There is a person practising for personal welfare, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Comparison by Simile.

7. The Comparison by the Tetrad Method

46. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is materiality the person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is the person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is the person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is the person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is the person'" - is wrong. Etc.

47. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person in matter? Etc. Is a person apart from matter? Etc. Is matter in a person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Matter is in a person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Matter is in a person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Matter is in a person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Matter is in a person'" - is wrong. Etc.

48. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is feeling a person? Etc. Is a person in feeling? Etc. Is a person apart from feeling? Etc. Is feeling in a person? Etc.

Is perception a person? Etc. Is a person in perception? Etc. Is a person apart from perception? Etc. Is perception in a person? Etc.

Are activities a person? Etc. Is a person in activities? Etc. Is a person apart from activities? Etc. Are activities in a person? Etc.

Is consciousness a person? Etc. Is a person in consciousness? Etc. Is a person apart from consciousness? Etc. Is consciousness in a person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness is in a person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is in a person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Consciousness is in a person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is in a person'" - is wrong. Etc.

49. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the eye sense base a person? Etc. Is a person in the eye sense base? Etc. Is a person apart from the eye sense base? Etc. Is the eye sense base in a person? Etc. Is the mind-object sense base a person? Etc. Is a person in the mind-object sense base? Etc. Is a person apart from the mind-object sense base? Etc. Is the mind-object sense base in a person? Etc.

Is the eye-element a person? Etc. Is a person in the eye-element? Etc. Is a person apart from the eye-element? Etc. Is the eye-element in a person? Etc. Is the element of phenomena a person? Etc. Is a person in the element of phenomena? Etc. Is a person apart from the element of phenomena? Etc. Is the element of phenomena in a person? Etc.

Is the eye-faculty a person? Etc. Is a person in the eye-faculty? Etc. Is a person apart from the eye-faculty? Etc. Is the eye-faculty in a person? Etc. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge a person? Etc. Is a person in the faculty of one who has final knowledge? Etc. Is a person apart from the faculty of one who has final knowledge? Etc. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge in a person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person'" - is wrong. Etc.

50. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare"? Yes. Is materiality the person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Materiality is the person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is the person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Materiality is the person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'Materiality is the person'" - is wrong. Etc.

51. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare"? Yes. Is a person in matter? Etc. Is a person apart from matter? Etc. Is matter in a person? Etc.

Is feeling a person? Etc. Is a person in feeling? Etc. Is a person apart from feeling? Etc. Is feeling in a person? Etc.

Is perception a person? Etc. Is a person in perception? Etc. Is a person apart from perception? Etc. Is perception in a person? Etc.

Are activities a person? Etc. Is a person in activities? Etc. Is a person apart from activities? Etc. Are activities in a person? Etc.

Is consciousness a person? Etc. Is a person in consciousness? Etc. Is a person apart from consciousness? Etc. Is consciousness in a person? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness is in a person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is in a person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "Consciousness is in a person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'Consciousness is in a person'" - is wrong. Etc.

52. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare"? Yes. Is the eye sense base a person? Etc. Is a person in the eye sense base? Etc. Is a person apart from the eye sense base? Etc. Is the eye sense base in a person? Etc. Is the mind-object sense base a person? Etc. Is a person in the mind-object sense base? Etc. Is a person apart from the mind-object sense base? Etc. Is the mind-object sense base in a person? Etc.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "It was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'It was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'The faculty of one who has final knowledge is in a person'" - is wrong. Etc.

The Comparison by the Tetrad Method.

8. The Discussion on Characteristic and Reasoning

53. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person with condition? Etc. Is a person without condition? Is a person conditioned? Is a person unconditioned? Is a person eternal? Is a person non-eternal? Is a person with sign? Is a person signless? That should not be said. (Abbreviated)

54. Is a person not found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare"? Yes. Is a person with condition? Etc. Is a person without condition? Is a person conditioned? Is a person unconditioned? Is a person eternal? Is a person non-eternal? Is a person with sign? Is a person signless? That should not be said. (Abbreviated)

The Discussion on Characteristic and Reasoning.

9. The Purification of Expression

55. A person is found, what is found is a person? A person is found, what is found is in some cases a person, in some cases not a person. A person is in some cases found, in some cases not found? That should not be said. Etc.

56. A person is the highest truth, the highest truth is a person? A person is the highest truth, the highest truth is in some cases a person, in some cases not a person. A person is in some cases the highest truth, in some cases not the highest truth? That should not be said. Etc.

57. A person is existing, what is existing is a person? A person is existing, what is existing is in some cases a person, in some cases not a person. A person is in some cases existing, in some cases not existing? That should not be said. Etc.

58. A person is existing, what is existing is a person? A person is existing, what is existing is in some cases a person, in some cases not a person. A person is in some cases existing, in some cases not existing? That should not be said. Etc.

59. A person exists, there is a person? A person exists, what exists is in some cases a person, in some cases not a person. A person in some cases exists, in some cases does not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

60. A person exists, what exists is not every person? Yes. Etc. A person does not exist, what does not exist is not every person? That should not be said. (Abbreviated)

The Purification of Expression.

10. The Pursuit of Designation

61. Is a person in the material element a material person? Yes. Is a person in the sensual element a sensual person? That should not be said. Etc.

62. Is a being in the material element a material being? Yes. Is a being in the sensual element a sensual being? That should not be said. Etc.

63. Is a person in the immaterial element a formless person? Yes. Is a person in the sensual element a sensual person? That should not be said. Etc.

64. Is a being in the immaterial element an immaterial being? Yes. Is a being in the sensual element a sensual being? That should not be said. Etc.

65. Is a person in the material element a material person, and is a person in the immaterial element a formless person, and is there anyone who, having passed away from the material element, is reborn in the immaterial element? Yes. Is the material person cut off, and the formless person born? That should not be said. Etc.

66. Is a being in the material element a material being, and is a being in the immaterial element an immaterial being, and is there anyone who, having passed away from the material element, is reborn in the immaterial element? Yes. Is the material being cut off, and the immaterial being born? That should not be said. Etc.

67. "Body" or "physical body," or "physical body" or "body," having made the body inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. "Person" or "soul," or "soul" or "person," having made the person inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. Is the body one thing and the person another? Yes. Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If "body" or "physical body," or "physical body" or "body," having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; "person" or "soul," or "soul" or "person," having made the person inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; the body is one thing and the person is another; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The soul is one thing and the body is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; 'person' or 'soul,' or 'soul' or 'person,' having made the person inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; the body is one thing and the person is another," but it should not be said - "The soul is one thing and the body is another" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The soul is one thing and the body is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; 'person' or 'soul,' or 'soul' or 'person,' having made the person inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; the body is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; 'person' or 'soul,' or 'soul' or 'person,' having made the person inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind; the body is one thing and the person is another," but it should not be said - "The soul is one thing and the body is another" - is wrong. Etc.

68. "Body" or "physical body," or "physical body" or "body," having made the body inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare"? Yes. Is the body one thing and the person another? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the counter-argument. If "body" or "physical body," or "physical body" or "body," having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind, it was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The body is one thing and the person is another." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind, it was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'The body is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "The body is one thing and the person is another," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind, it was said by the Blessed One - 'There is a person practising for personal welfare.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Body' or 'physical body,' or 'physical body' or 'body,' having made the body inseparable, are the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind, it was said by the Blessed One - there is a person practising for personal welfare,' but it should not be said - 'The body is one thing and the person is another'" - is wrong. (Abbreviated)

The Pursuit of Designation.

11. The Pursuit of Destination

69. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does that person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

70. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does another person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

71. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does he and another transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

72. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does neither he transmigrate, nor another transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

73. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does that person transmigrate, does another person transmigrate, do he and another transmigrate, does neither he transmigrate nor another transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

74. Should it not be said - "A person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"That person, having transmigrated seven times at most;

Becomes one who makes an end of suffering, through the destruction of all fetters."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world.

75. Should it not be said - "A person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "This wandering in the round of rebirths, monks, is without discernible beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, transmigrating and wandering in the round of rebirths"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world.

76. Does a person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? That should not be said. Etc.

77. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a human being, becomes a god? Yes. Is that same human being that god? That should not be said. Etc.

78. Is that same human being that god? Yes. Having been a human being, one becomes a god; having been a god, one becomes a human being; the one who was a human being is one, the god is another; the one who was a human being, that same one transmigrates - is wrong. Etc.

For if that same person transmigrates from here, having passed away, to the world beyond, not another, then in this way death will not exist, and killing living beings is not found. There is action, there is result of action, there is result of actions done, when wholesome and unwholesome are ripening, that same one transmigrates - is wrong.

79. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a human being, becomes a demon, becomes a ghost, becomes one doomed to Niraya Hell, becomes an animal, becomes a camel, becomes an ox, becomes a donkey, becomes a pig, becomes a buffalo? Yes. Is that same human being that buffalo? That should not be said. Etc.

80. Is that same human being that buffalo? Yes. Having been a human being, one becomes a buffalo; having been a buffalo, one becomes a human being; the one who was a human being is one, the buffalo is another; the one who was a human being, that same one transmigrates - is wrong. Etc.

81. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a warrior, becomes a brahmin? Yes. Is that same warrior that brahmin? That should not be said. Etc.

82. Is there anyone who, having been a warrior, becomes a merchant, becomes a worker? Yes. Is that same warrior that worker? That should not be said. Etc.

83. Is there anyone who, having been a brahmin, becomes a merchant, becomes a worker, becomes a warrior? Yes. Is that same brahmin that warrior? That should not be said. Etc.

84. Is there anyone who, having been a merchant, becomes a worker, becomes a warrior, becomes a brahmin? Yes. Is that same merchant that brahmin? That should not be said. Etc.

85. Is there anyone who, having been a worker, becomes a warrior, becomes a brahmin, becomes a merchant? Yes. Is that same worker that merchant? That should not be said. Etc.

86. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does one with a cut off hand remain one with a cut off hand, does one with a cut off foot remain one with a cut off foot, does one with cut off hands and feet remain one with cut off hands and feet, does one with cut off ears... one with a cut off nose... one with cut off ears and nose... one with cut off fingers... one with cut off thumbs... one with cut tendons... one with crooked hands... one with webbed hands... a leper... one with boils... one with skin disease... one with consumption... one with epilepsy... a camel... an ox... a donkey... a pig... does a buffalo remain a buffalo? That should not be said. Etc.

87. Should it not be said - "That same person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world"? Yes. Is it not that a stream-enterer person, having passed away from the human world and been reborn in the heavenly world, is still a stream-enterer there? Yes.

If a stream-enterer person, having passed away from the human world and been reborn in the heavenly world, is still a stream-enterer there, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "That same person transmigrates from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world."

88. A stream-enterer person, having passed away from the human world and been reborn in the heavenly world, is still a stream-enterer there - and by that reason does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. A stream-enterer person, having passed away from the human world and been reborn in the heavenly world, is a human being there? That should not be said. Etc.

89. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does one who is not another, by way of non-disappearance, transmigrate? That should not be said. Etc.

90. Does one who is not another, by way of non-disappearance, transmigrate? Yes. Does one with a cut off hand remain one with a cut off hand, does one with a cut off foot remain one with a cut off foot, does one with cut off hands and feet remain one with cut off hands and feet, does one with cut off ears... one with a cut off nose... one with cut off ears and nose... one with cut off fingers... one with cut off thumbs... one with cut tendons... one with crooked hands... one with webbed hands... a leper... one with boils... one with skin disease... one with consumption... one with epilepsy... a camel... an ox... a donkey... a pig... does a buffalo remain a buffalo? That should not be said. Etc.

91. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does one transmigrate having a form? That should not be said. Etc. Does one transmigrate having a form? Yes. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Having feeling, etc. Having perception, etc. Having activities, etc. Does one transmigrate having consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one transmigrate having consciousness? Yes. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc.

92. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does one transmigrate being immaterial? That should not be said. Etc. Does one transmigrate being immaterial? Yes. Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. Etc.

Without feeling, etc. Without perception, etc. Without activities, etc. Does one transmigrate being without consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one transmigrate being without consciousness? Yes. Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. Etc.

93. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does materiality transmigrate? That should not be said. Etc. Does materiality transmigrate? Yes. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Does consciousness transmigrate? That should not be said. Etc. Does consciousness transmigrate? Yes. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc.

94. Does that same person transmigrate from this world to the world beyond, from the world beyond to this world? Yes. Does materiality not transmigrate? That should not be said. Etc. Does materiality not transmigrate? Yes. Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Does consciousness not transmigrate? That should not be said. Etc. Does consciousness not transmigrate? Yes. Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. (Abbreviated)

When the aggregates are breaking up, if that person breaks up;

It becomes the view of annihilation, which was avoided by the Buddha.

When the aggregates are breaking up, if that person does not break up;

The person becomes eternal, equal to Nibbāna.

The Pursuit of Destination.

12. The Pursuit of Derived Designation

95. Is the person described with reference to matter? Yes. Is matter impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

96. Is the person described with reference to feeling? Is the person described with reference to perception? Is the person described with reference to activities? Is the person described with reference to consciousness? Yes. Is consciousness impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

97. Is the person described with reference to matter? Yes. Is a blue person described with reference to blue matter? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to yellow matter... With reference to red matter... With reference to white matter... With reference to manifest matter... With reference to non-manifest matter... With reference to impinging matter... Is a non-impinging person described with reference to non-impinging matter? That should not be said. Etc.

98. Is the person described with reference to feeling? Yes. Is the wholesome person described with reference to wholesome feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is the wholesome person described with reference to wholesome feeling? Yes. Is wholesome feeling fruitful, with result, having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? Yes. Is a wholesome person also fruitful, with result, having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc.

99. Is the person described with reference to feeling? Yes. Is an unwholesome person described with reference to unwholesome feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is an unwholesome person described with reference to unwholesome feeling? Yes. Is unwholesome feeling fruitful, with result, having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? Yes. Is an unwholesome person also fruitful, with result, having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? That should not be said. Etc.

100. Is the person described with reference to feeling? Yes. Is the indeterminate person described with reference to indeterminate feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is the indeterminate person described with reference to indeterminate feeling? Yes. Is indeterminate feeling impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the indeterminate person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

101. Is the person described with reference to perception? Is the person described with reference to activities? Is the person described with reference to consciousness? Yes. Is the wholesome person described with reference to wholesome consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the wholesome person described with reference to wholesome consciousness? Yes. Is wholesome consciousness fruitful, with result, having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? Yes. Is a wholesome person also fruitful, with result, having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc.

102. Is the person described with reference to consciousness? Yes. Is an unwholesome person described with reference to unwholesome consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is an unwholesome person described with reference to unwholesome consciousness? Yes. Is unwholesome consciousness fruitful, with result, having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? Yes. Is an unwholesome person also fruitful, with result, having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? That should not be said. Etc.

103. Is the person described with reference to consciousness? Yes. Is the indeterminate person described with reference to indeterminate consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the indeterminate person described with reference to indeterminate consciousness? Yes. Is indeterminate consciousness impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the indeterminate person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

104. With reference to the eye, should it be said "a person endowed with eyes"? Yes. When the eye has ceased, should it be said "the person endowed with eyes has ceased"? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to the ear... With reference to the nose... With reference to the tongue... With reference to the body... With reference to the mind, should it be said "a person endowed with mind"? Yes. When the mind has ceased, should it be said "the person endowed with mind has ceased"? That should not be said.

105. With reference to wrong view, should it be said "a person with wrong view"? Yes. When wrong view has ceased, should it be said "the person with wrong view has ceased"? That should not be said. With reference to wrong thought, etc. With reference to wrong speech, etc. With reference to wrong action, etc. With reference to wrong livelihood, etc. With reference to wrong effort, etc. With reference to wrong mindfulness, etc. With reference to wrong concentration, should it be said "a person with wrong concentration"? Yes. When wrong concentration has ceased, should it be said "the person with wrong concentration has ceased"? That should not be said.

106. With reference to right view, should it be said "a person with right view"? Yes. When right view has ceased, should it be said "the person with right view has ceased"? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to right thought... With reference to right speech... With reference to right action... With reference to right livelihood... With reference to right effort... With reference to right mindfulness... With reference to right concentration, should it be said "a person with right concentration"? Yes. When right concentration has ceased, should it be said "the person with right concentration has ceased"? That should not be said. Etc.

107. Is the person described with reference to matter, with reference to feeling? Yes. Are two persons described with reference to two aggregates? That should not be said. Etc. Is the person described with reference to matter, with reference to feeling, with reference to perception, with reference to activities, with reference to consciousness? Yes. Are five persons described with reference to five aggregates? That should not be said. Etc.

108. Is the person described with reference to the eye sense base and the ear sense base? Yes. Are two persons described with reference to two sense bases? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to the eye sense base, the ear sense base, etc. Is the person described with reference to the mind-object sense base? Yes. Are twelve persons described with reference to twelve sense bases? That should not be said. Etc.

109. Is the person described with reference to the eye-element, with reference to the ear-element? Yes. Are two persons described with reference to two elements? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to the eye-element, with reference to the ear-element, etc. Is the person described with reference to the element of phenomena? Yes. Are eighteen persons described with reference to eighteen elements? That should not be said. Etc.

110. Is the person described with reference to the eye-faculty and the ear-faculty? Yes. Are two persons described with reference to two faculties? That should not be said. Etc. With reference to the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, etc. Is the person described with reference to the faculty of one who has final knowledge? Yes. Are twenty-two persons described with reference to twenty-two faculties? That should not be said. Etc.

111. Is the person described with reference to single-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Are four persons described with reference to four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is the person described with reference to single-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Are five persons described with reference to five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there only one person in single-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Are there only four persons in four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there only one person in single-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Are there only five persons in five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

112. Just as the shadow is described with reference to a tree, so too is the person described with reference to matter? Just as the shadow is described with reference to a tree, and the tree is impermanent and the shadow is impermanent, so too is the person described with reference to matter, and matter is impermanent and the person is impermanent? That should not be said. Etc. Just as the shadow is described with reference to a tree, and the tree is one thing and the shadow is another, so too is the person described with reference to matter, and matter is one thing and the person is another? That should not be said. Etc.

113. Just as the villager is described with reference to a village, so too is the person described with reference to matter? Just as the villager is described with reference to a village, and the village is one thing and the villager is another, so too is the person described with reference to matter, and matter is one thing and the person is another? That should not be said. Etc.

114. Just as the king is described with reference to a country, so too is the person described with reference to matter? Just as the king is described with reference to a country, and the country is one thing and the king is another, so too is the person described with reference to matter, and matter is one thing and the person is another? That should not be said. Etc.

115. Just as a chain is not one who has a chain, he who has a chain is one who has a chain, so too is matter not one who has matter, he who has matter is one who has matter? Just as a chain is not one who has a chain, he who has a chain is one who has a chain, the chain is one thing and one who has a chain is another, so too is matter not one who has matter, he who has matter is one who has matter, matter is one thing and one who has matter is another? That should not be said. Etc.

116. Is the person described with reference to each consciousness? Yes. Does the person with each consciousness get born, decay, die, pass away, and get reborn? That should not be said. Etc. When the second consciousness has arisen, should it not be said "he is the same" or "he is another"? Yes. When the second consciousness has arisen, should it not be said "a boy" or "a girl"? It should be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - "he is the same or he is another," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - 'a boy or a girl.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - he is the same or he is another, when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - a boy or a girl'" - is wrong.

Or else if when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - "a boy or a girl," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - 'he is the same or he is another.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - he is the same or he is another, when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - a boy or a girl'" - is wrong.

117. When the second consciousness has arisen, should it not be said - "he is the same or he is another"? Yes. When the second consciousness has arisen, should it not be said - "a woman or a man or a householder or one gone forth or a god or a human being"? It should be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - "he is the same or he is another," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - 'a god or a human being.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - he is the same or he is another, when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - a god or a human being'" - is wrong.

Or else if when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - "a god or a human being," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - 'he is the same or he is another.'" What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'when the second consciousness has arisen it should not be said - he is the same or he is another, when the second consciousness has arisen it should be said - a god or a human being'" - is wrong. Etc.

118. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is it not that whoever sees, whatever he sees, by whatever he sees, he sees, that he sees, by that he sees? Yes. If whoever sees, whatever he sees, by whatever he sees, he sees, that he sees, by that he sees; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

119. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is it not that whoever hears... etc. whoever smells... whoever tastes... whoever touches... whoever cognizes, whatever he cognizes, by whatever he cognizes, he cognizes, that he cognizes, by that he cognizes? Yes. If whoever cognizes, whatever he cognizes, by whatever he cognizes, he cognizes, that he cognizes, by that he cognizes; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

120. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is it not that whoever does not see, whatever he does not see, by whatever he does not see, he does not see, that he does not see, by that he does not see? Yes. If whoever does not see, whatever he does not see, by whatever he does not see, he does not see, that he does not see, by that he does not see; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is it not that whoever does not hear... etc. whoever does not smell... whoever does not taste... whoever does not touch... whoever does not cognize, whatever he does not cognize, by whatever he does not cognize, he does not cognize, that he does not cognize, by that he does not cognize? Yes. If whoever does not cognize, whatever he does not cognize, by whatever he does not cognize, he does not cognize, that he does not cognize, by that he does not cognize; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

121. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I see, monks, with the divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human, beings passing away and arising, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, I understand beings according to their actions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality.

122. It was said by the Blessed One - "I see, monks, with the divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human, beings passing away and arising, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, I understand beings according to their actions" - having made this, by that very reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Does the Blessed One with the divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human, see materiality, see a person? He sees materiality. Is materiality the person, does materiality pass away, is materiality reborn, is materiality subject to rebirth according to actions? That should not be said.

Does the Blessed One with the divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human, see materiality, see a person? He sees a person. Is the person materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, blue, yellow, red, white, cognizable by eye, does it strike against the eye, does it come into the range of the eye? That should not be said.

Does the Blessed One with the divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human, see materiality, see a person? He sees both. Are both materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, are both blue, are both yellow, are both red, are both white, are both cognizable by eye, do both strike against the eye, do both come into the range of the eye, do both pass away, are both reborn, are both subject to rebirth according to actions? That should not be said.

The Pursuit of Derived Designation.

13. The Pursuit of Personal Effort

123. Are good and evil actions found? Yes. Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? That should not be said. Etc.

124. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is a doer and causer of that found? That should not be said. Etc.

125. Is a doer and causer of that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

126. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is a person found? Is a doer and causer of a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

127. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is a doer and causer of Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

128. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Is a doer and causer of the great earth found? That should not be said. Etc.

129. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is the ocean found? Is a doer and causer of the ocean found? That should not be said. Etc.

130. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is a doer and causer of Sineru, the king of mountains, found? That should not be said. Etc.

131. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is water found? Is a doer and causer of water found? That should not be said. Etc.

132. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is fire found? Is a doer and causer of fire found? That should not be said. Etc.

133. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is air found? Is a doer and causer of air found? That should not be said. Etc.

134. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is a doer and causer of grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

135. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer and causer of good and evil actions found? Yes. Are good and evil actions one thing and the doer and causer of good and evil actions another? That should not be said. Etc.

136. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? That should not be said. Etc.

137. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is one who experiences that found? That should not be said. Etc.

138. Is one who experiences that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

139. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is a person found? Is one who experiences a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

140. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is one who experiences Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

141. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Etc. Is the ocean found? Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is water found? Is fire found? Is air found? Etc. Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is one who experiences grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

142. Is the result of good and evil actions found? Is an experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Is the result of good and evil actions one thing and the experiencer of the result of good and evil actions another? That should not be said. Etc.

143. Is divine happiness found? Yes. Is one who experiences divine happiness found? That should not be said. Etc.

144. Is divine happiness found? Is one who experiences divine happiness found? Yes. Is one who experiences that found? That should not be said. Etc.

145. Is one who experiences that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

146. Is divine happiness found? Is one who experiences divine happiness found? Yes. Is a person found? Is one who experiences a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

147. Is divine happiness found? Is one who experiences divine happiness found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is one who experiences Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

148. Is divine happiness found? Is one who experiences divine happiness found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Is the ocean found? Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is water found? Is fire found? Is air found? Etc. Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is one who experiences grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

149. Is divine happiness found? Is one who experiences divine happiness found? Yes. Is divine happiness one thing and one who experiences divine happiness another? That should not be said. Etc.

150. Is human happiness found? Yes. Is one who experiences human happiness found? That should not be said. Etc.

151. Is human happiness found? Is one who experiences human happiness found? Yes. Is one who experiences that found? That should not be said. Etc.

152. Is one who experiences that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

153. Is human happiness found? Is one who experiences human happiness found? Yes. Is a person found? Is one who experiences a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

154. Is human happiness found? Is one who experiences human happiness found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is one who experiences Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

155. Is human happiness found? Is one who experiences human happiness found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Etc. Is the ocean found? Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is water found? Is fire found? Is air found? Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is one who experiences grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

156. Is human happiness found? Is one who experiences human happiness found? Yes. Is human happiness one thing and one who experiences human happiness another? That should not be said. Etc.

157. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? That should not be said. Etc.

158. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is one who experiences that found? That should not be said. Etc.

159. Is one who experiences that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

160. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is a person found? Is one who experiences a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

161. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is one who experiences Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

162. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Etc. Is the ocean found? Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is water found? Is fire found? Is air found? Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is one who experiences grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

163. Is suffering in the realm of misery found? Is one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery found? Yes. Is suffering in the realm of misery one thing and one who experiences suffering in the realm of misery another? That should not be said. Etc.

164. Is hell suffering found? Yes. Is one who experiences hell suffering found? That should not be said.

Is hell suffering found, is one who experiences hell suffering found? Yes. Is one who experiences that found? That should not be said. Etc.

165. Is one who experiences that found? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

166. Is hell suffering found, is one who experiences hell suffering found? Yes. Is a person found? Is one who experiences a person found? That should not be said. Etc.

167. Is hell suffering found, is one who experiences hell suffering found? Yes. Is Nibbāna found? Is one who experiences Nibbāna found? That should not be said. Etc.

168. Is hell suffering found, is one who experiences hell suffering found? Yes. Is the great earth found? Etc. Is the ocean found? Is Sineru, the king of mountains, found? Is water found? Is fire found? Is air found? Are grass, wood, and trees found? Is one who experiences grass, wood, and trees found? That should not be said. Etc.

169. Is hell suffering found, is one who experiences hell suffering found? Yes. Is hell suffering one thing and one who experiences hell suffering another? That should not be said. Etc.

170. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer, causer, and experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. The one who acts is the one who experiences? That should not be said. Etc.

171. The one who acts is the one who experiences? Yes. Pleasure and pain are self-made? That should not be said. Etc.

172. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer, causer, and experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. One acts, another experiences? That should not be said. Etc.

173. One acts, another experiences? Yes. Pleasure and pain are made by another? That should not be said. Etc.

174. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer, causer, and experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Do he and another perform actions, and do he and another experience the results? That should not be said. Etc.

175. Do he and another perform actions, and do he and another experience the results? Yes. Is pleasure and pain both self-made and made by another? That should not be said. Etc.

176. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer, causer, and experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. Does neither he act nor he experience, nor another act nor another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

177. Does neither he act nor he experience, nor another act nor another experience? Yes. Is pleasure and pain neither self-made nor made by another but fortuitously arisen? That should not be said. Etc.

178. Are good and evil actions found? Is a doer, causer, and experiencer of the result of good and evil actions found? Yes. The one who acts is the one who experiences, one acts another experiences, he and another act he and another experience, neither he acts nor he experiences, nor another acts nor another experiences? That should not be said. Etc.

179. The one who acts is the one who experiences, one acts another experiences, he and another act he and another experience, neither he acts nor he experiences, nor another acts nor another experiences? Yes. Is pleasure and pain self-made, is pleasure and pain made by another, is pleasure and pain both self-made and made by another, is pleasure and pain neither self-made nor made by another but fortuitously arisen? That should not be said. Etc.

180. Is there action? Yes. Is there a doer of action? That should not be said. Etc.

181. Is there action, is there a doer of action? Yes. Is there a doer of that? That should not be said. Etc.

182. Is there a doer of that? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

183. Is there action, is there a doer of action? Yes. Is there a person, is there a doer of the person? That should not be said. Etc.

184. Is there action, is there a doer of action? Yes. Is there Nibbāna, is there a doer of Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

185. Is there action, is there a doer of action? Yes. Is there the great earth? Etc. Is there the great ocean? Is there Sineru, the king of mountains? Is there water? Is there fire? Is there air? Is there grass, wood, and trees, is there a doer of grass, wood, and trees? That should not be said. Etc.

186. Is there action, is there a doer of action? Yes. Is action one thing and the doer of action another? That should not be said. Etc.

187. Is there result? Yes. Is there an experiencer of result? That should not be said. Etc.

188. Is there result, is there an experiencer of result? Yes. Is there one who experiences that? That should not be said. Etc.

189. Is there one who experiences that? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc. Is there result, is there an experiencer of result? Yes. Is there a person, is there one who experiences the person? That should not be said. Etc.

190. Is there result, is there an experiencer of result? Yes. Is there Nibbāna, is there one who experiences Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

191. Is there result, is there an experiencer of result? Yes. Is there the great earth? Etc. Is there the great ocean? Is there Sineru, the king of mountains? Is there water? Is there fire? Is there air? Is there grass, wood, and trees, is there one who experiences grass, wood, and trees? That should not be said. Etc.

192. Is there result, is there an experiencer of result? Yes. Is the result one thing and the experiencer of result another? That should not be said. (Abbreviated)

The Pursuit of Personal Effort.

The First Chapter on the Good.

14. The Pursuit of Direct Knowledge

193. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who performs supernormal power? Yes. If there is someone who performs supernormal power, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

194. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who hears sound with the divine ear element... etc. cognizes others' minds... recollects past lives... sees materiality with the divine eye... realizes the elimination of mental corruptions? Yes. If there is someone who realizes the elimination of mental corruptions, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

195. Is there someone who performs supernormal power, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Whoever performs supernormal power, is that same person? Whoever does not perform supernormal power, is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

196. Whoever hears sound with the divine ear element, etc. whoever cognizes others' minds... whoever recollects past lives... whoever sees materiality with the divine eye... whoever realizes the elimination of mental corruptions, is that same person? Whoever does not realize the elimination of mental corruptions, is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

The Pursuit of Direct Knowledge.

15-18.

The Pursuit of Relatives and so on

197. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not a mother? Yes. If there is a mother, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

198. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not a father? Etc. Is there a brother? Is there a sister? Is there one of the warrior caste? Is there a brahmin? Is there a merchant? Is there a worker? Is there a householder? Is there one gone forth? Is there a god? Is there a human being? Yes. If there is a human being, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

199. Having established that there is a mother, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a mother, becomes a mother? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a person, becomes a person? That should not be said. Etc. Is there anyone who, not having been a father, etc. not having been a brother, not having been a sister, not having been a warrior, not having been a brahmin, not having been a merchant, not having been a worker, not having been a householder, not having been one gone forth, not having been a god, not having been a human being, becomes a human being? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a person, becomes a person? That should not be said. Etc.

200. Having established that there is a mother, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a mother, is not a mother? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a person, is not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there anyone who, having been a father, having been a brother, having been a sister, having been a warrior, having been a brahmin, having been a merchant, having been a worker, having been a householder, having been one gone forth, having been a god, having been a human being, is not a human being? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a person, is not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

19. The Pursuit of Penetration

201. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not a stream-enterer? Yes. If there is a stream-enterer, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

202. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not a once-returner? Etc. Is there a non-returner? Is there a Worthy One? Is there one liberated in both ways? Is there one liberated by wisdom? Is there a body-witness? Is there one attained to right view? Is there one liberated by faith? Is there a follower of the Teaching? Is there a faith-follower? Yes.

If there is a faith-follower, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

203. Having established that there is a stream-enterer, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a stream-enterer, becomes a stream-enterer? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a person, becomes a person? That should not be said. Etc.

204. Is there anyone who, not having been a once-returner... not having been a non-returner... not having been a Worthy One... not having been one liberated in both ways... not having been one liberated by wisdom... not having been a body-witness... not having been one attained to right view... not having been one liberated by faith... not having been a follower of the Teaching... not having been a faith-follower, becomes a faith-follower? Yes. Is there anyone who, not having been a person, becomes a person? That should not be said. Etc.

205. Having established that there is a stream-enterer, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a stream-enterer, is not a stream-enterer? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a person, is not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there anyone who, having been a once-returner... having been a non-returner, is not a non-returner? Yes. Is there anyone who, having been a person, is not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

The Pursuit of Penetration.

20. Pursuit of the Community

206. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Are there not four pairs of persons, eight individual persons? Yes. If there are four pairs of persons, eight individual persons, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

207. Having established that there are four pairs of persons, eight individual persons, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Do the four pairs of persons, eight individual persons, become manifest through the manifestation of a Buddha? Yes. Does a person become manifest through the manifestation of a Buddha? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a person become manifest through the manifestation of a Buddha? Yes. When the Buddha, the Blessed One, attained final Nibbāna, was the person destroyed, does the person not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Pursuit of the Community.

21. Pursuit of the Common Highest Truth

208. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the person conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the person unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? That should not be said.

209. Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Setting aside the conditioned and the unconditioned, is there another third point? That should not be said. Etc.

210. Setting aside the conditioned and the unconditioned, is there another third point? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are these two elements, monks. Which two? The conditioned element and the unconditioned element. These, monks, are the two elements"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Setting aside the conditioned and the unconditioned, there is another third point."

211. Is the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is the conditioned one thing, the unconditioned another, and the person another? That should not be said. Etc.

212. Are the aggregates conditioned, Nibbāna unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Are the aggregates one thing, Nibbāna another, and the person another? That should not be said. Etc.

213. Is matter conditioned, Nibbāna unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is matter one thing, Nibbāna another, and the person another? That should not be said. Feeling... perception... activities... Is consciousness conditioned, Nibbāna unconditioned, and the person neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Yes. Is consciousness one thing, Nibbāna another, and the person another? That should not be said. Etc.

214. Is the arising of a person evident, is the passing away evident, is the change in its duration evident? Yes. Is the person conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. It was said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these three characteristics of the conditioned phenomenon. Of conditioned phenomena, monks, arising is evident, passing away is evident, change in their duration is evident." The arising of a person is evident, the passing away is evident, the change in its duration is evident; if so, the person is conditioned.

215. Is the arising of a person not evident, is the passing away not evident, is the change in its duration not evident? Yes. Is the person unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. It was said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these three characteristics of the unconditioned of the unconditioned. Of unconditioned phenomena, monks, no arising is evident, no passing away is evident, no change in their duration is evident." The arising of a person is not evident, the passing away is not evident, the change in its duration is not evident; if so, the person is unconditioned.

216. Does a person who has attained final Nibbāna exist in the good, or does he not exist in the good? He exists in the good. Is a person who has attained final Nibbāna eternal? That should not be said. Etc. He does not exist in the good. Is a person who has attained final Nibbāna annihilated? That should not be said. Etc.

217. In dependence on what does a person stand? He stands in dependence on existence. Is existence impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. Is the person also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

218. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who, experiencing pleasant feeling, understands "I experience pleasant feeling"? Yes. If there is someone who, experiencing pleasant feeling, understands "I experience pleasant feeling", then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

219. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who, experiencing unpleasant feeling, etc. experiencing neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, understands "I experience neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling"? Yes. If there is someone who, experiencing neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, understands "I experience neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling", then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

220. Is there someone who, experiencing pleasant feeling, understands "I experience pleasant feeling", and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Whoever, experiencing pleasant feeling, understands "I experience pleasant feeling", is that same person; whoever, experiencing pleasant feeling, does not understand "I experience pleasant feeling", is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

Whoever, experiencing unpleasant feeling, etc. whoever, experiencing neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, understands "I experience neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling", is that same person; whoever, experiencing neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, does not understand "I experience neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling", is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

221. Is there someone who, experiencing pleasant feeling, understands "I experience pleasant feeling", and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is pleasant feeling one thing, and the one experiencing pleasant feeling who understands "I experience pleasant feeling" another? That should not be said. Etc. Is unpleasant feeling one thing... etc. Is neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling one thing, and the one experiencing neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling who understands "I experience neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling" another? That should not be said. Etc.

222. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who dwells observing the body in the body? Yes. If there is someone who dwells observing the body in the body, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

223. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is there not someone who dwells observing feelings in feelings? Etc. In mind... who dwells observing mental phenomena in mental phenomena? Yes. If there is someone who dwells observing mental phenomena in mental phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

224. Is there someone who dwells observing the body in the body, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Whoever dwells observing the body in the body, that same one is a person; whoever does not dwell observing the body in the body, is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

Whoever in feelings... etc. In mind... dwells observing mental phenomena in mental phenomena, that same one is a person; whoever does not dwell observing mental phenomena in mental phenomena, is he not a person? That should not be said. Etc.

225. Is there someone who dwells observing the body in the body, and by that reason is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is the body one thing, and the one who dwells observing the body in the body another? That should not be said. Etc. feeling is another... mind is another... Are mental phenomena one thing, and the one who dwells observing mental phenomena in mental phenomena another? That should not be said. Etc.

226. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Regard the world as empty, Mogharāja, always mindful;

Having uprooted the view of self, thus one would be a crosser over death;

One who thus regards the world, the King of Death does not see."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

227. Does a person look at? Yes. Does one look at together with matter, or does one look at without matter? One looks at together with matter. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc. Does one look at without matter? Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. Etc.

228. Does a person look at? Yes. Does one look at having gone inside, or does one look at having gone out externally? One looks at having gone inside. Is the soul the same as the body? That should not be said. Etc. Does one look at having gone out externally? Is the soul one thing and the body another? That should not be said. Etc.

229. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There is a person practising for personal welfare." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality.

230. Should it not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality"? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "One person, monks, arising in the world arises for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality.

231. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "All phenomena are non-self." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

232. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "It is only suffering that arises when arising, it is only suffering that ceases when ceasing - he is not uncertain, he does not doubt sceptically; his knowledge here is not dependent on others. To this extent, Kaccāna, there is right view." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

233. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Was it not said by the nun Vajirā to Māra the Evil One -

"Why do you assume 'a being', Māra, is that your wrong view;

This is a mere heap of pure activities, no being is found here.

"Just as indeed from an assemblage of parts, there is the word 'chariot';

So when the aggregates exist, there is the convention 'a being'.

"For only suffering comes into being, suffering remains and disappears;

Nothing other than suffering comes into being, nothing other than suffering ceases."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

234. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Did not the Venerable Ānanda say this to the Blessed One - "'Empty is the world, empty is the world', venerable sir, is said. In what respect, venerable sir, is it said 'the world is empty'?" "Because, Ānanda, it is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, therefore it is said 'the world is empty'. And what, Ānanda, is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, forms are empty... etc. eye-consciousness is empty... eye-contact is empty... whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - that too is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, the ear is empty... etc. sounds are empty... the nose is empty... odours are empty... the tongue is empty... flavours are empty... the body is empty... tangible objects are empty... the mind is empty... mental phenomena are empty... mind-consciousness is empty... mind-contact is empty... whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - that too is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self. Because, Ānanda, it is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, therefore it is said 'the world is empty'." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

235. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "Monks, if there were a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Monks, if there were what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Monks, when a self and what belongs to a self are not found as true and reliable, then that standpoint for views - 'That is the world, that is the self, after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, I shall remain the same for eternity' - is this not, monks, an entirely complete foolish teaching?" "How could it not be, venerable sir? It is indeed, venerable sir, an entirely complete foolish teaching." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

236. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "There are, Seniyo, these three teachers existing and found in the world. Which three? Here, Seniyo, a certain teacher declares a self as true and reliable in this very life, and declares a self as true and reliable in the future life.

"But here, Seniyo, a certain teacher declares a self as true and reliable in this very life, but does not declare a self as true and reliable in the future life.

"But here, Seniyo, a certain teacher does not declare a self as true and reliable in this very life, and does not declare a self as true and reliable in the future life.

"Therein, Seniyo, that teacher who declares a self as true and reliable in this very life, and declares a self as true and reliable in the future life - this one is called, Seniyo, a teacher who holds the doctrine of eternalism.

"Therein, Seniyo, that teacher who declares a self as true and reliable in this very life, but does not declare a self as true and reliable in the future life - this one is called, Seniyo, a teacher who holds the doctrine of annihilationism.

"Therein, Seniyo, that teacher who does not declare a self as true and reliable in this very life, and does not declare a self as true and reliable in the future life - this one is called, Seniyo, a teacher who is the Perfectly Self-awakened One. These, Seniyo, are the three teachers existing and found in the world." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

237. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "A pot of ghee"? Yes. Is there anyone who makes a pot of ghee? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality."

238. Is a person found in the highest truth and ultimate reality? Yes. Is not the Blessed One a speaker of truth, a speaker at the right time, a speaker of what is factual, a speaker of what is actual, a speaker of what is unerring, a speaker of what is not otherwise? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "A pot of oil... a pot of honey... a pot of molasses... a pot of milk... a pot of water... a water vessel... a drinking cup... a drinking bowl... a regular meal... regular rice gruel"? Yes. Is there any rice gruel that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "A person is found in the highest truth and ultimate reality." (Abbreviated)

The eight refutation repetitions, with reference to the running;

The fifth is good with consciousness, the eighth with the bringing of the discourse on supernormal power.

Pursuit of the Common Highest Truth.

The Discussion on Persons is finished.

2. Discussion on Falling Away

1. Decline in Logical Consistency of the Argument

239. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship everywhere? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship everywhere? Yes. Is there decline of a Worthy One everywhere? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship always? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship always? Yes. Is there decline of a Worthy One always? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Do all Worthy Ones fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Do all Worthy Ones fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is there decline of all Worthy Ones? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a Worthy One falling away from arahantship fall away from the four fruits? That should not be said. Etc.

When a millionaire holding the position of millionaire with four hundred thousand, having lost one hundred thousand, has he fallen away from the position of millionaire? Yes. Has he fallen away from all his wealth? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a millionaire who holds his position of millionaire with four hundred thousand, when a hundred thousand has declined, capable of falling away from all his wealth? Yes. Is a Worthy One falling away from arahantship capable of falling away from the four fruits? That should not be said. Etc.

2. Decline in Comparison with Noble Persons

240. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

241. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Where does a Worthy One falling away from arahantship remain? In the fruition of non-returning. Where does a non-returner falling away from the fruition of non-returning remain? In the fruition of once-returning. Where does a once-returner falling away from the fruition of once-returning remain? In the fruition of stream-entry. Does a stream-enterer falling away from the fruition of stream-entry remain on the plane of the worldlings? That should not be said.

Acknowledge the refutation. If a Worthy One falling away from arahantship remains in the fruition of non-returning, a non-returner falling away from the fruition of non-returning remains in the fruition of once-returning, a once-returner falling away from the fruition of once-returning remains in the fruition of stream-entry; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falling away from the fruition of stream-entry remains on the plane of the worldlings."

Does a Worthy One falling away from arahantship remain in the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Does one realize arahantship immediately after the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

242. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the Worthy One or for the stream-enterer? For the Worthy One. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the Worthy One or for the once-returner? For the Worthy One. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the Worthy One or for the non-returner? For the Worthy One. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning."

Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the non-returner or for the stream-enterer? For the non-returner. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the non-returner, and a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

243. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the non-returner or for the once-returner? For the non-returner. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the non-returner, and a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning."

Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom have more mental defilements been abandoned, for the once-returner or for the stream-enterer? For the once-returner. If more mental defilements have been abandoned for the once-returner, and a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

244. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development, for the Worthy One or for the stream-enterer? For the Worthy One. If there is exceeding path development for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding development of establishment of mindfulness? Etc. development of right striving... development of bases for spiritual power... development of the faculties... development of the powers... development of enlightenment factors, for the Worthy One or for the stream-enterer? For the Worthy One. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development? Etc. development of enlightenment factors, for the Worthy One or for the once-returner? For the Worthy One. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development? Etc. development of enlightenment factors, for the Worthy One or for the non-returner? For the Worthy One. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the Worthy One, and a Worthy One falls away from arahantship; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning."

245. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development? Etc. development of enlightenment factors, for the non-returner or for the stream-enterer? For the non-returner. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the non-returner, and a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry."

Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development? Etc. development of enlightenment factors, for the non-returner or for the once-returner? For the non-returner. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the non-returner, and a non-returner falls away from the fruition of non-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning."

246. Does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. For whom is there exceeding path development? Etc. development of enlightenment factors, for the once-returner or for the stream-enterer? For the once-returner. If there is exceeding development of enlightenment factors for the once-returner, and a once-returner falls away from the fruition of once-returning; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a stream-enterer falls away from the fruition of stream-entry." Etc.

247. Suffering has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. The origin has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Cessation has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Cessation has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

The path has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. The path has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

The four truths have been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a once-returner; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a Worthy One, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. the four truths have been seen; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a once-returner; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a Worthy One, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. the four truths have been seen; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a non-returner, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

248. Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a non-returner, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. The four truths have been seen, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a once-returner; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a non-returner, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. The four truths have been seen, does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a once-returner; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

249. Suffering has been seen by a once-returner; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a once-returner, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

250. Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

The origin has been seen by a stream-enterer, etc. cessation has been seen, etc. the path has been seen, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a once-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. The four truths have been seen by a Worthy One; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes.

Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a once-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a non-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Suffering has been seen by a stream-enterer, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Suffering has been seen by a once-returner, etc. The four truths have been seen; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

251. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. adherence to moral rules and austerities has been abandoned, etc. lust leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned, etc. hate leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned... conceit has been abandoned... wrong view has been abandoned... sceptical doubt has been abandoned... sloth has been abandoned... restlessness has been abandoned... shamelessness has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. adherence to moral rules and austerities has been abandoned, etc. lust leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned, etc. hate leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a once-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. adherence to moral rules and austerities has been abandoned, etc. gross sensual lust has been abandoned, gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a non-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. adherence to moral rules and austerities has been abandoned, residual sensual lust has been abandoned, residual anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

For a Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. residual anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

252. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. residual anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a once-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. adherence to moral rules and austerities has been abandoned, gross sensual lust has been abandoned, gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. residual anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

253. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

For a once-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. gross sensual lust has been abandoned, gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

254. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

255. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a once-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

256. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a non-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. subtle anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. For a Worthy One, lust has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

257. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned... subtle anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. subtle anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

258. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. subtle anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

For a once-returner, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? Yes. For a non-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. subtle anger has been abandoned; does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

259. For a stream-enterer, identity view has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

For a stream-enterer, sceptical doubt has been abandoned, etc. delusion leading to the realms of misery has been abandoned; does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. For a once-returner, identity view has been abandoned, etc. gross anger has been abandoned; does a once-returner not fall away from the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

260. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned... conceit has been abandoned... wrong view has been abandoned... sceptical doubt has been abandoned... sloth has been abandoned... restlessness has been abandoned... shamelessness has been abandoned... moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust? Yes. If for a Worthy One the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the establishments of mindfulness have been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the right strivings have been developed... the bases for spiritual power have been developed... the faculties have been developed... the powers have been developed... the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for a Worthy One the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of lust, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the factors of enlightenment have been developed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

261. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, what should be realized has been realized? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

262. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? A temporarily liberated Worthy One falls away from arahantship, a perpetually liberated Worthy One does not fall away from arahantship. Does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

Does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, the establishments of mindfulness have been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the right strivings have been developed... the bases for spiritual power have been developed... the faculties have been developed... the powers have been developed... the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, the establishments of mindfulness have been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

A temporarily liberated Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, what should be realized has been realized, does a temporarily liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. A perpetually liberated Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized, does a perpetually liberated Worthy One fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

263. For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, lust has been abandoned; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, hate has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

For a perpetually liberated Worthy One, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a temporarily liberated Worthy One, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

A perpetually liberated Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; does a perpetually liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? Yes. A temporarily liberated Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; does a temporarily liberated Worthy One not fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

264. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Did the Elder Sāriputta fall away from arahantship? That should not be said. The Elder Mahāmoggallāna... the Elder Mahākassapa... the Elder Mahākaccāyana... the Elder Mahākoṭṭhika... did the Elder Mahāpanthaka fall away from arahantship? That should not be said.

Did the Elder Sāriputta not fall away from arahantship? Yes. If the Elder Sāriputta did not fall away from arahantship, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

The Elder Mahāmoggallāna... the Elder Mahākassapa... the Elder Mahākaccāyana... the Elder Mahākoṭṭhika... did the Elder Mahāpanthaka not fall away from arahantship? Yes. If the Elder Mahāpanthaka did not fall away from arahantship, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Comparison of Noble Persons.

3. Decline in Discourse Demonstration

265. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Various indeed are the practices, proclaimed by the ascetic;

They do not go to the beyond twice, nor is this sensed as once only."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is there something to be cut for one who has cut? That should not be said.

Is there something to be cut for one who has cut? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Free from craving, without grasping, for whom there is no function;

For one who has cut there is nothing to be cut, the mental flood and snare have been uprooted."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is something to be cut for one who has cut."

266. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Is there adding to what has been done? That should not be said.

Is there adding to what has been done? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"For that monk rightly liberated, with peaceful mind;

There is no adding to what has been done, nothing to be done is found.

"Just as a rock, one solid mass, is not moved by the wind;

So forms, flavours, sounds, odours and contacts, all these.

"Desirable and undesirable phenomena do not cause such a one to tremble;

The mind is steady, liberated, and he contemplates its passing away."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is adding to what has been done."

267. Should it not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, these five things lead to the decline of a monk who is temporarily liberated. Which five? Taking pleasure in work, taking pleasure in talk, taking pleasure in sleep, taking pleasure in company, and he does not review the mind as it is liberated. These, monks, are the five things that lead to the decline of a monk who is temporarily liberated." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a Worthy One falls away from arahantship.

Is there taking pleasure in work for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

Is there taking pleasure in work for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

Is there taking pleasure in talk for a Worthy One, is there taking pleasure in sleep for a Worthy One, is there taking pleasure in company for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

Is there taking pleasure in company for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

268. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. A Worthy One falling away from arahantship, overcome by what does he fall away? He falls away overcome by lust. Dependent on what does prepossession arise? It arises dependent on underlying tendency. Is there underlying tendency for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

Is there underlying tendency for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there for a Worthy One the underlying tendency to sensual lust, the underlying tendency to aversion, the underlying tendency to conceit, the underlying tendency to wrong view, the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt, the underlying tendency to lust for existence, the underlying tendency to ignorance? That should not be said.

He falls away overcome by hate, etc. He falls away overcome by delusion. Dependent on what does prepossession arise? It arises dependent on underlying tendency. Is there underlying tendency for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there underlying tendency for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there for a Worthy One the underlying tendency to sensual lust, etc. the underlying tendency to ignorance? That should not be said.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. For a Worthy One falling away from arahantship, what goes to production? Lust goes to production. Does identity view go to production, does sceptical doubt go to production, does adherence to moral rules and austerities go to production? That should not be said. Does hate go to production, etc. Does delusion go to production, does identity view go to production, does sceptical doubt go to production, does adherence to moral rules and austerities go to production? That should not be said.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Does a Worthy One accumulate? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One diminish? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One abandon? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One cling? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One scatter? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One heap up? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One extinguish? That should not be said. Does a Worthy One kindle? That should not be said.

Is it not that a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes; having diminished, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes, having diminished, stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Is it not that a Worthy One neither abandons nor clings; having abandoned, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither abandons nor clings, having abandoned, stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Is it not that a Worthy One neither scatters nor heaps up; having scattered, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither scatters nor heaps up, having scattered, stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

Is it not that a Worthy One neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, he stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One falls away from arahantship."

The Discussion on Decline is finished.

3. Discussion on Holy Life

1. Discussion on the Pure Holy Life

269. There is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Are all gods stupid, idiots, unintelligent, ones who speak with hand gestures, not competent to understand the meaning of what is well spoken and ill spoken, are all gods not devoted to the Buddha, not devoted to the Teaching, not devoted to the Community, do they not attend upon the Buddha, the Blessed One, do they not ask questions of the Buddha, the Blessed One, are they not delighted when questions are answered by the Buddha, the Blessed One, are all gods possessed of obstruction by kamma, possessed of obstruction by mental defilements, possessed of obstruction by kamma results, faithless, without desire, lacking wisdom, incapable of entering upon the fixed course, the right path, in wholesome mental states, are all gods matricides, patricides, killers of arahants, shedders of blood, schismatics, are all gods killers of living beings, takers of what is not given, those who engage in sexual misconduct, liars, speakers of divisive speech, speakers of harsh speech, idle chatterers, covetous, with minds of ill-will, holders of wrong views? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that there are gods who are not stupid, not idiots, intelligent, not ones who speak with hand gestures, competent to understand the meaning of what is well spoken and ill spoken, there are gods devoted to the Buddha, devoted to the Teaching, devoted to the Community, who attend upon the Buddha, the Blessed One, who ask questions of the Buddha, the Blessed One, who are delighted when questions are answered by the Buddha, the Blessed One, there are gods not possessed of obstruction by kamma, not possessed of obstruction by mental defilements, not possessed of obstruction by kamma results, with faith, with desire, wise, capable of entering upon the fixed course, the right path, in wholesome mental states, there are gods who are not matricides, not patricides, not killers of arahants, not shedders of blood, not schismatics, there are gods who are not killers of living beings, not takers of what is not given, not those who engage in sexual misconduct, not liars, not speakers of divisive speech, not speakers of harsh speech, not idle chatterers, not covetous, with minds without ill-will, holders of right views? Yes.

If there are gods who are not stupid, not idiots, intelligent, not ones who speak with hand gestures, competent to understand the meaning of what is well spoken and ill spoken, etc. there are gods devoted to the Buddha, etc. holders of right views, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no abiding by the holy life among the gods."

270. Is there abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Is there going forth, shaven-headedness, wearing of the orange robe, carrying of the bowl there, do Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise among the gods, do Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, does a pair of disciples arise? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no going forth among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where there is going forth, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no going forth, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where there is going forth, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no going forth, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. Whoever goes forth, only for him is there abiding by the holy life, whoever does not go forth, there is no abiding by the holy life for him? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no shaven-headedness among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where there is shaven-headedness, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no shaven-headedness, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where there is shaven-headedness, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no shaven-headedness, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. Whoever is shaven, only for him is there abiding by the holy life, whoever is not shaven, there is no abiding by the holy life for him? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no wearing of the orange robe among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where there is wearing of the orange robe, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no wearing of the orange robe, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where there is wearing of the orange robe, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no wearing of the orange robe, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. Whoever wears the orange robe, only for him is there abiding by the holy life, whoever does not wear the orange robe, there is no abiding by the holy life for him? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no carrying of the bowl among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where there is carrying of the bowl, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no carrying of the bowl, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where there is carrying of the bowl, only there is abiding by the holy life, where there is no carrying of the bowl, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. Whoever carries the bowl, only for him is there abiding by the holy life, whoever does not carry the bowl, there is no abiding by the holy life for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Perfectly Self-awakened Ones do not arise among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise, only there is abiding by the holy life; where Perfectly Self-awakened Ones do not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise, only there is abiding by the holy life; where Perfectly Self-awakened Ones do not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. The Blessed One was born in Lumbinī, fully awakened at the foot of the Bodhi tree, the wheel of the Teaching was set in motion by the Blessed One at Bārāṇasī; Only there is abiding by the holy life, there is no abiding by the holy life elsewhere? That should not be said. Etc.

Individually Self-awakened Ones do not arise among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, only there is abiding by the holy life; where Individually Self-awakened Ones do not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, only there is abiding by the holy life; where Individually Self-awakened Ones do not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. Individually Self-awakened Ones arise in the middle countries, only there is abiding by the holy life, there is no abiding by the holy life elsewhere? That should not be said. Etc.

A pair of disciples does not arise among the gods, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Where a pair of disciples arises, only there is abiding by the holy life; where a pair of disciples does not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? That should not be said. Etc. Where a pair of disciples arises, only there is abiding by the holy life; where a pair of disciples does not arise, there is no abiding by the holy life there? Yes. A pair of disciples arose in Magadha, only there is abiding by the holy life, there is no abiding by the holy life elsewhere? That should not be said. Etc.

271. Is there abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life among all the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abiding by the holy life among human beings? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life among all human beings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life among the non-percipient being gods? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abiding by the holy life among human beings? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life in the border districts among barbarians who do not understand, where there is no access for monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers? That should not be said.

Is there abiding by the holy life among the gods? There is where there is, there is where there is not. Among the non-percipient being gods there is where there is, there is where there is not abiding by the holy life, among the percipient being gods there is where there is, there is where there is not abiding by the holy life? That should not be said.

Among the gods there is where there is, there is where there is not abiding by the holy life? Yes. Where is there, where is there not? Among the non-percipient being gods there is no abiding by the holy life, among the percipient being gods there is abiding by the holy life. Among the non-percipient being gods there is no abiding by the holy life? Yes. Among the percipient being gods there is no abiding by the holy life? That should not be said.

Among the percipient being gods there is abiding by the holy life? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life among the non-percipient being gods? That should not be said.

Is there abiding by the holy life among human beings? There is where there is, there is where there is not. In the border districts is there where there is, is there where there is not abiding by the holy life among barbarians who do not understand, where there is no access for monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers, in the middle countries is there where there is, is there where there is not abiding by the holy life? That should not be said.

Among human beings is there where there is, is there where there is not abiding by the holy life? Yes. Where is there, where is there not? In the border districts there is no abiding by the holy life among barbarians who do not understand, where there is no access for monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers, in the middle countries there is abiding by the holy life. In the border districts there is no abiding by the holy life among barbarians who do not understand, where there is no access for monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers? Yes. In the middle countries there is no abiding by the holy life? That should not be said.

In the middle countries there is abiding by the holy life? Yes. Is there abiding by the holy life in the border districts among barbarians who do not understand, where there is no access for monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers? That should not be said.

Is there abiding by the holy life among the gods? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, by three states the human beings of the Indian subcontinent surpass both the human beings of Uttarakuru and the gods of the Thirty-three. With which three? They are courageous, mindful, and here is the abiding by the holy life." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is no abiding by the holy life among the gods.

At Sāvatthī it was said by the Blessed One - "Here is the abiding by the holy life"? Yes. Only at Sāvatthī is there abiding by the holy life, there is no abiding by the holy life elsewhere? That should not be said.

272. For a non-returner person, the five lower mental fetters are abandoned, the five higher mental fetters are not abandoned; having passed away from here and been reborn there, where is the acquisition of fruition? Right there. If for a non-returner person, the five lower mental fetters are abandoned, the five higher mental fetters are not abandoned, having passed away from here and been reborn there, there is the acquisition of fruition; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no abiding by the holy life among the gods."

For a non-returner person, the five lower mental fetters are abandoned, the five higher mental fetters are not abandoned; having passed away from here and been reborn there, where is the laying down of burden, where is suffering fully understood, where is the abandoning of mental defilements, where is the realization of cessation, where is the unshakeable penetration? Right there. If for a non-returner person, the five lower mental fetters are abandoned, the five higher mental fetters are not abandoned, having passed away from here and been reborn there, there is the unshakeable penetration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no abiding by the holy life among the gods."

For a non-returner person, the five lower mental fetters are abandoned, the five higher mental fetters are not abandoned; having passed away from here and been reborn there, there is the acquisition of fruition, there is the laying down of burden, there is suffering fully understood, there is the abandoning of mental defilements, there is the realization of cessation, there is the unshakeable penetration; in what sense do you say - "There is no abiding by the holy life among the gods"? Well then, because a non-returner person realizes the fruit there by means of the path developed here.

2. Discussion on the Holy Life by Comparison

273. Does a non-returner person realize the fruit there by means of the path developed here? Yes. Does a stream-enterer person realize the fruit here by means of the path developed there? That should not be said.

Does a non-returner person realize the fruit there by means of the path developed here? Yes. Does a once-returner person who attains final nibbāna here realize the fruit here by means of the path developed there? That should not be said.

Does a stream-enterer person realize the fruit here by means of the path developed here? Yes. Does a non-returner person realize the fruit there by means of the path developed there? That should not be said.

Does a once-returner person who attains final nibbāna here realize the fruit here by means of the path developed here? Yes. Does a non-returner person realize the fruit there by means of the path developed there? That should not be said. Etc.

For a person whose goal is having left here, is the path developed, and are mental defilements not abandoned? Yes. For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry, is the path developed, and are mental defilements not abandoned? That should not be said. Etc.

For a person whose goal is having left here, is the path developed, and are mental defilements not abandoned? Yes. For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, etc. For a person practising for the realisation of arahantship, is the path developed, and are mental defilements not abandoned? That should not be said. Etc.

For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry, simultaneously, is the path developed, and are mental defilements abandoned? Yes. For a person whose goal is having left here, simultaneously, is the path developed, and are mental defilements abandoned? That should not be said.

For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, etc. For a person practicing for the realisation of arahantship, simultaneously, is the path developed and are mental defilements abandoned? Yes. For a person whose goal is having left here, simultaneously, is the path developed, and are mental defilements abandoned? That should not be said.

Does a non-returner person who has done what was to be done, who has developed through development, is reborn there? Yes. Is a Worthy One reborn? That should not be said.

Is a Worthy One reborn? Yes. Is there rebirth for a Worthy One? That should not be said.

Is there rebirth for a Worthy One? Yes. Does a Worthy One go from existence to existence, from destination to destination, from wandering in the round of rebirths to wandering in the round of rebirths, from rebirth to rebirth? That should not be said.

Does a non-returner person who has done what was to be done, who has developed through development, whose burden has not been laid down, is reborn there? Yes. Does he again develop the path for the laying down of the burden? That should not be said.

Does a non-returner person who has done what was to be done, who has developed through development, whose burden has not been laid down, is reborn there, and does he not again develop the path for the laying down of the burden? Yes. And does he attain final nibbāna there with the burden not laid down? That should not be said.

Does a non-returner person who has done what was to be done, who has developed through development, whose suffering has not been fully understood, whose mental defilements have not been abandoned, whose cessation has not been realized, whose unshakeable has not been penetrated, is reborn there, and does he not again develop the path for the unshakeable penetration? Yes. And does he attain final nibbāna there with the unshakeable not penetrated? That should not be said. Just as a deer pierced by a dart, having gone even far, dies, just so a non-returner person realizes the fruit there by means of the path developed here.

Just as a deer pierced by a dart, having gone even far, dies with the dart still in it, so too does a non-returner person attain final nibbāna there with the dart still in it by means of the path developed here? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Holy Life is finished.

3. Discussion on Limitedly

274. Does one give up mental defilements limitedly by limit? Yes. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a stream-enterer, in part not a stream-enterer, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha, in the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in part not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into origin? One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a stream-enterer, in part not a stream-enterer... etc. in part endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in part not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into cessation? One gives up sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a stream-enterer, in part not a stream-enterer... etc. in part endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in part not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up adherence to moral rules and austerities and co-existent mental defilements. Is one in part a stream-enterer, in part not a stream-enterer, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha, in the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in part not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

275. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up gross sensual lust, gross anger, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a once-returner, in part not a once-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into origin? One gives up gross sensual lust, gross anger, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a once-returner, in part not a once-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into cessation? One gives up gross anger and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a once-returner, in part not a once-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up gross anger and co-existent mental defilements. Is one in part a once-returner, in part not a once-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

276. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a non-returner, in part not a non-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of non-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in part not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into origin? One gives up subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a non-returner, in part not a non-returner... etc. in part an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in part not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into cessation? One gives up subtle anger and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a non-returner, in part not a non-returner... etc. in part an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in part not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up co-existent mental defilements. Is one in part a non-returner, in part not a non-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of non-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in part not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

277. What does a person practising for the realisation of arahantship give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a Worthy One, in part not a Worthy One, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized arahantship, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, what should be realized has been realized, (in part what should be realized has been realized,) in part what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into origin? One gives up lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a Worthy One, in part not a Worthy One... etc. in part what should be realized has been realized, in part what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into cessation? One gives up conceit, restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements in part. Is one in part a Worthy One, in part not a Worthy One... etc. in part what should be realized has been realized, in part what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements. Is one in part a Worthy One, in part not a Worthy One, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized arahantship, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, what should be realized has been realized, in part what should be realized has been realized, in part what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

278. Should it not be said - "One gives up mental defilements limitedly by limit"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Gradually the wise one, little by little, moment by moment,

Like a smith with silver, should blow away one's own stain."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements limitedly by limit."

Does one give up mental defilements limitedly by limit? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Together with his accomplishment of vision,

Three things are given up;

Identity view and doubt,

And moral rules and austerities, whatever there is;

And free from the four realms of misery,

Incapable of doing the six grave actions."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements limitedly by limit."

Does one give up mental defilements limitedly by limit? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "At the time, monks, when the stainless, spotless eye of the Teaching arose in a noble disciple - 'Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of cessation,' together with the arising of vision, monks, three mental fetters are abandoned by the noble disciple - identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements limitedly by limit."

The Discussion on Limitedly is finished.

4. Discussion on Abandoning

1. Discussion on Not Bringing Discourse

279. Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger? Yes. Does he give up perpetually, give up completely, give up without reconnection, give up with the root, give up with craving, give up with underlying tendencies, give up by noble knowledge, give up by the noble path, give up while penetrating the unshakable, give up while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling suppress sensual lust and anger? Yes. Does he suppress perpetually, suppress completely, suppress without reconnection, suppress with the root, suppress with craving, suppress with underlying tendencies, suppress by noble knowledge, suppress by the noble path, suppress while penetrating the unshakable, suppress while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up sensual lust and anger, and does he give up perpetually, give up completely, etc. give up while realizing the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger, and does he give up perpetually, give up completely, etc. give up while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning suppress sensual lust and anger, and does he suppress perpetually, suppress completely, etc. suppress while realizing the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a worldling suppress sensual lust and anger, and does he suppress perpetually, suppress completely, etc. suppress while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger, and does he not give up perpetually, not give up completely, etc. not give up while realizing the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up sensual lust and anger, and does he not give up perpetually, etc. not give up while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling suppress sensual lust and anger, and does he not suppress perpetually, not suppress completely, etc. not suppress while realizing the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning suppress sensual lust and anger, and does he not suppress perpetually, not suppress completely, etc. not suppress while realizing the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger? Yes. By which path? By the fine-material-sphere path. Is the fine-material-sphere path leading to liberation, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, not subject to mental floods, not subject to mental bonds, not subject to mental hindrances, not adhered to, not subject to clinging, not defiling? That should not be said. Is not the fine-material-sphere path not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, not leading to enlightenment, not leading to non-accumulation, with mental corruptions, subject to mental fetters, etc. defiling? Yes. If the fine-material-sphere path is not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, etc. defiling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A worldling gives up sensual lust and anger by the fine-material-sphere path."

Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up sensual lust and anger by the path of non-returning, and is that path leading to liberation, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, etc. not defiling? Yes. Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger by the fine-material-sphere path, and is that path leading to liberation, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, etc. not defiling? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger by the fine-material-sphere path, and is that path not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, not leading to enlightenment, not leading to non-accumulation, with mental corruptions, etc. defiling? Yes. Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up sensual lust and anger by the path of non-returning, and is that path not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, not leading to enlightenment, not leading to non-accumulation, with mental corruptions, etc. defiling? That should not be said. Etc.

280. Does a worldling without lust towards sensual pleasures, together with the full realization of the teaching, remain in the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does he remain in arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling without lust towards sensual pleasures, together with the full realization of the teaching, remain in the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does he simultaneously develop the three paths? That should not be said. Etc.

Does he simultaneously develop the three paths? Yes. Does he simultaneously realize the three fruits of asceticism? That should not be said. Etc.

Does he simultaneously realize the three fruits of asceticism? Yes. Is there a combination of three contacts, three feelings, three perceptions, three volitions, three consciousnesses, three faiths, three energies, three mindfulnesses, three concentrations, and three wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a worldling without lust towards sensual pleasures, together with the full realization of the teaching, remain in the fruition of non-returning? Yes. By the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

By the path of once-returning? That should not be said. By which path? By the path of non-returning. Does one give up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

2. Discussion on Bringing Discourse

281. Does one give up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of non-returning? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of stream-entry is due to the abandoning of the three mental fetters? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of stream-entry is due to the abandoning of the three mental fetters, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of non-returning." Does one give up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one give up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of non-returning? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of non-returning."

Does a worldling without lust towards sensual pleasures, together with the full realization of the teaching, remain in the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Do all those who fully realise the teaching, together with the full realization of the teaching, remain in the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "A worldling gives up sensual lust and anger"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"There were in the past, six famous teachers;

Free from the odour of defilement, intent on compassion, gone beyond the fetter of sensuality.

"Having removed sensual lust, they were reborn in the Brahma world;

They had disciples, many hundreds too.

"Free from the odour of defilement, intent on compassion, gone beyond the fetter of sensuality;

Having removed sensual lust, they were reborn in the Brahma world."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a worldling gives up sensual lust and anger.

Does a worldling give up sensual lust and anger? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Yet indeed, monks, the teacher Sunetta, being so long-lived, so long-lasting, was not released from birth, from ageing, from death, from sorrows, from lamentations, from sufferings, from displeasures, from anguishes; he was not released from suffering, I say. What is the reason for this? Through not understanding, through not penetrating four things. Which four? Through not understanding, through not penetrating noble morality; through not understanding, through not penetrating noble concentration; through not understanding, through not penetrating noble wisdom; through not understanding, through not penetrating noble liberation. Monks, this noble morality has been understood and penetrated, noble concentration has been understood and penetrated, noble wisdom has been understood and penetrated, noble liberation has been understood and penetrated, craving for existence has been cut off, the conduit to existence has been eliminated, there is now no more rebirth.

"Morality, concentration, and wisdom, and unsurpassed liberation;

These things have been understood by Gotama of great fame.

"Thus the Buddha, having directly known, declared the Teaching to the monks;

The Teacher who makes an end of suffering, the one with vision, has attained final Nibbāna."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A worldling gives up sensual lust and anger."

The Discussion on Giving Up is finished.

5. Discussion on Everything Existing

1. Logical Consistency of the Argument

282. Does everything exist? Yes. Does everything exist everywhere? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. Does everything exist always? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. Does everything exist entirely in every way? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. Does everything exist in all things? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. Having made a non-connection, does everything exist? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. Does even what does not exist, exist? That should not be said. Does everything exist? Yes. The view that "everything exists" - that view is wrong view; the view that that view is right view - is it thus? That should not be said. (Abbreviated) Logical consistency of the argument.

2. Comparison by Time

283. Is there the past? Yes. Is not the past ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. If the past is ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the past."

Is there the future? Yes. Is not the future unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. If the future is unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the future."

Is there the present, and is the present not ceased, not disappeared, not changed, not passed away, not completely passed away? Yes. Is there the past, and is the past not ceased, not disappeared, not changed, not passed away, not completely passed away? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the present, and is the present born, come to be, produced, generated, fully generated, become manifest? Yes. Is there the future, and is the future born, come to be, produced, generated, fully generated, become manifest? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the past, and is the past ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. Is there the present, and is the present ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the future, and is the future unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. Is there the present, and is the present unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? That should not be said.

284. Is there past matter? Yes. Is not past matter ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. If past matter is ceased, etc. completely passed away, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is past matter."

Is there future matter? Yes. Is not future matter unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. If future matter is unborn, etc. not become manifest, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is future matter."

Is there present matter, and is present matter not ceased, not disappeared, not changed, not passed away, not completely passed away? Yes. Is there past matter, and is past matter not ceased, not disappeared, not changed, not passed away, not completely passed away? That should not be said.

Is there present matter, and is present matter born, come to be, produced, generated, fully generated, become manifest? Yes. Is there future matter, and is future matter born, come to be, produced, generated, fully generated, become manifest? That should not be said.

Is there past matter, and is past matter ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. Is there present matter, and is present matter ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? That should not be said.

Is there future matter, and is future matter unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. Is there present matter, and is present matter unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? That should not be said.

There is past feeling, etc. there is perception, there are activities, is there consciousness? Yes. Is not past consciousness ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. If past consciousness is ceased, etc. completely passed away, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is past consciousness."

Is there future consciousness? Yes. Is not future consciousness unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. If future consciousness is unborn, etc. not become manifest, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is future consciousness."

Is there present consciousness, and is present consciousness not ceased, etc. not completely passed away? Yes. Is there past consciousness, and is past consciousness not ceased, etc. not completely passed away? That should not be said.

Is there present consciousness, and is present consciousness born, etc. become manifest? Yes. Is there future consciousness, and is future consciousness born, etc. become manifest? That should not be said.

Is there past consciousness, and is past consciousness ceased, etc. completely passed away? Yes. Is there present consciousness, and is present consciousness ceased, etc. completely passed away? That should not be said. Is there future consciousness, and is future consciousness unborn, etc. not become manifest? Yes.

Is there present consciousness, and is present consciousness unborn, etc. not become manifest? That should not be said.

285. "Present" or "matter," or "matter" or "present," having made present matter inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. Does present matter when ceasing give up the state of being present? Yes. Does it give up the state of being matter? That should not be said. Etc.

"Present" or "matter," or "matter" or "present," having made present matter inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. Does present matter when ceasing not give up the state of being matter? Yes. Does it not give up the state of being present? That should not be said. Etc.

"White" or "cloth," or "cloth" or "white," having made white cloth inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. Does white cloth when being dyed give up the state of being white? Yes. Does it give up the state of being cloth? That should not be said.

"White" or "cloth," or "cloth" or "white," having made white cloth inseparable, are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? Yes. Does white cloth when being dyed not give up the state of being cloth? Yes. Does it not give up the state of being white? That should not be said. Etc.

286. Does matter not give up the state of being matter? Yes. Is matter permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Is it not that matter does not give up the state of being matter, and matter is impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If matter is impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter does not give up the state of being matter."

Does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Does matter not give up the state of being matter, and is matter permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Does matter not give up the state of being matter, and is matter impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the past, and does the past not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there the future, and does the future not give up the state of being future? That should not be said. Is there the past, and does the past not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there the present, and does the present not give up the state of being present? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the future, and does the future give up the state of being future? Yes. Is there the past, and does the past give up the state of being past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the present, and does the present give up the state of being present? Yes. Is there the past, and does the past give up the state of being past? That should not be said.

Is there the past, and does the past not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is the past permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is not the past impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If the past is impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the past, and the past does not give up the state of being past."

Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Is there the past, and does the past not give up the state of being past, and is the past permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the past, and does the past not give up the state of being past, and is the past impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

287. Is there past matter, and does past matter not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there future matter, and does future matter not give up the state of being future? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past matter, and does past matter not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there present matter, and does present matter not give up the state of being present? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there future matter, and does future matter give up the state of being future? Yes. Is there past matter, and does past matter give up the state of being past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there present matter, and does present matter give up the state of being present? Yes. Is there past matter, and does past matter give up the state of being past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past matter, and does past matter not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is past matter permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is not past matter impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If past matter is impermanent, etc. subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is past matter, and past matter does not give up the state of being past."

Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Is there past matter, and does past matter not give up the state of being past, and is past matter permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past matter, and does past matter not give up the state of being past, and is past matter impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

There is past feeling... there is past perception... there are past activities... Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there future consciousness, and does future consciousness not give up the state of being future? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is there present consciousness, and does present consciousness not give up the state of being present? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there future consciousness, and does future consciousness give up the state of being future? Yes. Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness give up the state of being past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there present consciousness, and does present consciousness give up the state of being present? Yes. Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness give up the state of being past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness not give up the state of being past? Yes. Is past consciousness permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is not past consciousness impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If past consciousness is impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is past consciousness, and past consciousness does not give up the state of being past."

Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness not give up the state of being past, and is past consciousness permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past consciousness, and does past consciousness not give up the state of being past, and is past consciousness impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Is there Nibbāna, and does Nibbāna not give up the state of being Nibbāna, and is Nibbāna impermanent, inconstant, non-eternal, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc.

Purification of Expression

288. Is there not the past? Yes. If there is not the past, "there is the past" is wrong. Or else if there is not the past, "there is the past" is wrong. Is there not the future? Yes. If there is not the future, "there is the future" is wrong. Or else if there is not the future, "there is the future" is wrong.

Having been future, does it become present? Yes. Is that very future that present? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very future that present? Yes. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? That should not be said. Etc. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? Yes. Not having been, does it not exist; not having been, does it not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been present, does it become past? Yes. Is that very present that past? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very present that past? Yes. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? That should not be said. Etc. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? Yes. Not having been, does it not exist; not having been, does it not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been future, does it become present; having been present, does it become past? Yes. Is that very same future that present, that past? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very same future that present, that past? Yes. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? That should not be said. Etc. Having been, does it exist; having been, does it exist? Yes. Not having been, does it not exist; not having been, does it not exist? That should not be said.

Discussion on Past Eye and Form and So Forth

289. Is there past eye, are there forms, is there eye-consciousness, is there light, is there attention? Yes. Does one see past form with the past eye? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past ear, are there sounds, is there ear-consciousness, is there space, is there attention? Yes. Does one hear past sound with the past ear? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past nose, are there odours, is there nose-consciousness, is there air, is there attention? Yes. Does one smell past odour with the past nose? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past tongue, are there flavours, is there tongue-consciousness, is there water, is there attention? Yes. Does one taste past flavour with the past tongue? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past body, are there tangible objects, is there body-consciousness, is there earth, is there attention? Yes. Does one touch past tangible object with the past body? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past mind, are there mental phenomena, is there mind-consciousness, is there sense-base, is there attention? Yes. Does one cognize past mental phenomenon with the past mind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there future eye, are there forms, is there eye-consciousness, is there light, is there attention? Yes. Does one see future form with the future eye? That should not be said. Etc. Is there future ear... Is there nose... Is there tongue... Is there body... Is there mind, are there mental phenomena, is there mind-consciousness, is there sense-base, is there attention? Yes. Does one cognize future mental phenomenon with the future mind? That should not be said. Etc.

There is present eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention; does one see present matter with the present eye? Yes. There is past eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention; does one see past matter with the past eye? That should not be said. Etc. There is present ear... Is there nose... Is there tongue... there is body... there is mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention; does one cognize present mental phenomena with the present mind? Yes. There is past mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention; does one cognize past mental phenomena with the past mind? That should not be said. Etc.

There is present eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention; does one see present matter with the present eye? Yes. There is future eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention; does one see future matter with the future eye? That should not be said. Etc. there is present ear... Is there nose... Is there tongue... there is body... there is mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention; does one cognize present mental phenomena with the present mind? Yes. There is future mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention; does one cognize future mental phenomena with the future mind? That should not be said. Etc.

There is past eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention, and does one not see past matter with the past eye? Yes. There is present eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention, and does one not see present matter with the present eye? That should not be said. Etc. there is past ear... Is there nose... Is there tongue... there is body... there is mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention, and does one not cognize past mental phenomena with the past mind? Yes. There is present mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention, and does one not cognize present mental phenomena with the present mind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the future eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention, and yet with the future eye one does not see future form? Yes. There is present eye, there are forms, there is eye-consciousness, there is light, there is attention, and does one not see present matter with the present eye? That should not be said. Etc. Is there future ear... Is there nose... Is there tongue... there is body... Is there the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is the sense-base, there is attention, and yet with the future mind one does not cognize future mental phenomena? Yes. There is present mind, there are mental phenomena, there is mind-consciousness, there is sense-base, there is attention, and does one not cognize present mental phenomena with the present mind? That should not be said. Etc.

Discussion on Past Knowledge and So Forth

290. Is there past knowledge? Yes. Does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there future knowledge? Yes. Does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

There is present knowledge; does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? Yes. There is past knowledge; does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. There is present knowledge; does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? Yes. There is past knowledge; does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. There is present knowledge; does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? Yes. There is future knowledge; does one perform the function of knowledge by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. There is present knowledge; does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? Yes. There is future knowledge; does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

There is past knowledge, and does one not perform the function of knowledge with that knowledge? Yes. There is present knowledge, and does one not perform the function of knowledge with that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. There is past knowledge, and does one not fully understand suffering with that knowledge, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path? Yes. There is present knowledge, and does one not fully understand suffering with that knowledge, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

There is future knowledge, and does one not perform the function of knowledge with that knowledge? Yes. There is present knowledge, and does one not perform the function of knowledge with that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. There is future knowledge, and does one not fully understand suffering with that knowledge, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path? Yes. There is present knowledge, and does one not fully understand suffering with that knowledge, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Discussion on Worthy Ones and So Forth

291. Is there past lust of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with lust on account of that lust? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past hate of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with hate on account of that hate? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past delusion of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with delusion on account of that delusion? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past conceit of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with conceit on account of that conceit? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past wrong view of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with wrong view on account of that wrong view? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past sceptical doubt of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with sceptical doubt on account of that sceptical doubt? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past sloth of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with sloth on account of that sloth? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past restlessness of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with restlessness on account of that restlessness? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past shamelessness of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with shamelessness on account of that shamelessness? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past moral fearlessness of a Worthy One? Yes. Is the Worthy One with moral fearlessness on account of that moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a non-returner? Yes. Is a non-returner one with that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a non-returner, there is past adherence to moral rules and austerities, there is past residual sensual lust, is there past residual anger? Yes. Is a non-returner one with corrupted mind due to that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a once-returner? Yes. Is a once-returner one with that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a once-returner, there is past adherence to moral rules and austerities, there is past gross sensual lust, is there past gross anger? Yes. Is a once-returner one with corrupted mind due to that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a stream-enterer? Yes. Is a stream-enterer one with that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a stream-enterer, there is past adherence to moral rules and austerities, there is past lust leading to the realms of misery, there is past hate leading to the realms of misery, is there past delusion leading to the realms of misery? Yes. Is a stream-enterer one with delusion due to that delusion? That should not be said. Etc.

292. Is there past lust for a worldling, is the worldling with lust on account of that lust? Yes. Is there past lust for a Worthy One, is the Worthy One with lust on account of that lust? That should not be said. Etc. there is past hate for a worldling, etc. is there past moral fearlessness, is the worldling without moral fear on account of that moral fearlessness? Yes. Is there past moral fearlessness for a Worthy One, is the Worthy One without moral fear on account of that moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a worldling, is the worldling one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view for a non-returner, is the non-returner one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a worldling, etc. is there past subtle anger, is the worldling one with corrupted mind on account of that anger? Yes. Is there past subtle anger for a non-returner, is the non-returner one with corrupted mind on account of that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a worldling, is the worldling one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view for a once-returner, is the once-returner one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a worldling, is there past gross anger, is the worldling one with corrupted mind on account of that anger? Yes. Is there past gross anger for a once-returner, is the once-returner one with corrupted mind on account of that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a worldling, is the worldling one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view for a stream-enterer, is the stream-enterer one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a worldling, etc. is there past delusion leading to the realms of misery, is the worldling with delusion on account of that delusion? Yes. Is there past delusion leading to the realms of misery for a stream-enterer, is the stream-enterer with delusion on account of that delusion? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past lust of a Worthy One, and is the Worthy One not with lust on account of that lust? Yes. Is there past lust of a worldling, and is the worldling not with lust on account of that lust? That should not be said. Etc. there is past hate of a Worthy One, etc. there is past moral fearlessness, and is the Worthy One not with moral fearlessness on account of that moral fearlessness? Yes. Is there past moral fearlessness of a worldling, and is the worldling not with moral fearlessness on account of that moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a non-returner, and is the non-returner not one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a non-returner, etc. there is past residual anger, and is the non-returner not one with corrupted mind due to that anger? Yes. Is there past residual anger of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with corrupted mind due to that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a once-returner, and is the once-returner not one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a once-returner, etc. there is past gross anger, and is the once-returner not one with corrupted mind due to that anger? Yes. Is there past gross anger of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with corrupted mind due to that anger? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past identity view for a stream-enterer, and is the stream-enterer not one with that view on account of that view? Yes. Is there past identity view of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with that view on account of that view? That should not be said. Etc. there is past sceptical doubt for a stream-enterer, etc. there is past delusion leading to the realms of misery, and is the stream-enterer not one with delusion on account of that delusion? Yes. Is there past delusion leading to the realms of misery of a worldling, and is the worldling not one with delusion on account of that delusion? That should not be said. Etc.

Discussion on Past Hands and So Forth

293. Are there past hands? Yes. When there are past hands, is picking up and putting down discerned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past feet? Yes. When there are past feet, is going forward and going back discerned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past joints? Yes. When there are past joints, is bending and stretching discerned? That should not be said. Etc. Is there a past belly? Yes. When there is a past belly, is hunger and thirst discerned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there a past body? Yes. Is the past body subject to lifting up and putting down, subject to cutting and breaking, common to crows, vultures, and hawks? That should not be said. Etc. Would poison penetrate the past body, would a knife penetrate, would fire penetrate? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible to bind the past body with bondage by fetters, to bind with bondage by ropes, to bind with bondage by chains, to bind with bondage to a village, to bind with bondage to a market town, to bind with bondage to a city, to bind with bondage to a province, to bind with the five bonds including the neck? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past water? Yes. Does one do with that water what is to be done with water? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past fire? Yes. Does one do with that fire what is to be done with fire? That should not be said. Etc. Is there past air? Yes. Does one do with that air what is to be done with air? That should not be said. Etc.

Discussion on Combination of Past Aggregates and So Forth

294. Is there past aggregate of material body, is there future aggregate of material body, is there present aggregate of material body? Yes. Are there three aggregates of material body? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past five aggregates, are there future five aggregates, are there present five aggregates? Yes. Are there fifteen aggregates? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past eye sense base, is there future eye sense base, is there present eye sense base? Yes. Are there three eye sense bases? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past twelve sense bases, are there future twelve sense bases, are there present twelve sense bases? Yes. Are there thirty-six sense bases? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past eye-element, is there future eye-element, is there present eye-element? Yes. Are there three eye-elements? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past eighteen elements, are there future eighteen elements, are there present eighteen elements? Yes. Are there fifty-four elements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there past eye-faculty, is there future eye-faculty, is there present eye-faculty? Yes. Are there three eye-faculties? That should not be said. Etc. Are there past twenty-two faculties, are there future twenty-two faculties, are there present twenty-two faculties? Yes. Are there sixty-six faculties? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there a past universal monarch, is there a future universal monarch, is there a present universal monarch? Yes. Is there a simultaneous presence of three universal monarchs? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there a past Perfectly Self-awakened One, is there a future Perfectly Self-awakened One, is there a present Perfectly Self-awakened One? Yes. Is there a simultaneous presence of three Perfectly Self-awakened Ones? That should not be said. Etc.

Discussion on Purification of Terms

295. Is there the past? Yes. Is there the past? There is what may be past, what may not be past.

Acknowledge the refutation. If there is the past, there is what may be past, what may not be past, therefore the past is not the past, not the past is the past. What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the past, there is what may be past, what may not be past, therefore the past is not the past, not the past is the past'" - is wrong.

But if the past is not not the past, not the past is not the past, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the past, there is what may be past, what may not be past." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the past, there is what may be past, what may not be past, therefore the past is not the past, not the past is the past'" - is wrong.

Is there the future? Yes. Is there the future? There is what may be future, what may not be future.

Acknowledge the refutation. If there is the future, there is what may be future, what may not be future, therefore the future is not the future, not the future is the future. What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the future, there is what may be future, what may not be future, therefore the future is not the future, not the future is the future'" - is wrong.

But if the future is not not the future, not the future is not the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the future, there is what may be future, what may not be future." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the future, there is what may be future, what may not be future, therefore the future is not the future, not the future is the future'" - is wrong.

Is there the present? Yes. Is there the present? There is what may be present, what may not be present.

Acknowledge the refutation. If there is the present, there is, may be the present, may not be the present, on account of it the present is not the present, not the present is the present. What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the present, there is, may be the present, may not be the present, on account of it the present is not the present, not the present is the present'" - is wrong.

But if the present is not not the present, not the present is not the present, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is the present, there is, may be the present, may not be the present." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is the present, there is, may be the present, may not be the present, on account of it the present is not the present, not the present is the present'" - is wrong.

Is there Nibbāna? Yes. Is there Nibbāna? There is, may be Nibbāna, may not be Nibbāna.

Acknowledge the refutation. If there is Nibbāna, there is, may be Nibbāna, may not be Nibbāna, on account of it Nibbāna is not Nibbāna, not Nibbāna is Nibbāna. What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is Nibbāna, there is, may be Nibbāna, may not be Nibbāna, on account of it Nibbāna is not Nibbāna, not Nibbāna is Nibbāna'" - is wrong.

But if Nibbāna is not not Nibbāna, not Nibbāna is not Nibbāna, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is Nibbāna, there is, may be Nibbāna, may not be Nibbāna." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'There is Nibbāna, there is, may be Nibbāna, may not be Nibbāna, on account of it Nibbāna is not Nibbāna, not Nibbāna is Nibbāna'" - is wrong.

Establishment by Discourse

296. Should it not be said - "There is the past, there is the future"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Whatever materiality, monks, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether far or near - this is called the aggregate of matter. Whatever feeling... whatever perception... whatever activities... whatever consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether far or near - this is called the aggregate of consciousness." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is the past, there is the future.

There is the past, there is the future? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are these three, monks, ranges of language, ranges of designation, ranges of concepts, unmixed, unmixed before, are not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise. Which three? Whatever matter, monks, is past, ceased, disappeared, changed - 'it was' is its term, 'it was' is its designation, 'it was' is its concept; not its term 'it is', not its term 'it will be'. Whatever feeling... etc. whatever perception... whatever activities... whatever consciousness is past, ceased, disappeared, changed - 'it was' is its term, 'it was' is its designation, 'it was' is its concept; not its term 'it is', not its term 'it will be'.

Whatever matter, monks, is unborn, not yet manifest - 'it will be' is its term, 'it will be' is its designation, 'it will be' is its concept; not its term 'it is', not its term 'it was'. Whatever feeling... etc. whatever perception... whatever activities... whatever consciousness is unborn, not yet manifest - 'it will be' is its term, 'it will be' is its designation, 'it will be' is its concept; not its term 'it is', not its term 'it was'.

"Whatever matter, monks, has arisen, has become manifest - 'it is' is its term, 'it is' is its designation, 'it is' is its concept; not its term 'it was', not its term 'it will be'. Whatever feeling... etc. whatever perception... whatever activities... whatever consciousness has arisen, has become manifest - 'it is' is its term, 'it is' is its designation, 'it is' is its concept; not its term 'it was', not its term 'it will be'. These, monks, are the three ranges of language, ranges of designation, ranges of concepts, unmixed, unmixed before, are not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise.

Even those, monks, who were the Ukkalā and Vassabhaññā, proponents of noncausality, proponents of the inefficacy of action, proponents of nihilism, even they did not think these three ranges of language, ranges of designation, ranges of concepts should be censured and protested against. What is the reason for this? Because of fear of blame, anger, and reproof." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is the past, there is the future."

Is there the past? Yes. Did not the Venerable Phagguna say this to the Blessed One - "Is there indeed, venerable sir, that eye, by which eye one describing the Buddhas of the past who have attained final Nibbāna, who have cut off obsession, who have cut off the path, who have exhausted the round of rebirths, who have transcended all suffering, might describe them?" Is there indeed, venerable sir, that tongue... etc. Is there indeed, venerable sir, that mind, by which mind one describing the Buddhas of the past who have attained final Nibbāna, who have cut off obsession, who have cut off the path, who have exhausted the round of rebirths, who have transcended all suffering, might describe them?"

"There is not indeed, Phagguna, that eye, by which eye one describing the Buddhas of the past who have attained final Nibbāna, who have cut off obsession, who have cut off the path, who have exhausted the round of rebirths, who have transcended all suffering, might describe them. There is not indeed, Phagguna, that tongue... etc. There is not indeed, Phagguna, that mind, by which mind one describing the Buddhas of the past who have attained final Nibbāna, who have cut off obsession, who have cut off the path, who have exhausted the round of rebirths, who have transcended all suffering, might describe them." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "There is the past."

Is there the past? Yes. Did not the Venerable Nandaka say this - "Formerly there was greed, that was unwholesome, that now does not exist, thus this is wholesome. Formerly there was hate... formerly there was delusion, that was unwholesome, that now does not exist, thus this is wholesome." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "There is the past."

Should it not be said - "There is the future"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "If, monks, regarding edible food there is lust, there is delight, there is craving; consciousness is established there and has grown. Where consciousness is established and has grown, there is a descent of mentality-materiality. Where there is a descent of mentality-materiality, there is growth of activities. Where there is growth of activities, there is the production of rebirth in the future. Where there is the production of rebirth in the future, there is birth, ageing and death in the future. Where there is birth, ageing and death in the future, that, monks, I say is with sorrow, with defilement, with anguish.

"If, monks, regarding contact as nutriment... if, monks, regarding mental volition as nutriment, if, monks, regarding consciousness as nutriment there is lust, there is delight... etc. with defilement, with anguish, I say." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is the future.

Is there the future? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "If, monks, regarding edible food there is no lust, there is no delight, there is no craving; consciousness there is unestablished, not grown. Where consciousness is unestablished, not grown, there is no descent of mentality-materiality. Where there is no descent of mentality-materiality, there is no growth of activities. Where there is no growth of activities, there is no production of rebirth in the future. Where there is no production of rebirth in the future, there is no birth, ageing, and death in the future. Where there is no birth, ageing and death in the future, that, monks, I say is without sorrow, without defilement, without anguish.

"If, monks, regarding contact as nutriment... if, monks, regarding mental volition as nutriment, if, monks, regarding consciousness as nutriment there is no lust, there is no delight... etc. without defilement, without anguish, I say." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "There is the future."

The Discussion on All Exists is finished.

6. Discussion on Past Aggregates and So Forth

1. Non-establishment by Discourse

297. Is the past aggregates? Yes. Is there the past? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past sense bases? Yes. Is there the past? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past elements? Yes. Is there the past? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past aggregates, elements, sense bases? Yes. Is there the past? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the future aggregates? Yes. Is there the future? That should not be said. Etc. Is the future sense bases? Yes. Is there the future? That should not be said. Etc. Is the future elements? Yes. Is there the future? That should not be said. Etc. Is the future aggregates, elements, sense bases? Yes. Is there the future? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the present aggregates present existence? Yes. Are the past aggregates past existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is the present sense base present existence? Yes. Is the past sense base past existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is the present element present existence? Yes. Is the past element past existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are the present aggregates, elements, and sense bases present existence? Yes. Are the past aggregates, elements, and sense bases past existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the present aggregates present existence? Yes. Are the future aggregates future existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is the present sense base present existence? Yes. Is the future sense base future existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is the present element present existence? Yes. Is the future element future existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are the present aggregates, elements, and sense bases present existence? Yes. Are the future aggregates, elements, and sense bases future existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the past aggregates, the past does not exist? Yes. Is the present aggregates, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past sense base, the past does not exist? Yes. Is the present sense base, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past element, the past does not exist? Yes. Is the present element, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past aggregates, elements, sense bases, the past does not exist? Yes. Is the present aggregates, elements, sense bases, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the future aggregates, the future does not exist? Yes. Is the present aggregates, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. The future sense base, etc. The future element, etc. Is the future aggregates, elements, sense bases, the future does not exist? Yes. Is the present aggregates, elements, sense bases, the present does not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Is past matter an aggregate? Yes. Is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is past matter a sense base? Yes. Is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is past matter an element? Yes. Is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is past matter aggregates, elements, sense bases? Yes. Is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Is future matter an aggregate? Yes. Is there future matter? That should not be said. Etc. future matter is a sense base, etc. future matter is an element, etc. Is future matter an aggregate, element, and sense base? Yes. Is there future matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Is present matter an aggregate, and is there present matter? Yes. Is past matter an aggregate, and is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc. present matter is a sense base, etc. present matter is an element, etc. Is present matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there present matter? Yes. Is past matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there past matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Is present matter an aggregate, and is there present matter? Yes. Is future matter an aggregate, and is there future matter? That should not be said. Etc. present matter is a sense base, etc. present matter is an element, etc. Is present matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there present matter? Yes. Is future matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there future matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Is past matter an aggregate, and is there no past matter? Yes. Is present matter an aggregate, and is there no present matter? That should not be said. Etc. past matter is a sense base, etc. past matter is an element, etc. Is past matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there no past matter? Yes. Is present matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there no present matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Is future matter an aggregate, and is there no future matter? Yes. Is present matter an aggregate, and is there no present matter? That should not be said. Etc. future matter is a sense base, etc. future matter is an element, etc. Is future matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there no future matter? Yes. Is present matter an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there no present matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Past feeling... past perception... past activities... Is past consciousness an aggregate? Yes. Is there past consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. past consciousness is a sense base, etc. past consciousness is an element, etc. Is past consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base? Yes. Is there past consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is future consciousness an aggregate? Yes. Is there future consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. future consciousness is a sense base, etc. future consciousness is an element, etc. Is future consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base? Yes. Is there future consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is present consciousness an aggregate, and is there present consciousness? Yes. Is past consciousness an aggregate, and is there past consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. present consciousness is a sense base, etc. present consciousness is an element, etc. Is present consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there present consciousness? Yes. Is past consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there past consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is present consciousness an aggregate, and is there present consciousness? Yes. Is future consciousness an aggregate, and is there future consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. present consciousness is a sense base, etc. present consciousness is an element, etc. Is present consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there present consciousness? Yes. Is future consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is there future consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is past consciousness an aggregate, and is past consciousness non-existent? Yes. Is present consciousness an aggregate, and is present consciousness non-existent? That should not be said. Etc. Past consciousness is a sense base, etc. past consciousness is an element, etc. Is past consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is past consciousness non-existent? Yes. Is present consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is present consciousness non-existent? That should not be said. Etc. Is future consciousness an aggregate, and is future consciousness non-existent? Yes. Is present consciousness an aggregate, and is present consciousness non-existent? That should not be said. Etc. future consciousness is a sense base, etc. future consciousness is an element, etc. Is future consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is future consciousness non-existent? Yes. Is present consciousness an aggregate, element, and sense base, and is present consciousness non-existent? That should not be said. Etc.

2. Establishment by Discourse

298. Should it not be said - "Past and future aggregates, elements, and sense bases do not exist"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are these three, monks, ranges of language, ranges of designation, ranges of concepts... etc. by the wise"... etc. Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Past and future aggregates, elements, and sense bases do not exist."

Past and future aggregates, elements, and sense bases do not exist? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Whatever materiality, monks, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, whether far or near, this is called the aggregate of matter. Whatever feeling... whatever perception... whatever activities... whatever consciousness, past, future, or present... etc. this is called the aggregate of consciousness." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Past and future aggregates, elements, and sense bases do not exist."

The Discussion on Past Aggregates and so on is finished.

7. Discussion on Partial Existence

1. Discussion on Some Past and So Forth

299. Is there the past? Some exists, some does not exist. Some has ceased, some has not ceased; some has disappeared, some has not disappeared; some has passed away, some has not passed away; some has completely passed away, some has not completely passed away? That should not be said. Etc.

Some of the past exists, some does not exist? Yes. Do some past phenomena with unripened result exist, and some do not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Some of the past exists, some does not exist? Yes. Do some past phenomena with ripened result exist, and some do not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Some of the past exists, some does not exist? Yes. Do some past resultless phenomena exist, and some do not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Some of the past exists, some does not exist? Yes. What exists, what does not exist? Past phenomena with unripened result - they exist; past phenomena with ripened result - they do not exist. Past phenomena with unripened result - do they exist? Yes. Past phenomena with ripened result - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc. Past phenomena with unripened result - do they exist? Yes. Past resultless phenomena - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past phenomena with ripened result - do they not exist? Yes. Past phenomena with unripened result - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past resultless phenomena - do they not exist? Yes. Past phenomena with unripened result - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past phenomena with unripened result - do they exist? Yes. Surely past phenomena with unripened result have ceased? Yes. If past phenomena with unripened result have ceased, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Past phenomena with unripened result - they exist."

Past phenomena with unripened result have ceased - do they exist? Yes. Past phenomena with ripened result have ceased - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc. Past phenomena with unripened result have ceased - do they exist? Yes. Past resultless phenomena have ceased - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past phenomena with ripened result have ceased - do they not exist? Yes. Past phenomena with unripened result have ceased - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past resultless phenomena have ceased - do they not exist? Yes. Past phenomena with unripened result have ceased - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Past phenomena with unripened result have ceased - do they exist? Yes. Past phenomena with ripened result have ceased - do they not exist? Yes. Past phenomena in part with ripened result, in part with unripened result have ceased - do some exist and some not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "Past phenomena with unripened result - they exist"? Yes. Surely past phenomena with unripened result will ripen? Yes. If past phenomena with unripened result will ripen, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Past phenomena with unripened result - they exist."

Past states with unripened result - having made them as "they will ripen", are they present? Yes. Having made them as "they will ripen", are they present? That should not be said. Etc. Having made them as "they will ripen", are they present? Yes. Present states - having made them as "they will cease", are they non-existent? That should not be said. Etc.

2. Discussion on Some Future and So Forth

300. Is there the future? Some exists, some does not exist. Some is born, some is unborn; some is produced, some is not produced; some is generated, some is not generated; some has become manifest, some has not become manifest? That should not be said. Etc.

Some of the future exists, some does not exist? Yes. Do some future phenomena subject to arise exist, and some do not exist? That should not be said. Etc. Some of the future exists, some does not exist? Yes. Do some future phenomena not subject to arise exist, and some do not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Some of the future exists, some does not exist? Yes. What exists, what does not exist? Future phenomena subject to arise - they exist; future phenomena not subject to arise - they do not exist. Future phenomena subject to arise - do they exist? Yes. Future phenomena not subject to arise - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc. future phenomena not subject to arise - do they not exist? Yes. Future phenomena subject to arise - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Future phenomena subject to arise - do they exist? Yes. Are not future states subject to arise unborn? Yes. If future states subject to arise are unborn, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "future states subject to arise - they exist."

Future states subject to arise are unborn - do they exist? Yes. Future states not subject to arise are unborn - do they exist? That should not be said. Etc. future states not subject to arise are unborn - do they not exist? Yes. Future states subject to arise are unborn - do they not exist? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "future states subject to arise - they exist"? Yes. Are not future states subject to arise going to arise? Yes. If future states subject to arise will arise, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "future states subject to arise - they exist."

Future states subject to arise - having made them as "they will arise", do they exist? Yes. Having made them as "they will arise", are they present? That should not be said. Etc. having made them as "they will arise", are they present? Yes. Present states - having made them as "they will cease", are they non-existent? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Some Exists is finished.

8. Discussion on the Establishment of Mindfulness

301. Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Are all phenomena mindfulness, mindfulness faculty, power of mindfulness, right mindfulness, enlightenment factor of mindfulness, the direct path, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, not subject to mental floods, not subject to mental bonds, not subject to mental hindrances, not adhered to, not subject to clinging, not subject to mental defilement; are all phenomena recollection of the Buddha, recollection of the Teaching, recollection of the Community, recollection of morality, recollection of generosity, recollection of the deities, mindfulness of breathing, recollection of death, mindfulness of the body, recollection of peace? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Is the eye sense base an establishment of mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the eye sense base an establishment of mindfulness? Yes. Is the eye sense base mindfulness, mindfulness faculty, power of mindfulness, right mindfulness, enlightenment factor of mindfulness, the direct path, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, not subject to mental fetters, etc. not subject to mental defilement; is the eye sense base recollection of the Buddha, recollection of the Teaching, recollection of the Community, recollection of morality, recollection of generosity, recollection of the deities, mindfulness of breathing, recollection of death, mindfulness of the body, recollection of peace? That should not be said. Etc. The ear sense base... the nose sense base... the tongue sense base... the body sense base... the visible form sense base... the sound sense base... the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. The touch sense base... lust... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... Shamelessness... Is moral fearlessness an establishment of mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc. Is moral fearlessness an establishment of mindfulness? Yes. Is moral fearlessness mindfulness, mindfulness faculty, power of mindfulness, right mindfulness, etc. mindfulness of the body, recollection of peace? That should not be said. Etc.

Is mindfulness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that mindfulness? Yes. Is the eye sense base an establishment of mindfulness, and is that mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc. Is mindfulness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that mindfulness? Yes. The ear sense base... etc. the body sense base... visible form sense base... etc. The touch sense base... lust... hate... delusion... etc. Is moral fearlessness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the eye sense base an establishment of mindfulness, and is that not mindfulness? Yes. Is mindfulness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that not mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc. the ear sense base... etc. the body sense base... visible form sense base... etc. The touch sense base... lust... hate... delusion... etc. Is moral fearlessness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that not mindfulness? Yes. Is mindfulness an establishment of mindfulness, and is that not mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc.

302. Should it not be said - "All phenomena are establishments of mindfulness"? Yes. Is it not that mindfulness remains settled referring to all phenomena? Yes. If mindfulness remains settled referring to all phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "All phenomena are establishments of mindfulness."

Because mindfulness remains settled referring to all phenomena, are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Because contact remains settled referring to all phenomena, are all phenomena establishments of contact? That should not be said. Etc.

Because mindfulness remains settled referring to all phenomena, are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Feeling remains settled referring to all phenomena... perception remains settled... volition remains settled... because consciousness remains settled, are all phenomena establishments of consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. All beings are mindful, endowed with mindfulness, covered with mindfulness; is mindfulness present for all beings? That should not be said. Etc.

303. Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Those, monks, do not consume the Deathless who do not consume mindfulness of the body. Those, monks, consume the Deathless who consume mindfulness of the body." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Do all beings consume, obtain, practise, develop and cultivate mindfulness of the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, this is the one-way path for the purification of beings, for the transcendence of sorrow and lamentation, for the passing away of pain and displeasure, for the achievement of the true method, for the realisation of Nibbāna, that is to say, the four establishments of mindfulness"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. Are all phenomena the one-way path? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, with the manifestation of a wheel-turning monarch, there is the manifestation of seven treasures. Which seven? There is the manifestation of the wheel treasure, there is the manifestation of the elephant treasure, of the horse treasure... of the jewel treasure... of the woman treasure... of the householder treasure... there is the manifestation of the adviser treasure. Monks, with the manifestation of a wheel-turning monarch, there is the manifestation of these seven treasures.

"Monks, with the manifestation of the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One, there is the manifestation of seven enlightenment factor treasures. Which seven? There is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of investigation of phenomena treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of energy treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of rapture treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of tranquillity treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of concentration treasure, there is the manifestation of the enlightenment factor of equanimity treasure. Monks, with the manifestation of the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One, there is the manifestation of these seven enlightenment factor treasures." Is there such a discourse? Yes. With the manifestation of the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One, are all phenomena only the enlightenment factor of mindfulness treasure? That should not be said. Etc. Are all phenomena establishments of mindfulness? Yes. Are all phenomena right strivings... bases for spiritual power... faculties... powers... factors of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on the Establishment of Mindfulness is concluded.

9. Discussion on Existence in Immutable Modes

304. Is there the past? Indeed exists, indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, the meaning of non-existence is the meaning of existence, the state of existence is the state of non-existence, the state of non-existence is the state of existence, "there is" or "there is not," "there is not" or "there is" - are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the future? Indeed exists, indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, the meaning of non-existence is the meaning of existence, the state of existence is the state of non-existence, the state of non-existence is the state of existence, "there is" or "there is not," "there is not" or "there is" - are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the present? Indeed exists, indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

305. The past indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. What therein exists, what therein does not exist? The past as past indeed exists, the past as future indeed does not exist, the past as present indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, the meaning of non-existence is the meaning of existence, the state of existence is the state of non-existence, the state of non-existence is the state of existence, "there is" or "there is not," "there is not" or "there is" - are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

The future indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. What therein exists, what therein does not exist? The future as future indeed exists, the future as past indeed does not exist, the future as present indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, the meaning of non-existence is the meaning of existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

The present indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. What therein exists, what therein does not exist? The present as present indeed exists, the present as past indeed does not exist, the present as future indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "The past indeed exists, indeed does not exist; the future indeed exists, indeed does not exist; the present indeed exists, indeed does not exist"? Yes. The past is the future indeed exists, the past is the present indeed exists, the future is the past indeed exists, the future is the present indeed exists, the present is the past indeed exists, the present is the future indeed exists? That should not be said. Etc. If so, the past indeed exists, indeed does not exist, the future indeed exists, indeed does not exist, the present indeed exists, indeed does not exist.

306. Is there matter? Indeed exists, indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, the meaning of non-existence is the meaning of existence, the state of existence is the state of non-existence, the state of non-existence is the state of existence, "there is" or "there is not," "there is not" or "there is" - are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... perception... activities... is there consciousness? Indeed exists, indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Matter indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. What therein exists, what therein does not exist? Matter is matter - this indeed exists, matter is feeling - this indeed does not exist. Etc. matter is perception - this indeed does not exist. Etc. matter is activities - this indeed does not exist. Etc. matter is consciousness - this indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... perception... activities... consciousness indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. What therein exists, what therein does not exist? Consciousness is consciousness indeed exists. Consciousness is matter indeed does not exist, etc. consciousness is feeling indeed does not exist, etc. consciousness is perception indeed does not exist, etc. consciousness is activities indeed does not exist. It thus exists, it thus does not exist? That should not be said. Etc. it thus exists, it thus does not exist? Yes. The meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence, etc. equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "matter indeed exists, indeed does not exist; feeling... perception... activities... consciousness indeed exists, indeed does not exist? Yes. Matter is feeling indeed exists, etc. matter is perception indeed exists, etc. matter is activities indeed exists, etc. matter is consciousness indeed exists... feeling... perception... activities... consciousness is matter indeed exists... consciousness is feeling indeed exists... consciousness is perception indeed exists... consciousness is activities indeed exists? That should not be said. Etc. if so, matter indeed exists, indeed does not exist; feeling... perception... activities... consciousness indeed exists, indeed does not exist.

The Discussion on Indeed Exists is finished.

Its summary:

Having got, decline, abiding by the holy life, limitedly;

Full understanding, abandoning of sensual lust, the theory of all exists, sense base;

Past and future, beautiful factor, all phenomena are establishments of mindfulness.

Indeed exists, indeed does not exist.

The First Chapter

The Great Chapter.

2. The Second Chapter

(10) 1.

Discussion on Gifts from Others

307. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for a Worthy One? Yes. If there is not lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Is there emission of semen for a worldling, is there lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire for him? Yes. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One, is there lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. mental hindrance of sensual desire for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One, is there not lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. mental hindrance of sensual desire for him? Yes. Is there emission of semen for a worldling, is there not lust, sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. mental hindrance of sensual desire for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. For what purpose? Well then, because deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One.

Do deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there emission of semen for deities belonging to Māra's retinue? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not emission of semen for deities belonging to Māra's retinue? Yes. If there is not emission of semen for deities belonging to Māra's retinue, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Do deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Do the deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring their own semen, emission of semen, bring others' semen, emission of semen, bring his semen, emission of semen? That should not be said. Etc.

Do the deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring neither their own nor others' nor his semen, emission of semen? Yes. If the deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring neither their own nor others' nor his semen, emission of semen, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Do deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Do they bring it through the pores? That should not be said. Etc.

308. Do deities belonging to Māra's retinue bring about emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Why? Well then, because we will cause doubt. Is there doubt for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there doubt for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there doubt about the Teacher for a Worthy One, doubt about the Teaching, doubt about the Community, doubt about the training, doubt about the past, doubt about the future, doubt about both the past and the future, doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not doubt about the Teacher for a Worthy One, doubt about the Teaching, doubt about the Community, doubt about the training, doubt about the past, doubt about the future, doubt about both the past and the future, doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. If there is not doubt about the Teacher for a Worthy One, etc. doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is doubt for a Worthy One."

Is there doubt for a worldling, is there doubt about the Teacher for him, etc. doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there doubt for a Worthy One, is there doubt about the Teacher for him, etc. doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there doubt for a Worthy One, is there not doubt about the Teacher for him, etc. doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there doubt for a worldling, is there not doubt about the Teacher for him, etc. doubt about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. The emission of semen for a Worthy One is the discharge of what? It is the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted. Is the emission of semen for a Worthy One the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted? Yes. Is there emission of semen for all those who eat, drink, chew and taste? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there emission of semen for all those who eat, drink, chew and taste? Yes. Children eat, drink, chew, and taste; is there emission of semen for children? That should not be said.

Eunuchs eat, drink, chew, and taste; is there emission of semen for eunuchs? That should not be said. Etc.

Gods eat, drink, chew, and taste; is there emission of semen for deities? That should not be said. Etc.

309. Is the emission of semen for a Worthy One the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted? Yes. Is there a dwelling place for it? That should not be said. Etc.

Faeces and urine for a Worthy One are the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted, is there a dwelling place for them? Yes. The emission of semen for a Worthy One is the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted, is there a dwelling place for it? That should not be said. Etc.

The emission of semen for a Worthy One is the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted, is there no dwelling place for it? Yes. Faeces and urine for a Worthy One are the discharge of what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted, is there no dwelling place for them? That should not be said. Etc.

310. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Would a Worthy One engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver? That should not be said.

Is there emission of semen for a worldling, would a worldling engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver? Yes. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One, would a Worthy One engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One not engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver? Yes. Is there emission of semen for a worldling, and would a worldling not engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver? That should not be said.

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned... conceit has been abandoned... wrong view has been abandoned... sceptical doubt has been abandoned... sloth has been abandoned... restlessness has been abandoned... shamelessness has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

311. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust? Yes. If for a Worthy One the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the establishments of mindfulness have been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the right strivings have been developed... the bases for spiritual power have been developed... the faculties have been developed... the powers have been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for a Worthy One the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of lust, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the factors of enlightenment have been developed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, what should be realized has been realized? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, one who has done what was to be done, etc. what should be realized has been realized, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

312. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching there is emission of semen, for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings there is not emission of semen. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? Yes. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not emission of semen for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? Yes. Is there not emission of semen for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there emission of semen for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there no emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there no emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there no emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there no emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there no emission of semen for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of moral fearlessness; is there no emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no emission of semen for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no emission of semen for him? That should not be said. Etc.

313. Is there emission of semen for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Those monks, monks, who are worldlings accomplished in morality, mindful and fully aware when falling into sleep, for them semen is not emitted. Even those, monks, who are external sages without lust for sensual pleasures, for them too semen is not emitted. This is impossible, monks, there is no chance that a Worthy One should emit semen." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is emission of semen for a Worthy One."

Should it not be said - "there is a gift from others for a Worthy One"? Yes. Is it not that others would bring forward the requisites of robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicine for the sick for a Worthy One? Yes. If others would bring forward the requisites of robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicine for the sick for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there is a gift from others for a Worthy One."

Others would bring forward the requisites of robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicine for the sick for a Worthy One, is there a gift from others for a Worthy One? Yes. Would others bring forward the fruition of stream-entry or the fruition of once-returning or the fruition of non-returning or arahantship for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Gifts from Others is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(11) 2.

The Discussion on Not Knowing

314. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Is there not ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for a Worthy One? Yes. If there is not ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a worldling, is there ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for him? Yes. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, is there ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for him? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, is there not ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for him? Yes. Is there not knowing for a worldling, is there not ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance for him? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Would a Worthy One, due to not knowing, kill a living being, take what is not given, speak falsely, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, break into houses, plunder, commit burglary, wait in ambush, go to another's wife, sack a village, sack a market town? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a worldling, would a worldling, due to not knowing, kill a living being, take what is not given, speak falsely, etc. sack a village, sack a market town? Yes. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, would a Worthy One, due to not knowing, kill a living being, take what is not given, etc. sack a village, sack a market town? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One not, due to not knowing, kill a living being, take what is not given, etc. sack a village, sack a market town? Yes. Is there not knowing for a worldling, and would a worldling not, due to not knowing, kill a living being, take what is not given, etc. sack a village, sack a market town? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there not knowing about the Teacher for a Worthy One, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, not knowing about the training, not knowing about the past, not knowing about the future, not knowing about both the past and the future, not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

Is there not not knowing about the Teacher for a Worthy One, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, not knowing about the training, not knowing about the past, not knowing about the future, not knowing about both the past and the future, not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. If there is not not knowing about the Teacher for a Worthy One, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, etc. not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a worldling, is there not knowing about the Teacher for him, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, etc. not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, is there not knowing about the Teacher for him, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, etc. not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One, is there not not knowing about the Teacher for him, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, etc. not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there not knowing for a worldling, is there not not knowing about the Teacher for him, not knowing about the Teaching, not knowing about the Community, etc. not knowing about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

315. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for a Worthy One the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of lust, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? Yes. If for the Worthy One, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the factors of enlightenment have been developed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust, etc. what should be realized has been realized, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

316. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching there is not knowing, for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings there is not not knowing. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? Yes. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not not knowing for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? Yes. Is there not not knowing for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of lust; is there not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there not knowing for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there no not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there no not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there no not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, moral fearlessness has been abandoned; is there no not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is there no not knowing for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, the factors of enlightenment have been developed for the abandoning of moral fearlessness; is there no not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no not knowing for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no not knowing for him? That should not be said. Etc.

317. Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'Such is matter, such is the origin of matter, such is the passing away of matter; such is feeling... etc. such is perception... such are activities... such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the passing away of consciousness' - Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'This is suffering' - monks, for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions; 'This is the origin of suffering' - for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions; 'This is the cessation of suffering' - for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions; 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions. Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "The all, monks, not directly knowing, not fully understanding, not becoming dispassionate towards, not abandoning, one is incapable of the destruction of suffering. But the all, monks, directly knowing, fully understanding, becoming dispassionate towards, abandoning, one is capable of the destruction of suffering"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Together with his accomplishment of vision,

Three things are given up;

Identity view and doubt,

And moral rules and austerities, whatever there is;

And free from the four realms of misery,

Incapable of doing the six grave actions."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Is there not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "At the time, monks, when the stainless, spotless eye of the Teaching arose in a noble disciple - 'Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of cessation,' together with the arising of vision, monks, three mental fetters are abandoned by the noble disciple - identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

Should it not be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One"? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One would not know the names and clans of women and men, would not know the path and the non-path, would not know the names of grass, wood, and trees? Yes. If a Worthy One would not know the names and clans of women and men, would not know the path and the non-path, would not know the names of grass, wood, and trees, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there is not knowing for a Worthy One."

A Worthy One would not know the names and clans of women and men, would not know the path and the non-path, would not know the names of grass, wood, and trees, thus there is not knowing for a Worthy One? Yes. Would a Worthy One not know the fruition of stream-entry or the fruition of once-returning or the fruition of non-returning or arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Not Knowing is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(12) 3.

The Discussion on Uncertainty

318. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for a Worthy One? Yes. If there is not sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a worldling, is there sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for him? Yes. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One, is there sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One, is there not sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for him? Yes. Is there uncertainty for a worldling, is there not sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, mental fetter of sceptical doubt, mental hindrance of sceptical doubt for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there uncertainty about the Teacher for a Worthy One, uncertainty about the Teaching, uncertainty about the Community, uncertainty about the training, uncertainty about the past, uncertainty about the future, uncertainty about both the past and the future, uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

Is there not uncertainty about the Teacher for a Worthy One, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. If there is not uncertainty about the Teacher for a Worthy One, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a worldling, is there uncertainty about the Teacher for him, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One, is there uncertainty about the Teacher for him, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One, is there not uncertainty about the Teacher for him, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there uncertainty for a worldling, is there not uncertainty about the Teacher for him, uncertainty about the Teaching, etc. uncertainty about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said.

319. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed; is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

320. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching there is uncertainty, for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings there is not uncertainty. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? Yes. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not uncertainty for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? Yes. Is there not uncertainty for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there uncertainty for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there uncertainty for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there uncertainty for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there uncertainty for him? That should not be said. Etc. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there not uncertainty for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there not uncertainty for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of delusion, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no uncertainty for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no uncertainty for him? That should not be said. Etc.

321. Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'Such is matter' etc. 'such is the passing away of consciousness' - Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'This is suffering', monks, etc. 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions. Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "The all, monks, not directly knowing, not fully understanding, not becoming dispassionate towards, not abandoning, one is incapable of the destruction of suffering; But the all, monks, directly knowing, fully understanding, becoming dispassionate towards, abandoning, one is capable of the destruction of suffering"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Together with his accomplishment of vision, etc. incapable of doing the six grave actions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "At the time, monks, when the stainless, spotless eye of the Teaching arose in a noble disciple - 'Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of cessation,' together with the arising of vision, monks, three mental fetters are abandoned by the noble disciple - identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Is there uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"When indeed phenomena become manifest,

To the ardent, meditating brahmin;

Then all his uncertainties vanish,

Since he understands phenomena with their cause.

"When indeed phenomena become manifest,

To the ardent, meditating brahmin;

Then all his uncertainties vanish,

Since he understood the elimination of conditions."

"When indeed phenomena become manifest,

To the ardent, meditating brahmin;

He stands dispelling Māra's army,

Like the sun illuminating the sky."

"Whatever uncertainties here or beyond,

To be experienced by oneself or to be experienced by another;

Those who are meditators abandon all of them,

Ardent, living the holy life."

"Those who have transcended uncertainty, among beings subject to uncertainty;

Free from doubt, unbound, what is given to them is of great fruit."

"Such is the illumination of the Teaching here,

No disciple has any doubt about it;

The one who has crossed the flood, whose sceptical doubt is cut off,

We pay homage to the Buddha, the Victor, the lord of men."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

Should it not be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One"? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One might be uncertain about the names and clans of women and men, might be uncertain about the path and the non-path, might be uncertain about the names of grass, wood, and trees? Yes. If a Worthy One might be uncertain about the names and clans of women and men, might be uncertain about the path and the non-path, might be uncertain about the names of grass, wood, and trees; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there is uncertainty for a Worthy One."

A Worthy One might be uncertain about the names and clans of women and men, might be uncertain about the path and the non-path, might be uncertain about the names of grass, wood, and trees, thus there is uncertainty for a Worthy One? Yes. Would a Worthy One be uncertain about the fruition of stream-entry or the fruition of once-returning or the fruition of non-returning or arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Uncertainty is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(13) 4.

The Discussion on Dependence on Others' Explanations

322. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Is a Worthy One one to be led by another, one relying on another, one dependent on another, one whose existence is bound to another, one who does not know, does not see, deluded, not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that a Worthy One is not one to be led by another, not one relying on another, not one dependent on another, not one whose existence is bound to another, knows, sees, undeluded, fully aware? Yes. If a Worthy One is not one to be led by another, not one relying on another, not one dependent on another, not one whose existence is bound to another, knows, sees, undeluded, fully aware, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a worldling, and is he one to be led by another, one relying on another, one dependent on another, one whose existence is bound to another, one who does not know, does not see, deluded, not fully aware? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One, and is he one to be led by another, one relying on another, one dependent on another, one whose existence is bound to another, one who does not know, does not see, deluded, not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One, and is he not one to be led by another, not one relying on another, not one dependent on another, not one whose existence is bound to another, knows, sees, undeluded, fully aware? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a worldling, and is he not one to be led by another, not one relying on another, not one dependent on another, not one whose existence is bound to another, knows, sees, undeluded, fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for a Worthy One, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, dependence on others' explanations about the Community, dependence on others' explanations about the training, dependence on others' explanations about the past, dependence on others' explanations about the future, dependence on others' explanations about both the past and the future, dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for a Worthy One, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. If there is not dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for a Worthy One, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a worldling, is there dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for him, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One, is there dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for him, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One, is there not dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for him, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a worldling, is there not dependence on others' explanations about the Teacher for him, dependence on others' explanations about the Teaching, etc. dependence on others' explanations about phenomena that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

323. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One lust has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, what should be realized has been realized, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

324. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching there is dependence on others' explanations, for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings there is not dependence on others' explanations. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? Yes. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One skilled in other teachings? Yes. Is there not dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there dependence on others' explanations for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there dependence on others' explanations for him? That should not be said.

For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, hate has been abandoned, etc. delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there dependence on others' explanations for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there dependence on others' explanations for him? That should not be said. Etc.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, lust has been abandoned; is there not dependence on others' explanations for him? Yes. For a Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching, lust has been abandoned; is there not dependence on others' explanations for him? That should not be said.

For a Worthy One skilled in other teachings, hate has been abandoned, delusion has been abandoned, etc. moral fearlessness has been abandoned, etc. the path has been developed for the abandoning of lust, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. for the abandoning of hate, etc. for the abandoning of moral fearlessness, the path has been developed, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed, etc. A Worthy One skilled in other teachings is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no dependence on others' explanations for him? Yes. A Worthy One skilled in one's own teaching is without lust, without hate, without delusion, etc. what should be realized has been realized; is there no dependence on others' explanations for him? That should not be said. Etc.

325. Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'Such is matter' etc. 'such is the passing away of consciousness' - Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I say, monks, the elimination of mental corruptions is for one who knows, for one who sees, not for one who does not know, not for one who does not see. And what, monks, knowing what, seeing what, is there elimination of mental corruptions? 'This is suffering' - monks, for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions; 'This is the origin of suffering' etc. 'This is the cessation of suffering' etc. 'this is the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - for one knowing, for one seeing, there is elimination of mental corruptions. Thus, monks, for one knowing thus, for one seeing thus, there is elimination of mental corruptions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "The all, monks, not directly knowing, not fully understanding, not becoming dispassionate towards, not abandoning, one is incapable of the destruction of suffering; But the all, monks, directly knowing, fully understanding, becoming dispassionate towards, abandoning, one is capable of the destruction of suffering"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Together with his accomplishment of vision, etc. incapable of doing the six grave actions." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "At the time, monks, when the stainless, spotless eye of the Teaching arose in a noble disciple - 'Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of cessation,' together with the arising of vision, monks, three mental fetters are abandoned by the noble disciple - identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Is there dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"I will not be able to set free,

Anyone in the world who is doubting, Dhotaka;

But directly knowing the foremost Teaching,

Thus you will cross over this flood."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Should it not be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One"? Yes. Is it not that others would explain the names and clans of women and men for a Worthy One, others would explain the path and the non-path, others would explain the names of grass, wood, and trees? Yes. If others would explain the names and clans of women and men for a Worthy One, others would explain the path and the non-path, others would explain the names of grass, wood, and trees, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One."

Others would explain the names and clans of women and men for a Worthy One, others would explain the path and the non-path, others would explain the names of grass, wood, and trees, thus there is dependence on others' explanations for a Worthy One? Yes. Would others explain the fruition of stream-entry or the fruition of once-returning or the fruition of non-returning or arahantship for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Dependence on Others' Explanations is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(14) 5.

The Discussion on Verbal Expression

326. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for those who have attained everywhere? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for those who have attained always? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for all those who have attained? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression in all attainments? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there bodily movement for one who has attained? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no bodily movement for one who has attained? Yes. Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who has attained there is speech, is there verbal expression? Yes. For one who has attained there is body, is there bodily movement? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who has attained there is body, is there no bodily movement? Yes. For one who has attained there is speech, is there no verbal expression? That should not be said. Etc.

327. Does one knowing "suffering" speak the word "suffering"? Yes. Does one knowing "origin" speak the word "origin"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one knowing "suffering" speak the word "suffering"? Yes. Does one knowing "cessation" speak the word "cessation"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one knowing "suffering" speak the word "suffering"? Yes. Does one knowing "path" speak the word "path"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one knowing "origin" not speak the word "origin"? Yes. Does one knowing "suffering" not speak the word "suffering"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one knowing "cessation" not speak the word "cessation"? Yes. Does one knowing "suffering" not speak the word "suffering"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one knowing "path" not speak the word "path"? Yes. Does one knowing "suffering" not speak the word "suffering"? That should not be said. Etc.

328. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. What is the object of knowledge? Knowledge has truth as its object. Does the ear have truth as its object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. What is the object of the ear? The ear has sound as its object. Does knowledge have sound as its object? That should not be said.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained, knowledge having truth as its object, and the ear having sound as its object? Yes. If knowledge has truth as its object, and the ear has sound as its object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained, knowledge having truth as its object, and the ear having sound as its object? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts, two feelings, two perceptions, two volitions, and two consciousnesses? That should not be said.

329. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? That should not be said.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. The water kasiṇa, etc. The fire kasiṇa, The air kasiṇa, The blue kasiṇa, The yellow kasiṇa, The red kasiṇa, The white kasiṇa, The plane of infinite space, the plane of infinite consciousness... The plane of nothingness, etc. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. If there is no verbal expression for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

The water kasiṇa, The fire kasiṇa, The air kasiṇa, The blue kasiṇa, The yellow kasiṇa, The red kasiṇa, The white kasiṇa, The plane of infinite space, the plane of infinite consciousness... the plane of nothingness... Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? Yes. If there is no verbal expression for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained a mundane attainment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. The mundane second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... is there verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained a mundane attainment? Yes. If there is no verbal expression for one who has attained a mundane attainment, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane first meditative absorption? Yes. If there is no verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane first meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

The mundane second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. If there is no verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane fourth meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

330. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? Yes. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? Yes. The mundane second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... is there verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the mundane first meditative absorption? Yes. Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

The mundane second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

331. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? Yes. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane second meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? Yes. The supramundane third meditative absorption... is there verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane second meditative absorption? Yes. Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

The supramundane second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Is there no verbal expression for one who has attained the supramundane first meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

332. Should it not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that applied and sustained thought are verbal activity - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that applied and sustained thought are verbal activity - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Applied and sustained thought are verbal activity, it was said by the Blessed One - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," is there verbal expression for him? Yes. For one who has attained the first meditative absorption of the earth kasiṇa there is applied and sustained thought, is there verbal expression for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Applied and sustained thought are verbal activity, it was said by the Blessed One - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," is there verbal expression for him? Yes. The water kasiṇa, The fire kasiṇa, The air kasiṇa, The blue kasiṇa, The yellow kasiṇa, The red kasiṇa, for one who has attained the first meditative absorption of the white kasiṇa there is applied and sustained thought, is there verbal expression for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that speech originates from applied thought - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that speech originates from applied thought - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Speech originated from applied thought was declared by the Blessed One - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," is there verbal expression for him? Yes. Speech originated from perception was declared by the Blessed One - "For one who has attained the second meditative absorption there is perception, is there applied and sustained thought for him?" That should not be said. Etc.

Speech originated from applied thought was declared by the Blessed One - "For one who has attained the first meditative absorption there is applied and sustained thought," is there verbal expression for him? Yes. Speech originated from perception was declared by the Blessed One - the third meditative absorption... etc. the fourth meditative absorption... the plane of infinite space... the plane of infinite consciousness... for one who has attained the plane of nothingness there is perception, is there applied and sustained thought for him? That should not be said. Etc.

333. Is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Is it not that "for one who has attained the first meditative absorption, speech has ceased"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "for one who has attained the first meditative absorption, speech has ceased," there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

"For one who has attained the first meditative absorption, speech has ceased," there is such a discourse, is there verbal expression for him? Yes. "For one who has attained the second meditative absorption, applied and sustained thought have ceased," there is such a discourse, is there applied and sustained thought for him? That should not be said. Etc.

"For one who has attained the first meditative absorption, speech has ceased," there is such a discourse, is there verbal expression for him? Yes. "For one who has attained the third meditative absorption, rapture has ceased; for one who has attained the fourth meditative absorption, in-breath and out-breath have ceased; for one who has attained the plane of infinite space, perception of material form has ceased; for one who has attained the plane of infinite consciousness, perception of the plane of infinite space has ceased; for one who has attained the plane of nothingness, perception of the plane of infinite consciousness has ceased; for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, perception of the plane of nothingness has ceased; for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased," there is such a discourse, is there perception and feeling for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that sound is a thorn for the first meditative absorption? Yes. If sound was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained."

Sound was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption, is there verbal expression for one who has attained? Yes. Applied and sustained thought were said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the second meditative absorption... Rapture was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the third meditative absorption... In-breath and out-breath were said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the fourth meditative absorption... Perception of material form was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the plane of infinite space... Perception of the plane of infinite space was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the plane of infinite consciousness... Perception of the plane of infinite consciousness was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the plane of nothingness... Perception of the plane of nothingness was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... Perception and feeling were said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, is there perception and feeling for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "There is verbal expression for one who has attained"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Ānanda, the disciple of the Blessed One Sikhī, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One, named Abhibhū, standing in the Brahma world, informed the ten-thousandfold world system with his voice -

'Begin, go forth, engage in the Buddha's teaching;

Shake off the army of Death, as an elephant a hut made of reeds.

'Whoever in this Teaching and discipline will dwell diligently;

Having abandoned the round of rebirths, will make an end of suffering.'"

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is verbal expression for one who has attained.

The Discussion on Verbal Expression is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(15) 6.

The Discussion on Suffering as Nutriment

334. Is the nutriment of suffering a path factor, included in the path? Yes. Do all those who speak the word "suffering" develop the path? That should not be said.

Do all those who speak the word "suffering" develop the path? Yes. Do ignorant worldlings speak the word "suffering," do ignorant worldlings develop the path? That should not be said. A matricide... a patricide... a killer of a Worthy One... one who causes the blood to flow... does a schismatic speak the word "suffering," does a schismatic develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Suffering as Nutriment is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(16) 7.

The Discussion on Stability of Mind

335. Does one consciousness last for a day? Yes. Is half a day the moment of arising, half a day the moment of fall? That should not be said.

Does one consciousness last for two days? Yes. Is a day the moment of arising, a day the moment of fall? That should not be said.

One consciousness lasts for four days... lasts for eight days... lasts for ten days... lasts for twenty days... lasts for a month... lasts for two months... lasts for four months... lasts for eight months... lasts for ten months... lasts for a year... lasts for two years... lasts for four years... lasts for eight years... lasts for ten years... lasts for twenty years... lasts for thirty years... lasts for forty years... lasts for fifty years... lasts for a hundred years... lasts for two hundred years... lasts for four hundred years... lasts for five hundred years... lasts for a thousand years... lasts for two thousand years... lasts for four thousand years... lasts for eight thousand years... lasts for sixteen thousand years... lasts for a cosmic cycle... lasts for two cosmic cycles... lasts for four cosmic cycles... lasts for eight cosmic cycles... lasts for sixteen cosmic cycles... lasts for thirty-two cosmic cycles... lasts for sixty-four cosmic cycles... lasts for five hundred cosmic cycles... lasts for a thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for two thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for four thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for eight thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for sixteen thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for twenty thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for forty thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for sixty thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for eighty-four thousand cosmic cycles? Yes. Is forty-two thousand cosmic cycles the moment of arising, forty-two thousand cosmic cycles the moment of fall? That should not be said.

Does one consciousness last for a day? Yes. Are there other phenomena that arise and cease many times in one day? Yes. Are those phenomena more quickly changing than consciousness? That should not be said.

Are those phenomena more quickly changing than consciousness? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I do not, monks, perceive any other single phenomenon that is thus quickly changing as this, the mind. To such an extent, monks, even a simile is not easy to make for how quickly changing the mind is." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "those phenomena are more quickly changing than consciousness."

Are those phenomena more quickly changing than consciousness? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Just as, monks, a monkey roaming through the forest wilds seizes a branch, and having released that, seizes another, and having released that, seizes another; just so, monks, that which is called mind, or mentality, or consciousness - by night and by day one thing arises and another ceases." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "those phenomena are more quickly changing than consciousness."

336. Does one consciousness last for a day? Yes. Does eye-consciousness remain for a day? That should not be said. Ear-consciousness... etc. nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness... unwholesome consciousness... accompanied by lust... accompanied by hate... accompanied by delusion... accompanied by conceit... accompanied by wrong view... accompanied by sceptical doubt... accompanied by sloth... accompanied by restlessness... accompanied by shamelessness... does consciousness accompanied by moral fearlessness remain for a day? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one consciousness last for a day? Yes. By whatever consciousness one sees form with the eye, by that very consciousness one hears sound with the ear... etc. smells odour with the nose... tastes flavour with the tongue... touches tangible object with the body... cognizes mental phenomena with the mind... etc. by whatever consciousness one cognizes mental phenomena with the mind, by that very consciousness one sees form with the eye... etc. hears sound with the ear... smells odour with the nose... tastes flavour with the tongue... etc. touches tangible object with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one consciousness last for a day? Yes. By whatever consciousness one goes forward, by that very consciousness one goes back; by whatever consciousness one goes back, by that very consciousness one goes forward; by whatever consciousness one looks before, by that very consciousness one looks around; by whatever consciousness one looks around, by that very consciousness one looks before; by whatever consciousness one bends, by that very consciousness one stretches; by whatever consciousness one stretches, by that very consciousness one bends? That should not be said. Etc.

337. Does one consciousness of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space remain as long as life lasts? Yes. Does one consciousness of human beings remain as long as life lasts? That should not be said.

Does one consciousness of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space remain as long as life lasts? Yes. Of the gods ruled by the four great kings... etc. the Thirty-three gods... the Yāma gods... the Tusita gods... the gods who delight in creation... the gods who control what is created by others... the Brahmā's retinue gods... the Brahmā's ministers gods... the Great Brahmā gods... the gods of limited radiance... the gods of immeasurable radiance... the radiant gods... the gods of limited glory... the gods of immeasurable glory... the gods of streaming glory... the gods of great fruit... the Aviha gods... the Atappa gods... the Sudassa gods... the Sudassī gods... does one consciousness of the Akaniṭṭha gods remain as long as life lasts? That should not be said.

The life-span of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space is twenty thousand cosmic cycles; does one consciousness of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space remain for twenty thousand cosmic cycles? Yes. The life-span of the gods ruled by the four great kings is five hundred years; does one consciousness of the gods ruled by the four great kings last for five hundred years... lasts for a thousand years... lasts for two thousand years... lasts for four thousand years... lasts for eight thousand years... lasts for sixteen thousand years... lasts for a third of a cosmic cycle... lasts for half a cosmic cycle... lasts for one cosmic cycle... lasts for two cosmic cycles... lasts for four cosmic cycles... lasts for eight cosmic cycles... lasts for sixteen cosmic cycles... lasts for thirty-two cosmic cycles... lasts for sixty-four cosmic cycles... lasts for five hundred cosmic cycles... lasts for a thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for two thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for four thousand cosmic cycles... lasts for eight thousand cosmic cycles... The life-span of the Akaniṭṭha gods is sixteen thousand cosmic cycles; does one consciousness of the Akaniṭṭha gods last for sixteen thousand cosmic cycles? That should not be said.

Does the consciousness of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space arise moment by moment and cease moment by moment? Yes. Do the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space pass away moment by moment and arise moment by moment? That should not be said.

Does one consciousness of the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space remain as long as life lasts? Yes. Do the gods who have reached the plane of infinite space pass away with the very same consciousness with which they arise? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Stability of Mind is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(17) 8.

The Discussion on Hot Ashes

338. Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Is there not pleasant feeling, bodily happiness, mental happiness, divine happiness, human happiness, happiness of material gain, happiness of honour, happiness of vehicles, happiness of beds, happiness of sovereignty, happiness of lordship, happiness of householders, happiness of asceticism, happiness with mental corruptions, happiness without mental corruptions, happiness of clinging, happiness without clinging, carnal happiness, spiritual happiness, happiness with rapture, happiness without rapture, happiness of meditative absorption, bliss of liberation, sensual happiness, happiness of renunciation, happiness of seclusion, happiness of peace, happiness of highest enlightenment? Yes. If there is pleasant feeling, etc. happiness of highest enlightenment, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Are all activities unpleasant feeling, bodily pain, mental pain, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, displeasure and anguish? That should not be said.

Should it not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "All, monks, is blazing! And what, monks, is the all that is blazing? The eye, monks, is blazing, forms are blazing, eye-consciousness is blazing, eye-contact is blazing; whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - that too is blazing. Blazing with what? 'Blazing with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion, blazing with birth, with ageing, with death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with sufferings, with displeasures, with anguishes,' I say. The ear is blazing, sounds are blazing, etc. The nose is blazing, odours are blazing, etc. The tongue is blazing, flavours are blazing, etc. The body is blazing, tangible objects are blazing, etc. The mind is blazing, mental phenomena are blazing, mind-consciousness is blazing, mind-contact is blazing; whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - that too is blazing. Blazing with what? 'Blazing with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion, blazing with birth, with ageing, with death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with sufferings, with displeasures, with anguishes,' I say." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five types of sensual pleasure! Which five? Forms cognizable by eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing; sounds cognizable by ear... etc. odours cognizable by nose... flavours cognizable by tongue... Tangible objects cognizable by body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing. These, monks, are the five types of sensual pleasure." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Should it not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is a gain for you, monks, it is well gained for you, monks, the moment has been attained by you for abiding by the holy life! I have seen, monks, hells named 'of the six sense bases of contact.' There, whatever form one sees with the eye, one sees only undesirable form, not desirable form; one sees only unpleasant form, not pleasant form; one sees only disagreeable form, not agreeable form. Whatever sound one hears with the ear, etc. smells odour with the nose... tastes flavour with the tongue... touches tangible object with the body... cognizes mental phenomena with the mind, one cognizes only undesirable form, not desirable form; one cognizes only unpleasant form, not pleasant form; one cognizes only disagreeable form, not agreeable form." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is a gain for you, monks, it is well gained for you, monks, the moment has been attained by you for abiding by the holy life! I have seen, monks, heavens named 'of the six sense bases of contact.' There, whatever form one sees with the eye, one sees only desirable form, not undesirable form, one sees only pleasant form, not unpleasant form, one sees only agreeable form, not disagreeable form. Whatever sound one hears with the ear, etc. smells odour with the nose... tastes flavour with the tongue... touches tangible object with the body... cognizes mental phenomena with the mind, one cognizes only desirable form, not undesirable form, one cognizes only pleasant form, not unpleasant form, one cognizes only agreeable form, not disagreeable form." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Should it not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering," "All activities are impermanent"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering," "All activities are impermanent," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Is giving having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? That should not be said.

Morality, etc. Observance, etc. meditation, etc. Is the holy life having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? That should not be said.

Is not giving having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? Yes. If giving has desirable result, has pleasing result, has delightful result, has full and delicious result, yields happiness, results in happiness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Is not morality... the Observance... meditation... the holy life having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? Yes. If the holy life has desirable result, has pleasing result, has delightful result, has full and delicious result, yields happiness, results in happiness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

Are all activities, having made no limit, hot ashes? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Seclusion is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Teaching, who sees;

Non-affliction is happiness in the world, self-control towards living beings.

"Dispassion in the world is happiness, the transcendence of sensual pleasures;

The removal of the conceit 'I am' - this indeed is the supreme happiness.

"That happiness attained through happiness, that is absolute happiness indeed;

The three true knowledges have been attained - this indeed is the supreme happiness."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "All activities, having made no limit, are hot ashes."

The Discussion on Hot Ashes is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(18) 9.

The Discussion on Gradual Full Realization

339. Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Does one gradually develop the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Does one gradually develop the path of stream-entry? Yes. Does one gradually realize the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said.

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Does one gradually develop the path of once-returning? That should not be said. Does one gradually develop the path of once-returning? Yes. Does one gradually realize the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said.

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Does one gradually develop the path of non-returning? That should not be said. Does one gradually develop the path of non-returning? Yes. Does one gradually realize the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said.

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Does one gradually develop the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Does one gradually develop the path of arahantship? Yes. Does one gradually realize the fruition of arahantship? That should not be said.

340. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a stream-enterer, in a quarter portion not a stream-enterer, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha, in the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in a quarter portion not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said.

By the insight into origin... etc. By the insight into cessation... etc. What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a stream-enterer, in a quarter portion not a stream-enterer, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha, in the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in a quarter portion not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

341. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up gross sensual lust, gross anger, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a once-returner, in a quarter portion not a once-returner, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc. By the insight into origin... etc. By the insight into cessation... etc. What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up gross sensual lust, gross anger, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a once-returner, in a quarter portion not a once-returner, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

342. What does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a non-returner, in a quarter portion not a non-returner, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of non-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval... etc. an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval... an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion... an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion... an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in a quarter portion not an upstream-goer not towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

By the insight into origin... etc. By the insight into cessation... etc. What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a non-returner, in a quarter portion not a non-returner, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of non-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval... etc. an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval... an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion... an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion... an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in a quarter portion not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

343. What does a person practising for the realisation of arahantship give up by the insight into suffering? One gives up lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a Worthy One, in a quarter portion not a Worthy One, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized arahantship, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion without lust, etc. without hate... without delusion, etc. one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, etc. what should be realized has been realized, in a quarter portion what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

By the insight into origin... by the insight into cessation... What does one give up by the insight into the path? One gives up lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, ignorance, and co-existent mental defilements in a quarter portion. Is one in a quarter portion a Worthy One, in a quarter portion not a Worthy One, in a quarter portion one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized arahantship, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in a quarter portion does not dwell having touched with the body, in a quarter portion without lust... without hate... without delusion... one who has done what was to be done, one who has laid down the burden, one who has attained his own welfare, one who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, one completely liberated through final knowledge, one whose cross-bar has been lifted, whose moat has been filled in, whose pillar has been pulled out, who is unbolted, a noble one whose flag has fallen, whose burden has been laid down, who is unbound, who has well-conquered victory; suffering has been fully understood by him, the origin has been abandoned, cessation has been realized, the path has been developed, what should be directly known has been directly known, what should be fully understood has been fully understood, what should be abandoned has been abandoned, what should be developed has been developed, etc. what should be realized has been realized, in a quarter portion what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

344. Should it be said that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry is a practitioner while seeing suffering? Yes. Should it be said that when suffering is seen, one is established in the fruit? That should not be said. While seeing origin, etc. Should it be said that while seeing cessation, one is a practitioner? Yes. Should it be said that when cessation is seen, one is established in the fruit? That should not be said.

Should it be said that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry is a practitioner while seeing the path, and when the path is seen, one is established in the fruit? Yes. Should it be said that while seeing suffering, one is a practitioner, and when suffering is seen, one is established in the fruit? That should not be said. Etc. Should it be said that while seeing the path, one is a practitioner, and when the path is seen, one is established in the fruit? Yes. While seeing origin, etc. Should it be said that while seeing cessation, one is a practitioner, and when cessation is seen, one is established in the fruit? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it be said that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry is a practitioner while seeing suffering, and when suffering is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? Yes. Should it be said that while seeing the path, one is a practitioner, and when the path is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? That should not be said. Etc. While seeing origin... Should it be said that while seeing cessation, one is a practitioner, and when cessation is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? Yes. Should it be said that while seeing the path, one is "a practitioner", and when the path is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it be said that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry is a practitioner while seeing suffering, and when suffering is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? Yes. Is the seeing of suffering purposeless? That should not be said. Etc. seeing origin, etc. Should it be said that while seeing cessation, one is a practitioner, and when cessation is seen, it should not be said - "one is established in the fruit"? Yes. Is the seeing of cessation purposeless? That should not be said. Etc.

345. When suffering is seen, are the four truths seen? Yes. Is the truth of suffering the four truths? That should not be said. Etc.

When the aggregate of material body is seen as impermanent, are the five aggregates seen as impermanent? Yes. Is the aggregate of material body the five aggregates? That should not be said. Etc.

When the eye sense base is seen as impermanent, are the twelve sense bases seen as impermanent? Yes. Is the eye sense base the twelve sense bases? That should not be said. Etc.

When the eye-element is seen as impermanent, are the eighteen elements seen as impermanent? Yes. Is the eye-element the eighteen elements? That should not be said. Etc.

When the eye-faculty is seen as impermanent, are the twenty-two faculties seen as impermanent? Yes. Is the eye-faculty the twenty-two faculties? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one realize the fruition of stream-entry by four knowledges? Yes. Are there four fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Does one realize the fruition of stream-entry by eight knowledges? Yes. Are there eight fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Does one realize the fruition of stream-entry by twelve knowledges? Yes. Are there twelve fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Does one realize the fruition of stream-entry by forty-four knowledges? Yes. Are there forty-four fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Does one realize the fruition of stream-entry by seventy-seven knowledges? Yes. Are there seventy-seven fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

346. Should it not be said - "there is gradual full realization"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Just as, monks, the great ocean is progressively slanting, progressively sloping, progressively inclining, not abruptly precipitous; just so, monks, in this Teaching and discipline there is gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice, not a sudden penetration of final knowledge." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is gradual full realization.

Should it not be said - "there is gradual full realization"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Gradually the wise one, little by little, moment by moment,

Like a smith with silver, should blow away one's own stain."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is gradual full realization.

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Did not the Venerable Gavampati say this to the elder monks - "Face to face with the Blessed One I heard this, friends, face to face I received it - 'Whoever, monks, sees suffering, he also sees the origin of suffering, also sees the cessation of suffering, also sees the practice leading to the cessation of suffering; Whoever sees the origin of suffering, he also sees suffering, also sees the cessation of suffering, also sees the practice leading to the cessation of suffering; Whoever sees the cessation of suffering, he also sees suffering, also sees the origin of suffering, also sees the practice leading to the cessation of suffering; Whoever sees the practice leading to the cessation of suffering, he also sees suffering, also sees the origin of suffering, also sees the cessation of suffering.'" Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is gradual full realization".

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Together with his accomplishment of vision,

Three things are given up;

Identity view and doubt,

And moral rules and austerities, whatever there is;

And free from the four realms of misery,

Incapable of doing the six grave actions."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is gradual full realization".

Is there gradual full realization? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "At the time, monks, when the stainless, spotless eye of the Teaching arose in a noble disciple - 'Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of cessation,' together with the arising of vision, monks, three mental fetters are abandoned by the noble disciple - identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there is gradual full realization".

The Discussion on Gradual Full Realization is finished.

2. The Second Chapter

(19) 10.

The Discussion on Conventional Expression

347. Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Does it strike against the supramundane ear, not the mundane; do they recognise it by supramundane consciousness, not by mundane; do disciples recognise it, not worldlings? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression strikes against the mundane ear? Yes. If the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression strikes against the mundane ear, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

Is it not that they recognise the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression by mundane consciousness? Yes. If they recognise the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression by mundane consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

Is it not that worldlings recognise the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression? Yes. If worldlings recognise the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

348. Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, the path of once-returning, the fruition of once-returning, the path of non-returning, the fruition of non-returning, the path of arahantship, the fruition of arahantship, the establishment of mindfulness, the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Are there any who hear the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression? Yes. Is a supramundane state cognizable by ear, does it strike against the ear, does it come into the range of the ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that a supramundane state is not cognizable by ear, does not strike against the ear, does not come into the range of the ear? Yes. If a supramundane state is not cognizable by ear, does not strike against the ear, does not come into the range of the ear, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

349. Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Are there any who would become lustful towards the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression? Yes. Is a supramundane state a basis for lust, enticing, desirable, intoxicating, binding, infatuating? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that a supramundane state is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating? Yes. If a supramundane state is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Are there any who would become hateful towards the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression? Yes. Is a supramundane state a basis for hate, a basis for irritation, a basis for aversion? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that a supramundane state is not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion? Yes. If a supramundane state is not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Are there any who would become deluded towards the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression? Yes. Is a supramundane state a basis for delusion, causing not knowing, causing lack of vision, obstructing wisdom, connected with vexation, not leading to Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that a supramundane state is not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, not causing lack of vision, increasing wisdom, not connected with vexation, leading to Nibbāna? Yes. If a supramundane state is not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, not causing lack of vision, increasing wisdom, not connected with vexation, leading to Nibbāna, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is supramundane."

350. Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression supramundane? Yes. Do all those who hear the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Do all those who hear the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression develop the path? Yes. Do ignorant worldlings hear the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression, do ignorant worldlings develop the path? That should not be said. Etc. does a matricide develop the path... etc. a patricide... a killer of a Worthy One... one who causes the blood to flow... does a schismatic hear the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression, does a schismatic develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

351. Is it possible to indicate both a heap of grain and a heap of gold with a golden staff? Yes. Just so the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane teaching by supramundane conventional expression.

Is it possible to indicate both a heap of grain and a heap of gold with a castor-oil plant staff? Yes. Just so the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane teaching by mundane conventional expression.

352. Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane? Yes. When expressing the mundane, does it strike against the mundane ear; when expressing the supramundane, does it strike against the supramundane ear; when expressing the mundane, do they recognise it by mundane consciousness; when expressing the supramundane, do they recognise it by supramundane consciousness; when expressing the mundane, do worldlings recognise it; when expressing the supramundane, do disciples recognise it? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane?" Yes. Does not the Blessed One express both mundane and supramundane teaching? Yes. If the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane teaching, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression is mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane."

Is the Buddha, the Blessed One's conventional expression mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane? Yes. When expressing the path, does it become the path; when expressing the non-path, does it become the non-path; when expressing fruit, does it become fruit; when expressing non-fruit, does it become non-fruit; when expressing Nibbāna, does it become Nibbāna; when expressing non-Nibbāna, does it become non-Nibbāna; when expressing the conditioned, does it become conditioned; when expressing the unconditioned, does it become unconditioned; when expressing matter, does it become matter; when expressing the immaterial, does it become immaterial; when expressing feeling, does it become feeling; when expressing non-feeling, does it become non-feeling; when expressing perception, does it become perception; when expressing non-perception, does it become non-perception; when expressing activities, do they become activities; when expressing non-activities, do they become non-activities; when expressing consciousness, does it become consciousness; when expressing non-consciousness, does it become non-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Conventional Expression is concluded.

2. The Second Chapter

(20) 11.

The Discussion on Cessation

353. Are there two cessations? Yes. Are there two cessations of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two cessations of suffering? Yes. Are there two truths of cessation? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of origin? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of path? That should not be said. Etc.

Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Are there two rock cells? Are there two refuges? Are there two ultimate goals? Are there two imperishable states? Are there two deathless states? Are there two Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc.

Are there two Nibbānas? Yes. Is there highness and lowness, inferiority and superiority, excellence and deficiency, boundary or division or line or interval between the two Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc.

Are there two cessations? Yes. Surely by reflection they bring about cessation of activities that have ceased without reflection? Yes. If by reflection they bring about cessation of activities that have ceased without reflection, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are two cessations."

Should it not be said - "there are two cessations"? Yes. Surely activities that have ceased without reflection are absolutely destroyed, and activities that have ceased with reflection are absolutely destroyed? Yes. If activities that have ceased without reflection are absolutely destroyed, and activities that have ceased with reflection are absolutely destroyed, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there are two cessations."

Are there two cessations? Yes. Have activities that have ceased with reflection ceased by having come to the noble path? Yes. Have activities that have ceased without reflection ceased by having come to the noble path? That should not be said. Etc.

Are there two cessations? Yes. Do activities that have ceased with reflection not arise again? Yes. Do activities that have ceased without reflection not arise again? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "there are two cessations."

The Discussion on Cessation is concluded.

The Second Chapter.

Its summary:

Gift from others, not knowing, uncertainty, dependence on others' explanations;

Verbal expression, nutriment of suffering, stability of mind and hot ashes;

Gradual full realization, conventional expression and cessation.

3. The Third Chapter

(21) 1.

Treatise on Power

354. Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the power of the Tathāgata the power of a disciple, is the power of a disciple the power of the Tathāgata? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is that very power of the Tathāgata that power of a disciple, is that very power of a disciple that power of the Tathāgata? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the power of a disciple of such a kind as the power of the Tathāgata, is the power of the Tathāgata of such a kind as the power of a disciple? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the former exertion, former conduct, preaching of the Teaching, teaching of the Teaching of a disciple of such a kind as the former exertion, former conduct, preaching of the Teaching, teaching of the Teaching of the Tathāgata? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the Tathāgata a conqueror, a Teacher, a perfectly Self-awakened One, omniscient, all-seeing, lord of the Teaching, one who has the Teaching as refuge? Yes. Is a disciple a conqueror, a Teacher, a perfectly Self-awakened One, omniscient, all-seeing, lord of the Teaching, one who has the Teaching as refuge? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the Tathāgata the producer of the unarisen path, the generator of the unproduced path, the declarer of the undeclared path, the knower of the path, the expert in the path, skilled in the path? Yes. Is a disciple the producer of the unarisen path, the generator of the unproduced path, the declarer of the undeclared path, the knower of the path, the expert in the path, skilled in the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the superiority and inferiority of faculties as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, common to disciples? Yes. Is a disciple omniscient, all-seeing? That should not be said. Etc.

355. Does a disciple know the possible and impossible? Yes. If a disciple knows the possible and impossible, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the result of undertakings of action past, future, and present, with reason and cause? Yes. If a disciple knows the result of undertakings of action past, future, and present, with reason and cause, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the result of undertakings of action past, future, and present, with reason and cause, as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the practice leading to all destinations? Yes. If a disciple knows the practice leading to all destinations, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the practice leading to all destinations as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the world with its many elements and various elements? Yes. If a disciple knows the world with its many elements and various elements, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the world with its many elements and various elements as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the various dispositions of beings? Yes. If a disciple knows the various dispositions of beings, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the various dispositions of beings as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence from meditative absorptions, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments? Yes. If a disciple knows the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence from meditative absorptions, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence from meditative absorptions, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the recollection of past lives? Yes. If a disciple knows the recollection of past lives, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the recollection of past lives as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Does a disciple know the death and rebirth of beings? Yes. If a disciple knows the death and rebirth of beings, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of the death and rebirth of beings as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, is common to disciples."

Is it not that the mental corruptions are eliminated for the Tathāgata and the mental corruptions are eliminated for the disciple? Yes. Is there any difference between the Tathāgata or the disciple regarding the elimination of mental corruptions with the elimination of mental corruptions, or regarding liberation with liberation? There is not. If there is no difference between the Tathāgata or the disciple regarding the elimination of mental corruptions with the elimination of mental corruptions, or regarding liberation with liberation, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions is a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples."

356. Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the superiority and inferiority of faculties as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the superiority and inferiority of faculties as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? Yes. Etc. Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata not common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of the superiority and inferiority of faculties as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of phenomena as they really are regarding the elimination of mental corruptions a power of the Tathāgata common to disciples? Yes. Is the knowledge of the superiority and inferiority of faculties as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, common to disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on Power is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(22) 2.

The Discussion on the Noble One

357. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, the path of once-returning, the fruition of once-returning, the path of non-returning, the fruition of non-returning, the path of arahantship, the fruition of arahantship, the establishment of mindfulness, the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Does it have emptiness as object? That should not be said. Etc. Does it have emptiness as object? Yes. Does one attend to the possible and impossible, and attend to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend to the possible and impossible, and attend to emptiness? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Does it have the signless as object? Etc. Does it have the desireless as object? That should not be said. Etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Does one attend to the possible and impossible, and attend to the desireless? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend to the possible and impossible, and attend to the desireless? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

358. Are the establishments of mindfulness noble with the object of emptiness? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the object of emptiness? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the establishments of mindfulness noble with the signless object, etc. with the desireless object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the right strivings, bases for spiritual power, faculties, powers, factors of enlightenment noble with the object of emptiness? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the object of emptiness? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the factors of enlightenment noble with the signless object, with the desireless object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

359. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, not to be said - "to have the object of emptiness"? Yes. Are the establishments of mindfulness noble not to be said - "to have the object of emptiness"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, not to be said - to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Are the establishments of mindfulness noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, not to be said - to have the object of emptiness, etc. to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. The right strivings, etc. Are the factors of enlightenment noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

360. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Does it have emptiness as object? That should not be said. Etc. Does it have emptiness as object? Yes. Does one attend to the passing away and rebirth of beings, and attend to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend to the passing away and rebirth of beings, and attend to emptiness? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Does it have the signless as object, the desireless as object? That should not be said. Etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Does one attend to the passing away and rebirth of beings, and attend to the desireless? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend to the passing away and rebirth of beings, and attend to the desireless? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

361. Are the establishments of mindfulness noble with the object of emptiness, etc. with the signless object, etc. with the desireless object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

The right strivings, etc. Are the factors of enlightenment noble with the object of emptiness, etc. with the signless object, etc. with the desireless object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - to have the object of emptiness, etc. to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Are the establishments of mindfulness noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

362. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - to have the object of emptiness, etc. to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Are the right strivings, etc. Are the factors of enlightenment noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? Yes. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not to be said - "noble"? Yes. Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not to be said - "noble"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not to be said - "noble"? Yes. Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata not to be said - "noble"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the object of emptiness? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the object of emptiness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the signless object... Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the object of emptiness, etc. to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Etc. Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble with the desireless object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, not to be said - "to have the object of emptiness"? Yes. Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - "to have the object of emptiness"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the possible and impossible as it really is, a power of the Tathāgata, noble, not to be said - to have the signless as object... Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - to have the object of emptiness, etc. to have the signless as object, etc. Does it have the desireless as object? Yes. Is the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions as it really is a power of the Tathāgata noble not to be said - "to have the desireless as object"? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Noble One is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(23) 3.

The Discussion on Liberation

363. Does a mind with lust become liberated? Yes. Does a mind accompanied by lust, conascent with lust, conjoined with lust, associated with lust, arising together with lust, following along with lust, unwholesome, mundane, with mental corruptions, subject to mental fetters, subject to mental knots, subject to mental floods, subject to mental bonds, subject to mental hindrances, adhered to, subject to clinging, subject to defilement become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with lust become liberated, and do both lust and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling, etc. With perception, etc. With volition, etc. Does a mind with wisdom become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with lust become liberated, and do both lust and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact and with lust become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Do both lust and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling and with lust, etc. With perception and with lust, etc. With volition and with lust, etc. Does a mind with wisdom and with lust become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. Do both lust and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

364. Does a mind with hate become liberated? Yes. Does a mind accompanied by hate, conascent with hate, conjoined with hate, associated with hate, arising together with hate, following along with hate, unwholesome, mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with hate become liberated, and do both hate and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling, etc. With perception, etc. With volition, etc. Does a mind with wisdom become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with hate become liberated, and do both hate and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact and with hate become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with hate become liberated, and do both hate and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling and with hate... With perception and with hate... With volition and with hate... Does a mind with wisdom and with hate become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. And do both hate and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

365. Does a mind with delusion become liberated? Yes. Does a mind accompanied by delusion, conascent with delusion, conjoined with delusion, associated with delusion, arising together with delusion, following along with delusion, unwholesome, mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with delusion become liberated, and do both delusion and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling... With perception... With volition... Does a mind with wisdom become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. Does a mind with delusion become liberated, and do both delusion and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with contact and with delusion become liberated, and do both contact and mind become liberated? Yes. Do both delusion and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

With feeling and with delusion... With perception and with delusion... With volition and with delusion... Etc. Does a mind with wisdom and with delusion become liberated, and do both wisdom and mind become liberated? Yes. Do both delusion and mind become liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a mind with lust, with hate, with delusion become liberated? Yes. Does a mind without lust, without hate, without delusion, free from mental defilement become liberated? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "A mind with lust, with hate, with delusion becomes liberated."

The Discussion on Liberation is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(24) 4.

The Discussion on Being Liberated

366. Is what is liberated being liberated? Yes. Is one in part liberated, in part unliberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one in part liberated, in part unliberated? Yes. Is one in part a stream-enterer, in part not a stream-enterer, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha, in the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones, in part not endowed with morality pleasing to the noble ones? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one in part liberated, in part unliberated? Yes. Is one in part a once-returner, in part not a once-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of once-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one in part liberated, in part unliberated? Yes. Is one in part a non-returner, in part not a non-returner, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of non-returning, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha, in part not an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one in part liberated, in part unliberated? Yes. Is one in part a Worthy One, in part not a Worthy One, in part one who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized arahantship, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body, in part does not dwell having touched with the body, in part without lust, without hate, without delusion... etc. in part what should be realized has been realized, in part what should be realized has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

Is what is liberated being liberated? Yes. Is it liberated at the moment of arising, being liberated at the moment of dissolution? That should not be said. Etc.

367. Should it not be said - "What is liberated is being liberated"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one knowing thus, seeing thus, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of sensuality, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of existence, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of ignorance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should be said - "What is liberated is being liberated."

Is what is liberated being liberated? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "When the mind is thus concentrated, pure, bright, without blemish, free from impurities, supple, wieldy, stable, and having attained imperturbability, he inclines the mind towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "What is liberated is being liberated."

Is there consciousness being liberated? Yes. Is there consciousness being lustful, being hateful, being deluded, being defiled? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is lustful and non-lustful, hateful and non-hateful, deluded and non-deluded, cut and uncut, broken and unbroken, done and undone? Yes. If there is lustful and non-lustful, hateful and non-hateful, deluded and non-deluded, cut and uncut, broken and unbroken, done and undone, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is consciousness being liberated."

The Discussion on Being Liberated is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(25) 5.

The Discussion on the Eighth-Path-Attainer

368. Has prepossession by views been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person a stream-enterer who has attained, obtained, achieved, realized the fruition of stream-entry, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Has prepossession by sceptical doubt been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person a stream-enterer who has attained the fruition of stream-entry, etc. dwells having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Has prepossession by views been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to wrong view been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. Has prepossession by views been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person... has adherence to moral rules and austerities been abandoned? That should not be said. Etc.

Has prepossession by sceptical doubt been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. Has prepossession by sceptical doubt been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to wrong view for the eighth-path-attainer person... has adherence to moral rules and austerities been abandoned? That should not be said. Etc.

Has the underlying tendency to wrong view not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has prepossession by views not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. Has the underlying tendency to wrong view not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has prepossession by sceptical doubt not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc.

Has the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person... adherence to moral rules and austerities has not been abandoned? Yes. Has prepossession by views not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. For an eighth-path-attainer, adherence to moral rules and austerities has not been abandoned? Yes. Has prepossession by sceptical doubt not been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc.

369. Has prepossession by views been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the path been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by views for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. Has prepossession by views been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Have the establishments of mindfulness been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by views for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. The right strivings, etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? That should not be said.

Has prepossession by sceptical doubt been abandoned for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Has the path been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. the factors of enlightenment have been developed? That should not be said. Etc.

Has the path not been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by views for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Was it abandoned by a non-path, by what is mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. By what is defiling? That should not be said. Etc. Have the establishments of mindfulness not been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by views for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. Have the factors of enlightenment not been developed? Yes. Was it abandoned by a non-path, by what is mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. By what is defiling? That should not be said. Etc.

Has the path not been developed for the abandoning of prepossession by sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. The establishments of mindfulness, etc. Have the factors of enlightenment not been developed? Yes. Was it abandoned by a non-path, by what is mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. By what is defiling? That should not be said. Etc.

370. Should it not be said - "For an eighth-path-attainer, prepossession by views has been abandoned"? Yes. Will it arise? It will not arise. If it will not arise, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "For an eighth-path-attainer, prepossession by views has been abandoned."

Should it not be said - "For an eighth-path-attainer, prepossession by sceptical doubt has been abandoned"? Yes. Will it arise? It will not arise. If it will not arise, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "For an eighth-path-attainer, prepossession by sceptical doubt has been abandoned."

Is prepossession by views abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to wrong view abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Is prepossession by views abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person... is adherence to moral rules and austerities abandoned because it will not arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Is prepossession by sceptical doubt abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? Yes. Has the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt for the eighth-path-attainer person... is adherence to moral rules and austerities abandoned because it will not arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Is prepossession by views abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? Yes. Is prepossession by views abandoned for a change-of-lineage person because it will not arise? That should not be said. Etc. Is prepossession by sceptical doubt abandoned for an eighth-path-attainer because it will not arise? Yes. Is prepossession by sceptical doubt abandoned for a change-of-lineage person because it will not arise? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Eighth-Path-Attainer is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(26) 6.

The Discussion on the Faculties of the Eighth-Path-Attainer

371. Is there no faith faculty for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Is there no faith for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Is there no energy faculty for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. Is there no mindfulness faculty? Etc. Is there no concentration faculty? Etc. Is there no wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there no wisdom for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there faith for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Is there faith faculty for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc. Is there energy for the eighth-path-attainer person? Etc. Is there mindfulness? Is there concentration? Is there wisdom? Yes. Is there wisdom faculty for the eighth-path-attainer person? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mind for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there mind faculty? Yes. Is there faith for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mind for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there mind faculty? Yes. Is there wisdom for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have pleasure, have the pleasure faculty, have life, have the life faculty? Yes. Is there faith for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have life, have the life faculty? Yes. For the eighth-path-attainer person, etc. Is there wisdom, is there the wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have faith, not have the faith faculty? Yes. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have mind, not have the mind faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have faith, not have the faith faculty? Yes. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have pleasure, not have the pleasure faculty? Etc. Is there life, is there not the life faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have wisdom, not have the wisdom faculty? Yes. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have mind, not have the mind faculty? Is there pleasure, is there not the pleasure faculty? Is there life, is there not the life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no faith faculty for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person faithless? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person not have the energy faculty? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person lazy, lacking in energy? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person not have the mindfulness faculty? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person unmindful, not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person not have the concentration faculty? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person unconcentrated, with a wandering mind? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person not have the wisdom faculty? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person unwise, an idiot? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have faith, and is that faith leading to liberation? Yes. If the eighth-path-attainer person has faith, and that faith is leading to liberation, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The eighth-path-attainer person does not have the faith faculty." The eighth-path-attainer person has energy, and that energy is leading to liberation; there is mindfulness, and that mindfulness is leading to liberation; there is concentration, and that concentration is leading to liberation; there is wisdom, and is that wisdom leading to liberation? Yes. If the eighth-path-attainer person has wisdom, and that wisdom is leading to liberation, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The eighth-path-attainer person does not have the wisdom faculty."

372. Is there faith for a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, is there faith faculty? Yes. Is there faith for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there wisdom for a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, is there wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there wisdom for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning... For a person practising for the realisation of arahantship, is there faith, is there faith faculty? Etc. Is there wisdom, is there the wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there wisdom for the eighth-path-attainer person, is there wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have faith, not have the faith faculty? Yes. Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning have faith, not have the faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Does the eighth-path-attainer person have wisdom, not have the wisdom faculty? Yes. Does a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning have wisdom, not have the wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eighth-path-attainer person have faith, not have the faith faculty? Etc. Is there wisdom, not the wisdom faculty? Yes. For a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning... Does a person practising for the realisation of arahantship have wisdom, not have the wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no five spiritual faculties for the eighth-path-attainer person? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five faculties! Which five? The faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the concentration faculty, the wisdom faculty - these, monks, are the five faculties. Through the completeness and fulfilment of these five faculties, monks, one becomes a Worthy One. With those softer than that, one becomes one practising for the realisation of arahantship; with those softer than that, one becomes a non-returner; with those softer than that, one becomes one practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning; with those softer than that, one becomes a once-returner; with those softer than that, one becomes one practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning; with those softer than that, one becomes a stream-enterer; with those softer than that, one becomes one practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry. For whom, monks, these five faculties are entirely, in every way, absent, that one I call 'an outsider, standing in the faction of worldlings'." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Is the eighth-path-attainer person an outsider, standing in the faction of worldlings? That should not be said. Etc. If so, there are five spiritual faculties for the eighth-path-attainer person.

The Discussion on the Faculties of the Eighth-Path-Attainer is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(27) 7.

The Discussion on the Divine Eye

373. Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Is the physical eye the divine eye, is the divine eye the physical eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Is the divine eye of such a kind as the physical eye, is the physical eye of such a kind as the divine eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Is that very physical eye that divine eye, is that divine eye that physical eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Is the domain, power and range of the divine eye of such a kind as the domain, power and range of the physical eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Having been clung-to, does it become not clung-to? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been clung-to, does it become not clung-to? Yes. Having been sensual-sphere, does it become fine-material-sphere? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been sensual-sphere, does it become fine-material-sphere? Yes. Having been fine-material-sphere, does it become immaterial-sphere? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been fine-material-sphere, does it become immaterial-sphere? Yes. Having been included, does it become not included? That should not be said. Etc.

374. Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Does the divine eye supported by mental states become the physical eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Does the divine eye supported by mental states become the eye of wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Does the divine eye supported by mental states become the physical eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical eye supported by mental states become the divine eye? Yes. Are there only two eyes? That should not be said. Etc. Are there only two eyes? Yes. Were not three eyes spoken of by the Blessed One - the physical eye, the divine eye, the eye of wisdom? Yes. If three eyes were spoken of by the Blessed One - the physical eye, the divine eye, the eye of wisdom, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are only two eyes."

Are there only two eyes? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these three eyes! What three? The physical eye, the divine eye, the eye of wisdom - these, monks, are the three eyes."

"The physical eye, the divine eye, the unsurpassed eye of wisdom;

These three eyes, the highest of men declared.

"The arising of the physical eye is the path to the divine eye;

And when knowledge arose, the unsurpassed eye of wisdom;

By the attainment of that eye, one is freed from all suffering."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "there are only two eyes."

The Discussion on the Divine Eye is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(28) 8.

The Discussion on the Divine Ear

375. Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Is the physical ear the divine ear, is the divine ear the physical ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Is the divine ear of such a kind as the physical ear, is the physical ear of such a kind as the divine ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Is that very physical ear that divine ear, is that divine ear that physical ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Is the domain, power and range of the divine ear of such a kind as the domain, power and range of the physical ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Having been clung-to, does it become not clung-to? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been clung-to, does it become not clung-to? Yes. Having been sensual-sphere, does it become fine-material-sphere? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been sensual-sphere, does it become fine-material-sphere? Yes. Having been fine-material-sphere, does it become immaterial-sphere? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been fine-material-sphere, does it become immaterial-sphere? Yes. Having been included, does it become not included? That should not be said. Etc.

376. Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Does the divine ear supported by mental states become the physical ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the physical ear supported by mental states become the divine ear? Yes. Is it just one ear? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it just one ear? Yes. Were not two ears spoken of by the Blessed One - "the physical ear, the divine ear"? Yes. If two ears were spoken of by the Blessed One - the physical ear, the divine ear, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "it is just one ear."

The Discussion on the Divine Ear is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(29) 9.

The Discussion on Knowledge of Rebirth According to Beings' Actions

377. Is the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions the divine eye? Yes. Does one attend to rebirth according to beings' actions and see materiality with the divine eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend to rebirth according to beings' actions and see materiality with the divine eye? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions the divine eye? Yes. Does one attend "These beings indeed, sirs" and attend "endowed with bodily misconduct" and attend "endowed with verbal misconduct" and attend "endowed with mental misconduct" and attend "revilers of the noble ones" and attend "holding wrong views" and attend "undertaking actions based on wrong views" and attend "upon the body's collapse at death, they have arisen in a realm of misery, an unfortunate realm, a nether world, in hell" and attend "but these beings, sirs" and attend "endowed with bodily good conduct" and attend "endowed with verbal good conduct" and attend "endowed with mental good conduct" and attend "not revilers of the noble ones" and attend "holding right views" and attend "undertaking actions based on right views" and attend "upon the body's collapse at death, they have arisen in a fortunate realm, in a heavenly world," and see materiality with the divine eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attend "upon the body's collapse at death, they have arisen in a fortunate realm, in a heavenly world" and see materiality with the divine eye? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

378. Is the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions the divine eye? Yes. Is there anyone without the divine eye, who has not attained, not reached, not realized the divine eye, who knows rebirth according to beings' actions? Yes. If there is anyone without the divine eye, who has not attained, not reached, not realized the divine eye, who knows rebirth according to beings' actions, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions is the divine eye."

Is the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions the divine eye? Yes. Does the Venerable Sāriputta know the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions? Yes. If the Venerable Sāriputta knows the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions is the divine eye."

Is the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions the divine eye? Yes. Does the Venerable Sāriputta know the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions? Yes. Does the Venerable Sāriputta have the divine eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the Venerable Sāriputta have the divine eye? Yes. Did not the Venerable Sāriputta say this -

"Neither for the knowledge of past lives, nor for the divine eye;

For the knowledge of others' minds, for supernormal power, for the purification of the ear-element;

For death and rebirth, I have no aspiration."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions is the divine eye."

The Discussion on Knowledge of Rebirth According to Beings' Actions is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(30) 10.

The Discussion on Restraint

379. Is there restraint among the gods? Yes. Is there non-restraint among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no non-restraint among the gods? Yes. There is no restraint among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that restraint from non-restraint is morality, and there is restraint among the gods? Yes. Is there non-restraint among the gods, from which non-restraint restraint is morality? That should not be said. Etc.

Acknowledge the refutation. If restraint from non-restraint is morality, and there is restraint among the gods, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is non-restraint among the gods, from which non-restraint restraint is morality." What you say there - "It should be said indeed - 'Restraint from non-restraint is morality, there is restraint among the gods,' but it should not be said - 'There is non-restraint among the gods, from which non-restraint restraint is morality'" - is wrong.

But if it should not be said - "There is non-restraint among the gods, from which non-restraint restraint is morality," then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Restraint from non-restraint is morality, there is restraint among the gods." What you say there - "It should be said indeed 'Restraint from non-restraint is morality, there is restraint among the gods,' but it should not be said - 'There is non-restraint among the gods, from which non-restraint restraint is morality'" - is wrong.

Is there restraint among human beings, and is there non-restraint there? Yes. Is there restraint among the gods, and is there non-restraint there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there restraint among the gods, and there is no non-restraint there? Yes. Is there restraint among human beings, and there is no non-restraint there? That should not be said. Etc.

380. Is there abstention from killing living beings among the gods? Yes. Is there killing living beings among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods? Yes. Is there spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no killing living beings among the gods? Yes. There is no abstention from killing living beings among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods? Yes. There is no abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abstention from killing living beings among human beings, is there killing living beings there? Yes. Is there abstention from killing living beings among the gods, is there killing living beings there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among human beings, is there spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence there? Yes. Is there abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods, is there spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abstention from killing living beings among the gods, there is no killing living beings there? Yes. Is there abstention from killing living beings among human beings, there is no killing living beings there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among the gods, there is no spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence there? Yes. Is there abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence among human beings, there is no spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence there? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no restraint among the gods? Yes. Are all gods killers of living beings, takers of what is not given, those who engage in sexual misconduct, liars, those who indulge in spirits, liquor, and intoxicants causing heedlessness? That should not be said. Etc. If so, there is restraint among the gods.

The Discussion on Restraint is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(31) 11.

The Discussion on Non-Perception

381. Is there perception among non-percipient beings? Yes. Is it percipient existence, percipient destination, percipient abode of beings, percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, percipient mode of generation, acquisition of percipient individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? Yes. If it is non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perception among non-percipient beings."

Is there perception among non-percipient beings? Yes. Is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. If it is single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perception among non-percipient beings."

Is there perception among non-percipient beings? Yes. Does one perform what is to be done by perception with that perception? That should not be said. Etc.

382. There is perception among human beings, and is it percipient existence, percipient destination, percipient abode of beings, percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, percipient mode of generation, acquisition of percipient individual existence? Yes. There is perception among non-percipient beings, and is it percipient existence, percipient destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

There is perception among human beings, and is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is perception among non-percipient beings, and is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

There is perception among human beings, does one perform what is to be done by perception with that perception? Yes. There is perception among non-percipient beings, does one perform what is to be done by perception with that perception? That should not be said. Etc.

There is perception among non-percipient beings, and is it non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? Yes. There is perception among human beings, and is it non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, etc. acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

There is perception among non-percipient beings, and is it single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is perception among human beings, and is it single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

There is perception among non-percipient beings, and does one not perform what is to be done by perception with that perception? Yes. There is perception among human beings, and does one not perform what is to be done by perception with that perception? That should not be said. Etc.

383. Should it not be said - "There is perception among non-percipient beings"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, there are gods called 'non-percipient beings'; and when perception arises, those gods pass away from that realm"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is perception among non-percipient beings.

Is there perception among non-percipient beings? At some time there is, at some time there is not. At some time percipient beings, at some time non-percipient beings; at some time percipient existence, at some time non-percipient existence; at some time five-aggregate constituent existence, at some time single-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there perception among non-percipient beings at some time, and at some time there is not? Yes. At what time is there, at what time is there not? At the time of death and at the time of rebirth there is, at the time of duration there is not. At the time of death and at the time of rebirth percipient beings, at the time of duration non-percipient beings; at the time of death and at the time of rebirth percipient existence, at the time of duration non-percipient existence; at the time of death and at the time of rebirth five-aggregate constituent existence, at the time of duration single-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Non-Perception is concluded.

3. The Third Chapter

(32) 12.

The Discussion on the Plane of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception

384. In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception"? Yes. Is it non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not percipient existence, percipient destination, percipient abode of beings, percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, percipient mode of generation, acquisition of percipient individual existence? Yes. If it is percipient existence, percipient destination, etc. acquisition of percipient individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - 'there is perception'".

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception"? Yes. Is it single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. If it is four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - 'there is perception'".

385. Among non-percipient beings it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? Yes. In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it non-percipient existence, non-percipient destination, non-percipient abode of beings, non-percipient wandering in the round of rebirths, non-percipient mode of generation, acquisition of non-percipient individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Among non-percipient beings it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it single-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it percipient existence, percipient destination, etc. acquisition of percipient individual existence? Yes. Among non-percipient beings it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it percipient existence, percipient destination, etc. acquisition of percipient individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Among non-percipient beings it should not be said - "there is perception," and is it four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception"? Yes. Is it not that the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. If the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - 'there is perception'".

386. The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception"? Yes. The plane of infinite space is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of infinite space it should not be said - "there is perception"? That should not be said. Etc.

The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception"? Yes. The plane of infinite consciousness, etc. the plane of nothingness is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of nothingness it should not be said - "there is perception"? That should not be said. Etc.

The plane of infinite space is four-aggregate constituent existence, is there perception there? Yes. The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, is there perception there? That should not be said. Etc.

The plane of infinite consciousness, etc. the plane of nothingness is four-aggregate constituent existence, is there perception there? Yes. The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, is there perception there? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception" or "there is not"? Yes. Is it not that the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. If the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - 'there is perception' or 'there is not.'"

The plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception" or "there is not"? Yes. The plane of infinite space, etc. The plane of infinite consciousness, etc. the plane of nothingness is four-aggregate constituent existence, in the plane of nothingness it should not be said - "there is perception" or "there is not"? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception" or "there is not"? Yes. Is it not the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? Yes. If it is the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - 'there is perception' or 'there is not.'"

Having made it the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception it should not be said - "there is perception" or "there is not"? Yes. Having made it neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, regarding neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling it should not be said - "feeling" or "non-feeling"? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Plane of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception is concluded.

The Third Chapter.

Its summary:

Power, common, noble, a mind with lust becomes liberated;

Liberated, being liberated, there is consciousness being liberated.

For an eighth-path-attainer, prepossession by views has been abandoned;

For an eighth-path-attainer, there are no five faculties, eye.

Ear, supported by mental states, knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions;

Restraint among the gods, perception among non-percipient beings, just so the peak of existence.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(33) 1.

The Discussion on a Layman Being a Worthy One

387. Is there a Worthy One who is a layman? Yes. Is there a mental fetter of the layman for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not a mental fetter of the layman for a Worthy One? Yes. If there is not a mental fetter of the layman for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman."

Is there a Worthy One who is a layman? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One the mental fetter of the layman has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future? Yes. If for a Worthy One the mental fetter of the layman has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman."

Is there a Worthy One who is a layman? Yes. Is there any layman who, without abandoning the mental fetter of the layman, makes an end of suffering in this very life? There is not. If there is not any layman who, without abandoning the mental fetter of the layman, makes an end of suffering in this very life, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman."

Is there a Worthy One who is a layman? Yes. Did not the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta say this to the Blessed One - "Is there indeed, Master Gotama, any layman who, without abandoning the fetter of the layman, upon the body's collapse makes an end of suffering?" "There is not, Vaccha, any layman who, without abandoning the fetter of the layman, upon the body's collapse makes an end of suffering." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman."

Is there a Worthy One who is a layman? Yes. Would a Worthy One engage in sexual intercourse, produce offspring, dwell in the confinement of wife and children, enjoy Kāsi sandalwood, wear garlands, scents, and cosmetics, consent to gold and silver, accept goats and sheep, accept fowl and pigs, accept elephants, cattle, horses and mares, accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants, wear decorated hair-bands and tail-hair top-knots, wear white garments with long fringes, be one living the household life for as long as life? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman"? Yes. Did not Yasa the son of good family, Uttiya the householder, Setu the young man, attain arahantship while bearing the marks of a layman? Yes. If Yasa the son of good family, Uttiya the householder, Setu the young man, attained arahantship while bearing the marks of a layman, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is a Worthy One who is a layman."

The Discussion on a Layman Being a Worthy One is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(34) 2.

The Discussion on Rebirth

388. Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is one a stream-enterer together with rebirth? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is one a once-returner together with rebirth? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is one a non-returner together with rebirth? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one not a stream-enterer together with rebirth? Yes. If one is not a stream-enterer together with rebirth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

Is one not a once-returner together with rebirth? Yes. If one is not a once-returner together with rebirth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

Is one not a non-returner together with rebirth? Yes. If one is not a non-returner together with rebirth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

389. Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Was the Elder Sāriputta a Worthy One together with rebirth? That should not be said. The Elder Mahāmoggallāna, etc. the Elder Mahākassapa, etc. the Elder Mahākaccāna, etc. the Elder Mahākoṭṭhika, etc. Was the Elder Mahāpanthaka a Worthy One together with rebirth? That should not be said. Etc.

Was the Elder Sāriputta not a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. If the Elder Sāriputta was not a Worthy One together with rebirth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

The Elder Mahāmoggallāna, etc. the Elder Mahākassapa, etc. the Elder Mahākaccāna, etc. the Elder Mahākoṭṭhika, etc. Was the Elder Mahāpanthaka not a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. If the Elder Mahāpanthaka was not a Worthy One together with rebirth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

390. Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Does one realize arahantship by rebirth-seeking consciousness, by what is mundane, with mental corruptions, etc. By what is defiling? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is rebirth-seeking consciousness leading to liberation, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, leading to non-accumulation, without mental corruptions, etc. not subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it not that rebirth-seeking consciousness is not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, not leading to enlightenment, not leading to non-accumulation, with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement? Yes. If rebirth-seeking consciousness is not leading to liberation, not leading to elimination, not leading to enlightenment, not leading to non-accumulation, with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One is a Worthy One together with rebirth."

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Does one abandon lust by rebirth-seeking consciousness, abandon hate, abandon delusion, abandon moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is rebirth-seeking consciousness the path, the establishment of mindfulness, etc. the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by the rebirth-seeking consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is one a Worthy One together with rebirth? Yes. Is the death consciousness the path consciousness, the rebirth-seeking consciousness the fruition consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Rebirth is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(35) 3.

The Discussion on Being Without Mental Corruptions

391. Are all phenomena of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, the path of once-returning, the fruition of once-returning, the path of non-returning, the fruition of non-returning, the path of arahantship, the fruition of arahantship, the establishment of mindfulness, the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the eye of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. Is the eye of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

The ear of a Worthy One, etc. the nose of a Worthy One, the tongue of a Worthy One, is the body of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. is the body of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the body of a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the body of a Worthy One subject to lifting up and putting down, subject to cutting and breaking, common to crows, vultures, and hawks? Yes. Is a phenomenon without mental corruptions subject to lifting up and putting down, subject to cutting and breaking, common to crows, vultures, and hawks? That should not be said. Etc.

Would poison penetrate the body of a Worthy One, would a knife penetrate, would fire penetrate? Yes. Would poison penetrate a phenomenon without mental corruptions, would a knife penetrate, would fire penetrate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it possible to bind the body of a Worthy One with bondage by fetters, to bind with bondage by ropes, to bind with bondage by chains, to bind with bondage to a village, to bind with bondage to a market town, to bind with bondage to a city, to bind with bondage to a province, to bind with the five bonds including the neck? Yes. Is it possible to bind a phenomenon without mental corruptions with bondage by fetters, to bind with bondage by ropes, to bind with bondage by chains, to bind with bondage to a village, market town, city, or province, to bind with the five bonds including the neck? That should not be said. Etc.

392. If a Worthy One gives a robe to a worldling, does it, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. Having been without mental corruptions, does it become with mental corruptions? Yes. Is that very thing without mental corruptions that with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very thing without mental corruptions that with mental corruptions? Yes. Does the path, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. The fruition... establishment of mindfulness... the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, Does the factor of enlightenment, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc.

If a Worthy One gives almsfood to a worldling, gives lodging, gives the requisite of medicines for the sick, does it, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. Having been without mental corruptions, does it become with mental corruptions? Yes. Is that very thing without mental corruptions that with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very thing without mental corruptions that with mental corruptions? Yes. Does the path, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. The fruition... establishment of mindfulness... the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, Does the factor of enlightenment, having been without mental corruptions, become with mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc.

If a worldling gives a robe to a Worthy One, having been with mental corruptions, does it become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. having been with mental corruptions, does it become without mental corruptions? Yes. Is that very thing with mental corruptions that without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. is that very thing with mental corruptions that without mental corruptions? Yes. Does lust, having been with mental corruptions, become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. hate, etc. delusion... etc. does moral fearlessness, having been with mental corruptions, become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc.

If a worldling gives almsfood to a Worthy One, gives lodging, gives the requisite of medicines for the sick, having been with mental corruptions, does it become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. having been with mental corruptions, does it become without mental corruptions? Yes. Is that very thing with mental corruptions that without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. is that very thing with mental corruptions that without mental corruptions? Yes. Does lust, having been with mental corruptions, become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc. hate, etc. delusion... etc. does moral fearlessness, having been with mental corruptions, become without mental corruptions? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "all phenomena of a Worthy One are without mental corruptions"? Yes. Is not a Worthy One without mental corruptions? Yes. If a Worthy One is without mental corruptions, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "all phenomena of a Worthy One are without mental corruptions."

The Discussion on Being Without Mental Corruptions is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(36) 4.

The Discussion on Being Endowed With

393. Is a Worthy One possessed of the four fruits? Yes. Is a Worthy One possessed of four contacts, four feelings, four perceptions, four volitions, four consciousnesses, four faiths, four energies, four mindfulnesses, four concentrations, four wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a non-returner possessed of the three fruits? Yes. Is a non-returner possessed of three contacts? Etc. possessed of three wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a once-returner possessed of the two fruits? Yes. Is a once-returner possessed of two contacts? Etc. possessed of two wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a Worthy One a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is a Worthy One a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is a Worthy One a non-returner, an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a non-returner a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc. Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is a non-returner a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a once-returner endowed with the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a once-returner a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc.

394. Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same one a Worthy One, is he a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of once-returning be said to be "a once-returner"? Yes. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is that same one a Worthy One, is he a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of non-returning be said to be "a non-returner"? Yes. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is that same one a Worthy One, is he a non-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same one a non-returner, is he a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of once-returning be said to be "a once-returner"? Yes. Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is that same one a non-returner, is he a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a once-returner endowed with the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same once-returner a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

395. Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a Worthy One has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a Worthy One passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a Worthy One passed the path of stream-entry, passed identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, lust leading to the realms of misery, hate leading to the realms of misery, delusion leading to the realms of misery, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One has passed the fruition of once-returning? Yes. If a Worthy One has passed the fruition of once-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of the fruition of once-returning."

Has a Worthy One passed the fruition of once-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a Worthy One passed the path of once-returning, passed gross sensual lust, gross anger, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Worthy One possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One has passed the fruition of non-returning? Yes. If a Worthy One has passed the fruition of non-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of the fruition of non-returning."

Has a Worthy One passed the fruition of non-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a Worthy One passed the path of non-returning, passed subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a non-returner has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a non-returner has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A non-returner is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a non-returner passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a non-returner passed the path of stream-entry, identity view, etc. passed delusion leading to the realms of misery and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a non-returner possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is it not that a non-returner has passed the fruition of once-returning? Yes. If a non-returner has passed the fruition of once-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A non-returner is possessed of the fruition of once-returning."

Has a non-returner passed the fruition of once-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a non-returner passed the path of once-returning, gross sensual lust, passed gross anger and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a once-returner endowed with the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a once-returner has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a once-returner has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A once-returner is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a once-returner passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a once-returner passed the path of stream-entry, identity view, etc. passed delusion leading to the realms of misery and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

396. Should it not be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of the four fruits"? Yes. Is it not that the four fruits have been attained by a Worthy One, and he has not fallen away from them? Yes. If the four fruits have been attained by a Worthy One and he has not fallen away from them, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of the four fruits."

Should it not be said - "A non-returner is possessed of the three fruits"? Yes. Is it not that the three fruits have been attained by a non-returner, and he has not fallen away from them? Yes. If the three fruits have been attained by a non-returner and he has not fallen away from them, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A non-returner is possessed of the three fruits."

Should it not be said - "A once-returner is possessed of the two fruits"? Yes. Is it not that the two fruits have been attained by a once-returner, and he has not fallen away from them? Yes. If the two fruits have been attained by a once-returner and he has not fallen away from them, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A once-returner is possessed of the two fruits."

The four fruits have been attained by a Worthy One and he has not fallen away from them; is a Worthy One possessed of the four fruits? Yes. The four paths have been attained by a Worthy One and he has not fallen away from them; is a Worthy One possessed of the four paths? That should not be said. Etc.

The three fruits have been attained by a non-returner and he has not fallen away from them; is a non-returner possessed of the three fruits? Yes. The three paths have been attained by a non-returner and he has not fallen away from them; is a non-returner possessed of the three paths? That should not be said. Etc.

The two fruits have been attained by a once-returner and he has not fallen away from them; is a once-returner possessed of the two fruits? Yes. The two paths have been attained by a once-returner and he has not fallen away from them; is a once-returner possessed of the two paths? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Being Endowed With is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(37) 5.

The Discussion on Being Endowed With Equanimity

397. Is a Worthy One possessed of six equanimities? Yes. Is a Worthy One possessed of six contacts, six feelings, six perceptions? Etc. possessed of six wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Worthy One possessed of six equanimities? Yes. Does a Worthy One seeing form with the eye hear sound with the ear, smell odour with the nose, taste flavour with the tongue, touch tangible object with the body, cognize mental phenomena with the mind? Etc. cognizing mental phenomena with the mind, does one see form with the eye, hear sound with the ear, smell odour with the nose, taste flavour with the tongue, touch tangible object with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Worthy One possessed of six equanimities? Yes. Is one constantly, continuously, uninterruptedly possessed of and included in six equanimities, are six equanimities present? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of six equanimities"? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One has six-factored equanimity? Yes. If a Worthy One has six-factored equanimity, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A Worthy One is possessed of six equanimities." Etc.

The Discussion on Being Endowed With Equanimity is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(38) 6.

The Discussion on Being a Buddha at Enlightenment

398. Is one enlightened by enlightenment? Yes. When enlightenment has ceased, disappeared, and subsided, is one unenlightened? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by past enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc. Is one enlightened by past enlightenment? Yes. Does one do what is to be done for enlightenment by that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one do what is to be done for enlightenment by that enlightenment? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by future enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by future enlightenment? Yes. Does one do what is to be done for enlightenment by that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one do what is to be done for enlightenment by that enlightenment? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering by that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by past enlightenment, and does one perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path with that enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by past enlightenment, and does one fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by future enlightenment, and does one perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? Yes. Is one enlightened by future enlightenment, and does one fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by past enlightenment, and does one not perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one not perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by past enlightenment, and does one not fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? Yes. Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one not fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by future enlightenment, and does one not perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one not perform what is to be done by enlightenment with that enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

One is a Buddha by future enlightenment, and does one not fully understand suffering by that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? Yes. Is one enlightened by present enlightenment, and does one not fully understand suffering with that enlightenment, etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

399. Is one enlightened by past enlightenment, enlightened by future enlightenment, enlightened by present enlightenment? Yes. Is one enlightened by three enlightenments? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one enlightened by three enlightenments? Yes. Is one constantly, continuously, uninterruptedly possessed of and included in three enlightenments, are three enlightenments present? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "one is enlightened by enlightenment"? Yes. Is it not that one is enlightened by the attainment of enlightenment? Yes. If one is enlightened by the attainment of enlightenment, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "one is enlightened by enlightenment."

Is one enlightened by the attainment of enlightenment, is one enlightened by enlightenment? Yes. Is the attainment of enlightenment enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Being a Buddha at Enlightenment is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(39) 7.

The Discussion on Characteristics

400. Is a Bodhisatta one possessed of the characteristics? Yes. Is one possessed of partial characteristics a partial Bodhisatta? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Bodhisatta one possessed of the characteristics? Yes. Is one possessed of three-quarter characteristics a three-quarter Bodhisatta? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Bodhisatta one possessed of the characteristics? Yes. Is one possessed of half characteristics a half Bodhisatta? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a Bodhisatta one possessed of the characteristics? Yes. Is a being destined to be a universal monarch possessed of the characteristics, is a being destined to be a universal monarch a Bodhisatta? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a being destined to be a universal monarch possessed of the characteristics, is a being destined to be a universal monarch a Bodhisatta? Yes. Is the former exertion, former conduct, preaching of the Teaching, teaching of the Teaching of a being destined to be a universal monarch of such a kind as the former exertion, former conduct, preaching of the Teaching, teaching of the Teaching of a Bodhisatta? That should not be said. Etc.

401. Just as when a Bodhisatta is being born, gods receive him first, afterwards human beings, so too when a being destined to be a universal monarch is being born, do gods receive him first, afterwards human beings? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as when a Bodhisatta is being born, four young gods receive him and place him before his mother - "Be delighted, queen! An influential son has been born to you," so too when a being destined to be a universal monarch is being born, do four young gods receive him and place him before his mother - "Be delighted, queen! An influential son has been born to you"? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as when a Bodhisatta is being born, two streams of water appear from the sky - one of cool water, one of warm water - with which they perform the water-function for the Bodhisatta and for his mother, so too when a being destined to be a universal monarch is being born, do two streams of water appear from the sky - one of cool water, one of warm water - with which they perform the water-function for the being destined to be a universal monarch and for his mother? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as a Bodhisatta just born, having stood firmly on even feet, facing north, walks with seven strides while a white umbrella is held over him, and surveys all directions, and speaks a bold speech - "I am the foremost in the world, I am the eldest in the world, I am the best in the world, this is my last birth, there is now no more rebirth," so too does a being destined to be a universal monarch just born, having stood firmly on even feet, facing north, walk with seven strides while a white umbrella is held over him, and survey all directions, and speak a bold speech - "I am the foremost in the world, I am the eldest in the world, I am the best in the world, this is my last birth, there is now no more rebirth"? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as when a Bodhisatta is being born, there is the manifestation of great light, of great radiance, of a great earthquake, so too when a being destined to be a universal monarch is being born, is there the manifestation of great light, of great radiance, of a great earthquake? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as the natural body of a Bodhisatta shines all around for a fathom, so too does the natural body of a being destined to be a universal monarch shine all around for a fathom? That should not be said. Etc.

Just as a Bodhisatta sees a great dream, so too does a being destined to be a universal monarch see a great dream? That should not be said. Etc.

402. Should it not be said - "The Bodhisatta is possessed of the characteristics"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, these are the thirty-two characteristics of a great man, possessed of which a great man has only two destinations, no other! If he dwells in a house, he becomes a king, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king of righteousness, ruler of the four quarters, victorious, who has established the security of his realm, possessed of the seven treasures. He has these seven treasures, as follows - the wheel treasure, the elephant treasure, the horse treasure, the jewel treasure, the woman treasure, the householder treasure, and the adviser treasure as the seventh. And he has more than a thousand sons, brave, heroic in form, crushers of enemy armies. He dwells having conquered this earth bounded by the ocean, without rod, without sword, by righteousness. But if he goes forth from home into homelessness, he becomes a Worthy One, a Fully Enlightened One, one who removes the veil in the world." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the Bodhisatta is possessed of the characteristics.

The Discussion on Characteristics is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(40) 8.

The Discussion on Entering Upon the Fixed Course

403. Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Was the Bodhisatta a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? That should not be said. Etc.

Was the Bodhisatta a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Having been a disciple, does one become a Buddha? That should not be said. Etc.

Having been a disciple, does one become a Buddha? Yes. One who has learned by hearsay? That should not be said. Etc.

One who has learned by hearsay? Yes. Is not the Blessed One self-become? Yes. If the Blessed One is self-become, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "one who has learned by hearsay."

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Were only three fruits of asceticism fully awakened to by the Blessed One at the foot of the Bodhi tree? That should not be said. Etc.

Were not four fruits of asceticism fully awakened to by the Blessed One at the foot of the Bodhi tree? Yes. If four fruits of asceticism were fully awakened to by the Blessed One at the foot of the Bodhi tree, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa."

404. Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Did the Bodhisatta perform difficult practices? Yes. Would a person accomplished in vision perform difficult practices? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Bodhisatta practise self-mortification and point to another teacher? Yes. Would a person accomplished in vision point to another teacher? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Venerable Ānanda enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One, and was the Venerable Ānanda a disciple of the Blessed One? Yes. Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa, and was the Bodhisatta a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the householder Citta and Hatthaka of Āḷavī enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One, and were the householder Citta and Hatthaka of Āḷavī disciples of the Blessed One? Yes. Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa, and was the Bodhisatta a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa, and was he not a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Did the Venerable Ānanda enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One, and was he not a disciple of the Blessed One? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa, and was he not a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Did the householder Citta and Hatthaka of Āḷavī enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One, and were they not disciples of the Blessed One? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa, and was he not a disciple of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Does a disciple who has passed beyond birth become a non-disciple? That should not be said. Etc.

405. Should it not be said - "the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I, Ānanda, lived the holy life under the Blessed One Kassapa for the sake of future highest enlightenment"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa."

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"I am the all-conquering one, the all-knowing one,

Untainted in all phenomena;

Having abandoned all, liberated through the elimination of craving,

Having directly known by myself, whom should I point to as teacher?

"I have no teacher, no one equal to me is found;

In the world including the gods, there is no one who is my match.

"For I am a Worthy One in the world, I am the unsurpassed Teacher;

I alone am the perfectly Self-awakened One, become cool, quenched.

"To set in motion the wheel of the Teaching, I am going to the city of Kāsi;

In the world that has become blind, I will beat the drum of the Deathless."

"According to what you claim, friend, you deserve to be the infinite conqueror"?

"Those like me are indeed conquerors, those who have attained the elimination of mental corruptions;

Evil mental states have been conquered by me, therefore, Upaka, I am a conqueror."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa."

Did the Bodhisatta enter the fixed course and live the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - 'This is the noble truth of suffering' - thus, monks, regarding things not heard before, vision arose for me, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, true knowledge arose, light arose. 'But this noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been fully understood' - thus, monks, regarding things not heard before, vision arose for me, etc. light arose. 'This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been abandoned' - thus, monks, etc. 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been realized' - thus, monks, etc. 'This is the noble truth of the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the practice leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been developed' - thus, monks, regarding things not heard before, vision arose for me, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, true knowledge arose, light arose." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life in the Scriptures of the Blessed One Kassapa."

The Discussion on Entering Upon the Fixed Course is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(41) 9.

Another Discussion on Being Endowed With

406. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the three fruits? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of four contacts, four feelings, four perceptions, four volitions, four consciousnesses, four faiths, four energies, four mindfulnesses, four concentrations, four wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the two fruits? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of three contacts, three feelings, etc. possessed of three wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of two contacts, two feelings, etc. possessed of two wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship a non-returner, an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, an upstream-goer towards the divine world Akaniṭṭha? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning a stream-enterer, one with seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer, one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? That should not be said. Etc.

407. Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of arahantship, is he a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of once-returning be said to be "a once-returner"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of arahantship, is he a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of non-returning be said to be "a non-returner"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of arahantship, is he a non-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning, is he a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of once-returning be said to be "a once-returner"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning, is he a once-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

Should one possessed of the fruition of stream-entry be said to be "a stream-enterer"? Yes. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is that same person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, is he a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc.

408. Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of arahantship is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the path of stream-entry, passed identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities, lust leading to the realms of misery, hate leading to the realms of misery, delusion leading to the realms of misery, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of once-returning? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of once-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of arahantship is possessed of the fruition of once-returning."

Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the fruition of once-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the path of once-returning, passed gross sensual lust, gross anger, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of non-returning? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of arahantship has passed the fruition of non-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of arahantship is possessed of the fruition of non-returning."

Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the fruition of non-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of arahantship passed the path of non-returning, passed subtle sensual lust, subtle anger, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

409. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning passed the path of stream-entry, identity view, etc. passed delusion leading to the realms of misery, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the fruition of once-returning? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning has passed the fruition of once-returning? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning has passed the fruition of once-returning, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning is possessed of the fruition of once-returning."

Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning passed the fruition of once-returning and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning passed the path of once-returning, passed gross sensual lust, gross anger, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

410. Is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. Is it not that a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning has passed the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning has passed the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning passed the fruition of stream-entry and is possessed of that? Yes. Has a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning passed the path of stream-entry, identity view, etc. passed delusion leading to the realms of misery, and is possessed of that? That should not be said. Etc.

411. Should it not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of arahantship is possessed of the three fruits"? Yes. Is it not that the three fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of arahantship, and he has not fallen away from them? Yes. If the three fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of arahantship and he has not fallen away from them, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person practising for the realisation of arahantship is possessed of the three fruits."

Should it not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning is possessed of the two fruits"? Yes. Is it not that the two fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning, and he has not fallen away from them? Yes. If the two fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning and he has not fallen away from them, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning is possessed of the two fruits."

Should it not be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry"? Yes. Is it not that the fruition of stream-entry has been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning, and he has not fallen away from it? Yes. If the fruition of stream-entry has been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning and he has not fallen away from it, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning is possessed of the fruition of stream-entry."

412. The three fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of arahantship and he has not fallen away from them; is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the three fruits? Yes. The four paths have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of arahantship and he has not fallen away from them; is a person practising for the realisation of arahantship possessed of the four paths? That should not be said. Etc.

The two fruits have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning and he has not fallen away from them; is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the two fruits? Yes. The three paths have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning and he has not fallen away from them; is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning possessed of the three paths? That should not be said. Etc.

The fruition of stream-entry has been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning and he has not fallen away from it; is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. The two paths have been attained by a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning and he has not fallen away from them; is a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning possessed of the two paths? That should not be said. Etc.

Another Discussion on Being Endowed With is concluded.

4. The Fourth Chapter

(42) 10.

Discussion on Abandoning All Mental Fetters

413. Is the abandoning of all mental fetters arahantship? Yes. Are all mental fetters abandoned by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all mental fetters abandoned by the path of arahantship? Yes. Does one abandon identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one abandon identity view, sceptical doubt, adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the abandoning of the three mental fetters is the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the abandoning of the three mental fetters is the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All mental fetters are abandoned by the path of arahantship."

414. Are all mental fetters abandoned by the path of arahantship? Yes. Does one abandon gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

415. Does one abandon gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All mental fetters are abandoned by the path of arahantship."

Are all mental fetters abandoned by the path of arahantship? Yes. Does one abandon subtle sensual lust and subtle anger by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

416. Does one abandon subtle sensual lust and subtle anger by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of non-returning is due to the complete abandoning of sensual lust and anger? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of non-returning is due to the complete abandoning of sensual lust and anger, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All mental fetters are abandoned by the path of arahantship."

Are all mental fetters abandoned by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that arahantship is due to the complete abandoning of lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that arahantship is due to the complete abandoning of lust for fine-material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All mental fetters are abandoned by the path of arahantship."

417. Should it not be said - "The abandoning of all mental fetters is arahantship"? Yes. Is it not that for a Worthy One all mental fetters have been abandoned? Yes. If for a Worthy One all mental fetters have been abandoned, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The abandoning of all mental fetters is arahantship."

The Discussion on Abandoning All Mental Fetters is concluded.

The Fourth Chapter.

Its summary:

There is a Worthy One who is a layman, one is a Worthy One together with rebirth, all phenomena of a Worthy One are without mental corruptions, a Worthy One is possessed of the four fruits, just so with the six equanimities, enlightened by enlightenment, possessed of one's own characteristic, the Bodhisatta entered the fixed course and lived the holy life, a practitioner is possessed of the fruit, the abandoning of all mental fetters is arahantship.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(43) 1.

The Discussion on Liberation

418. Is knowledge of liberation liberated? Yes. Is whatever knowledge of liberation all that liberated? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation liberated? Yes. Is reviewing knowledge liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

Is knowledge of liberation liberated? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a change-of-lineage person liberated? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry liberated? Yes. Is it the knowledge of a stream-enterer, the knowledge of one who has reached, attained, obtained, realized the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning liberated? Yes. Is it the knowledge of a once-returner, the knowledge of one who has reached, attained, obtained, realized the fruition of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning liberated? Yes. Is it the knowledge of a non-returner, the knowledge of one who has reached, attained, obtained, realized the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of arahantship liberated? Yes. Is it the knowledge of a Worthy One, the knowledge of one who has reached, attained, obtained, realized arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

419. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of stream-entry liberated? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry liberated? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of once-returning liberated? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning liberated? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of non-returning liberated? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning liberated? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of arahantship liberated? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of arahantship liberated? That should not be said. Etc.

420. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of stream-entry liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of once-returning liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of once-returning liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of non-returning liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of non-returning liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of liberation of a person possessing the fruition of arahantship liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? Yes. Is knowledge of liberation of a person practising for the realisation of arahantship liberated, and is that the knowledge of one who has attained the fruition? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Liberation is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(44) 2.

Discussion on Knowledge of One Beyond Training

421. Is there knowledge of one beyond training for a learner? Yes. Does a learner know and see the state of one beyond training, having seen, understood, realized, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a learner does not know and does not see the state of one beyond training, not seen, not understood, not realized, does not enter and dwell, does not dwell having touched with the body? Yes. If a learner does not know and does not see the state of one beyond training, not seen, not understood, not realized, does not enter and dwell, does not dwell having touched with the body, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is knowledge of one beyond training for a learner."

Is there knowledge of one beyond training for one beyond training, does one beyond training know and see the state of one beyond training, having seen, understood, realized, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body? Yes. Is there knowledge of one beyond training for a learner, does a learner know and see the state of one beyond training, having seen, understood, realized, enters and dwells, dwells having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

422. Is there knowledge of one beyond training for a learner, does a learner not know and not see the state of one beyond training, not seen, not understood, not realized, does not enter and dwell, does not dwell having touched with the body? Yes. Is there knowledge of one beyond training for one beyond training, does one beyond training not know and not see the state of one beyond training, not seen, not understood, not realized, does not enter and dwell, does not dwell having touched with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of one beyond training for a learner? Yes. Is there knowledge of the path of stream-entry for a change-of-lineage person? That should not be said. Etc. Is there knowledge of the fruition of stream-entry for a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. The fruition of once-returning... The fruition of non-returning... Is there knowledge of arahantship for a person practising for the realisation of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

423. Should it not be said - "There is knowledge of one beyond training for a learner"? Yes. Did not the Venerable Ānanda, a learner - know "The Blessed One is eminent," know "The Elder Sāriputta, the Elder Mahāmoggallāna is eminent"? Yes. If the Venerable Ānanda, a learner - knows "The Blessed One is eminent," knows "The Elder Sāriputta, the Elder Mahāmoggallāna is eminent," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is knowledge of one beyond training for a learner."

The Discussion on Knowledge of One Beyond Training is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(45) 3.

Discussion on Reversal

424. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Is it a perversion of regarding the impermanent as permanent? That should not be said. Etc. Regarding suffering as happiness, etc. Regarding non-self as self, etc. Is it a perversion of regarding the unattractive as attractive? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Is it unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not wholesome? Yes. If it is wholesome, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment."

Is the perversion of regarding the impermanent as permanent unwholesome? Yes. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, and is that unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Regarding suffering as happiness, etc. Regarding non-self as self, etc. Is the perversion of regarding the unattractive as attractive unwholesome? Yes. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, and is that unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

425. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, and is that unwholesome? Yes. Is the perversion of regarding the impermanent as permanent wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, and is that unwholesome? Yes. Regarding suffering as happiness, etc. Regarding non-self as self, etc. Is the perversion of regarding the unattractive as attractive wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

426. Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Would a Worthy One attain the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. If a Worthy One would attain the earth kasiṇa attainment, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment."

Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment, and would a Worthy One attain the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Is there perversion for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there perversion for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there perversion of perception, perversion of consciousness, perversion of view for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not perversion of perception, perversion of consciousness, perversion of view for a Worthy One? Yes. If there is not perversion of perception, perversion of consciousness, perversion of view for a Worthy One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perversion for a Worthy One."

427. Should it not be said - Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Is everything earth for one attaining the earth kasiṇa attainment? That should not be said. If so, there is perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment.

Is there perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment? Yes. Is there not earth, and is there anyone who attains earth as earth? Yes. If there is earth, and there is anyone who attains earth as earth, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment."

There is earth, and is it perverted for one attaining earth as earth? Yes. There is Nibbāna, and is it perverted for one attaining Nibbāna as Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "There is perverted knowledge for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment."

The Discussion on Reversal is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(46) 4.

Discussion on Fixed Course

428. Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there knowledge for one who is fixed in destination regarding going to the unfixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no knowledge for one who is fixed in destination regarding going to the unfixed course? Yes. Is there no knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there knowledge for one who is fixed in destination regarding going to the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no knowledge for one who is fixed in destination regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there no knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the unfixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the unfixed course? Yes. Is there no knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

429. Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there a fixed course for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Are there establishments of mindfulness for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course... right strivings... bases for spiritual power... faculties... powers... factors of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no fixed course for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. If there is no fixed course for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course, then indeed it should not be said - "There is knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course."

Are there no establishments of mindfulness for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course... etc. factors of enlightenment? Yes. If there are no factors of enlightenment for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course, then indeed it should not be said - "There is knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course."

430. Is there knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course? Yes. Is there knowledge of the path of stream-entry for a change-of-lineage person? That should not be said. Etc. Is there knowledge of the fruition of stream-entry for a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Is there knowledge of arahantship for a person practising for the realisation of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

431. Should it not be said - "There is knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course"? Yes. Does not the Blessed One know - "This person will enter the fixed course of the right path, this person is capable of fully realising the teaching"? Yes. If the Blessed One knows - "This person will enter the fixed course of the right path, this person is capable of fully realising the teaching," then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is knowledge for one who is undetermined regarding going to the fixed course."

The Treatise on Fixed Course is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(47) 5.

Treatise on Analytical Knowledge

432. Is all knowledge analytical knowledge? Yes. Is conventional knowledge analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Is conventional knowledge analytical knowledge? Yes. Do all those who know conventional designations, have they all attained analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Is all knowledge analytical knowledge? Yes. Is knowledge of mind-reading analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge of mind-reading analytical knowledge? Yes. Do all those who know others' minds, have they all attained analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

Is all knowledge analytical knowledge? Yes. Is all wisdom analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Is all wisdom analytical knowledge? Yes. For one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment there is wisdom; is that wisdom analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. The water kasiṇa, etc. the fire kasina, etc. the air kasina, etc. the blue kasina, etc. the yellow kasina, etc. the red kasina, etc. The white kasiṇa, etc. The plane of infinite space, etc. The plane of infinite consciousness, etc. The plane of nothingness, etc. For one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, etc. For one giving a gift, etc. For one giving a robe, etc. For one giving almsfood, etc. For one giving lodging, etc. For one giving the requisite of medicines for the sick there is wisdom; is that wisdom analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

433. Should it not be said - "Is all knowledge analytical knowledge?" Yes. There is supramundane wisdom; is that wisdom not analytical knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. If so, all knowledge is analytical knowledge.

The Treatise on Analytical Knowledge is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(48) 6.

The Treatise on Conventional Knowledge

434. Should it not be said - "Conventional knowledge has only truth as object, not another object"? Yes. Is it not that for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment there is knowledge, and the earth kasiṇa is conventional truth? Yes. If for one who has attained the earth kasiṇa attainment there is knowledge, and the earth kasiṇa is conventional truth, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Conventional knowledge has only truth as object, not another object."

Should it not be said - "Conventional knowledge has only truth as object, not another object"? Yes. Etc. Is it not that the water kasiṇa, etc. the fire kasina, etc. For one giving the requisite of medicines for the sick there is knowledge, and the requisite of medicines for the sick is conventional truth? Yes. If for one giving the requisite of medicines for the sick there is knowledge, and the requisite of medicines for the sick is conventional truth, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Conventional knowledge has only truth as object, not another object."

435. "Conventional knowledge has only truth as object, not another object"? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on Conventional Knowledge is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(49) 7.

The Treatise on Consciousness as Object

436. Is knowledge of mind-reading only mind as object, not another object? Yes. Is there not someone who understands a mind with lust as "a mind with lust"? Yes. If there is someone who understands a mind with lust as "a mind with lust", then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object".

Is there not someone a mind without lust, etc. a mind with hate... a mind without hate... a mind with delusion... a mind without delusion... a contracted mind... a distracted mind... an exalted mind... a not exalted mind... a surpassed mind... an unsurpassed mind... a concentrated mind... an unconcentrated mind... a liberated mind, etc. understands an unliberated mind as "an unliberated mind"? Yes. If there is someone who understands an unliberated mind as "an unliberated mind", then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object".

437. Should knowledge with contact as object be said to be "knowledge of mind-reading"? Yes. If knowledge with contact as object should be said to be knowledge of mind-reading, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object". Knowledge with feeling as object... etc. Knowledge with perception as object... Knowledge with volition as object... Knowledge with mind as object... Knowledge with faith as object... Knowledge with energy as object... Knowledge with mindfulness as object... Knowledge with concentration as object... Knowledge with wisdom as object... Knowledge with lust as object... Knowledge with hate as object... Knowledge with delusion as object... etc. Should knowledge with moral fearlessness as object be said to be "knowledge of mind-reading"? Yes. If knowledge with moral fearlessness as object should be said to be knowledge of mind-reading, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object".

Should knowledge with contact as object not be said to be "knowledge of mind-reading"? Yes. Is it knowledge of the method of contact? That should not be said. Etc. Knowledge with feeling as object... etc. Knowledge with perception as object... etc. Should knowledge with moral fearlessness as object not be said to be "knowledge of mind-reading"? Yes. Is it knowledge of the method of moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

438. Should it not be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object"? Yes. Is it not knowledge of mind-reading? Yes. If it is knowledge of mind-reading, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "knowledge of mind-reading has only mind as object, not another object".

The Treatise on Consciousness as Object is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(50) 8.

The Treatise on Knowledge of the Future

439. Is there knowledge of the future? Yes. Does one know the future from the root, know from the cause, know from the source, know from the origination, know from the production, know from the origin, know from the nutriment, know from the object, know from the condition, know from the arising? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of the future? Yes. Does one know the future's root conditionality, know the object conditionality, know the predominance conditionality, know the proximity conditionality, know the contiguity conditionality? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of the future? Yes. Is there knowledge of the path of stream-entry for a change-of-lineage person? That should not be said. Etc. Is there knowledge of the fruition of stream-entry for a person practising for the realisation of the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc.

Once-returner, etc. Non-returner, etc. Is there knowledge of arahantship for a person practising for the realisation of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

440. Should it not be said - "Is there knowledge of the future"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For Pāṭaliputta, Ānanda, there will be three dangers - from fire or from water or from the breaking of alliance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is knowledge of the future.

The Treatise on Knowledge of the Future is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(51) 9.

The Treatise on the Present

441. Is there knowledge in the present? Yes. Does one know that knowledge by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Does one know that knowledge by that knowledge? Yes. Does one know that knowledge as "knowledge" by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. Does one know that knowledge as "knowledge" by that knowledge? Yes. Is that knowledge the object of that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

Is that knowledge the object of that knowledge? Yes. Does one touch that contact by that contact, does one feel that feeling by that feeling, does one perceive that perception by that perception, does one intend that volition by that volition, does one think that consciousness by that consciousness, does one apply thought to that applied thought by that applied thought, does one sustain thought on that sustained thought by that sustained thought, does one hold dear that joy by that joy, does one remember that mindfulness by that mindfulness, does one understand that wisdom by that wisdom, does one cut that sword by that sword, does one plane that hatchet by that hatchet, does one plane that axe by that axe, does one plane that adze by that adze, does one sew that needle by that needle, does one touch that fingertip by that fingertip, does one touch that tip of the nose by that tip of the nose, does one touch that head by that head, does one wash that excrement by that excrement, does one wash that urine by that urine, does one wash that spittle by that spittle, does one wash that pus by that pus, does one wash that blood by that blood? That should not be said. Etc.

442. Should it not be said - "There is knowledge in the present"? Yes. Is it not that when all activities are seen as impermanent, that knowledge too is seen as impermanent? Yes. If when all activities are seen as impermanent, that knowledge too is seen as impermanent, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is knowledge in the present."

The Treatise on Knowledge of the Present is concluded.

5. The Fifth Chapter

(52) 10.

The Treatise on Knowledge of Fruition

443. Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple? Yes. Does a disciple declare what has been done regarding fruition? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple? Yes. Is there for a disciple discernment of higher and lower fruitions, discernment of higher and lower faculties, discernment of higher and lower persons? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple? Yes. Is there for a disciple the description of aggregates, the description of sense bases, the description of elements, the description of truths, the description of faculties, the description of persons? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple? Yes. Is a disciple a conqueror, a Teacher, a perfectly Self-awakened One, omniscient, all-seeing, lord of the Teaching, one who has the Teaching as refuge? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple? Yes. Is a disciple the producer of the unarisen path, the generator of the unproduced path, the declarer of the undeclared path, the knower of the path, the expert in the path, skilled in the path? That should not be said. Etc.

444. Should it not be said - "Is there knowledge of fruition for a disciple"? Yes. Is a disciple without knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. If so, there is knowledge of fruition for a disciple. Etc.

The Treatise on Knowledge of Fruition is concluded.

The Fifth Chapter.

Its summary:

Knowledge of liberation, liberated, knowledge of one beyond training for a learner, perverted knowledge, there is knowledge for one undetermined regarding going to the fixed course, all knowledge is analytical knowledge, conventional knowledge, knowledge of mind-reading, knowledge of the future, knowledge of the present, knowledge of fruition for a disciple.

The Great Fifty.

Its summary too:

Finding of beings, one who brings, power, a Worthy One who is a layman, and liberation as the fifth.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(53) 1.

Discussion on Fixed Course

445. Is the fixed course unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fixed course unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters, two rock cells, two refuges, two ultimate goals, two imperishable states, two Deathless states, two Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fixed course unconditioned? Yes. Are there any who enter upon, obtain, produce, bring about, raise, originate, bring forth, bring into existence, generate, create the fixed course? Yes. Are there any who enter upon, obtain, produce, bring about, raise, originate, bring forth, bring into existence, generate, create the unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

446. Is the fixed course unconditioned? Yes. Is the path unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the path conditioned? Yes. Is the fixed course conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fixed course of stream-entry unconditioned? Yes. Is the path of stream-entry unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the path of stream-entry conditioned? Yes. Is the fixed course of stream-entry conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

The fixed course of once-returning, etc. The fixed course of non-returning, etc. Is the fixed course of arahantship unconditioned? Yes. Is the path of arahantship unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the path of arahantship conditioned? Yes. Is the fixed course of arahantship conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

The fixed course of stream-entry is unconditioned, etc. The fixed course of arahantship is unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there five unconditioned things? That should not be said. Etc. Are there five unconditioned things? Yes. Are there five shelters, etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fixed course unconditioned? Yes. Is the fixed course of the wrong path unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fixed course of the wrong path conditioned? Yes. Is the fixed course of the right path conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

447. Should it not be said - "the fixed course is unconditioned"? Yes. When the fixed course has arisen and ceased, is one undetermined? That should not be said. Etc. If so, the fixed course is unconditioned. When the fixed course of the wrong path has arisen and ceased, is one undetermined? That should not be said. Etc. if so, the fixed course of the wrong path is unconditioned.

The Treatise on Fixed Course is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(54) 2.

The Treatise on Dependent Origination

448. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is dependent origination unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters, two rock cells, two refuges, two ultimate goals, two imperishable states, two Deathless states, two Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two Nibbānas? Yes. Is there highness and lowness, inferiority and superiority, excellence and deficiency, boundary or division or line or interval between the two Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc.

449. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Is ignorance unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is ignorance conditioned? Yes. Is dependent origination conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Are activities with ignorance as condition unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are activities with ignorance as condition conditioned? Yes. Is dependent origination conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Is consciousness with activities as condition unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is consciousness with activities as condition conditioned? Yes. Is dependent origination conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Is mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition conditioned? Yes. Is dependent origination conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is dependent origination unconditioned? Yes. Is ageing and death with birth as condition unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is ageing and death with birth as condition conditioned? Yes. Is dependent origination conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

450. Should it not be said - "Dependent origination is unconditioned"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "With birth as condition, monks, ageing and death. Whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas or whether there is no arising of Tathāgatas, that element still stands - the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, the cosmic law of phenomena, specific conditionality. The Tathāgata awakens to that, fully realises that. Having awakened to it, having fully realised it, he tells, teaches, makes known, establishes, reveals, analyses, and makes clear. And he says 'See' - with birth as condition, monks, ageing and death. With existence as condition, monks, birth, etc. with ignorance as condition, monks, activities. Whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas or whether there is no arising of Tathāgatas, that element still stands, etc. And he says 'See' - with ignorance as condition, monks, activities. Thus indeed, monks, whatever actuality, unerringness, not-otherwiseness, specific conditionality there is - this is called, monks, dependent origination." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, dependent origination is unconditioned.

451. "Ignorance is the condition for activities" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

"Ignorance is the condition for activities" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, "activities are the condition for consciousness" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there three unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there three unconditioned? Yes. Are there three shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

"Ignorance is the condition for activities" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, "activities are the condition for consciousness" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, etc. "Birth is the condition for ageing and death" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, cosmic law of phenomena there is unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there twelve unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there twelve unconditioned? Yes. Are there twelve shelters, twelve rock cells? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on Dependent Origination is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(55) 3.

The Treatise on Truth

452. Are the four truths unconditioned? Yes. Are there four shelters, four rock cells, four refuges, four ultimate goals, four imperishable states, four Deathless states, four Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc. Are there four Nibbānas? Yes. Is there highness and lowness, inferiority and superiority, excellence and deficiency, boundary or division or line or interval between the four Nibbānas? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the truth of suffering unconditioned? Yes. Is suffering unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of suffering unconditioned? Yes. Are bodily pain, mental pain, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, displeasure and anguish unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of origin unconditioned? Yes. Is the origin unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of origin unconditioned? Yes. Are sensual craving, craving for existence and craving for non-existence unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of the path unconditioned? Yes. Is the path unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of the path unconditioned? Yes. Right view... etc. Is right concentration unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is suffering conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of suffering conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are bodily pain, mental pain, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, displeasure and anguish conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of suffering conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the origin conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of origin conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are sensual craving, craving for existence and craving for non-existence conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of origin conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the path conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of the path conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. right view, etc. Is right concentration conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of the path conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

453. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation unconditioned? Yes. Is the truth of suffering unconditioned, is suffering unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation unconditioned? Yes. Is the truth of origin unconditioned, is origin unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation unconditioned? Yes. Is the truth of the path unconditioned, is the path unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the truth of suffering unconditioned, is suffering conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of origin unconditioned, is origin conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the truth of the path unconditioned, is the path conditioned? Yes. Is the truth of cessation unconditioned, is cessation conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

454. Should it not be said - "The four truths are unconditioned"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, there are these four things that are true, unerring, not otherwise! What are the four? 'This is suffering', monks - this is true, this is unerring, this is not otherwise, etc. 'This is the origin of suffering', etc. 'This is the cessation of suffering' etc. 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - this is true, this is unerring, this is not otherwise. These, monks, are the four things that are true, unerring, not otherwise." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the four truths are unconditioned.

The Treatise on Truth is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(56) 4.

Treatise on the Immaterial

455. Is the plane of infinite space unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the plane of infinite space unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the plane of infinite space unconditioned? Yes. Is the plane of infinite space existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is the unconditioned existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there action leading to the plane of infinite space? Yes. Is there action leading to the unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings who have reached the plane of infinite space? Yes. Are there beings who have reached the unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

In the plane of infinite space do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In the unconditioned do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In the plane of infinite space is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In the unconditioned is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the plane of infinite space four-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is the unconditioned four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

456. Should it not be said - "The four immaterial states are unconditioned"? Yes. Were not the four immaterial states said by the Blessed One to be without longing? Yes. If the four immaterial states were said by the Blessed One to be without longing, then indeed, hey, it should be said "the four immaterial states are unconditioned".

The Treatise on the Immaterial is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(57) 5.

Treatise on the Attainment of Cessation

457. Is the attainment of cessation unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the attainment of cessation unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the attainment of cessation unconditioned? Yes. Are there any who attain, obtain, produce, bring about, raise, originate, bring forth, bring into existence, generate, create cessation? Yes. Are there any who attain, obtain, produce, bring about, raise, originate, bring forth, bring into existence, generate, create the unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

458. Is the cleansing and emergence from cessation evident? Yes. Is the cleansing and emergence from the unconditioned evident? That should not be said. Etc. For one attaining cessation, does verbal activity cease first, then bodily activity, then mental activity? Yes. For one attaining the unconditioned, does verbal activity cease first, then bodily activity, then mental activity? That should not be said. Etc. For one emerging from cessation, does mental activity arise first, then bodily activity, then verbal activity? Yes. For one emerging from the unconditioned, does mental activity arise first, then bodily activity, then verbal activity? That should not be said. Etc.

Do three contacts touch one who has emerged from cessation - empty contact, signless contact, desireless contact? Yes. Do three contacts touch one who has emerged from the unconditioned - empty contact, signless contact, desireless contact? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who has emerged from cessation, does the mind slant towards seclusion, slope towards seclusion, incline towards seclusion? Yes. For one who has emerged from the unconditioned, does the mind slant towards seclusion, slope towards seclusion, incline towards seclusion? That should not be said. Etc.

459. Should it not be said - "The attainment of cessation is unconditioned"? Yes. Is it conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. If so, the attainment of cessation is unconditioned.

The Treatise on the Attainment of Cessation is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(58) 6.

Treatise on Space

460. Is space unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is space unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is space unconditioned? Yes. Are there any who make non-space into space? Yes. Are there any who make the conditioned into unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there any who make space into non-space? Yes. Are there any who make the unconditioned into conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

In space do birds go, do the moon and sun go, do the forms of stars go, do they perform supernormal power, do they move the arm, do they move the hand, do they throw clods, do they throw cudgels, do they throw supernormal power, do they throw arrows? Yes. In the unconditioned do birds go, do the moon and sun go, do the forms of stars go, do they perform supernormal power, do they move the arm, do they move the hand, do they throw clods, do they throw cudgels, do they throw supernormal power, do they throw arrows? That should not be said. Etc.

461. Having surrounded space, do they make houses, do they make store-rooms? Yes. Having surrounded the unconditioned, do they make houses, do they make store-rooms? That should not be said. Etc.

When a well is being dug, does non-space become space? Yes. Does the conditioned become unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

When a hollow well is being filled, when a hollow store-room is being filled, when a hollow pot is being filled, does space disappear? Yes. Does the unconditioned disappear? That should not be said. Etc.

462. Should it not be said - "Space is unconditioned"? Yes. Is space conditioned? That should not be said. Etc. If so, space is unconditioned.

The Treatise on Space is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(59) 7.

Treatise on "Space is Manifest"

463. Is space manifest? Yes. Is it materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, blue, yellow, red, white, cognizable by eye, does it strike against the eye, does it come into the range of the eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Is space manifest? Yes. Dependent on the eye and space, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and space, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and space, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Dependent on the eye and space, eye-consciousness arises."

464. Should it not be said - "Space is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see the space between two trees, the space between two pillars, a keyhole, a window opening? Yes. If one sees the space between two trees, the space between two pillars, a keyhole, a window opening, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Space is manifest."

The Treatise on "Space is Manifest" is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(60) 8.

Treatise on "The Solid Element is Manifest" and so on

465. Is the solid element manifest? Yes. Is it materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, blue, yellow, red, white, cognizable by eye, does it strike against the eye, does it come into the range of the eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the solid element manifest? Yes. Dependent on the eye and the solid element, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and the solid element, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and the solid element, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and the solid element, eye-consciousness arises".

466. Should it not be said - "The solid element is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see the ground, stones, and mountains? Yes. If one sees the ground, stones, and mountains, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The solid element is manifest." Etc.

Should it not be said - "The liquid element is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see water? Yes. If one sees water, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The liquid element is manifest." Etc.

Should it not be said - "The heat element is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see fire burning? Yes. If one sees fire burning, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The heat element is manifest." Etc.

Should it not be said - "The air element is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see trees being shaken by the wind? Yes. If one sees trees being shaken by the wind, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The air element is manifest." Etc.

The Treatise on "The Solid Element is Manifest" and so on is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(61) 9.

Treatise on "The Eye-faculty is Manifest" and so on

467. Is the eye-faculty manifest? Yes. Materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, etc. does it come into the range of the eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the eye-faculty manifest? Yes. Dependent on the eye and the eye-faculty, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and the eye-faculty, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and the eye-faculty, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and the eye-faculty, eye-consciousness arises."

468. Should it not be said - "the five faculties are manifest"? Yes. Does one not see the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body? Yes. If one sees the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "the five faculties are manifest." Etc.

The Treatise on "The Eye-faculty is Manifest" and so on is concluded.

6. The Sixth Chapter

(62) 10.

Treatise on "Bodily Action is Manifest"

469. Is bodily action manifest? Yes. Is it materiality, the visible form sense base, the material element, blue, yellow, red, white, cognizable by eye, does it strike against the eye, does it come into the range of the eye? That should not be said. Etc.

Is bodily action manifest? Yes. Dependent on the eye and bodily action, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and bodily action, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and bodily action, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and bodily action, eye-consciousness arises."

470. Should it not be said - "Bodily action is manifest"? Yes. Does one not see one going forward, going back, looking ahead, looking around, bending, stretching? Yes. If one sees one going forward, going back, looking ahead, looking around, bending, stretching, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Bodily action is manifest."

The Treatise on "Bodily Action is Manifest" is concluded.

The Sixth Chapter.

Its summary:

The fixed course is unconditioned, dependent origination is unconditioned, the four truths are unconditioned, the four immaterial states are unconditioned, the attainment of cessation is unconditioned, space is unconditioned, space is manifest, the four primary elements, the five faculties, likewise bodily action.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(63) 1.

The Treatise on Inclusion

471. There are no phenomena included by any phenomena? Yes. Is it not that there are some phenomena that go to the reckoning of some phenomena, go to the recitation, are included? Yes. If there are some phenomena that go to the reckoning of some phenomena, go to the recitation, are included, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There are no phenomena included by any phenomena."

The eye sense base goes to the reckoning of which aggregate? It goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter. If the eye sense base goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The eye sense base is included by the aggregate of matter." The ear sense base... etc. nose sense base... etc. tongue sense base... etc. The body sense base goes to the reckoning of which aggregate? It goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter. If the body sense base goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The body sense base is included by the aggregate of matter."

The visible form sense base, etc. sound sense base... etc. odour sense base... etc. flavour sense base... etc. The touch sense base goes to the reckoning of which aggregate? It goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter. If the touch sense base goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of matter, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The touch sense base is included by the aggregate of matter."

Pleasant feeling goes to the reckoning of which aggregate? It goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of feeling. If pleasant feeling goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of feeling, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Pleasant feeling is included by the aggregate of feeling." Unpleasant feeling... etc. Neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling goes to the reckoning of which aggregate? It goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of feeling. If neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling goes to the reckoning of the aggregate of feeling, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling is included by the aggregate of feeling."

Perception born of eye-contact - to which aggregate's counting does it go? It goes to the counting of the aggregate of perception. If perception born of eye-contact goes to the counting of the aggregate of perception, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Perception born of eye-contact is included in the aggregate of perception." Perception born of ear-contact, etc. Perception born of mind-contact - to which aggregate's counting does it go? It goes to the counting of the aggregate of perception. If perception born of mind-contact goes to the counting of the aggregate of perception, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Perception born of mind-contact is included in the aggregate of perception."

Volition born of eye-contact, etc. Volition born of mind-contact - to which aggregate's counting does it go? It goes to the counting of the aggregate of mental activities. If volition born of mind-contact goes to the counting of the aggregate of mental activities, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Volition born of mind-contact is included in the aggregate of mental activities."

Eye-consciousness, etc. Mind-consciousness - to which aggregate's counting does it go? It goes to the counting of the aggregate of consciousness. If mind-consciousness goes to the counting of the aggregate of consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Mind-consciousness is included in the aggregate of consciousness."

472. Just as two oxen are included by a rope or a string, almsfood is included by a pingo-basket, a dog is included by a leash; so too are those phenomena included by those phenomena? If two oxen are included by a rope or a string, almsfood is included by a pingo-basket, a dog is included by a leash, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There are some phenomena included by some phenomena."

The Treatise on Inclusion is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(64) 2.

The Treatise on Association

473. There are no phenomena associated with any phenomena? Yes. Is it not that there are some phenomena accompanied by some phenomena, conascent, conjoined, having simultaneous arising, having simultaneous cessation, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If there are some phenomena accompanied by some phenomena, conascent, conjoined, having simultaneous arising, having simultaneous cessation, having the same sense-organ, having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There are no phenomena associated with any phenomena."

Is the aggregate of feeling conascent with the aggregate of perception? Yes. If the aggregate of feeling is conascent with the aggregate of perception, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The aggregate of feeling is associated with the aggregate of perception."

The aggregate of feeling with the aggregate of mental activities... is conascent with the aggregate of consciousness? Yes. If the aggregate of feeling is conascent with the aggregate of consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The aggregate of feeling is associated with the aggregate of consciousness."

The aggregate of perception... the aggregate of mental activities... the aggregate of consciousness with the aggregate of feeling... with the aggregate of perception... is conascent with the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. If the aggregate of consciousness is conascent with the aggregate of mental activities, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The aggregate of consciousness is associated with the aggregate of mental activities."

474. Just as oil is accompanied by and has entered into the sesame seed, as juice is accompanied by and has entered into the sugar-cane; so too are those phenomena accompanied by and have entered into those phenomena? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on Association is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(65) 3.

The Treatise on Mental Factors

475. There is no state that is mental factor? Yes. Is it not that there are some phenomena accompanied by consciousness, conascent, conjoined, associated, having simultaneous arising, having simultaneous cessation, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If there are some phenomena accompanied by consciousness, conascent, conjoined, associated, having simultaneous arising, having simultaneous cessation, having the same sense-organ, having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no state that is mental factor."

Is contact conascent with consciousness? Yes. If contact is conascent with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Contact is a mental factor." Feeling... etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, wisdom... lust... hate... delusion... etc. Is moral fearlessness conascent with consciousness? Yes. If moral fearlessness is conascent with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Moral fearlessness is a mental factor."

476. Is it mental because of being conascent with consciousness? Yes. Is it contact-related because of being conascent with contact? Yes. Is it mental because of being conascent with consciousness? Yes. In feeling, in perception, with volition... with faith... with energy... with mindfulness... with concentration... with wisdom... from lust... from hate... with delusion... etc. Is it moral-fearlessness-related because of being conascent with moral fearlessness? Yes.

477. There is no state that is mental factor? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"This consciousness and states that are mental factors,

Are known as non-self by one who has understood;

Having known both the inferior and the superior,

The one seeing rightly knew the states subject to disintegration."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is a state that is mental factor.

There is no state that is mental factor? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, Kevaṭṭa, a monk announces the mind of other beings, of other persons, announces the mental factors, announces what has been reflected upon, announces what has been considered - "Thus is your mind, in this way is your mind, such is your thought."' Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is a state that is mental factor.

The Treatise on Mental Factors is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(66) 4.

The Treatise on Giving

478. Is a state that is mental factor giving? Yes. Is it possible to give a state that is mental factor to others? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible to give a state that is mental factor to others? Yes. Is it possible to give contact to others? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible feeling... etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, Is it possible to give wisdom to others? That should not be said. Etc.

479. Should it not be said - Is a state that is mental factor giving? Yes. Is giving having undesirable result, having unpleasant result, having undelightful result, having incomplete and undelicious result, with painful consequences, resulting in pain? That should not be said. Etc. Is not giving having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? Yes. If giving has desirable result, has pleasing result, has delightful result, has full and delicious result, yields happiness, results in happiness, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A state that is mental factor is giving."

Giving has desirable result was said by the Blessed One, is a robe giving? Yes. Is a robe having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc. Giving has desirable result was said by the Blessed One, is almsfood, lodging, the requisite of medicines for the sick giving? Yes. Is the requisite of medicines for the sick having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc.

480. Should it not be said - "A state that is mental factor is giving"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Faith, shame, wholesome giving,

These qualities are followed by good persons;

This indeed they call the divine path,

For by this one goes to the world of the gods."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a state that is mental factor is giving.

Should it not be said - "A state that is mental factor is giving"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five gifts, great gifts, primordial, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unmixed, unmixed before, are not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise! Which five? Here, monks, a noble disciple, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings. A noble disciple who abstains from killing living beings, monks, gives safety to immeasurable beings, gives freedom from enmity, gives freedom from affliction. Having given safety to immeasurable beings, having given freedom from enmity, having given freedom from affliction, he becomes a partaker of immeasurable safety, freedom from enmity, freedom from affliction. This, monks, is the first gift, great gift, primordial, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unmixed, unmixed before, is not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise. Furthermore, monks, a noble disciple, having abandoned taking what is not given, etc. having abandoned sexual misconduct, etc. having abandoned lying, etc. having abandoned spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence, abstains from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence. A noble disciple who abstains from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence, monks, gives safety to immeasurable beings, gives freedom from enmity, gives freedom from affliction. Having given safety to immeasurable beings, having given freedom from enmity, having given freedom from affliction, he becomes a partaker of immeasurable safety, freedom from enmity, freedom from affliction. This, monks, is the fifth gift, great gift, primordial, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unmixed, unmixed before, is not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise. These, monks, are the five gifts, great gifts, primordial, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unmixed, unmixed before, are not being mixed, will not be mixed, not rejected by ascetics, brahmins, and the wise." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a state that is mental factor is giving.

481. Should it not be said - "A gift is giving"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here a certain person gives food, gives drink, gives cloth, gives a vehicle, gives a garland, gives scent, gives cosmetics, gives a sleeping place, gives a public rest-house, gives material for lighting"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a gift is giving.

482. Is a gift giving? Yes. Is a gift having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc. Giving has desirable result was said by the Blessed One, is a robe giving? Yes. Is a robe having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc. Giving has desirable result was said by the Blessed One, is almsfood giving... is lodging giving... is the requisite of medicines for the sick giving? Yes. Is the requisite of medicines for the sick having desirable result, having pleasing result, having delightful result, having full and delicious result, yielding happiness, resulting in happiness? That should not be said. Etc. If so, it should not be said - "A gift is giving."

The Treatise on Giving is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(67) 5.

The Treatise on Merit Made by Use

483. Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. Does contact consisting of enjoyment grow, does feeling grow, does perception grow, does volition grow, does consciousness grow, does faith grow, does energy grow, does mindfulness grow, does concentration grow, does wisdom grow? That should not be said. Etc.

Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. Does it grow like a creeper, does it grow like a parasitic vine, does it grow like a tree, does it grow like grass, does it grow like a heap of muñja grass? That should not be said. Etc.

484. Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. A donor, having given a gift, does not pay attention - is there merit? Yes. Is there for one not turning back... is there for one without reflective attention... is there for one not paying attention... is there for one not attending... is there for one not intending... is there for one not wishing... is there for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is for one turning back... there is for one with reflective attention... there is for one paying attention... there is for one attending... there is for one intending... there is for one wishing... there is for one directing? Yes. If there is for one turning back... there is for one with reflective attention... there is for one paying attention... there is for one attending... there is for one intending... there is for one wishing... there is for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Merit consisting of enjoyment grows."

485. Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. A donor, having given a gift, thinks sensual thoughts, thinks thoughts of anger, thinks thoughts of violence - is there merit? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. The near shore, monks, of the ocean and the far shore - this is the second thing very far apart. From where, monks, the sun rises and where it sets - this is the third thing very far apart. The principle of the good, monks, and the principle of the bad - this is the fourth thing very far apart. These, monks, are the four things very far apart.

"The sky is far and the earth is far,

The far shore of the ocean, that they say is far;

From where the sun rises,

The light-bringer, and where it sets.

"Farther than that, indeed, they say,

Is the principle of the good and the principle of the bad;

The meeting of the good is enduring,

However long it may last, it remains just so.

"But quickly indeed the meeting of the bad disappears;

Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence."

486. Should it not be said - "Merit consisting of enjoyment grows"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Planters of parks, planters of groves, those people who are bridge-builders;

And drinking halls and wells, those who give a dwelling.

"For them by day and by night, merit always increases;

Righteous, accomplished in morality, those people are heaven-bound."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, merit consisting of enjoyment grows.

Should it not be said - "Merit consisting of enjoyment grows"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, there are these four streams of merit, streams of the wholesome, nutriments of happiness, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to heaven, leading to the desirable, to the pleasant, to the agreeable, to welfare, to happiness. Which four? For one whose robe a monk uses while dwelling having attained immeasurable concentration of mind, immeasurable is that stream of merit, stream of the wholesome, nutriment of happiness, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to heaven, leading to the desirable, to the pleasant, to the agreeable, to welfare, to happiness. For one whose almsfood a monk uses etc. uses lodging etc. uses the requisite of medicines for the sick while dwelling having attained immeasurable concentration of mind, immeasurable is that stream of merit, stream of the wholesome, nutriment of happiness, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to heaven, leading to the desirable, to the pleasant, to the agreeable, to welfare, to happiness. These, monks, are the four streams of merit, streams of the wholesome, nutriments of happiness, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to heaven, leading to the desirable, to the pleasant, to the agreeable, to welfare, to happiness." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, merit consisting of enjoyment grows.

487. Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. A donor gives a gift, the recipient having received does not use it, throws it away, gives it up - is there merit? Yes. If a donor gives a gift, the recipient having received does not use it, throws it away, gives it up, there is merit; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Merit consisting of enjoyment grows."

Does merit consisting of enjoyment grow? Yes. A donor gives a gift, when the recipient has received it, either kings take it away, or thieves take it away, or fire burns it, or water carries it away, or disagreeable heirs take it away - is there merit? Yes. If a donor gives a gift, when the recipient has received it, either kings take it away, or thieves take it away, or fire burns it, or water carries it away, or disagreeable heirs take it away, there is merit; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Merit consisting of enjoyment grows."

The Treatise on Merit Made by Use is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(68) 6.

The Treatise on Given from Here

488. Do they sustain themselves there by what is given from here? Yes. Do they give a robe from here and consume that robe there? That should not be said. Etc. They give almsfood from here, they give lodging from here, they give the requisite of medicines for the sick from here, they give solid food from here, they give soft food from here, they give drinking water from here; Do they consume that drinking water there? That should not be said. Etc.

Do they sustain themselves there by what is given from here? Yes. Is one the doer for another, does one make pleasure and pain made by another, does another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

489. Should it not be said - "Do they sustain themselves there by what is given from here"? Yes. Do not ghosts give thanks to one giving a gift for their own benefit, gladden their minds, produce joy, and obtain pleasure? Yes. If ghosts give thanks to one giving a gift for their own benefit, gladden their minds, produce joy, and obtain pleasure; then indeed, hey, it should be said - "They sustain themselves there by what is given from here."

490. Should it not be said - "Do they sustain themselves there by what is given from here"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Just as water rained upon high ground flows down to the low ground;

Just so what is given from here is beneficial to the ghosts.

"Just as full water-carriers fill the ocean;

Just so what is given from here is beneficial to the ghosts.

"For there is no farming there, cow-keeping is not found;

There is no such trade, buying and selling with gold;

By what is given from here they sustain themselves, the deceased ghosts there."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, they sustain themselves there by what is given from here.

491. Should it not be said - "Do they sustain themselves there by what is given from here"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five states considering which mother and father wish for a son to be born in the family! Which five? 'Having been supported, he will support us, or he will do our duties for us, the family lineage will stand for a long time, he will proceed as an heir, or else he will give offerings for the departed who have passed away' - These, monks, are the five states considering which mother and father wish for a son to be born in the family."

"Considering five states, the wise wish for a son;

'Having been supported, he will support us, or he will do our duties for us.

"'The family lineage may stand for a long time, he proceeds as an heir;

Or else for the departed, he will give offerings.

"Considering these states, the wise wish for a son;

Therefore the peaceful, good persons, are grateful and thankful.

"They support their mother and father, recollecting what was done before;

They do their duties for them, as is fitting for those who acted before.

"One who follows exhortation, who nourishes those who supported him, not letting the family lineage decline;

Faithful, accomplished in morality, such a son is praiseworthy."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, they sustain themselves there by what is given from here.

The Treatise on "Given from Here" is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(69) 7.

The Treatise on "Earth is Result of Action"

492. Is earth a result of action? Yes. Experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, associated with unpleasant feeling, associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, associated with feeling, associated with perception, associated with volition, associated with consciousness, with sense-object; is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, not experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, not associated with pleasant feeling, not associated with unpleasant feeling, not associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, not associated with contact, not associated with feeling, not associated with perception, not associated with volition, not associated with consciousness, without sense-object; there is not adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "earth is a result of action."

Contact is a result of action, contact is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, with unpleasant, etc. associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, associated with feeling, associated with perception, associated with volition, associated with consciousness, with sense-object; is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Earth is a result of action, earth is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, with unpleasant, etc. associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, associated with feeling, associated with perception, associated with volition, associated with consciousness, with sense-object; is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Earth is a result of action, earth is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is a result of action, contact is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is earth a result of action? Yes. Is earth subject to lifting up and putting down, subject to cutting and breaking? Yes. Is the result of action subject to lifting up and putting down, subject to cutting and breaking? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it possible to buy, sell, set aside, gather, and select earth? Yes. Is it possible to buy, sell, set aside, gather, and select the result of action? That should not be said. Etc.

493. Is earth common to others? Yes. Is the result of action common to others? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the result of action common to others? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"A treasure not shared with others, not taken by thieves;

A mortal should do meritorious deeds, if one would practise good conduct."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The result of action is common to others."

Is earth a result of action? Yes. Does earth first become established, and afterwards do beings arise? Yes. Does the result first arise, and afterwards do they perform action for obtaining the result? That should not be said. Etc.

Is earth the result of action of all beings? Yes. Do all beings use the earth? That should not be said. Etc. Do all beings use the earth? Yes. Are there any who attain final nibbāna without having used the earth? Yes. Are there any who attain final nibbāna without having exhausted the result of action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is earth the result of action of a being destined to be a universal monarch? Yes. Do other beings use the earth? Yes. Do other beings use the result of action of a being destined to be a universal monarch? That should not be said. Etc. Do other beings use the result of action of a being destined to be a universal monarch? Yes. Do other beings use the contact, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom of a being destined to be a universal monarch? That should not be said. Etc.

494. Should it not be said - "earth is a result of action"? Yes. Is there not action leading to supremacy, action leading to lordship? Yes. If there is action leading to supremacy, action leading to lordship, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "earth is a result of action."

The Treatise on "Earth is Result of Action" is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(70) 8.

The Treatise on "Ageing and Death is Result"

495. Is ageing and death resultant? Yes. Experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, associated with unpleasant feeling, associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, associated with feeling, associated with perception, associated with volition, associated with consciousness, with sense-object; is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "ageing and death is resultant."

Contact is resultant, contact is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, etc. with sense-object; is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Ageing and death is resultant, ageing and death is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, etc. with sense-object; is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Ageing and death is resultant, ageing and death is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is resultant, contact is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object; there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

496. Is the ageing and death of unwholesome mental states the result of unwholesome mental states? Yes. Is the ageing and death of wholesome mental states the result of wholesome mental states? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the ageing and death of wholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of wholesome mental states"? Yes. Is the ageing and death of unwholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of unwholesome mental states"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the ageing and death of wholesome mental states the result of unwholesome mental states? Yes. Is the ageing and death of unwholesome mental states the result of wholesome mental states? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the ageing and death of unwholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of wholesome mental states"? Yes. Is the ageing and death of wholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of unwholesome mental states"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the ageing and death of wholesome and unwholesome mental states the result of unwholesome mental states? Yes. Is the ageing and death of wholesome and unwholesome mental states the result of wholesome mental states? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the ageing and death of wholesome and unwholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of wholesome mental states"? Yes. Is the ageing and death of wholesome and unwholesome mental states not to be said - "the result of unwholesome mental states"? That should not be said. Etc.

497. Should it not be said - "ageing and death is resultant"? Yes. Is there not action leading to ugliness, action leading to short life? Yes. If there is action leading to ugliness, action leading to short life, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "ageing and death is resultant."

The Treatise on "Ageing and Death is Result" is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(71) 9.

Treatise on Result of Noble Teaching

498. There is no result of the noble teaching? Yes. Is not asceticism rich in result, is not commitment to holy life rich in result? Yes. If asceticism is rich in result, if commitment to holy life is rich in result, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no result of the noble teaching."

There is no result of the noble teaching? Yes. Is there not the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If there is the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no result of the noble teaching." Is there not the fruition of once-returning? Etc. the fruition of non-returning, etc. The fruition of arahantship? Yes. If there is the fruition of arahantship, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no result of the noble teaching."

Is the fruition of stream-entry not a result? Yes. Is the fruit of giving not a result? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fruition of stream-entry not a result? Yes. The fruit of morality? Etc. Is the fruit of meditation not a result? That should not be said. Etc.

The fruition of once-returning? Etc. the fruition of non-returning, etc. Is the fruition of arahantship not a result? Yes. Is the fruit of giving not a result? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fruition of arahantship not a result? Yes. The fruit of morality? Etc. Is the fruit of meditation not a result? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fruit of giving a result? Yes. Is the fruition of stream-entry a result? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fruit of giving a result? Yes. The fruition of once-returning? Etc. the fruition of non-returning, etc. Is the fruition of arahantship a result? That should not be said. Etc. The fruit of morality, etc. Is the fruit of meditation a result? Yes. Is the fruition of stream-entry a result? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fruit of meditation a result? Yes. The fruition of once-returning? Etc. The fruition of non-returning, etc. Is the fruition of arahantship a result? That should not be said. Etc.

499. Is sensual-sphere wholesome with result? Yes. Is supramundane wholesome with result? That should not be said. Etc. Fine-material-sphere wholesome, etc. Is immaterial-sphere wholesome with result? Yes. Is supramundane wholesome with result? That should not be said. Etc.

Is supramundane wholesome resultless? Yes. Is sensual-sphere wholesome resultless? That should not be said. Etc. Is supramundane wholesome resultless? Yes. Fine-material-sphere, etc. Is immaterial-sphere wholesome resultless? That should not be said. Etc.

500. Is sensual-sphere wholesome with result leading to accumulation? Yes. Is supramundane wholesome with result leading to accumulation? That should not be said. Etc. Fine-material-sphere, etc. Is immaterial-sphere wholesome with result leading to accumulation? Yes. Is supramundane wholesome with result leading to accumulation? That should not be said. Etc.

Is supramundane wholesome with result leading to non-accumulation? Yes. Is sensual-sphere wholesome with result leading to non-accumulation? That should not be said. Etc. Is supramundane wholesome with result leading to non-accumulation? Yes. Fine-material-sphere, etc. Is immaterial-sphere wholesome with result leading to non-accumulation? That should not be said. Etc.

The Treatise on Result of Noble Teaching is concluded.

7. The Seventh Chapter

(72) 10.

Treatise on "Result is a State that has Resultant Quality"

501. Is a resultant a state that has resultant quality? Yes. Is the resultant of that a state that has resultant quality? That should not be said. Etc. Is the resultant of that a state that has resultant quality? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a resultant a state that has resultant quality? Yes. "Resultant" or "state that has resultant quality," or "state that has resultant quality" or "resultant" - are these the same in meaning, equal, of equal share, of the same kind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a resultant a state that has resultant quality? Yes. Are resultant and state that has resultant quality, and state that has resultant quality and resultant, accompanied, conascent, conjoined, associated, having simultaneous arising, having simultaneous cessation, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a resultant a state that has resultant quality? Yes. Is that very unwholesome the result of unwholesome, is that very wholesome the result of wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a resultant a state that has resultant quality? Yes. By whatever consciousness one kills a living being, by that very consciousness one suffers in hell; by whatever consciousness one gives a gift, by that very consciousness one rejoices in heaven? That should not be said. Etc.

502. Should it not be said - "Resultant is a state that has resultant quality"? Yes. Are not the four resultant aggregates immaterial mutuality conditions? Yes. If the four resultant aggregates are immaterial mutuality conditions, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Resultant is a state that has resultant quality."

The Treatise on "Result is a State that has Resultant Quality" is concluded.

The Seventh Chapter.

Its summary:

Inclusion, associated with, state that is mental factor, mental giving, merit consisting of enjoyment grows, by what is given from here they sustain themselves there, earth is a result of action, ageing and death is resultant, there is no result of the noble teaching, resultant is a state that has resultant quality.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(73) 1.

Treatise on the Six Destinations

503. Are there six destinations? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that there are five destinations - hell, the animal realm, the sphere of ghosts, human beings, gods? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that there are five destinations - hell, the animal realm, the sphere of ghosts, human beings, gods; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are six destinations."

Are there six destinations? Yes. Is it not that the Kālakañcikā titans have the same colour as the ghosts, the same enjoyments, the same food, the same lifespan, and enter into marriage arrangements with the ghosts? Yes. If the Kālakañcikā titans have the same colour as the ghosts, the same enjoyments, the same food, the same lifespan, and enter into marriage arrangements with the ghosts, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are six destinations."

Are there six destinations? Yes. Is it not that the assembly of Vepacitti has the same colour as the gods, the same enjoyments, the same food, the same lifespan, and enters into marriage arrangements with the gods? Yes. If the assembly of Vepacitti has the same colour as the gods, the same enjoyments, the same food, the same lifespan, and enters into marriage arrangements with the gods, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are six destinations."

Are there six destinations? Yes. Is it not that the assembly of Vepacitti are the ancient gods? Yes. If the assembly of Vepacitti are the ancient gods, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are six destinations."

504. Should it not be said - "there are six destinations"? Yes. Is there not the class of titans? Yes. If there is the class of titans, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there are six destinations."

The discussion on the six destinations is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(74) 2.

Treatise on Intermediate Existence

505. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is it sensual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is it fine-material existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is it immaterial existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence in between sensual existence and fine-material existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence in between fine-material existence and immaterial existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not intermediate existence in between sensual existence and fine-material existence? Yes. If there is not intermediate existence in between sensual existence and fine-material existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is intermediate existence." Is there not intermediate existence in between fine-material existence and immaterial existence? Yes. If there is not intermediate existence in between fine-material existence and immaterial existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is intermediate existence."

506. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is that the fifth mode of generation, is that the sixth destination, is that the eighth station of consciousness, is that the tenth abode of beings? That should not be said. Etc. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is intermediate existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. In intermediate existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In intermediate existence is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is intermediate existence five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

507. Is there sensual existence, is sensual existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence, is intermediate existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to sensual existence? Yes. Is there action leading to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to sensual existence? Yes. Are there beings going to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. In sensual existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In intermediate existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In sensual existence is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In intermediate existence is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is sensual existence five-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is intermediate existence five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there fine-material existence, is fine-material existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence, is intermediate existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to fine-material existence? Yes. Is there action leading to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to fine-material existence? Yes. Are there beings going to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. In fine-material existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In intermediate existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In fine-material existence is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In intermediate existence is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is fine-material existence five-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is intermediate existence five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there immaterial existence, is immaterial existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence, is intermediate existence existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to immaterial existence? Yes. Is there action leading to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to immaterial existence? Yes. Are there beings going to intermediate existence? That should not be said. Etc. In immaterial existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In intermediate existence do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In immaterial existence is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In intermediate existence is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is immaterial existence four-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is intermediate existence four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

508. Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence for all beings? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not intermediate existence for all beings? Yes. If there is not intermediate existence for all beings, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is intermediate existence."

Is there intermediate existence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? Yes. If there is not intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is intermediate existence."

Is there not intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? Yes. Is there intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? Yes. Is there not no intermediate existence for a person who has committed an immediacy offence? That should not be said. Etc. For a person going to hell, etc. For a person going to the realm of non-percipient beings, etc. Is there intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? Yes. If there is not intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is intermediate existence."

Is there no intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? Yes. Is there intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? Yes. Is it not that there is no intermediate existence for a person going to the immaterial realm? That should not be said. Etc.

509. Should it not be said that there is intermediate existence? Yes. Is there not a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval? Yes. If there is a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There is intermediate existence."

Because there is a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, is there intermediate existence? Yes. Because there is a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna after the interval, is there existence after the interval? That should not be said. Etc. Because there is a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna in the interval, is there intermediate existence? Yes. A person who is an attainer of final nibbāna without exertion, etc. Because there is a person who is an attainer of final nibbāna through exertion, is there existence through exertion? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on intermediate existence is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(75) 3.

Treatise on Types of Sensual Pleasure

510. Are only the five types of sensual pleasure the sensual element? Yes. Is there not desire connected with that? Yes. If there is desire connected with that, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Only the five types of sensual pleasure are the sensual element." Is there not lust connected with that, desire connected with that, desire and lust connected with that, thought connected with that, lust connected with that, lust for thoughts connected with that, rapture connected with that, pleasure connected with that, joy and pleasure connected with that? Yes. If there is joy and pleasure connected with that, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Only the five types of sensual pleasure are the sensual element."

Are only the five types of sensual pleasure the sensual element? Yes. Is the eye of human beings not the sensual element? That should not be said. Etc. The ear of human beings, etc. The nose of human beings, etc. The tongue of human beings, etc. The body of human beings, etc. Is the mind of human beings not the sensual element? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the mind of human beings not the sensual element? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"The five types of sensual pleasure in the world, with mind as the sixth, have been declared;

Having removed desire here, thus one is freed from suffering."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The mind of human beings is not the sensual element."

511. Are only the five types of sensual pleasure the sensual element? Yes. Are the types of sensual pleasure existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to the types of sensual pleasure? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings reaching the types of sensual pleasure? That should not be said. Etc. In the types of sensual pleasure do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In the types of sensual pleasure is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Are the types of sensual pleasure five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc. In the types of sensual pleasure do Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise, do Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, does a pair of disciples arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the sensual element existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Are the types of sensual pleasure existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to the sensual element? Yes. Is there action leading to the types of sensual pleasure? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings reaching the sensual element? Yes. Are there beings reaching the types of sensual pleasure? That should not be said. Etc.

In the sensual element do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In the types of sensual pleasure do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In the sensual element is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In the types of sensual pleasure is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sensual element five-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Are the types of sensual pleasure five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc. In the sensual element do Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise, do Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, does a pair of disciples arise? Yes. In the types of sensual pleasure do Perfectly Self-awakened Ones arise, do Individually Self-awakened Ones arise, does a pair of disciples arise? That should not be said. Etc.

512. Should it not be said - "Only the five types of sensual pleasure are the sensual element"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five types of sensual pleasure! Which five? Forms cognizable by eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing; sounds cognizable by ear... etc. odours cognizable by nose... etc. flavours cognizable by tongue... etc. tangible objects cognizable by body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing - These, monks, are the five types of sensual pleasure." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, only the five types of sensual pleasure are the sensual element.

The discussion on the types of sensual pleasure is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(76) 4.

Treatise on Sensuality

513. Are the five sense bases only sensual pleasures? Yes. Is there not desire connected with that? Yes. If there is desire connected with that, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense bases only are sensual pleasures." Is there not lust connected with that, desire connected with that, desire and lust connected with that, thought connected with that, lust connected with that, lust for thoughts connected with that, rapture connected with that, pleasure connected with that, joy and pleasure connected with that? Yes. If there is joy and pleasure connected with that, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense bases only are sensual pleasures."

514. Should it not be said - "The five sense bases only are sensual pleasures"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five types of sensual pleasure! Which five? Forms cognizable by eye, etc. tangible objects cognizable by body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing - These, monks, are the five types of sensual pleasure." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the five sense bases only are sensual pleasures.

Are the five sense bases only sensual pleasures? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these five types of sensual pleasure! Which five? Forms cognizable by eye, etc. tangible objects cognizable by body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, enticing, connected with sensuality, arousing - these, monks, are the five types of sensual pleasure. And yet, monks, these are not sensual pleasures; they are called types of sensual pleasure in the Noble One's discipline" -

"Lust for thoughts is a person's sensual pleasure,

Those various things in the world are not sensual pleasures;

Lust for thoughts is a person's sensual pleasure,

The various things remain just so in the world;

But here the wise remove desire for them."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The five sense bases only are sensual pleasures."

The discussion on sensuality is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(77) 5.

Treatise on the Material Element

515. Are material states the material element? Yes. Is matter existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to matter? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to matter? That should not be said. Etc. In matter do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In matter is there matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is matter five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the material element existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is matter existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to the material element? Yes. Is there action leading to matter? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings going to the material element? Yes. Are there beings going to matter? That should not be said. Etc.

In the material element do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In matter do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In the material element is there matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In matter is there matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the material element five-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is matter five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

516. Are material states the material element, is there materiality in the sensual element? Yes. Is that same sensual element that material element? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same sensual element that material element? Yes. Is a person possessed of sensual existence possessed of two existences - sensual existence and fine-material existence? That should not be said.

The discussion on the material element is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(78) 6.

Discussion on the Immaterial Element

517. Are immaterial states the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is feeling existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings reaching feeling? That should not be said. Etc. In feeling do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In feeling is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is feeling four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the immaterial sphere element existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. Is feeling existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there action leading to the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is there action leading to feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Are there beings reaching the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Are there beings reaching feeling? That should not be said. Etc.

In the immaterial sphere element do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? Yes. In feeling do beings arise, decay, die, pass away, and are reborn? That should not be said. Etc. In the immaterial sphere element is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. In feeling is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the immaterial sphere element four-aggregate constituent existence? Yes. Is feeling four-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

518. Are immaterial states the immaterial sphere element, in the sensual element is there feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. Is that same sensual element that immaterial sphere element? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same sensual element that immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is a person possessed of sensual existence possessed of two existences - sensual existence and immaterial existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Are material states the material element, are immaterial states the immaterial sphere element, in the sensual element is there materiality, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness? Yes. Is that same sensual element that material element, that immaterial sphere element? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same sensual element that material element, that immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is a person possessed of sensual existence possessed of three existences - sensual existence and fine-material existence and immaterial existence? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the immaterial element is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(79) 7.

Discussion on Sense Bases in the Material Element

519. Is there individual existence having six sense bases in the fine-material element? Yes. Is there the nose sense base there? Yes. Is there the odour sense base there? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the tongue sense base there? Yes. Is there the flavour sense base there? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the body sense base there? Yes. Is there the touch sense base there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there no odour sense base there? Yes. Is there no nose sense base there? That should not be said. Etc. Is there no flavour sense base there? Yes. Is there no tongue sense base there? That should not be said. Etc. Is there no touch sense base there? Yes. Is there no body sense base there? That should not be said. Etc.

520. Is there the eye sense base there, is there the visible form sense base? Yes. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the eye sense base there, is there the visible form sense base? Yes. Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the ear sense base there, is there the sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base? Yes. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base? Yes. Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the nose sense base there, is there no odour sense base? Yes. Is there the eye sense base there, is there no visible form sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the nose sense base there, is there no odour sense base? Yes. Is there the ear sense base there, is there no sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there no mind-object sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the tongue sense base there, is there no flavour sense base, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there no touch sense base? Yes. Is there the eye sense base there, is there no visible form sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there no touch sense base? Yes. Is there the ear sense base there, is there no sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there no mind-object sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

521. Is there the eye sense base there, is there the visible form sense base, does one see that visible form with that eye? Yes. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base, does one smell that odour with that nose? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the eye sense base there, is there the visible form sense base, does one see that visible form with that eye? Yes. Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, does one taste that flavour with that tongue, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base, does one touch that tangible object with that body? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the ear sense base there, is there the sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base, does one cognize that mental phenomenon with that mind? Yes. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base, does one smell that odour with that nose? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base, does one cognize that mental phenomenon with that mind? Yes. Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base, does one touch that tangible object with that body? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base, and does one not smell that odour with that nose? Yes. Is there the eye sense base there, is there the visible form sense base, and does one not see that visible form with that eye? That should not be said. Etc. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base, and does one not smell that odour with that nose? Yes. Is there the ear sense base there, is there the sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base, and does one not cognize that mental phenomenon with that mind? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, etc. Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base, and does one not touch that tangible object with that body? Yes. Is there the ear sense base there, is there the sound sense base, etc. Is there the mind sense base there, is there the mind-object sense base, and does one not cognize that mental phenomenon with that mind? That should not be said. Etc.

522. Is there the nose sense base there, is there the odour sense base, does one smell that odour with that nose? Yes. Is there the odour of roots, the odour of heartwood, the odour of bark, the odour of leaves, the odour of flowers, the odour of fruits, the odour of raw things, the odour of raw flesh, pleasant odour, unpleasant odour there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the tongue sense base there, is there the flavour sense base, does one taste that flavour with that tongue? Yes. Is there root flavour, trunk flavour, bark flavour, leaf flavour, flower flavour, fruit flavour, sour, sweet, bitter, pungent, salty, alkaline, acidic, astringent, pleasant, unpleasant there? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there the body sense base there, is there the touch sense base, does one touch that tangible object with that body? Yes. Is there hard, soft, smooth, rough, pleasant contact, unpleasant contact, heavy, light there? That should not be said. Etc.

523. Should it not be said - "Individual existence having six sense bases is in the fine-material element"? Yes. Is there not there the sign of nose, the sign of tongue, the sign of body? Yes. If there is there the sign of nose, the sign of tongue, the sign of body, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Individual existence having six sense bases is in the fine-material element."

The discussion on sense bases in the material element is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(80) 8.

Discussion on Matter in the Immaterial-Sphere

524. Is there materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence? Yes. Is it fine-material existence, fine-material destination, fine-material abode of beings, fine-material wandering in the round of rebirths, fine-material mode of generation, fine-material acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not immaterial existence, immaterial destination, immaterial abode of beings, immaterial wandering in the round of rebirths, immaterial mode of generation, immaterial acquisition of individual existence? Yes. If it is immaterial existence, etc. immaterial acquisition of individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence."

Is there materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence? Yes. Is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, abode of beings, wandering in the round of rebirths, mode of generation, station of consciousness, acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not four-aggregate constituent existence, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. If it is four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence."

525. There is matter in the material element, and is it fine-material existence, fine-material destination, fine-material abode of beings, fine-material wandering in the round of rebirths, fine-material mode of generation, fine-material acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is matter in the immaterial, and is it fine-material existence, fine-material destination, etc. fine-material acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. There is matter in the material element, and is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is matter in the immaterial, and is it five-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. There is matter in the immaterial, and is it immaterial existence, immaterial destination, immaterial abode of beings, immaterial wandering in the round of rebirths, immaterial mode of generation, immaterial acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is matter in the material element, and is it immaterial existence, immaterial destination, etc. immaterial acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc. There is matter in the immaterial, and is it four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? Yes. There is matter in the material element, and is it four-aggregate constituent existence, destination, etc. acquisition of individual existence? That should not be said. Etc.

526. Is there materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the immaterial is the escape from materiality? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the immaterial is the escape from materiality, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence."

The immaterial was said by the Blessed One to be the escape from materiality, is there materiality in the immaterial-sphere of existence? Yes. Renunciation was said by the Blessed One to be the escape from sensual pleasures, are there sensual pleasures in renunciation, are there mental corruptions in those without mental corruptions, is there the included in the not included? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on matter in the immaterial-sphere is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(81) 9.

Discussion on Matter Being Action

527. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness is wholesome."

Is contact arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is feeling arisen from wholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is contact arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is feeling arisen from wholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

528. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is whatever matter arisen from wholesome consciousness all that wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... The liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

529. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object wholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object wholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element without sense-object wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. The odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element without sense-object indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

530. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, wholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, wholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element, dissociated from contact, wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

531. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, wholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, wholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element without sense-object, dissociated from contact, wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from wholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. Is the air element without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

532. Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness is wholesome."

Is contact arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is feeling arisen from wholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is contact arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is feeling arisen from wholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is verbal action as matter arisen from wholesome consciousness wholesome? Yes. Is whatever matter arisen from wholesome consciousness all that wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. As with bodily action, so with verbal action.

533. Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness is unwholesome."

Is contact arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is feeling arisen from unwholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... lust... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... shamelessness... etc. Is moral fearlessness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is contact arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is feeling arisen from unwholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... lust... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... shamelessness... etc. moral fearlessness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is bodily action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is whatever matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness all that unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

534. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness is unwholesome."

Is contact arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is feeling arisen from unwholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... lust... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... shamelessness... etc. Is moral fearlessness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is contact arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is feeling arisen from unwholesome consciousness, etc. perception... volition... lust... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... shamelessness... etc. moral fearlessness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is whatever matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness all that unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

535. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness unwholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

536. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object unwholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object unwholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. odour sense base... etc. flavour sense base... etc. The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat without sense-object unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. the touch sense base... etc. The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat without sense-object indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness without sense-object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

537. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? Yes. Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? Yes. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the visible form sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is the sound sense base arisen from unwholesome consciousness... etc. the odour sense base... the flavour sense base etc. The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? Yes. Is verbal action as matter arisen from unwholesome consciousness, without sense-object, dissociated from contact, indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

538. Should it not be said - "Matter is both wholesome and unwholesome"? Yes. Is not bodily action and verbal action both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. If bodily action and verbal action are both wholesome and unwholesome, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Matter is both wholesome and unwholesome."

Is matter both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. Is the eye sense base both wholesome and unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is matter both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. The ear sense base... etc. the nose sense base... the tongue sense base... the body sense base... the visible form sense base... the sound sense base... the odour sense base... The flavour sense base... The touch sense base... The solid element... the liquid element... The heat element... etc. The air element, semen, tears, blood, sweat both wholesome and unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the mind matter, is mental action matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is the mind immaterial, is mental action immaterial? Yes. Is the body immaterial, is bodily action immaterial? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the eye sense base matter, is eye-consciousness matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the ear sense base matter, is ear-consciousness matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the nose sense base matter, is nose-consciousness matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the tongue sense base matter, is tongue-consciousness matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is the body matter, is bodily action matter? Yes. Is the body sense base matter, is body-consciousness matter? That should not be said. Etc.

539. Is materiality action? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Volition, monks, I call action; having willed, one performs action by body, by speech, by mind"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "materiality is action."

Is materiality action? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "If, Ānanda, there is body, because of bodily volition there arises internal pleasure and pain; if, Ānanda, there is speech, because of verbal volition there arises internal pleasure and pain; if, Ānanda, there is mind, because of mental volition there arises internal pleasure and pain"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "materiality is action."

Is materiality action? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Threefold, monks, bodily volition is unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results; fourfold, monks, verbal volition is unwholesome verbal action with painful consequences, with painful results; threefold, monks, mental volition is unwholesome mental action with painful consequences, with painful results; threefold, monks, bodily volition is wholesome bodily action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results; fourfold, monks, verbal volition is wholesome verbal action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results; threefold, monks, mental volition is wholesome mental action with pleasant consequences, with pleasant results"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "materiality is action."

Is materiality action? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "If, Ānanda, this foolish man Samiddhi, thus asked by Pāṭaliputta the wandering ascetic, had answered thus - 'Having done an intentional action, friend Pāṭaliputta, by body, speech and mind, to be experienced as pleasant, he experiences pleasure; having done an intentional action, friend Pāṭaliputta, by body, speech and mind, to be experienced as unpleasant, he experiences suffering; having done an intentional action, friend Pāṭaliputta, by body, speech and mind, to be experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, he experiences neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling' - answering thus, Ānanda, the foolish man Samiddhi would have answered Pāṭaliputta the wandering ascetic rightly"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "materiality is action."

The discussion on matter being action is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(82) 10.

Discussion on the Life Faculty

540. There is no material life faculty? Yes. There is no life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of material states? That should not be said. Etc. There is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of material states? Yes. If there is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of material states, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no material life faculty."

There is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of immaterial states, there is immaterial life faculty? Yes. There is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of material states, there is material life faculty? That should not be said. Etc. There is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of material states, there is no material life faculty? Yes. There is life span, duration, sustenance, nourishment, movement, conduct, protection of immaterial states, there is no immaterial life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

The life span of immaterial states is the immaterial life faculty? Yes. The life span of material states is the material life faculty? That should not be said. Etc. The life span of material states should not be said - "Material life faculty"? Yes. The life span of immaterial states should not be said - "Immaterial life faculty"? That should not be said. Etc.

541. The life span of material states is the immaterial life faculty? Yes. The life span of immaterial states is the material life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

The life span of immaterial states should not be said - "Material life faculty"? Yes. The life span of material states should not be said - "Immaterial life faculty"? That should not be said. Etc.

The life span of material and immaterial states is the immaterial life faculty? Yes. The life span of material and immaterial states is the material life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

The life span of material and immaterial states should not be said - "Material life faculty"? Yes. The life span of material and immaterial states should not be said - "Immaterial life faculty"? That should not be said. Etc. There is no material life faculty? Yes. For one who has attained cessation there is no life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

542. For one who has attained cessation there is life faculty? Yes. If for one who has attained cessation there is life faculty, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no material life faculty."

For one who has attained cessation there is life faculty? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. For one who has attained cessation there is the aggregate of mental activities? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who has attained cessation there is the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. For one who has attained cessation there is the aggregate of feeling, etc. the aggregate of perception, etc. the aggregate of consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who has attained cessation there is the aggregate of feeling, etc. the aggregate of perception, etc. the aggregate of consciousness? Yes. Not attained to cessation? That should not be said. Etc.

543. There is no material life faculty? Yes. For non-percipient beings there is no life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

For non-percipient beings there is life faculty? Yes. If for non-percipient beings there is life faculty, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no material life faculty." For non-percipient beings there is life faculty? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. For non-percipient beings there is the aggregate of mental activities? That should not be said. Etc.

For non-percipient beings there is the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. For non-percipient beings there is the aggregate of feeling, etc. the aggregate of perception, etc. the aggregate of consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

For non-percipient beings there is the aggregate of feeling, etc. the aggregate of perception, etc. the aggregate of consciousness? Yes. Five-aggregate constituent existence? That should not be said. Etc.

544. Does the life faculty arisen from rebirth-seeking consciousness, when the rebirth-seeking consciousness is destroyed, get destroyed in part? Yes. Does contact arisen from rebirth-seeking consciousness, when the rebirth-seeking consciousness is destroyed, get destroyed in part? That should not be said. Etc.

Does contact arisen from rebirth-seeking consciousness, when the rebirth-seeking consciousness is destroyed, get destroyed completely? Yes. Does the life faculty arisen from rebirth-seeking consciousness, when the rebirth-seeking consciousness is destroyed, get destroyed completely? That should not be said. Etc.

545. Are there two life faculties? Yes. Does one live by two lives, does one die by two deaths? Yes.

The discussion on the life faculty is finished.

8. The Eighth Chapter

(83) 11.

Discussion on Action as Cause

546. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship because of action? Yes. Does a stream-enterer fall away from the fruition of stream-entry because of action? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship because of action? Yes. Does a once-returner because of action, etc. Does a non-returner fall away from the fruition of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a stream-enterer not fall away from the fruition of stream-entry because of action? Yes. Does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship because of action? That should not be said. Etc. Does a once-returner because of action, etc. Does a non-returner not fall away from the fruition of non-returning? Yes. Does a Worthy One not fall away from arahantship because of action? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship because of action? Yes. Because of the action of killing living beings? That should not be said. Etc. Because of the action of taking what is not given, etc. Because of the action of sexual misconduct... Because of the action of lying... Because of the action of divisive speech... Because of the action of harsh speech... Because of the action of idle chatter... Because of the action of matricide... Because of the action of patricide... Because of the action of killing a Worthy One... Because of the action of drawing blood, etc. Because of the action of schism in the Community? That should not be said. Etc.

Because of which action? Well then, because one slanders the Worthy Ones. Because of the action of slandering the Worthy Ones, does a Worthy One fall away from arahantship? Yes. Do all those who slander the Worthy Ones realize arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on action as cause is finished.

The Eighth Chapter.

Its summary:

Six destinations, intermediate existence, only five types of sensual pleasure are the sensual element, only five sense bases are sensual pleasures, material states are the material element, immaterial states are the immaterial sphere element, individual existence having six sense bases is in the fine-material element, there is matter in the immaterial, matter is action, matter is life, one falls away because of action.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(84) 1.

Discussion on One Who Sees the Benefit

547. Is there abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit? Yes. Is it not that for one attending to activities as impermanent, mental fetters are abandoned? Yes. If for one attending to activities as impermanent, mental fetters are abandoned, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit."

Is it not that for one attending to activities as suffering... etc. as a disease... as a boil... as a dart... as misery... as an affliction... as alien... as disintegrating... as a calamity... as a danger... as peril... as an obstacle... as unstable... as perishable... as not lasting... as without shelter... as without refuge... as without protection... as having become without protection... as empty... as hollow... as void... as non-self... as dangerous... etc. for one attending as subject to change, mental fetters are abandoned? Yes. If for one attending to activities as subject to change, mental fetters are abandoned, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit."

Does one attend to activities as impermanent and is one who sees the benefit in Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attend to activities as impermanent and is one who sees the benefit in Nibbāna? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. activities as suffering... etc. Does one attend as subject to change and is one who sees the benefit in Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attend to activities as subject to change and is one who sees the benefit in Nibbāna? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

548. Should it not be said - "Abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk dwells observing happiness in Nibbāna, perceiving happiness, experiencing happiness, constantly, continuously, uninterruptedly, resolving with the mind, penetrating with wisdom"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit.

The discussion on one who sees the benefit is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(85) 2.

Discussion on the Deathless as Object

549. Is that which has the Deathless as object a mental fetter? Yes. Is the Deathless subject to mental fetters, subject to mental knots, subject to mental floods, subject to mental bonds, subject to mental hindrances, adhered to, subject to clinging, subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the Deathless is not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, etc. not subject to defilement? Yes. If the Deathless is not subject to mental fetters, etc. not subject to defilement, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "that which has the Deathless as object is a mental fetter".

Does lust arise referring to the Deathless? Yes. Is the Deathless a basis for lust, enticing, desirable, intoxicating, binding, infatuating? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the Deathless is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating? Yes. If the Deathless is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "lust arises referring to the Deathless".

Does hate arise referring to the Deathless? Yes. Is the Deathless a basis for hate, a basis for irritation, a basis for aversion? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the Deathless is not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion? Yes. If the Deathless is not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "hate arises referring to the Deathless".

Does delusion arise referring to the Deathless? Yes. Is the Deathless a basis for delusion, causing not knowing, removing vision, suppressing wisdom, connected with vexation, not leading to Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the Deathless is not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, not removing vision, conducive to wisdom, not connected with vexation, leading to Nibbāna? Yes. If the Deathless is not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, etc. leading to Nibbāna, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "delusion arises referring to the Deathless".

550. Mental fetters arise referring to matter, matter is subject to mental fetters, subject to mental knots, etc. subject to defilement? Yes. Mental fetters arise referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is subject to mental fetters, etc. subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc.

Lust arises referring to matter, matter is a basis for lust, enticing, desirable, intoxicating, binding, infatuating? Yes. Lust arises referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is a basis for lust, etc. infatuating? That should not be said. Etc.

Hate arises referring to matter, matter is a basis for hate, a basis for irritation, a basis for aversion? Yes. Hate arises referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is a basis for hate, a basis for irritation, a basis for aversion? That should not be said. Etc.

Delusion arises referring to matter, matter is a basis for delusion, causing not knowing, etc. not leading to Nibbāna? Yes. Delusion arises referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is a basis for delusion, causing not knowing, etc. not leading to Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

Mental fetters arise referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, not subject to mental floods, not subject to mental bonds, not subject to mental hindrances, not adhered to, not subject to clinging, not subject to defilement? Yes. Mental fetters arise referring to matter, matter is not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, etc. not subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc.

Lust arises referring to the Deathless, the Deathless is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating? Yes. Lust arises referring to matter, matter is not a basis for lust, etc. not infatuating? That should not be said. Etc.

Does hate arise referring to the Deathless, is the Deathless not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion? Yes. Does hate arise referring to materiality, is materiality not a basis for hate, not a basis for irritation, not a basis for aversion? That should not be said. Etc.

Does delusion arise referring to the Deathless, is the Deathless not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, etc. leading to Nibbāna? Yes. Does delusion arise referring to materiality, is materiality not a basis for delusion, not causing not knowing, etc. leading to Nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

551. Should it not be said - "that which has the Deathless as object is a mental fetter"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna, having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he imagines Nibbāna, he imagines in Nibbāna, he imagines from Nibbāna, he imagines 'Nibbāna is mine', he delights in Nibbāna"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, that which has the Deathless as object is a mental fetter.

The discussion on the deathless as object is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(86) 3.

Discussion on Matter Having an Object

552. Is materiality with sense-object? Yes. Is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is not adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? Yes. If there is not adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "materiality is with sense-object."

Contact is with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? Yes. Materiality is with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... etc. perception, volition, consciousness, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, lust, hate, delusion, conceit, wrong view, sceptical doubt, sloth, restlessness, shamelessness... etc. moral fearlessness is with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? Yes. Materiality is with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Materiality is with sense-object, there is not adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is with sense-object, there is not adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Materiality is with sense-object, there is not adverting, reflective attention, etc. aspiration? Yes. Feeling... etc. moral fearlessness is with sense-object, there is not adverting, reflective attention for it... etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

553. Should it not be said - "materiality is with sense-object"? Yes. Is not materiality with condition? Yes. If materiality is with condition, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "materiality is with sense-object."

The discussion on matter having an object is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(87) 4.

Discussion on Underlying Tendencies Being Without Object

554. Are the underlying tendencies without sense-object? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust without sense-object? Yes. Are sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Are sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire with sense-object? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust without sense-object? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of consciousness without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Is sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities, without sense-object, and is sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities, with sense-object? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, and the aggregate of consciousness in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

555. Are the underlying tendency to aversion, the underlying tendency to conceit, the underlying tendency to wrong view, the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt, the underlying tendency to lust for existence, the underlying tendency to ignorance without sense-object? Yes. Are ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, underlying tendency to ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, mental fetter of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, etc. mental hindrance of ignorance with sense-object? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance without sense-object? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of consciousness without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Is ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object, and is ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, and the aggregate of consciousness in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

556. Should it not be said - "underlying tendencies are without object"? Yes. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with underlying tendencies"? Yes. Is there an object of those underlying tendencies? That should not be said. Etc. If so, underlying tendencies are without object. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with lust"? Yes. Is there an object of that lust? That should not be said. Etc. If so, lust is without object.

The discussion on underlying tendencies being without object is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(88) 5.

Discussion on Knowledge Being Without Object

557. Is knowledge without sense-object? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge without sense-object? Yes. Are wisdom, the wisdom faculty, the power of wisdom, right view, the enlightenment factor of investigation of phenomena without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Are wisdom, the wisdom faculty, the power of wisdom, right view, the enlightenment factor of investigation of phenomena with sense-object? Yes. Is knowledge with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is knowledge without sense-object? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of consciousness without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? Yes. Is wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? Yes. Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities without sense-object, and is wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities with sense-object? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, and the aggregate of consciousness in part with sense-object and in part without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

558. Should it not be said - "Knowledge is without sense-object"? Yes. Should it be said that a Worthy One possessing eye-consciousness is one with knowledge? Yes. Is there an object of that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc. If so, knowledge is without sense-object. Should it be said that a Worthy One possessing eye-consciousness is wise? Yes. Is there an object of that wisdom? That should not be said. Etc. If so, wisdom is without sense-object.

The discussion on knowledge being without object is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(89) 6.

Discussion on Past and Future as Object

559. Is consciousness with a past object without sense-object? Yes. Is it not with a past object? Yes. If it has a past object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Consciousness with a past object is without sense-object." "Consciousness with a past object is without sense-object" - is wrong. Or else if it is without sense-object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "With a past object." "Without sense-object has a past object" - is wrong.

Is consciousness with a past object without sense-object? Yes. Is it not that referring to the past there is adverting, etc. aspiration? Yes. If referring to the past there is adverting, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Consciousness with a past object is without sense-object."

560. Is consciousness with a future object without sense-object? Yes. Is it not with a future object? Yes. If it has a future object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Consciousness with a future object is without sense-object." "Consciousness with a future object is without sense-object" - is wrong. Or else if it is without sense-object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "With a future object." "Without sense-object has a future object" - is wrong.

Is consciousness with a future object without sense-object? Yes. Is it not that referring to the future there is adverting, etc. aspiration? Yes. If referring to the future there is adverting, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Consciousness with a future object is without sense-object."

Referring to the present there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a present object with sense-object? Yes. Referring to the past there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a past object with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Referring to the present there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a present object with sense-object? Yes. Referring to the future there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a future object with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Referring to the past there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a past object without sense-object? Yes. Referring to the present there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a present object without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Referring to the future there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a future object without sense-object? Yes. Referring to the present there is adverting, etc. aspiration, is consciousness with a present object without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

561. Should it not be said - "Consciousness with a past or future object is without sense-object"? Yes. Is it not that the past and future do not exist? Yes. If the past and future do not exist, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Consciousness with a past or future object is without sense-object." Etc.

The discussion on past and future as object is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(90) 7.

Discussion on Being Affected with Applied Thought

562. Is all consciousness affected with applied thought? Yes. Is all consciousness affected with sustained thought, affected with rapture, affected with pleasure, affected with pain, affected with pleasure, affected with displeasure, affected with equanimity, affected with faith, affected with energy, affected with mindfulness, affected with concentration, affected with wisdom, affected with lust, affected with hate, etc. affected with moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is all consciousness affected with applied thought? Yes. Is there not concentration without applied but with sustained thought only? Yes. If there is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "all consciousness is affected with applied thought."

Is all consciousness affected with applied thought? Yes. Is there not concentration without applied and sustained thought? Yes. If there is concentration without applied and sustained thought, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "all consciousness is affected with applied thought." Is all consciousness affected with applied thought? Yes. Were not three concentrations said by the Blessed One - concentration with applied and sustained thought, concentration without applied but with sustained thought only, concentration without applied and sustained thought? Yes. If three concentrations were said by the Blessed One - concentration with applied and sustained thought, concentration without applied but with sustained thought only, concentration without applied and sustained thought, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "all consciousness is affected with applied thought."

The discussion on being affected with applied thought is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(91) 8.

Discussion on Sound Being the Diffusion of Applied Thought

563. Is the diffusion of applied thought sound in every respect for one applying thought and examining? Yes. Is the diffusion of contact sound in every respect for one touching, is the diffusion of feeling sound in every respect for one feeling, is the diffusion of perception sound in every respect for one perceiving, is the diffusion of volition sound in every respect for one willing, is the diffusion of consciousness sound in every respect for one thinking, is the diffusion of mindfulness sound in every respect for one remembering, is the diffusion of wisdom sound in every respect for one understanding? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the diffusion of applied thought sound in every respect for one applying thought and examining? Yes. Is the diffusion of applied thought sound cognizable by ear, does it strike against the ear, does it come into the range of the ear? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the diffusion of applied thought sound is not cognizable by ear, does not strike against the ear, does not come into the range of the ear? Yes. If the diffusion of applied thought sound is not cognizable by ear, does not strike against the ear, does not come into the range of the ear, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The diffusion of applied thought is sound in every respect for one applying thought and examining."

The discussion on sound being the diffusion of applied thought is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(92) 9.

Discussion on Speech Not Being According to Consciousness

564. Is speech not according to consciousness? Yes. Is there speech of one without contact, speech of one without feeling, speech of one without perception, speech of one without volition, speech of one without consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is speech of one with contact, speech of one with feeling, speech of one with perception, speech of one with volition, speech of one with consciousness? Yes. If there is speech of one with contact, etc. speech of one with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness."

Is speech not according to consciousness? Yes. Is there speech of one not turning back, etc. speech of one without reflective attention, etc. speech of one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is speech of one turning back, speech of one with reflective attention, etc. speech of one directing? Yes. If there is speech of one turning back, speech of one with reflective attention, speech of one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness."

Is speech not according to consciousness? Yes. Is it not that speech is consciousness-originated, conascent with consciousness, having simultaneous arising with consciousness? Yes. If speech is consciousness-originated, conascent with consciousness, having simultaneous arising with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness."

Is speech not according to consciousness? Yes. Does one not wishing to speak speak, does one not wishing to say say, does one not wishing to address address, does one not wishing to express express? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that one wishing to speak speaks, one wishing to say says, one wishing to address addresses, one wishing to express expresses? Yes. If one wishing to speak speaks, one wishing to say says, one wishing to address addresses, one wishing to express expresses, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness."

565. Should it not be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness"? Yes. Is there not someone who thinking 'I will say one thing' says another, thinking 'I will speak one thing' speaks another, thinking 'I will address one thing' addresses another, thinking 'I will express one thing' expresses another? Yes. If there is someone who thinking 'I will say one thing' says another, etc. thinking 'I will express one thing' expresses another, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Speech is not according to consciousness."

The discussion on speech not being according to consciousness is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(93) 10.

The Discussion on Bodily Action Not Being According to Consciousness

566. Is bodily action not according to consciousness? Yes. Is there bodily action of one without contact? Etc. Is there bodily action of one without consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is bodily action of one with contact? Etc. Is there bodily action of one with consciousness? Yes. If there is bodily action of one with contact, etc. bodily action of one with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness."

Is bodily action not according to consciousness? Yes. Is there bodily action of one not turning back? Etc. Is there bodily action of one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is bodily action of one turning back? Etc. Is there bodily action of one directing? Yes. If there is bodily action of one turning back, etc. bodily action of one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness."

Is bodily action not according to consciousness? Yes. Is it not that bodily action is consciousness-originated, conascent with consciousness, having simultaneous arising with consciousness? Yes. If bodily action is consciousness-originated, conascent with consciousness, having simultaneous arising with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness."

Is bodily action not according to consciousness? Yes. Does one wishing to go forward not go forward, does one wishing to go back not go back, does one wishing to look before not look before, does one wishing to look around not look around, does one wishing to bend not bend, does one wishing to stretch not stretch? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that one wishing to go forward goes forward, one wishing to go back goes back, one wishing to look before looks before, one wishing to look around looks around, one wishing to bend bends, one wishing to stretch stretches? Yes. If one wishing to go forward goes forward, etc. one wishing to stretch stretches, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness."

567. Should it not be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness"? Yes. Is there not someone who thinking "I will go elsewhere" goes elsewhere? Etc. Thinking "I will stretch another" stretches another? Yes. If there is someone who thinking "I will go elsewhere" goes elsewhere, etc. thinking "I will stretch another" stretches another, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Bodily action is not according to consciousness."

The discussion on bodily action not being according to consciousness is finished.

9. The Ninth Chapter

(94) 11.

The Discussion on Being Possessed of Past and Future

568. Possessed of the past? Yes. Is not the past ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away? Yes. If the past is ceased, disappeared, changed, passed away, completely passed away, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "possessed of the past."

Possessed of the future? Yes. Is not the future unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest? Yes. If the future is unborn, not become, not produced, not generated, not fully generated, not become manifest, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "possessed of the future."

569. Is one possessed of the past aggregate of matter, possessed of the future aggregate of matter, possessed of the present aggregate of matter? Yes. Is one possessed of three aggregates of matter? That should not be said. Etc. Is one possessed of the past five aggregates, possessed of the future five aggregates, possessed of the present five aggregates? Yes. Is one possessed of fifteen aggregates? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one possessed of the past eye sense base, possessed of the future eye sense base, possessed of the present eye sense base? Yes. Is one possessed of three eye sense bases? That should not be said. Etc. Is one possessed of the past twelve sense bases, possessed of the future twelve sense bases, possessed of the present twelve sense bases? Yes. Is one possessed of thirty-six sense bases? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one possessed of the past eye-element, possessed of the future eye-element, possessed of the present eye-element? Yes. Is one possessed of three eye-elements? That should not be said. Etc. Is one possessed of the past eighteen elements, possessed of the future eighteen elements, possessed of the present eighteen elements? Yes. Is one possessed of fifty-four elements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is one possessed of the past eye-faculty, possessed of the future eye-faculty, possessed of the present eye-faculty? Yes. Is one possessed of three eye-faculties? That should not be said. Etc. Is one possessed of the past twenty-two faculties, possessed of the future twenty-two faculties, possessed of the present twenty-two faculties? Yes. Is one possessed of sixty-six faculties? That should not be said. Etc.

570. Should it not be said - "one is possessed of the past and future"? Yes. Is there not one who meditates on the eight deliverances, who obtains the four meditative absorptions at will, who is an obtainer of the nine progressive abiding attainments? Yes. If there is one who meditates on the eight deliverances, who obtains the four meditative absorptions at will, who is an obtainer of the nine progressive abiding attainments, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "one is possessed of the past and future".

The discussion on being possessed of past and future is finished.

The Ninth Chapter.

Its summary:

Abandoning of mental fetters for one who sees the benefit, the Deathless as object is a mental fetter, matter is with sense-object, underlying tendencies are without object, just so knowledge, consciousness with a past or future object, all consciousness is affected with applied thought, the diffusion of applied thought is sound in every respect for one applying thought and examining, speech is not according to consciousness, likewise bodily action, possessed of the past and future.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(95) 1.

The Discussion on Cessation

571. When the rebirth-seeking five aggregates have not ceased, do the functional five aggregates arise? Yes. Is there a combination of ten aggregates, do ten aggregates come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there a combination of ten aggregates, do ten aggregates come into presence? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

When the rebirth-seeking five aggregates have not ceased, do the functional four aggregates arise? Yes. Is there a combination of nine aggregates, do nine aggregates come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there a combination of nine aggregates, do nine aggregates come into presence? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

When the rebirth-seeking five aggregates have not ceased, does functional knowledge arise? Yes. Is there a combination of six aggregates, do six aggregates come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. Is there a combination of six aggregates, do six aggregates come into presence? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

572. When the rebirth-seeking five aggregates have ceased, does the path arise? Yes. Does one who is dead develop the path, does one who is deceased develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Cessation is concluded.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(96) 2.

The Discussion on Matter Being the Path

573. Is the matter of one possessing the path the path? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the matter of one possessing the path is the path."

Is right speech the path? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "right speech is the path."

Right action, etc. Is right livelihood the path? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "right livelihood is the path."

574. Right view is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right speech is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. right view is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right action, etc. right livelihood is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. right thought, etc. right effort, etc. right mindfulness, etc.

Right concentration is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right speech is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. right concentration is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right action, etc. right livelihood is the path, and it is with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Right speech is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right view is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. right speech is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right thought, etc. right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Right action, etc. right livelihood is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, etc. right concentration is the path, and it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

575. Should it not be said - "the matter of one possessing the path is the path"? Yes. Is it not that right speech, right action, right livelihood are the path? Yes. If right speech, right action, right livelihood are the path, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "the matter of one possessing the path is the path."

The discussion on matter being the path is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(97) 3.

The Discussion on the Path for One Endowed with the Five Sense Consciousnesses

576. Is there path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses? Yes. Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses."

Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have prenascent sense-bases and prenascent objects, internal sense-bases and external objects, unbroken sense-bases and unbroken objects, different sense-bases and different objects, they do not experience each other's range and domain, they do not arise without attentiveness, they do not arise without attention, they do not arise uninterruptedly, they do not arise simultaneously, they do not arise immediately after one another, is it not that the five sense consciousnesses are without reflective attention? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses are without reflective attention, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses."

577. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises".

578. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Referring to feeling... Referring to perception... Referring to volition... Referring to consciousness... Referring to the eye... Referring to the body... etc. Referring to sound... etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there path development for one endowed with mind-consciousness, does mind-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness, does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Is there path development for one endowed with mind-consciousness, does mind-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? Yes. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness, does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is there path development for one endowed with mind-consciousness, does mind-consciousness arise referring to contact... Referring to feeling... etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? Yes. Is there path development for one endowed with eye-consciousness, does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact... Referring to feeling... etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc.

579. Should it not be said - "There is path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, having seen a form with the eye, is not one who grasps at signs, nor one who grasps at features... etc... Having heard a sound with the ear... etc... Having smelled an odour with the nose... etc... Having tasted a flavour with the tongue... etc... Having touched a tangible object with the body, is not one who grasps at signs, nor one who grasps at features"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses.

The discussion on the path for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(98) 4.

The Discussion on the Five Sense Consciousnesses Being Both Wholesome and Unwholesome

580. Are the five sense consciousnesses both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses are both wholesome and unwholesome." Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have prenascent sense-bases and prenascent objects, internal sense-bases and external objects, unbroken sense-bases and unbroken objects, different sense-bases and different objects, they do not experience each other's range and domain, they do not arise without attentiveness, they do not arise without attention, they do not arise uninterruptedly, they do not arise simultaneously, they do not arise immediately after one another, is it not that the five sense consciousnesses are without reflective attention? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses are without reflective attention, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses are both wholesome and unwholesome."

581. Is eye-consciousness wholesome? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises".

582. Is eye-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is eye-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Referring to consciousness... Referring to the eye... etc. Referring to the body... Referring to sound... etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is mind-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does mind-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Is eye-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does mind-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? Yes. Is eye-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does mind-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Referring to consciousness... etc. Referring to the body... Referring to sound... etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? Yes. Is eye-consciousness both wholesome and unwholesome, does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc.

583. Should it not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses are both wholesome and unwholesome"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, having seen a form with the eye, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs... etc... Having heard a sound with the ear... etc... Having touched a tangible object with the body, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the five sense consciousnesses are both wholesome and unwholesome.

The discussion on the five sense consciousnesses being both wholesome and unwholesome is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(99) 5.

The Discussion on Having Reflective Attention

584. Do the five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention? Yes. Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses have arisen sense-bases and arisen objects, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention." Is it not that the five sense consciousnesses have prenascent sense-bases and prenascent objects, internal sense-bases and external objects, unbroken sense-bases and unbroken objects, different sense-bases and different objects, they do not experience each other's range and domain, they do not arise without attentiveness, they do not arise without attention, they do not arise uninterruptedly, they do not arise simultaneously, is it not that the five sense consciousnesses do not arise immediately after one another? Yes. If the five sense consciousnesses do not arise immediately after one another, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention."

585. Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc. Dependent on the eye and emptiness, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. Etc. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and emptiness, eye-consciousness arises".

Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-consciousness with reflective attention, does mind-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? Yes. Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention, does eye-consciousness arise referring to emptiness? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-consciousness with reflective attention, does mind-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? Yes. Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention, does eye-consciousness arise referring to the past and future? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-consciousness with reflective attention, does mind-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? Yes. Is eye-consciousness with reflective attention, does eye-consciousness arise referring to contact? Etc. Does it arise referring to tangible object? That should not be said. Etc.

586. Should it not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, having seen a form with the eye, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs... etc... Having touched a tangible object with the body, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention... etc...

The discussion on having reflective attention is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(100) 6.

The Discussion on the Two Kinds of Morality

587. Is a possessor of the path endowed with two moralities? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with two contacts, two feelings, two perceptions, two volitions, two consciousnesses, two faiths, two energies, two mindfulnesses, two concentrations, two wisdoms? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane morality? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane contact, mundane feeling, mundane wisdom, mundane volition, mundane consciousness, mundane faith, mundane energy, mundane mindfulness, mundane concentration, mundane wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane morality? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane contact? Etc. Endowed with both mundane and supramundane wisdom? That should not be said. Etc. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane morality? Yes. Is a possessor of the path a worldling? That should not be said. Etc.

588. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right speech? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right view? That should not be said. Etc. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right speech? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right thought? Etc. With mundane right effort? Etc. With mundane right mindfulness? Etc. Endowed with mundane right concentration? That should not be said. Etc. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right action? Etc. Endowed with mundane right livelihood? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with mundane right view? Etc. Endowed with mundane right concentration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right speech? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right view? That should not be said. Etc. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right speech? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right thought? Etc. With both mundane and supramundane right effort? Etc. With both mundane and supramundane right mindfulness? Etc. Endowed with both mundane and supramundane right concentration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right action? Etc. Endowed with right livelihood? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right view? That should not be said. Etc. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right livelihood? Yes. Is a possessor of the path endowed with both mundane and supramundane right thought? Etc. Endowed with both mundane and supramundane right concentration? That should not be said. Etc.

589. Should it not be said - "A possessor of the path is endowed with two moralities"? Yes. When mundane morality has ceased, does the path arise? Yes. Does one who is immoral, of broken morality, of cut morality, develop the path? That should not be said. Etc. If so, a possessor of the path is endowed with two moralities.

The discussion on the two kinds of morality is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(101) 7.

The Discussion on Morality Being Not a Mental Factor

590. Is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Matter... etc. Nibbāna... etc. The eye sense base... etc. the body sense base... visible form sense base... etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Is contact not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. Is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Feeling... etc. perception... etc. volition... etc. Faith... etc. Energy... etc. Mindfulness... etc. concentration, etc. Is wisdom not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

Is contact a mental factor? Yes. Is morality a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. volition... etc. Faith... etc. Energy... etc. Mindfulness... etc. concentration, etc. Is wisdom a mental factor? Yes. Is morality a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

591. Is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Does it have undesirable result? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that it has desirable result? Yes. If it has desirable result, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Morality is not a mental factor."

Does faith have desirable result, is faith a mental factor? Yes. Does morality have desirable result, is morality a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. Energy... etc. Mindfulness... etc. concentration, etc. Does wisdom have desirable result, is wisdom a mental factor? Yes. Does morality have desirable result, is morality a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

Does morality have desirable result, is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Does faith have desirable result, is faith not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. Does morality have desirable result, is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Energy... etc. Mindfulness... etc. concentration, etc. Does wisdom have desirable result, is wisdom not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

592. Is morality not a mental factor? Yes. Is it fruitless and resultless? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not fruitful and with result? Yes. If it is fruitful and with result, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Morality is not a mental factor." Etc.

Is the eye sense base not a mental factor and resultless? Yes. Is morality not a mental factor and resultless? That should not be said. Etc. the ear sense base... etc. The body sense base... etc. visible form sense base... etc. Is the touch sense base not a mental factor and resultless? Yes. Is morality not a mental factor and resultless? That should not be said. Etc.

Is morality not a mental factor and with result? Yes. Is the eye sense base not a mental factor and with result? That should not be said. Etc. Is morality not a mental factor and with result? Yes. The ear sense base... etc. the body sense base... visible form sense base... etc. Is the touch sense base not a mental factor and with result? That should not be said. Etc.

593. Is right speech not a mental factor? Yes. Is right view not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. is right speech not a mental factor? Yes. Right thought, etc. right effort, etc. right mindfulness, etc. is right concentration not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. right action, etc. is right livelihood not a mental factor? Yes. Is right view not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. is right livelihood not a mental factor? Yes. Right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, is right concentration not a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

Is right view a mental factor? Yes. Is right speech a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. is right view a mental factor? Yes. Right action, etc. is right livelihood a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. right thought, etc. right effort, etc. right mindfulness, etc. is right concentration a mental factor? Yes. Is right speech a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc. is right concentration a mental factor? Yes. Right action, etc. is right livelihood a mental factor? That should not be said. Etc.

594. Should it not be said - "Morality is not a mental factor"? Yes. When morality, having arisen, has ceased, is one immoral? That should not be said. If so, morality is not a mental factor.

The discussion on morality being not a mental factor is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(102) 8.

The Discussion on Morality Not Being Consecutive to Consciousness

595. Is morality not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Matter... Nibbāna... The eye sense base... etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is morality not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is contact not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is morality not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Feeling... etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is contact consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is morality consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... volition... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is morality consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

596. Is right speech not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is right view not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is right speech not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, etc. Is right concentration not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Right action, etc. Is right livelihood not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is right view not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is right livelihood not consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, etc. Is right concentration not consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is right view consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is right speech consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is right view consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Right action, etc. Is right livelihood consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, etc. is right concentration consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Is right speech consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. is right concentration consecutive to consciousness? Yes. Right action, etc. Is right livelihood consecutive to consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

597. Should it not be said - "Morality is not consecutive to consciousness"? Yes. When morality, having arisen, has ceased, is one immoral? That should not be said. If so, morality is not consecutive to consciousness.

The discussion on morality not being consecutive to consciousness is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(103) 9.

The Discussion on the Cause of Undertaking

598. Does morality rooted in observance grow? Yes. Does contact rooted in observance grow, does feeling grow, does perception grow, does volition grow, does consciousness grow, does faith grow, does energy grow, does mindfulness grow, does concentration grow, does wisdom grow? That should not be said. Etc.

Does morality rooted in observance grow? Yes. Does it grow like a creeper, does it grow like a parasitic vine, does it grow like a tree, does it grow like grass, does it grow like a heap of muñja grass? That should not be said. Etc.

599. Does morality rooted in observance grow? Yes. For one who, having taken upon oneself morality, thinks sensual thoughts, thinks thoughts of anger, thinks thoughts of violence - does morality grow? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence."

600. Should it not be said - "Does morality rooted in observance grow?" Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Planters of parks, planters of groves, etc. Righteous, accomplished in morality, those people are heaven-bound." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, morality rooted in observance grows.

The discussion on the cause of undertaking is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(104) 10.

The Discussion on Intimation Being Morality

601. Is intimation morality? Yes. Is it abstention from killing living beings? That should not be said. Etc. Is it abstention from taking what is not given? That should not be said. Etc. Is it abstention from sexual misconduct? That should not be said. Etc. Is it abstention from lying? That should not be said. Etc. Is it abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is paying respect morality, is rising up in respect morality, is salutation with joined palms morality, is doing the proper duties morality, is offering of seat morality, is offering sleeping place morality, is offering water for washing the feet morality, is offering a footstand morality, is back-rubbing at bathing morality? Yes. Is it abstention from killing living beings? That should not be said. Etc. Is it abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence? That should not be said. Etc.

602. Should it not be said - "Intimation is morality"? Yes. Is it immorality? That should not be said. Etc. If so, intimation is morality.

The discussion on intimation being morality is finished.

10. The Tenth Chapter

(105) 11.

The Discussion on Non-Intimation Being Immorality

603. Is non-intimation immorality? Yes. Is it killing living beings? That should not be said. Etc. Is it taking what is not given? That should not be said. Etc. Is it sexual misconduct? That should not be said. Etc. Is it lying? That should not be said. Etc. Is it spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence? That should not be said. Etc.

For one who, having taken upon oneself an evil deed, gives a gift - do both merit and demerit grow? That should not be said. Etc. Do both merit and demerit grow? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

604. Should it not be said - "Non-intimation is immorality"? Yes. Was not an evil deed taken upon oneself? Yes. If an evil deed was taken upon oneself, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Non-intimation is immorality."

The discussion on non-intimation being immorality is finished.

The Tenth Chapter.

Its summary:

When the rebirth-seeking five aggregates have not ceased, the functional five aggregates arise; the matter of one possessing the path is the path; there is path development for one endowed with the five sense consciousnesses; the five sense consciousnesses are both wholesome and unwholesome; the five sense consciousnesses have reflective attention; a possessor of the path is endowed with two moralities; morality is not a mental factor; morality is not consecutive to consciousness; morality rooted in observance grows; intimation-morality, non-intimation is immorality.

The Second Fifty.

Its summary:

Fixed course, inclusion, gone, benefit, and cessation.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(106-108) 1-3.

The Discussion on the Three Underlying Tendencies Also

605. Are underlying tendencies indeterminate? Yes. Resultant indeterminate, functional indeterminate, matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust indeterminate? Yes. Are sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. the mental hindrance of sensual desire unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to aversion indeterminate? Yes. Are aversion, prepossession by aversion, mental fetter of aversion indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. aversion, prepossession by aversion, mental fetter of aversion unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to aversion unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to conceit indeterminate? Yes. Are conceit, prepossession by conceit, mental fetter of conceit indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. conceit, prepossession by conceit, mental fetter of conceit unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to conceit unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Are wrong view, the mental flood of wrong view, the mental bond of wrong view, prepossession by wrong view, the mental fetter of wrong view indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Are wrong view, the mental flood of wrong view, the mental bond of wrong view, prepossession by wrong view, the mental fetter of wrong view unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to wrong view unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt indeterminate? Yes. Are sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, the mental fetter of sceptical doubt, the mental hindrance of sceptical doubt indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Are sceptical doubt, prepossession by sceptical doubt, the mental fetter of sceptical doubt, the mental hindrance of sceptical doubt unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to lust for existence indeterminate? Yes. Are lust for existence, prepossession by lust for existence, the mental fetter of lust for existence indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Are lust for existence, prepossession by lust for existence, the mental fetter of lust for existence unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to lust for existence unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance indeterminate? Yes. Are ignorance, the mental flood of ignorance, the mental bond of ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, the mental fetter of ignorance, the mental hindrance of ignorance indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Are ignorance, the mental flood of ignorance, the mental bond of ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, the mental fetter of ignorance, the mental hindrance of ignorance unwholesome? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

606. Should it not be said - "underlying tendencies are indeterminate"? Yes. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with underlying tendencies"? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome mental states come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. If so, underlying tendencies are indeterminate. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with lust"? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome mental states come into presence? That should not be said. Etc. If so, lust is indeterminate.

607. Are underlying tendencies without roots? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust without roots? Yes. Are sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, the mental fetter of sensual lust, the mental hindrance of sensual desire without roots? That should not be said. Etc. sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. the mental hindrance of sensual desire is with root? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust with root? That should not be said. Etc. the underlying tendency to aversion, etc. the underlying tendency to conceit... the underlying tendency to wrong view... the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt... the underlying tendency to lust for existence... Is the underlying tendency to ignorance without roots? Yes. Are ignorance, the mental flood of ignorance, the mental bond of ignorance, prepossession by ignorance, the mental fetter of ignorance, the mental hindrance of ignorance without roots? That should not be said. Etc. ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, etc. the mental hindrance of ignorance is with root? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance with root? That should not be said. Etc.

608. Should it not be said - "underlying tendencies are without roots"? Yes. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with underlying tendencies"? Yes. Are underlying tendencies with root by that root? That should not be said. Etc. If so, underlying tendencies are without roots. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with lust"? Yes. Is lust with root by that root? That should not be said. Etc. If so, lust is without roots.

609. Underlying tendencies are dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

The underlying tendency to sensual lust is dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, mental fetter of sensual lust, mental flood of sensuality, mental bond of sensuality, mental hindrance of sensual desire are dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. sensual lust, prepossession by sensual lust, etc. mental hindrance of sensual desire is associated with consciousness? Yes. The underlying tendency to sensual lust is associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

610. The underlying tendency to sensual lust is dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling and the aggregate of perception dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Is sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness, and sensual lust included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the aggregate of mental activities in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling and the aggregate of perception in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

611. Are the underlying tendency to aversion, the underlying tendency to conceit, the underlying tendency to wrong view, the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt, the underlying tendency to lust for existence, the underlying tendency to ignorance dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Are ignorance, mental flood of ignorance, mental bond of ignorance, mental hindrance of ignorance associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

612. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling and the aggregate of perception dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Is ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness, and ignorance included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said.

613. Should it not be said - "underlying tendencies are dissociated from consciousness"? Yes. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with underlying tendencies"? Yes. Are underlying tendencies associated with that consciousness? That should not be said. If so, underlying tendencies are dissociated from consciousness. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with lust"? Yes. Is lust associated with that consciousness? That should not be said. If so, lust is dissociated from consciousness.

The discussion on the three underlying tendencies is also finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(109) 4.

Treatise on Knowledge

614. When not knowing has disappeared and consciousness dissociated from knowledge is occurring, should it not be said - "one with knowledge"? Yes. When lust has disappeared, should it not be said - "without lust"? That should not be said. Etc. When not knowing has disappeared and consciousness dissociated from knowledge is occurring, should it not be said - "one with knowledge"? Yes. When hate has disappeared... When delusion has disappeared... When mental defilement has disappeared, should it not be said - "free from defilement"? That should not be said. Etc.

When lust has disappeared, should it be said - "without lust"? Yes. When not knowing has disappeared and consciousness dissociated from knowledge is occurring, should it be said - "one with knowledge"? That should not be said. Etc. When hate has disappeared... When delusion has disappeared... When mental defilement has disappeared, should it be said - "free from defilement"? Yes. When not knowing has disappeared and consciousness dissociated from knowledge is occurring, should it be said - "one with knowledge"? That should not be said. Etc.

615. When not knowing has disappeared and consciousness dissociated from knowledge is occurring, should it be said - "one with knowledge"? Yes. Is one with knowledge by past knowledge, one with knowledge by ceased, disappeared, tranquillised knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

The treatise on knowledge is concluded.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(110) 5.

The Discussion on Knowledge Being Dissociated from Consciousness

616. Is knowledge dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are wisdom, the wisdom faculty, the power of wisdom, right view, the enlightenment factor of investigation of phenomena dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Are wisdom, the wisdom faculty, the power of wisdom, right view, the enlightenment factor of investigation of phenomena associated with consciousness? Yes. Is knowledge associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is knowledge dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Included in which aggregate? Included in the aggregate of mental activities. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling and the aggregate of perception dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Is wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is knowledge included in the aggregate of mental activities dissociated from consciousness, and wisdom included in the aggregate of mental activities associated with consciousness? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Are the aggregate of feeling and the aggregate of perception in part associated with consciousness and in part dissociated from consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

617. Should it not be said - "Knowledge is dissociated from consciousness"? Yes. Should it be said that a Worthy One possessing eye-consciousness is one with knowledge? Yes. Is knowledge associated with that consciousness? That should not be said. If so, knowledge is dissociated from consciousness.

Should it be said that a Worthy One possessing eye-consciousness is wise? Yes. Is wisdom associated with that consciousness? That should not be said. If so, wisdom is dissociated from consciousness.

The discussion on knowledge being dissociated from consciousness is finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(111) 6.

The Discussion on "This is Suffering"

618. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge "This is the origin of suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is the origin of suffering"? That should not be said. Etc. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge "This is the cessation of suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is the cessation of suffering"? That should not be said. Etc. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge "This is the path" proceed for one speaking the words "This is the path"? That should not be said. Etc.

For one speaking the words "This is the origin", does knowledge "This is the origin" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "This is suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc. "This is cessation"... For one speaking the words "This is the path", does knowledge "This is the path" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "This is suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc.

619. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge "Materiality is impermanent" proceed for one speaking the words "Materiality is impermanent"? That should not be said. Etc. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Feeling... perception... activities... Does knowledge "Consciousness is impermanent" proceed for one speaking the words "Consciousness is impermanent"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge "Materiality is non-self" proceed for one speaking the words "Materiality is non-self"? That should not be said. Etc. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Feeling... perception... activities... Does knowledge "Consciousness is non-self" proceed for one speaking the words "Consciousness is non-self"? That should not be said. Etc.

For one speaking the words "Materiality is impermanent", does knowledge "Materiality is impermanent" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "This is suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... perception... activities... For one speaking the words "Consciousness is impermanent", does knowledge "Consciousness is impermanent" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "This is suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc.

For one speaking the words "Materiality is non-self", does knowledge "Materiality is non-self" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "This is suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... perception... activities... For one speaking the words "Consciousness is non-self", does knowledge "Consciousness is non-self" not proceed? Yes. For one speaking the words "This is suffering", does knowledge "suffering" not proceed? That should not be said. Etc.

620. Does knowledge "This is suffering" proceed for one speaking the words "This is suffering"? Yes. Does knowledge proceed as "i" and "da" and "du" and "kha"? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on "this is suffering" is finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(112) 7.

The Discussion on the Power of Supernormal Power

621. Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Is that life span produced by supernormal power, is that destination produced by supernormal power, is that acquisition of individual existence produced by supernormal power? That should not be said. Etc.

Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for a past cosmic cycle, would one remain for a future cosmic cycle? That should not be said. Etc. Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for two cosmic cycles, would one remain for three cosmic cycles, would one remain for four cosmic cycles? That should not be said. Etc. Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain when there is life, when there is a remainder of life, would one remain when there is no life, when there is no remainder of life? One would remain when there is life, when there is a remainder of life. If one would remain when there is life, when there is a remainder of life, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One endowed with supernormal power would remain for a cosmic cycle." Would one remain when there is no life, when there is no remainder of life, would one who is dead remain, would one who is deceased remain? That should not be said. Etc.

622. Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that arisen contact should not cease? That should not be said. Etc. arisen feeling... etc. arisen perception... etc. arisen volition... etc. arisen consciousness... arisen faith... arisen energy... arisen mindfulness... arisen concentration... etc. Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that arisen wisdom should not cease? That should not be said. Etc.

Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that matter should be permanent? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... activities... Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that consciousness should be permanent? That should not be said. Etc.

Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that beings subject to birth should not be born? That should not be said. Etc. that beings subject to ageing should not age... etc. that beings subject to disease should not become diseased... etc. Is it possible to sustain by supernormal power that beings subject to death should not die? That should not be said. Etc.

623. Should it not be said - "One endowed with supernormal power would remain for a cosmic cycle"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For anyone, Ānanda, who has developed, cultivated, mastered, made a basis of, practised, accumulated, and thoroughly undertaken the four bases for spiritual power, if he wishes, he could remain for a cosmic cycle or the remainder of a cosmic cycle"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one endowed with supernormal power would remain for a cosmic cycle.

624. Would one endowed with supernormal power remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Monks, for four things there is no surety - whether ascetic or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or anyone in the world! Which four? What is subject to ageing - 'may it not age' - there is no surety for this - whether ascetic or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or anyone in the world. What is subject to disease - 'may it not fall ill' - etc. What is subject to death - 'may it not die' - etc. Whatever evil actions were done in the past, which are subject to defilement, leading to rebirth, giving trouble, with painful results, leading to future birth, ageing, and death - 'may the result of those not arise' - there is no surety for this - whether ascetic or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or anyone in the world. Monks, for these four things there is no surety - whether ascetic or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or anyone in the world." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One endowed with supernormal power would remain for a cosmic cycle."

The discussion on the power of supernormal power is finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(113) 8.

The Discussion on Concentration

625. Is continuity of consciousness concentration? Yes. Is past continuity of consciousness concentration? That should not be said. Etc. Is continuity of consciousness concentration? Yes. Is future continuity of consciousness concentration? That should not be said. Etc. Is continuity of consciousness concentration? Yes. Is not the past ceased and the future unborn? Yes. If the past is ceased and the future is unborn, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Continuity of consciousness is concentration."

626. Is concentration lasting one mind-moment? Yes. Is one possessing eye-consciousness attained? That should not be said. Etc. One possessing ear-consciousness... etc. One possessing nose-consciousness... One possessing tongue-consciousness... One possessing body-consciousness... etc. One possessing unwholesome consciousness... etc. One possessing consciousness accompanied by lust... etc. One possessing consciousness accompanied by hate... etc. One possessing consciousness accompanied by delusion... etc. Is one possessing consciousness accompanied by moral fearlessness attained? That should not be said. Etc.

Is continuity of consciousness concentration? Yes. Is continuity of unwholesome consciousness concentration? That should not be said. Etc. Accompanied by lust... etc. Accompanied by hate... etc. Accompanied by delusion... etc. Is continuity of consciousness accompanied by moral fearlessness concentration? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "Continuity of consciousness is concentration"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I, friends Jains, am able, without moving my body, without uttering speech, to dwell experiencing exclusively happiness for seven nights and days"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, continuity of consciousness is concentration.

The discussion on concentration is finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(114) 9.

The Discussion on the Principle of the Causal Relationship of Phenomena

627. Is the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena predetermined? Yes. Is the stability of that predetermined? That should not be said. Etc. Is the stability of that predetermined? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the stability of matter predetermined? Yes. Is the stability of that predetermined? That should not be said. Etc. Is the stability of that predetermined? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

The stability of feeling... etc. The stability of perception... etc. The stability of activities... etc. Is the stability of consciousness predetermined? Yes. Is the stability of that predetermined? That should not be said. Etc. Is the stability of that predetermined? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena is finished.

11. The Eleventh Chapter

(115) 10.

The Discussion on Impermanence

628. Is impermanence predetermined? Yes. Is impermanence predetermined by that impermanence? That should not be said. Etc. Is impermanence predetermined by that impermanence? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said.

Is ageing predetermined? Yes. Is ageing predetermined by that ageing? That should not be said. Etc. Is ageing predetermined by that ageing? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

Is death predetermined? Yes. Is death of that death predetermined? That should not be said. Is death of that death predetermined? Yes. For that very one there is no ending of suffering, there is no cutting off of the round of existence, there is no final nibbāna without clinging? That should not be said. Etc.

629. Is matter predetermined, is there impermanence of matter? Yes. Is impermanence predetermined, is there impermanence of impermanence? That should not be said. Etc. Is matter predetermined, is there ageing of matter? Yes. Is ageing predetermined, is there ageing of ageing? That should not be said. Etc.

Is matter predetermined, is there breaking up of matter, is there disappearance? Yes. Is death predetermined, is there breaking up of death, is there disappearance? That should not be said. Etc.

Feeling... etc. perception... activities... etc. Is consciousness predetermined, is there impermanence of consciousness? Yes. Is impermanence predetermined, is there impermanence of impermanence? That should not be said. Etc. Is consciousness predetermined, is there ageing of consciousness? Yes. Is ageing predetermined, is there ageing of ageing? That should not be said. Etc.

Is consciousness predetermined, is there breaking up of consciousness, is there disappearance? Yes. Is death predetermined, is there breaking up of death, is there disappearance? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on impermanence is finished.

The Eleventh Chapter.

Its summary:

Underlying tendencies are indeterminate, without roots, dissociated from consciousness, one with knowledge when not knowing has disappeared, knowledge is dissociated from consciousness, where knowledge proceeds regarding sound, one endowed with supernormal power would remain for a cosmic cycle, continuity of consciousness is concentration, principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, impermanence.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(116) 1.

The Discussion on Restraint Being Action

630. Is restraint action? Yes. Is eye-faculty restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Ear-faculty restraint, etc. Nose-faculty restraint, etc. Tongue-faculty restraint, etc. Is body faculty restraint bodily action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is body faculty restraint bodily action? Yes. Is eye-faculty restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is body faculty restraint bodily action? Yes. Ear-faculty restraint, etc. Nose-faculty restraint, etc. Is tongue-faculty restraint tongue-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind faculty restraint mental action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is mind faculty restraint mental action? Yes. Is eye-faculty restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind faculty restraint mental action? Yes. Ear-faculty restraint, etc. Nose-faculty restraint, Tongue-faculty restraint, etc. Is body faculty restraint bodily action? That should not be said. Etc.

631. Is non-restraint action? Yes. Is eye-faculty non-restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Ear-faculty non-restraint, etc. Nose-faculty non-restraint, etc. Tongue-faculty non-restraint, Is body-faculty non-restraint bodily action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is body-faculty non-restraint bodily action? Yes. Is eye-faculty non-restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is body-faculty non-restraint bodily action? Yes. Ear-faculty non-restraint, etc. Nose-faculty non-restraint, etc. Is tongue-faculty non-restraint tongue-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-faculty non-restraint mental action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is mind-faculty non-restraint mental action? Yes. Is eye-faculty non-restraint eye-action? That should not be said. Etc. Is mind-faculty non-restraint mental action? Yes. Ear-faculty non-restraint, etc. Nose-faculty non-restraint, etc. Tongue-faculty non-restraint, etc. Is body-faculty non-restraint bodily action? That should not be said. Etc.

632. Should it not be said - "Both restraint and non-restraint are action"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, having seen a form with the eye, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs, having heard a sound with the ear... etc... having cognised a mental object with the mind, is one who grasps at signs... etc... is not one who grasps at signs"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, both restraint and non-restraint are action.

The discussion on restraint being action is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(117) 2.

The Treatise on Action

633. Is all action with result? Yes. Is all volition with result? That should not be said. Etc. Is all volition with result? Yes. Is resultant indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc. Is all volition with result? Yes. Is functional indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc.

Is all volition with result? Yes. Is sensual-sphere resultant indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc. Is all volition with result? Yes. Is fine-material-sphere, immaterial-sphere, and not-included resultant indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc.

Is all volition with result? Yes. Is sensual-sphere functional indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc. Is all volition with result? Yes. Is fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere functional indeterminate volition with result? That should not be said. Etc.

634. Is resultant indeterminate volition resultless? Yes. If resultant indeterminate volition is resultless, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All volition is with result."

Is functional indeterminate volition resultless? Yes. If functional indeterminate volition is resultless, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All volition is with result."

Is sensual-sphere, fine-material-sphere, immaterial-sphere, and not-included resultant indeterminate volition resultless? Yes. If not-included resultant indeterminate volition is resultless, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All volition is with result."

Is sensual-sphere, fine-material-sphere, and immaterial-sphere functional indeterminate volition resultless? Yes. If immaterial-sphere functional indeterminate volition is resultless, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All volition is with result."

635. Should it not be said - "All action is with result"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I do not say, monks, that there is destruction of intentional actions that have been done and accumulated without experiencing them, and that indeed either in this very life, or upon rebirth, or in some other subsequent existence"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, all action is with result.

The Treatise on Action is concluded.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(118) 3.

Discussion on Sound Being Resultant

636. Is sound resultant? Yes. Experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, associated with unpleasant feeling, associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, associated with feeling, associated with perception, associated with volition, associated with consciousness, with sense-object; is there adverting, reflective attention, attentiveness, attention, volition, longing, aspiration for it? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "sound is resultant."

Contact is resultant, contact is experienced as pleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Sound is resultant, sound is experienced as pleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Sound is resultant, sound is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is resultant, contact is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

637. Should it not be said - "sound is resultant"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Because of the doing of that action, its accumulation, its abundance, its extensiveness, he has a voice like Brahmā, speaking like a cuckoo"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, sound is resultant.

The discussion on sound being resultant is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(119) 4.

Discussion on the Six Sense Bases

638. Is the eye sense base resultant? Yes. Experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the eye sense base is resultant." Etc.

Contact is resultant, contact is experienced as pleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. The eye sense base is resultant, the eye sense base is experienced as pleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

The eye sense base is resultant, the eye sense base is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is resultant, contact is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

639. The ear sense base... etc. nose sense base... etc. tongue sense base... etc. Is the body sense base resultant? Yes. Experienced as pleasant... etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the body sense base is resultant."

Contact is resultant, contact is experienced as pleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. The body sense base is resultant, the body sense base is experienced as pleasant... etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. The body sense base is resultant, the body sense base is not experienced as pleasant... etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is resultant, contact is not experienced as pleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

640. Should it not be said - "the six sense bases are resultant"? Yes. Is it not that the six sense bases have arisen due to action having been done? Yes. If the six sense bases have arisen due to action having been done, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "the six sense bases are resultant."

The discussion on the six sense bases is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(120) 5.

Discussion on One with Seven Rebirths at the Utmost

641. Is a person with seven rebirths at the utmost fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... a Worthy One has been deprived of life... blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata with a malicious mind... the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person with seven rebirths at the utmost fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. Is he incapable of fully realising the teaching in between? That should not be said. Etc. Is he incapable of fully realising the teaching in between? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... a Worthy One has been deprived of life... blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata with a malicious mind... the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

642. Is a person with seven rebirths at the utmost fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. Is there that fixed course by which fixed course a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? That should not be said. Etc. Are there establishments of mindfulness for him? Etc. right strivings... bases for spiritual power... faculties... powers... Are there factors of enlightenment by which factors of enlightenment a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? That should not be said. Etc.

643. Is there not that fixed course by which fixed course a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. If there is not that fixed course by which fixed course a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost."

Are there not establishments of mindfulness for him? Etc. Are there factors of enlightenment by which factors of enlightenment a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. If there are not those factors of enlightenment by which factors of enlightenment a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost."

644. Is a person with seven rebirths at the utmost fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. By the fixed course of once-returning? That should not be said. Etc. By the fixed course of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc. By the fixed course of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

By which fixed course? By the fixed course of stream-entry. Is a person with seven rebirths at the utmost fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. Do all those who enter upon the fixed course of stream-entry become fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost? That should not be said. Etc.

645. Should it not be said - "A person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost"? Yes. Is he not one with seven rebirths at the utmost? Yes. If he is one with seven rebirths at the utmost, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost."

The discussion on one with seven rebirths at the utmost is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(121) 6.

Discussion on the Family-to-Family Goer

646. Should it not be said - "A family-to-family goer is a person fixed in destination as a family-to-family goer"? Yes. Is he not a family-to-family goer? Yes. If he is a family-to-family goer, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A family-to-family goer is a person fixed in destination as a family-to-family goer."

The discussion on the family-to-family goer is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(122) 7.

Discussion on One Who Has Sown the Seed of Rebirth One Last Time

647. Should it not be said - "A person who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time is fixed in destination as one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time"? Yes. Is he not one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time? Yes. If he is one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A person who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time is fixed in destination as one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time."

The discussion on one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(123) 8.

Discussion on Depriving of Life

648. Would a person accomplished in right view intentionally deprive a living being of life? Yes. Would a person accomplished in right view intentionally deprive his mother of life... etc. would deprive his father of life... etc. should deprive a Worthy One of life, etc. with a malicious mind would shed the Tathāgata's blood... etc. would break the monastic community? That should not be said. Etc.

Would a person accomplished in right view intentionally deprive a living being of life? Yes. Is a person accomplished in right view disrespectful towards the Teacher? That should not be said. Etc. Towards the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. disrespectful towards the training? That should not be said. Etc.

Is not a person accomplished in right view respectful towards the Teacher? Yes. If a person accomplished in right view is respectful towards the Teacher, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a person accomplished in right view would intentionally deprive a living being of life." Is not a person accomplished in right view towards the Teaching... etc. Towards the Community... etc. respectful towards the training? Yes. If a person accomplished in right view is respectful towards the training, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a person accomplished in right view would intentionally deprive a living being of life."

649. Is a person accomplished in right view disrespectful towards the Teacher? Yes. Would a person accomplished in right view defecate on a Buddha monument, urinate on it, spit on it, treat a Buddha monument as not within arm's reach? That should not be said. Etc.

Would a person accomplished in right view intentionally deprive a living being of life? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Just as, monks, the great ocean is stable in nature and does not overflow its boundaries; just so, monks, whatever training rule has been laid down by me for disciples, my disciples do not transgress it even for the sake of their life." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "a person accomplished in right view would intentionally deprive a living being of life."

The discussion on depriving of life is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(124) 9.

Discussion on the Unfortunate Realm

650. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view? Yes. Would a person accomplished in right view find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery? Yes. If a person accomplished in right view would find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person accomplished in right view."

Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view? Yes. Would a person accomplished in right view in sounds bound for the realm of misery, etc. odours... flavours... tangible objects, etc. engage in sexual intercourse with a non-human woman, with an animal woman, with a serpent maiden, accept goats and sheep, accept fowl and pigs, accept elephants, cattle, horses and mares... accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants? Yes. If a person accomplished in right view would accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person accomplished in right view."

651. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view, and would a person accomplished in right view find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery? Yes. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery? That should not be said. Etc. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view, and would a person accomplished in right view in sounds bound for the realm of misery... odours... flavours... tangible objects, etc. accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants? Yes. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One not find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery? Yes. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view, and would a person accomplished in right view not find pleasure in forms bound for the realm of misery? That should not be said. Etc. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a Worthy One, and would a Worthy One not in sounds bound for the realm of misery, etc. odours, etc. flavours, etc. tangible objects, etc. engage in sexual intercourse with a non-human woman, with an animal woman, with a serpent maiden, accept goats and sheep, accept fowl and pigs, accept elephants, cattle, horses and mares, etc. accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants? Yes. Are the unfortunate realms abandoned by a person accomplished in right view, and would a person accomplished in right view not accept partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants? That should not be said. Etc.

652. Should it not be said - "The unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person accomplished in right view"? Yes. Would a person accomplished in right view be reborn in hell? Etc. Would one be reborn in the animal realm? Would one be reborn in the sphere of ghosts? That should not be said. If so, the unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person accomplished in right view.

The discussion on the unfortunate realm is finished.

12. The Twelfth Chapter

(125) 10.

Discussion on One of Seven-Lives Maximum

653. Should it not be said "the unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person of seven-lives maximum"? Yes. Would a person of seven-lives maximum be reborn in hell, be reborn in the animal realm, be reborn in the sphere of ghosts? That should not be said. If so, the unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person of seven-lives maximum.

The discussion on one of seven-lives maximum is finished.

The Twelfth Chapter.

Its summary:

Restraint, action, likewise non-restraint, all action with result, sound is resultant, the six sense bases are resultant, a person with seven rebirths at the utmost is fixed in having seven rebirths at the utmost, a family-to-family goer is fixed in destination as a family-to-family goer, a person who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time is fixed in destination as one who has sown the seed of rebirth one last time, would a person accomplished in right view intentionally deprive a living being of life, the unfortunate realms are abandoned by a person accomplished in right view, likewise for one of seven-lives maximum.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(126) 1.

Discussion on Lasting a Cosmic Cycle

654. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does a Buddha arise in the world? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does the Community split? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does one who remains for a cosmic cycle perform an action lasting for a cosmic cycle? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does the person who remains for a cosmic cycle die? That should not be said. Etc.

655. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for a past cosmic cycle, would one remain for a future cosmic cycle? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for two cosmic cycles... would one remain for three cosmic cycles... would one remain for four cosmic cycles? That should not be said. Etc.

656. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. When the cosmic cycle is being destroyed, where does one who remains for a cosmic cycle go? He goes to another world system. Does he go dead, does he go through the sky? He goes dead. Is the action lasting for a cosmic cycle successively ripening? That should not be said. Etc. Does he go through the sky? Yes. Does one who remains for a cosmic cycle possess supernormal power? That should not be said. Etc. Does one who remains for a cosmic cycle possess supernormal power? Yes. Has the basis for spiritual power of desire been developed by one who remains for a cosmic cycle, has the basis for spiritual power of energy been developed, has the basis for spiritual power of developed mind been developed, has the basis for spiritual power of investigation been developed? That should not be said. Etc.

657. Should it not be said - "Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Bound for the realm of misery, doomed to hell, remaining for a cosmic cycle, the schismatic;

Delighting in discord, established in what is not the Teaching, he falls from freedom from bondage;

Having split a united Community, he is tormented in hell for a cosmic cycle."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who remains for a cosmic cycle would remain for a cosmic cycle.

The discussion on lasting a cosmic cycle is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(127) 2.

Discussion on the Attainment of the Wholesome

658. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle give a gift? Yes. If one who remains for a cosmic cycle would give a gift, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who remains for a cosmic cycle would not obtain wholesome consciousness."

Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle give a robe? Etc. Would give almsfood? Etc. Would give lodging? Etc. Would give the requisite of medicines for the sick? Would give solid food? Would give soft food? Would give drinking water? Would venerate a shrine? Would place a garland at a shrine? Would place scent? Would place cosmetics? Etc. Would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right? Yes. If one who remains for a cosmic cycle would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who remains for a cosmic cycle would not obtain wholesome consciousness." Etc.

659. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would he obtain wholesome consciousness of emergence from that? Yes. Fine-material-sphere, etc. Immaterial-sphere, etc. Would he obtain supramundane wholesome consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the attainment of the wholesome is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(128) 3.

Discussion on Proximity and Inappropriateness

660. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Could he enter both the fixed course of the wrong path and the fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Is it not that when that action was applied, remorse was produced, regret was generated? Yes. If when that action was applied, remorse was produced, regret was generated, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed could enter the fixed course of the right path."

661. Is a person engaged in an immediate deed unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... a Worthy One has been deprived of life... blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata with a malicious mind... the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... etc. the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Is it not that that action has been withdrawn, remorse has been dispelled, regret has been removed? Yes. If that action has been withdrawn, remorse has been dispelled, regret has been removed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, is unable to enter the fixed course of the right path."

662. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Was he not engaged in that action? Yes. If he was engaged in that action, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed could enter the fixed course of the right path."

The discussion on proximity and inappropriateness is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(129) 4.

Discussion on the Fixed Course for One Fixed in Destination

663. Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course? Yes. Does one with fixed course of the wrong path enter the fixed course of the right path, does one with fixed course of the right path enter the fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course? Yes. Having formerly developed the path, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc. Having formerly developed the path of stream-entry, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Formerly the once-returner, etc. Non-returner, etc. Having developed the path of arahantship, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Formerly the establishment of mindfulness, etc. the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, having developed the factor of enlightenment, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

664. Should it not be said - "Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course"? Yes. Is the Bodhisatta capable of fully realising the teaching in that birth? That should not be said. If so, one fixed in destination enters upon the fixed course.

The discussion on the fixed course for one fixed in destination is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(130) 5.

Discussion on Being Hindered

665. Does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance? Yes. Does one who is lustful give up lust, does one who is hateful give up hate, does one who is deluded give up delusion, does one who is defiled give up mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up lust by lust, give up hate by hate, give up delusion by delusion, give up mental defilements by mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is lust associated with consciousness, is the path associated with consciousness? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust unwholesome, is the path wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

666. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence."

Does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "When the mind is thus concentrated, pure, bright, without blemish, free from impurities, supple, wieldy, stable, and having attained imperturbability, he inclines the mind towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance." Etc.

667. Should it not be said - "One who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one knowing thus, seeing thus, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of sensuality, etc. the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of ignorance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance.

The discussion on being hindered is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(131) 6.

Discussion on Being Met With

668. Does one who has met with give up the mental fetter? Yes. Does one who is lustful give up lust, does one who is hateful give up hate, does one who is deluded give up delusion, does one who is defiled give up mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up lust by lust, give up hate by hate, give up delusion by delusion, give up mental defilements by mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc.

669. Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence."

Does one who has met with give up the mental fetter? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "When the mind is thus concentrated, etc. he inclines the mind towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One who has met with gives up the mental fetter."

670. Should it not be said - "One who has met with gives up the mental fetter"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one knowing thus, seeing thus, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of sensuality, etc. the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of ignorance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who has met with gives up the mental fetter.

The discussion on being met with is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(132) 7.

Discussion on One Who Has Attained Enjoying

671. One who has attained enjoys, is attachment to jhāna having jhāna as object? Yes. Is that meditative absorption the object of that meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc. Is that meditative absorption the object of that meditative absorption? Yes. Does one touch that contact by that contact, does one feel that feeling by that feeling, does one perceive that perception by that perception, does one intend that volition by that volition, does one think that consciousness by that consciousness, does one apply thought to that applied thought by that applied thought, does one sustain thought on that sustained thought by that sustained thought, does one hold dear that joy by that joy, does one remember that mindfulness by that mindfulness, does one understand that wisdom by that wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

Is attachment to jhāna associated with consciousness, is meditative absorption associated with consciousness? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Is attachment to jhāna unwholesome, is meditative absorption wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

672. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence."

673. Should it not be said - "One who has attained enjoys, is attachment to jhāna having jhāna as object"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states, enters and dwells in the first meditative absorption, he enjoys it, desires it, and finds satisfaction on account of it; with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought, etc. the second meditative absorption... etc. the third meditative absorption... etc. enters and dwells in the fourth meditative absorption, he enjoys it, desires it, and finds satisfaction on account of it"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who has attained enjoys, attachment to jhāna has jhāna as object.

The discussion on one who has attained enjoying is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(133) 8.

Discussion on Lust for Discomfort

674. Is there lust for discomfort? Yes. Are beings delighters in suffering, are there any who aspire to suffering, long for suffering, seek suffering, search for suffering, investigate suffering, remain grasping suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that beings are delighters in happiness, are there any who aspire to happiness, long for happiness, seek happiness, search for happiness, investigate happiness, remain grasping happiness? Yes. If beings are delighters in happiness, there are any who aspire to happiness, long for happiness, seek happiness, search for happiness, investigate happiness, remain grasping happiness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is lust for discomfort."

Is there lust for discomfort? Yes. Does the underlying tendency to lust underlie unpleasant feeling, does the underlying tendency to aversion underlie pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the underlying tendency to lust underlies pleasant feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies unpleasant feeling? Yes. If the underlying tendency to lust underlies pleasant feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies unpleasant feeling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is lust for discomfort."

675. Should it not be said - "There is lust for discomfort"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "He, thus having attained compliance and opposition, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, asserts it, and remains grasping it"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is lust for discomfort.

The discussion on lust for discomfort is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(134) 9.

Discussion on Craving for Mental Objects Being Indeterminate

676. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Resultant indeterminate, functional indeterminate, matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for visible form indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

677. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was not craving said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome? Yes. If craving was said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was not greed said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and is craving for mental objects greed? Yes. If greed was said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and craving for mental objects is greed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

678. Is craving for mental objects greed that is indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for visible form greed that is indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects greed that is indeterminate? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed that is indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form greed that is unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed that is unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed that is unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed that is unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

679. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is this craving which leads to rebirth, accompanied by delight and lust, finding delight here and there, as follows - sensual craving, craving for existence, craving for non-existence"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

680. Should it not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate"? Yes. Is it not that craving for mental objects? Yes. If it is that craving for mental objects, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

The discussion on craving for mental objects being indeterminate is finished.

13. Thirteenth Chapter

(135) 10.

Discussion on Craving for Mental Objects Not Being the Origin of Suffering

681. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for visible form not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

682. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was not craving said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering? Yes. If craving was said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering." Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was not greed said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, and is craving for mental objects greed? Yes. If greed was said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, and craving for mental objects is greed, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

683. Is craving for mental objects greed, not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for visible form greed, not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects greed, not the origin of suffering? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed, not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form greed the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

684. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is this craving which leads to rebirth, accompanied by delight and lust, finding delight here and there, as follows - sensual craving, craving for existence, craving for non-existence"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

685. Should it not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering"? Yes. Is it not that craving for mental objects? Yes. If it is that craving for mental objects, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

The discussion on craving for mental objects not being the origin of suffering is finished.

Thirteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle, would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness, could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path, does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course, does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance, does one who has met with give up the mental fetter, attachment to jhāna, lust for discomfort, craving for mental objects is indeterminate, craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(136) 1.

Discussion on Wholesome-Unwholesome Uniting

686. Does the unwholesome root reunite with the wholesome root? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of the unwholesome, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the wholesome, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root, should it not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of the unwholesome, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the wholesome, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does the wholesome arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the wholesome arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If the wholesome arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root."

687. Does the unwholesome root reunite with the wholesome root? Yes. Does the unwholesome root arise for one attending unwisely? Yes. Does the wholesome arise for one attending unwisely? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the wholesome arises for one attending wisely? Yes. If the wholesome arises for one attending wisely, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root."

Does the unwholesome root reunite with the wholesome root? Yes. Does the perception of renunciation arise immediately after the perception of sensuality, does the perception of non-anger arise immediately after the perception of anger, does the perception of non-violence arise immediately after the perception of violence, does friendliness arise immediately after anger, does compassion arise immediately after violence, does altruistic joy arise immediately after discontent, does equanimity arise immediately after aversion? That should not be said. Etc.

688. Does the wholesome root reunite with the unwholesome root? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of the wholesome, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the unwholesome, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

The wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root, should it not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of the wholesome, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the unwholesome, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does the unwholesome arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the unwholesome arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If the unwholesome arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root."

689. Does the wholesome root reunite with the unwholesome root? Yes. Does the wholesome arise for one attending wisely? Yes. Does the unwholesome arise for one attending wisely? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the unwholesome arises for one attending unwisely? Yes. If the unwholesome arises for one attending unwisely, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root."

Does the wholesome root reunite with the unwholesome root? Yes. Does perception of sensuality arise immediately after perception of renunciation, does perception of anger arise immediately after perception of non-anger, does perception of violence arise immediately after perception of non-violence, does anger arise immediately after friendliness, does violence arise immediately after compassion, does discontent arise immediately after altruistic joy, does aversion arise immediately after equanimity? That should not be said. Etc.

690. Should it not be said - "The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root, the wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root"? Yes. Is it not that in whatever object one finds pleasure, in that very object one detaches oneself; in whatever object one detaches oneself, in that very object one finds pleasure? Yes. If in whatever object one finds pleasure, in that very object one detaches oneself; in whatever object one detaches oneself, in that very object one finds pleasure, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root, the wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root."

The discussion on wholesome-unwholesome uniting is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(137) 2.

Discussion on the Arising of the Six Sense Bases

691. Do the six sense bases become established simultaneously in the mother's womb? Yes. Does one with all major and minor parts, with complete faculties, descend into the mother's womb? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the eye sense base become established by rebirth-seeking consciousness? Yes. Do hands become established by rebirth-seeking consciousness, do feet become established, does the head become established, does the ear become established, does the nose become established, does the mouth become established, do teeth become established? That should not be said. Etc.

Does the ear sense base become established by rebirth-seeking consciousness? Etc. nose sense base... etc. Does the tongue sense base become established? Yes. Do hands become established by rebirth-seeking consciousness, do feet become established, does the head become established, does the ear become established, does the nose become established, does the mouth become established, do teeth become established? That should not be said. Etc.

692. Does the eye sense base arise afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb? Yes. Does one perform action in the mother's womb for the acquisition of the eye? That should not be said. Etc. Does the ear sense base arise afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb? Etc. nose sense base... etc. Does the tongue sense base arise? Yes. Does one perform action in the mother's womb for the acquisition of the tongue? That should not be said. Etc.

Do head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, and bones arise afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb? Yes. Does one perform action in the mother's womb for the acquisition of bones? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, and bones arise afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"First there is a drop of fluid, from the drop of fluid comes a bubble;

From the bubble arises a lump of flesh, the lump of flesh produces a solid mass;

From the solid mass limbs arise, head hairs, body hairs, and nails too.

"And whatever the mother eats, food and drink and nourishment;

By that he sustains himself there, the man gone into the mother's womb."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, and bones arise afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb.

The discussion on the arising of the six sense bases is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(138) 3.

Discussion on the Proximity Condition

693. Does ear-consciousness arise immediately after eye-consciousness? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of eye-consciousness, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of ear-consciousness, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Ear-consciousness arises immediately after eye-consciousness, it should not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of eye-consciousness, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of ear-consciousness, etc. aspiration? Yes. Does ear-consciousness arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that ear-consciousness arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If ear-consciousness arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Ear-consciousness arises immediately after eye-consciousness."

694. Does ear-consciousness arise immediately after eye-consciousness? Yes. Does eye-consciousness arise for one attending to the sign of matter? Yes. Does ear-consciousness arise for one attending to the sign of matter? That should not be said. Etc.

Does eye-consciousness have only matter as object, not another object? Yes. Does ear-consciousness have only matter as object, not another object? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and forms, does eye-consciousness arise? Yes. Dependent on the eye and forms, does ear-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the eye and forms, does ear-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the eye and forms, ear-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the eye and forms, ear-consciousness arises."

Does ear-consciousness arise immediately after eye-consciousness? Yes. Is that very eye-consciousness that ear-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

695. Nose-consciousness arises immediately after ear-consciousness, etc. Tongue-consciousness arises immediately after nose-consciousness, etc. Does body-consciousness arise immediately after tongue-consciousness? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of tongue-consciousness, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of body-consciousness, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Body-consciousness arises immediately after tongue-consciousness, it should not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of tongue-consciousness, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of body-consciousness, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does body-consciousness arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that body-consciousness arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If body-consciousness arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Body-consciousness arises immediately after tongue-consciousness."

696. Does body-consciousness arise immediately after tongue-consciousness? Yes. Does tongue-consciousness arise for one attending to the sign of flavour? Yes. Does body-consciousness arise for one attending to the sign of flavour? That should not be said. Etc.

Does tongue-consciousness have only flavour as object, not another object? Yes. Does body-consciousness have only flavour as object, not another object? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the tongue and flavours, does tongue-consciousness arise? Yes. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, does body-consciousness arise? That should not be said. Etc.

Dependent on the tongue and flavours, does body-consciousness arise? Yes. "Dependent on the tongue and flavours, body-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "dependent on the tongue and flavours, body-consciousness arises."

Does body-consciousness arise immediately after tongue-consciousness? Yes. Is that very tongue-consciousness that body-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

697. Should it not be said - "The five sense consciousnesses arise immediately after one another"? Yes. Is there not someone who dances, sings, and plays music, and sees materiality, and hears sounds, and smells odours, and tastes flavours, and touches tangible objects? Yes. If there is someone who dances, sings, and plays music, and sees materiality, and hears sounds, and smells odours, and tastes flavours, and touches tangible objects, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The five sense consciousnesses arise immediately after one another."

The discussion on the proximity condition is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(139) 4.

Discussion on Noble Form

698. Is noble form derived from the primary elements? Yes. Is noble form wholesome? Yes. Are the primary elements wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Are the primary elements indeterminate? Yes. Is noble form indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is noble form derived from the primary elements? Yes. Is noble form without mental corruptions, not subject to mental fetters, not subject to mental knots, not subject to mental floods, not subject to mental bonds, not subject to mental hindrances, not adhered to, not subject to clinging, not subject to defilement? Yes. Are the primary elements without mental corruptions, etc. not subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc. Are the primary elements with mental corruptions, subject to mental fetters, etc. subject to defilement? Yes. Is noble form with mental corruptions, subject to mental fetters, etc. subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc.

699. Should it not be said - "Noble form is derived from the primary elements"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Whatever materiality, monks, is the four primary elements and the materiality derived from the four primary elements"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, noble form is derived from the primary elements.

The discussion on noble form is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(140) 5.

The Discussion on the Underlying Tendency Being Another

700. Is the underlying tendency to sensual lust one thing and prepossession by sensual lust another? Yes. Is sensual lust one thing and prepossession by sensual lust another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same sensual lust that prepossession by sensual lust? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to sensual lust that prepossession by sensual lust? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to aversion one thing and prepossession by aversion another? Yes. Is aversion one thing and prepossession by aversion another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very aversion that prepossession by aversion? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to aversion that prepossession by aversion? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to conceit one thing and prepossession by conceit another? Yes. Is conceit one thing and prepossession by conceit another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same conceit that prepossession by conceit? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to conceit that prepossession by conceit? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to wrong view one thing and prepossession by views another? Yes. Is wrong view one thing and prepossession by views another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that very wrong view that prepossession by views? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to wrong view that prepossession by views? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to sceptical doubt one thing and prepossession by sceptical doubt another? Yes. Is sceptical doubt one thing and prepossession by sceptical doubt another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same sceptical doubt that prepossession by sceptical doubt? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to sceptical doubt that prepossession by sceptical doubt? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to lust for existence one thing and prepossession by lust for existence another? Yes. Is lust for existence one thing and prepossession by lust for existence another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same lust for existence that prepossession by lust for existence? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to lust for existence that prepossession by lust for existence? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the underlying tendency to ignorance one thing and prepossession by ignorance another? Yes. Is ignorance one thing and prepossession by ignorance another? That should not be said. Etc. Is that same ignorance that prepossession by ignorance? Yes. Is that same underlying tendency to ignorance that prepossession by ignorance? That should not be said. Etc.

701. Should it not be said - "Underlying tendency is one thing and prepossession is another"? Yes. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with underlying tendencies"? Yes. Should it be said "obsessed"? That should not be said. If so, underlying tendency is one thing and prepossession is another. When wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, should it be said "with lust"? Yes. Should it be said "obsessed"? That should not be said. If so, lust is one thing and prepossession is another.

The discussion on the underlying tendency being another is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(141) 6.

The Discussion on Prepossession Being Dissociated from Consciousness

702. Is prepossession dissociated from consciousness? Yes. Matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is prepossession dissociated from consciousness? Yes. There is no mind with lust, mind with hate, mind with delusion, etc. unwholesome consciousness, defiled consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not a mind with lust, mind with hate, mind with delusion, etc. unwholesome consciousness, defiled consciousness? Yes. If there is a mind with lust, mind with hate, mind with delusion, etc. unwholesome consciousness, defiled consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Prepossession is dissociated from consciousness."

The discussion on prepossession being dissociated from consciousness is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(142) 7.

The Discussion on Being Included

703. Does lust for fine-material existence underlie the fine-material element, is it included in the fine-material element? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, not by rebirth-seeking consciousness, not by consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, etc. having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element, is included in the fine-material element." Etc.

Does lust for fine-material existence underlie the fine-material element, is it included in the fine-material element? Yes. Does lust for sound underlie the sound element, is it included in the sound element? That should not be said. Etc. Does lust for fine-material existence underlie the fine-material element, is it included in the fine-material element? Yes. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Does lust for touch underlie the touch element, is it included in the touch element? That should not be said. Etc.

Lust for sound underlies the sound element, should it not be said - "It is included in the sound element"? Yes. Lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element, should it not be said - "It is included in the fine-material element"? That should not be said. Etc. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Lust for touch underlies the touch element, should it not be said - "It is included in the touch element"? Yes. Lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element, should it not be said - "It is included in the fine-material element"? That should not be said. Etc.

704. Does lust for immaterial existence underlie the immaterial sphere element, is it included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, etc. having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Lust for immaterial existence underlies the immaterial sphere element, it is included in the immaterial sphere element."

Does lust for immaterial existence underlie the immaterial sphere element, is it included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Does lust for sound underlie the sound element, is it included in the sound element? That should not be said. Etc. Does lust for immaterial existence underlie the immaterial sphere element, is it included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Does lust for touch underlie the touch element, is it included in the touch element? That should not be said. Etc.

Lust for sound underlies the sound element, should it not be said - "It is included in the sound element"? Yes. Lust for immaterial existence underlies the immaterial sphere element, should it not be said - "It is included in the immaterial sphere element"? That should not be said. Etc. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Lust for touch underlies the touch element, should it not be said - "It is included in the touch element"? Yes. Lust for immaterial existence underlies the immaterial sphere element, should it not be said - "It is included in the immaterial sphere element"? That should not be said. Etc.

705. Should it not be said - "Lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element, is included in the fine-material element; lust for immaterial existence underlies the immaterial sphere element, is included in the immaterial sphere element"? Yes. Is it not that sensual lust underlies the sensual element, is included in the sensual element? Yes. If sensual lust underlies the sensual element, is included in the sensual element, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element, is included in the fine-material element; lust for immaterial existence underlies the immaterial sphere element, is included in the immaterial sphere element."

The discussion on being included is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(143) 8.

The Discussion on the Indeterminate

706. Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Resultant indeterminate, functional indeterminate, matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc. Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Is contact associated with wrong view indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Is feeling associated with wrong view... etc. perception... etc. volition... etc. consciousness indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is contact associated with wrong view unwholesome? Yes. Is wrong view unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Are feeling, perception, volition, consciousness associated with wrong view unwholesome? Yes. Is wrong view unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

707. Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Is it fruitless and resultless? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not fruitful and with result? Yes. If it is fruitful and with result, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "wrong view is indeterminate."

Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that faults with wrong view as paramount? Yes. If faults with wrong view as paramount were said by the Blessed One, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "wrong view is indeterminate."

Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Wrong view, Vaccha, is unwholesome, right view is wholesome"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "wrong view is indeterminate."

Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one of wrong view, Puṇṇa, I declare one of two destinations - either hell or the animal realm"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "wrong view is indeterminate."

708. Should it not be said - "wrong view is undeclared"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "'The world is eternal,' Vaccha, this is undeclared, 'the world is non-eternal,' Vaccha, this is undeclared, 'the world is finite,' Vaccha, this is undeclared, 'the world is infinite,' Vaccha, etc. 'The soul is the same as the body,' Vaccha, etc. 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' Vaccha, etc. 'The Tathāgata exists after death,' Vaccha, etc. 'The Tathāgata does not exist after death,' Vaccha, etc. 'The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death,' Vaccha, etc. 'The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death,' Vaccha, this is undeclared"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, wrong view is undeclared.

Is wrong view indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For a male person of wrong view, monks, whatever bodily action is complete and taken upon oneself according to that view, and whatever verbal action, etc. and whatever mental action, and whatever volition, and whatever longing, and whatever aspiration, and whatever activities - all those mental states lead to the undesirable, to the unpleasant, to the disagreeable, to harm, to suffering"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "wrong view is indeterminate."

The discussion on the indeterminate is finished.

14. Fourteenth Chapter

(144) 9.

The Discussion on Not Being Included

709. Is wrong view not included? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, the path of once-returning, the fruition of once-returning, the path of non-returning, the fruition of non-returning, the path of arahantship, the fruition of arahantship, the establishment of mindfulness, the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

710. Should it not be said - "Wrong view is not included"? Yes. Should it be said that a worldling is "without lust towards sensual pleasures"? Yes. Should it be said "one whose wrong views have disappeared"? That should not be said. If so, wrong view is not included.

The discussion on not being included is finished.

Fourteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

The unwholesome root reunites with the wholesome root, the wholesome root reunites with the unwholesome root, the six sense bases from the six classes of consciousness, noble form derived from the primary elements, that same underlying tendency is that prepossession, prepossession is dissociated from consciousness, according to element that very thing underlies, wrong view is indeterminate, wrong view is not included.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(145) 1.

The Discussion on Conditionality

711. Is conditionality defined? Yes. Is not investigation a root, and is it also predominance? Yes. If investigation is a root, and it is also predominance, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of root condition, it is a condition by way of predominance condition."

Is not desire-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena? Yes. If desire-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of conascence condition."

712. Is not energy-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena? Yes. If energy-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of conascence condition."

Is not energy-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that a faculty? Yes. If energy-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is a faculty, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of faculty condition."

Is not energy-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that a path factor? Yes. If energy-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is a path factor, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of path condition."

713. Is not consciousness-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena? Yes. If consciousness-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of conascence condition."

Is not consciousness-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that nutriment? Yes. If consciousness-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is nutriment, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of nutriment condition."

Is not consciousness-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that a faculty? Yes. If consciousness-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is a faculty, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of faculty condition."

714. Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of conascence condition."

Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that a faculty? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is a faculty, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of faculty condition."

Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of conascent phenomena, and is that a path factor? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of conascent phenomena, and that is a path factor, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of path condition."

715. Is it not that reviewing arises having given weight to the noble teaching, and that is its object? Yes. If reviewing arises having given weight to the noble teaching, and that is its object, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of predominance condition, it is a condition by way of object condition."

716. Is it not that the former and former wholesome mental states are a condition for the latter and latter wholesome mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition? Yes. If the former and former wholesome mental states are a condition for the latter and latter wholesome mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of proximity condition, it is a condition by way of repetition condition."

Is it not that the former and former unwholesome mental states are a condition for the latter and latter unwholesome mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition? Yes. If the former and former unwholesome mental states are a condition for the latter and latter unwholesome mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of proximity condition, it is a condition by way of repetition condition."

Is it not that the former and former functional-indeterminate mental states are a condition for the latter and latter functional-indeterminate mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition? Yes. If the former and former functional-indeterminate mental states are a condition for the latter and latter functional-indeterminate mental states by way of proximity condition, and that is repetition, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "It is a condition by way of proximity condition, it is a condition by way of repetition condition."

717. Should it not be said - "Conditionality is defined"? Yes. Is it a condition by way of root condition, is it a condition by way of object condition, is it a condition by way of proximity condition, is it a condition by way of contiguity condition? That should not be said. If so, conditionality is defined.

The discussion on conditionality is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(146) 2.

The Discussion on the Mutuality Condition

718. With ignorance as condition only are activities, should it not be said - "with activities as condition also is ignorance"? Yes. Is not ignorance conascent with activity? Yes. If ignorance is conascent with activity, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "with ignorance as condition also are activities, and with activities as condition also is ignorance."

With craving as condition only is clinging, should it not be said - "with clinging as condition also is craving"? Yes. Is not craving conascent with clinging? Yes. If craving is conascent with clinging, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "with craving as condition also is clinging, and with clinging as condition also is craving."

719. "Ageing and death is the condition for birth, birth is the condition for existence, monks" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. If so, with ignorance as condition only are activities, should it not be said - "with activities as condition also is ignorance." With craving as condition only is clinging, should it not be said - "with clinging as condition also is craving."

"With consciousness as condition, monks, is mentality-materiality, and with mentality-materiality as condition also is consciousness" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, with ignorance as condition also are activities, and with activities as condition also is ignorance; with craving as condition also is clinging, and with clinging as condition also is craving.

The discussion on the mutuality condition is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(147) 3.

The Discussion on the Period of Time

720. Is the period of time predetermined? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the past period of time predetermined? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the future period of time predetermined? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the present period of time predetermined? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is past matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness the past period? Yes. Are there five past periods? That should not be said. Etc. Is future matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness the future period? Yes. Are there five future periods? That should not be said. Etc. Is present matter, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness the present period? Yes. Are there five present periods? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the past five aggregates the past period, the future five aggregates the future period, the present five aggregates the present period? Yes. Are there fifteen periods? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the past twelve sense bases the past period, the future twelve sense bases the future period, the present twelve sense bases the present period? Yes. Are there thirty-six periods? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the past eighteen elements the past period, the future eighteen elements the future period, the present eighteen elements the present period? Yes. Are there fifty-four periods? That should not be said. Etc.

Are the past twenty-two faculties the past period, the future twenty-two faculties the future period, the present twenty-two faculties the present period? Yes. Are there sixty-six periods? That should not be said. Etc.

721. Should it not be said - "Is the period of time predetermined?" Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these three topics of discussion. What three? One might discuss referring to the past period of time - 'Thus it was in the past period of time'; Or one might discuss referring to the future period of time - 'Thus it will be in the future period of time'; Or one might discuss referring to the present period of time now - 'Thus it is in the present now.' These, monks, are the three topics of discussion." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the period of time is predetermined.

The discussion on the period of time is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(148) 4.

Discussion on Moment, Brief Measure of Time and Minute

722. Is a moment predetermined, is an instant predetermined, is a second predetermined? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... perception... activities... Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

723. Should it not be said - "Is a second predetermined?" Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these three topics of discussion. What three? One might discuss referring to the past period of time - 'Thus it was in the past period of time'; Or one might discuss referring to the future period of time - 'Thus it will be in the future period of time'; Or one might discuss referring to the present period of time now - 'Thus it is in the present now.' These, monks, are the three topics of discussion." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a second is predetermined.

The discussion on moment, brief measure of time and minute is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(149) 5.

Discussion on Mental Corruptions

724. Are the four mental corruptions without mental corruptions? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

725. Should it not be said - "Are the four mental corruptions without mental corruptions?" Yes. "Are there then other mental corruptions by which mental corruptions those mental corruptions are with mental corruptions?" That should not be said. If so, the four mental corruptions are without mental corruptions.

The discussion on mental corruptions is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(150) 6.

Discussion on Ageing and Death

726. Is the ageing and death of supramundane states supramundane? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc. Is the ageing and death of the path of stream-entry the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Is the ageing and death of the path of stream-entry the path of stream-entry? Yes. Is the ageing and death of the fruition of stream-entry the fruition of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Of the path of once-returning, etc. Of the fruition of once-returning, etc. Of the path of non-returning, etc. Of the fruition of non-returning, etc. Is the ageing and death of the path of arahantship the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Is the ageing and death of the path of arahantship the path of arahantship? Yes. Is the ageing and death of the fruition of arahantship the fruition of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Of the establishments of mindfulness... Of the right strivings... Of the bases for spiritual power... Of the faculties... Of the powers... Is the ageing and death of the factors of enlightenment the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

727. Should it not be said - "Is the ageing and death of supramundane states supramundane?" Yes. "Is it mundane?" That should not be said. If so, it is supramundane.

The discussion on ageing and death is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(151) 7.

Discussion on Perception and Feeling

728. Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling supramundane? Yes. Is the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the path of stream-entry, the fruition of stream-entry, etc. the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

729. Should it not be said - "Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling supramundane?" Yes. "Is it mundane?" That should not be said. If so, it is supramundane.

The discussion on perception and feeling is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(152) 8.

Second Discussion on Perception and Feeling

730. Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling mundane? Yes. Is it matter? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... perception... activities... Is it consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it of the sensual-sphere of existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is it of the fine-material-sphere of existence? That should not be said. Etc. Is it of the immaterial-sphere of existence? That should not be said. Etc.

731. Should it not be said - "Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling mundane?" Yes. "Is it supramundane?" That should not be said. If so, it is mundane.

The second discussion on perception and feeling is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(153) 9.

Third Discussion on Perception and Feeling

732. Could one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling die? Yes. Is there contact at the time of death, feeling at the time of death, perception at the time of death, volition at the time of death, consciousness at the time of death for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not contact at the time of death, feeling at the time of death, perception at the time of death, volition at the time of death, consciousness at the time of death for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. If there is not contact at the time of death, feeling at the time of death, perception at the time of death, volition at the time of death, consciousness at the time of death for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling could die."

Could one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling die? Yes. Is there contact, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not contact, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. Is there death for one without contact, death for one without feeling, etc. death for one without consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is death for one with contact, etc. death for one with consciousness? Yes. If there is death for one with contact, etc. death for one with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling could die."

Could one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling die? Yes. Would poison penetrate the body, would a knife penetrate, would fire penetrate for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Would poison not penetrate the body, would a knife not penetrate, would fire not penetrate for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. If poison would not penetrate the body, a knife would not penetrate, fire would not penetrate for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling could die."

733. Could one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling not die? Yes. Is there that fixed course by which fixed course one fixed in destination who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling would not die? There is not. If there is not that fixed course by which fixed course one fixed in destination who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling would not die, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling would not die."

734. Could one possessing eye-consciousness not die? Yes. Is there that fixed course by which fixed course one fixed in destination possessing eye-consciousness would not die? There is not. If there is not that fixed course by which fixed course one fixed in destination possessing eye-consciousness would not die, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One possessing eye-consciousness would not die."

The third discussion on perception and feeling is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(154) 10.

Discussion on Non-Percipient Beings

735. Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being? Yes. Is there non-greed as a wholesome root, non-hate as a wholesome root, non-delusion as a wholesome root, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not non-greed as a wholesome root, non-hate as a wholesome root, etc. wisdom for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. If there is not non-greed as a wholesome root, non-hate as a wholesome root, non-delusion as a wholesome root, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being."

Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being? Yes. Is there contact, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not contact, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. Is there path development for one without contact? Etc. Is there path development for one without consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is path development for one with contact? Etc. Is there path development for one with consciousness? Yes. If there is path development for one with contact, etc. path development for one with consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being."

Is the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being? Yes. Do all those who attain the cessation of perception and feeling, are all of them destined for rebirth as non-percipient beings? That should not be said. Etc.

736. Should it not be said - "The attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being"? Yes. Is it not that here too one is non-percipient and there too one is non-percipient? Yes. If here too one is non-percipient and there too one is non-percipient, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is conducive to rebirth as a non-percipient being."

The discussion on non-percipient beings is finished.

15. Fifteenth Chapter

(155) 11.

Discussion on the Accumulation of Action

737. Is action one thing and the production of action another? Yes. Is contact one thing and the production of contact another; is feeling one thing and the production of feeling another; is perception one thing and the production of perception another; is volition one thing and the production of volition another; is consciousness one thing and the production of consciousness another; is faith one thing and the production of faith another; is energy one thing and the production of energy another; is mindfulness one thing and the production of mindfulness another; is concentration one thing and the production of concentration another; is wisdom one thing and the production of wisdom another; is lust one thing and the production of lust another? Etc. Is moral fearlessness one thing and the production of moral fearlessness another? That should not be said. Etc.

738. Is action one thing and the production of action another? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the production of action conascent with action? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with wholesome action wholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the production of action conascent with wholesome action wholesome? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with action associated with pleasant feeling associated with pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc. with unpleasant feeling, etc. Is the production of action conascent with action associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc.

739. Is the production of action conascent with action? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with unwholesome action unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the production of action conascent with unwholesome action unwholesome? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with action associated with pleasant feeling associated with pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc. with unpleasant feeling, etc. Is the production of action conascent with action associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc.

740. Is action conascent with consciousness, is action with sense-object? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with consciousness, is the production of action with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the production of action conascent with consciousness, is the production of action without sense-object? Yes. Is action conascent with consciousness, is action without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

Is action conascent with consciousness, when consciousness is destroyed is action destroyed? Yes. Is the production of action conascent with consciousness, when consciousness is destroyed is the production of action destroyed? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the production of action conascent with consciousness, when consciousness is destroyed is the production of action not destroyed? Yes. Is action conascent with consciousness, when consciousness is destroyed is action not destroyed? That should not be said. Etc.

741. Is there production of action in action? Yes. Is that very action that production of action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there production of action in action, does result arise from the production of action? Yes. Is that very action that production of action, that result of action? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there production of action in action, does result arise from the production of action, is result with sense-object? Yes. Is the production of action with sense-object? That should not be said. Etc. Is the production of action without sense-object? Yes. Is result without sense-object? That should not be said. Etc.

742. Is action one thing and the production of action another? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, Puṇṇa, a certain one generates bodily activity that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, generates verbal activity that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, etc. generates mental activity, he, having generated bodily activity that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, having generated verbal activity that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, etc. having generated mental activity, is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and non-afflictive. When he has been reborn in a world that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, contacts that are both afflictive and non-afflictive touch him. He, being touched by contacts that are both afflictive and non-afflictive, feels feeling that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, mingled pleasure and pain, just as human beings, some gods, and some beings in states of misfortune. Thus indeed, Puṇṇa, rebirth of a being comes from what has come to be; by what one does, by that one is reborn; contacts touch the one who has been reborn. Thus I say, Puṇṇa, 'beings are heirs to their actions.'" Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Action is one thing, the production of action is another."

The discussion on the accumulation of action is finished.

Fifteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

Conditionality is defined, dependent origination, period of time, moment, instant, second, four mental corruptions, without mental corruptions, ageing and death of supramundane states is supramundane, attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is supramundane, attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling is mundane, one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling could die, that same path for rebirth as a non-percipient being, action is one thing and the production of action is another.

The third fifty.

Its summary:

Underlying tendencies, restraint, cosmic cycle, and root is defined.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(156) 1.

Discussion on Refutation

743. Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Does one person restrain another's mind thus: "Do not be lustful", "Do not be hateful", "Do not be deluded", "Do not be defiled"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Does one person restrain another's arisen contact thus: "Do not cease"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person restrain another's arisen feeling... etc. arisen perception... arisen volition... arisen consciousness... arisen faith... arisen energy... arisen mindfulness... arisen concentration... etc. Does one person restrain another's arisen wisdom thus: "Do not cease"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Does one person abandon lust for another's benefit... abandon hate... etc. abandon moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Does one person develop the path for another's benefit... develop the establishment of mindfulness... etc. develop the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Does one fully understand suffering for another's benefit, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Is one the doer for another, does one make pleasure and pain made by another, does another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person restrain another's mind? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Indeed, evil done by oneself, by oneself one becomes defiled;

Evil not done by oneself, by oneself one becomes pure;

Purity and impurity are individual, no one can purify another."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One restrains another's mind."

744. Should it not be said - "One restrains another's mind"? Yes. Is there not one who has come into power, one who has become a master? Yes. If there is one who has come into power, one who has become a master, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "One restrains another's mind."

The discussion on refutation is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(157) 2.

Discussion on Exertion

745. Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person encourage another's mind thus: "Do not be lustful", "Do not be hateful", "Do not be deluded", "Do not be defiled"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person generate non-greed, the wholesome root, for another... generate non-hate, the wholesome root... generate non-delusion, the wholesome root... generate faith... generate energy... generate mindfulness... generate concentration... generate wisdom? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person encourage another's arisen contact thus: "Do not cease"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person restrain another's arisen feeling... etc. arisen wisdom thus: "Do not cease"? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person abandon lust for another's benefit... abandon hate... abandon delusion... etc. abandon moral fearlessness? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person develop the path for another's benefit... develop the establishment of mindfulness... etc. develop the factor of enlightenment? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Does one person fully understand suffering for another's benefit... etc. develop the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Is one the doer for another, does one make pleasure and pain made by another, does another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one person encourage another's mind? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Indeed, evil done by oneself... etc. no one can purify another." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "one person encourages another's mind."

746. Should it not be said - "one person encourages another's mind"? Yes. Is there not one who has come into power, one who has become a master? Yes. If there is one who has come into power, one who has become a master, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "one person encourages another's mind."

The discussion on exertion is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(158) 3.

Discussion on the Giving of Happiness

747. Does one person give happiness to another? Yes. Does one person give suffering to another? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person not give suffering to another? Yes. Does one person not give happiness to another? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person give happiness to another? Yes. Does one person give one's own happiness to another, give others' happiness, give his happiness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one person give neither one's own nor others' nor his happiness to another? Yes. If one person gives neither one's own nor others' nor his happiness to another, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One person gives happiness to another."

Does one person give happiness to another? Yes. Is one the doer for another, does one make pleasure and pain made by another, does another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

748. Should it not be said - "One person gives happiness to another"? Yes. Did not the Venerable Udāyī say this - "The Blessed One has indeed removed many painful states from us, the Blessed One has indeed brought many pleasant states to us, the Blessed One has indeed removed many unwholesome mental states from us, the Blessed One has indeed brought many wholesome mental states to us"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one person gives happiness to another.

The discussion on the giving of happiness is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(159) 4.

Discussion on Attention to What Has Been Mastered

749. Does one attend having attained? Yes. Does one understand that consciousness by that consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one understand that consciousness by that consciousness? Yes. Does one understand that consciousness as "consciousness" by that consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one understand that consciousness as "consciousness" by that consciousness? Yes. Is that consciousness the object of that consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is that consciousness the object of that consciousness? Yes. Does one touch that contact by that contact, by that feeling, etc. by that perception, by that volition, by that consciousness, by that applied thought, by that sustained thought, by that joy, by that mindfulness, does one understand that wisdom by that wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

750. Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the future as "future"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the future as "future"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the present as "present"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the present as "present"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the future as "future" and attend to the present as "present"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the past as "past" attend to the future as "future" and attend to the present as "present"? Yes. Of three contacts... etc. Is there a combination of three consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

751. Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the past as "past"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the past as "past"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the present as "present"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the present as "present"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the past as "past" and attend to the present as "present"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the future as "future" attend to the past as "past" and attend to the present as "present"? Yes. Of three contacts... etc. Is there a combination of three consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

752. Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the past as "past"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the past as "past"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the future as "future"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the future as "future"? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the past as "past" and attend to the future as "future"? That should not be said. Etc. Does one attending to the present as "present" attend to the past as "past" and attend to the future as "future"? Yes. Of three contacts... etc. Is there a combination of three consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

753. Should it not be said - "Does one attend having attained"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"All activities are impermanent", when one sees with wisdom;

Then one becomes disenchanted with suffering, this is the path to purification.

"All activities are suffering", when one sees with wisdom;

Then one becomes disenchanted with suffering, this is the path to purification.

"All phenomena are non-self", when one sees with wisdom;

Then one becomes disenchanted with suffering, this is the path to purification."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one attends having attained.

The discussion on attention to what has been mastered is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(160) 5.

Discussion on Materiality Being a Cause

754. Is matter a root? Yes. Is non-greed a root? That should not be said. Etc. non-hate is a root, etc. non-delusion is a root, greed is a root, hate is a root, Is delusion a root? That should not be said. Etc.

Is matter a root? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is a root".

755. Non-greed is a root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is a root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. non-hate is a root, non-delusion is a root, greed is a root, hate is a root, delusion is a root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is a root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Matter is a root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-greed is a root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. matter is a root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-hate is a root, non-delusion is a root, greed is a root, hate is a root, delusion is a root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

756. Should it not be said - "matter is a root"? Yes. Are not the primary elements the derived cause of derived materiality? Yes. If the primary elements are the derived cause of derived materiality, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "matter is a root".

The discussion on materiality being a cause is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(161) 6.

Discussion on Materiality Being with Root

757. Is matter with root? Yes. With non-greed as root? That should not be said. Etc. With non-hate as root? Etc. With non-delusion as root? Etc. With greed as root? Etc. With hate as root? Etc. With delusion as root? That should not be said. Etc.

Is matter with root? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is with root."

758. Non-greed is with root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is with root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Non-hate is with root, etc. Non-delusion... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, wisdom... Greed... hate... Delusion... conceit... View... Sceptical doubt... Sloth... Restlessness... Shamelessness... Moral fearlessness is with root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is with root, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Matter is with root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-greed is with root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Matter is with root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-hate is with root, etc. Moral fearlessness is with root, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

759. Should it not be said - "matter is with root"? Yes. Is not materiality with condition? Yes. If materiality is with condition, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "matter is with root."

The discussion on materiality being with root is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(162) 7.

Discussion on Materiality Being Wholesome-Unwholesome

760. Is matter wholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is wholesome."

761. Non-greed is wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is matter wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Non-hate is wholesome, etc. non-delusion is wholesome, etc. faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is matter wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is matter wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is non-greed wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is matter wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-hate is wholesome, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

762. Is matter unwholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is unwholesome." Etc.

763. Greed is unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. hate... Delusion... Conceit... etc. Is moral fearlessness unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is unwholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Matter is unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Greed is unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Matter is unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Hate... delusion... etc. moral fearlessness unwholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

764. Should it not be said - "Matter is both wholesome and unwholesome"? Yes. Is not bodily action and verbal action both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. If bodily action and verbal action are both wholesome and unwholesome, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Matter is both wholesome and unwholesome."

The discussion on materiality being wholesome-unwholesome is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(163) 8.

Discussion on Materiality Being Resultant

765. Is matter resultant? Yes. Is matter experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, experienced as neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, associated with pleasant feeling, associated with unpleasant feeling, associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact, etc. associated with consciousness, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is resultant."

766. Contact is resultant, contact is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Matter is resultant, matter is experienced as pleasant, experienced as unpleasant, etc. with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Matter is resultant, matter is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Contact is resultant, contact is not experienced as pleasant, not experienced as unpleasant, etc. without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

767. Should it not be said - "matter is resultant"? Yes. Is it not that consciousness and mental factors arisen due to action having been done are resultant? Yes. If consciousness and mental factors arisen due to action having been done are resultant, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "matter arisen due to action having been done is resultant."

The discussion on materiality being resultant is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(164) 9.

Discussion on Materiality Being Fine-Material-Sphere and Immaterial-Sphere

768. Is there matter that is fine-material-sphere? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, co-arisen, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, not by rebirth-seeking consciousness, not by consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, co-arisen, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is matter that is fine-material-sphere."

769. Is there matter that is of the immaterial-sphere of existence? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, co-arisen, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, etc. having the same sense-organ, having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is matter that is of the immaterial-sphere of existence."

770. Should it not be said - "there is matter that is of the fine-material-sphere, there is matter that is of the immaterial-sphere of existence"? Yes. Is it not that because of the doing of sensual-sphere action, matter is of the sensual-sphere? Yes. If because of the doing of sensual-sphere action, matter is of the sensual-sphere, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "because of the doing of fine-material-sphere action, matter is of the fine-material-sphere, because of the doing of immaterial-sphere action, matter is of the immaterial-sphere of existence."

The discussion on materiality being fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere is finished.

16. Sixteenth Chapter

(165) 10.

Discussion on Being Included in the Material and Immaterial Sphere Elements

771. Is lust for fine-material existence included in the fine-material element? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same sense-organ, having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Lust for fine-material existence is included in the fine-material element."

772. Is lust for fine-material existence included in the fine-material element? Yes. Is lust for sound included in the sound element? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust for fine-material existence included in the fine-material element? Yes. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Is lust for touch included in the touch element? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said that lust for sound - "It is included in the sound element"? Yes. Should it not be said that lust for fine-material existence - "It is included in the fine-material element"? That should not be said. Etc. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Should it not be said that lust for touch - "It is included in the touch element"? Yes. Should it not be said that lust for fine-material existence - "It is included in the fine-material element"? That should not be said. Etc.

773. Is lust for immaterial existence included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Lust for immaterial existence should not be said - "It is included in the immaterial sphere element"? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust for immaterial existence included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is it attainment-seeking, rebirth-seeking, a pleasant abiding in the present life, accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, rebirth-seeking consciousness, consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not the case that it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, etc. having the same sense-organ, having the same object? Yes. If it is not attainment-seeking, not rebirth-seeking, not a pleasant abiding in the present life, not accompanied by attainment-seeking consciousness, not by rebirth-seeking consciousness, not by consciousness of pleasant abiding in the present life, arisen together, conjoined, associated, arising together, ceasing together, having the same sense-organ, having the same object, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Lust for immaterial existence is included in the immaterial sphere element."

774. Is lust for immaterial existence included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Is lust for sound included in the sound element? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust for immaterial existence included in the immaterial sphere element? Yes. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Is lust for touch included in the touch element? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said that lust for sound - "It is included in the sound element"? Yes. Lust for immaterial existence should not be said - "It is included in the immaterial sphere element"? That should not be said. Etc. Lust for odour, etc. Lust for flavour, etc. Should it not be said that lust for touch - "It is included in the touch element"? Yes. Lust for immaterial existence should not be said - "It is included in the immaterial sphere element"? That should not be said. Etc.

775. Should it not be said - "Lust for fine-material existence is included in the fine-material element, lust for immaterial existence is included in the immaterial sphere element"? Yes. Is it not that sensual lust is included in the sensual element? Yes. If sensual lust is included in the sensual element, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Lust for fine-material existence is included in the fine-material element, lust for immaterial existence is included in the immaterial sphere element."

The discussion on lust for fine-material existence being included in the fine-material element and lust for immaterial existence being included in the immaterial sphere element is finished.

The discussion on being included in the material and immaterial sphere elements is finished.

Sixteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

Refutation of consciousness, exertion of consciousness, non-arising of pleasure, attention having attained, matter is a root, matter is with root, matter is both wholesome and unwholesome, matter is resultant, there is matter that is of the fine-material-sphere there is matter that is of the immaterial-sphere of existence, all mental defilements are included in the sensual element.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(166) 1.

Discussion on the Accumulation of Merit for a Worthy One

776. Is there accumulation of merit for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there accumulation of demerit for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not accumulation of demerit for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there not accumulation of merit for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc.

777. Is there accumulation of merit for a Worthy One? Yes. Does a Worthy One generate meritorious volitional activity, generate imperturbable volitional activity, perform action leading to destination, perform action leading to existence, perform action leading to supremacy, perform action leading to lordship, perform action leading to great wealth, perform action leading to great retinue, perform action leading to divine fortune, perform action leading to human fortune? That should not be said. Etc.

778. Is there accumulation of merit for a Worthy One? Yes. Does a Worthy One accumulate? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Worthy One diminish? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Worthy One abandon? Etc. Does a Worthy One cling? Etc. Does a Worthy One scatter? Etc. Does a Worthy One heap up? Etc. Does a Worthy One extinguish? Etc. Does a Worthy One kindle? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes; having diminished, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes, having diminished, stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is accumulation of merit for a Worthy One."

Is it not that a Worthy One neither abandons nor clings, having abandoned, stands firm; neither scatters nor heaps up, having scattered, stands firm; neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, he stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is accumulation of merit for a Worthy One."

779. Is there not accumulation of merit for a Worthy One? Yes. Would a Worthy One give a gift? Yes. If a Worthy One would give a gift, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is not accumulation of merit for a Worthy One."

Would a Worthy One give a robe? Etc. Would give almsfood? Would give lodging? Would give the requisite of medicines for the sick? Would give solid food? Would give soft food? Would give drinking water? Would venerate a shrine? Would place a garland at a shrine? Would place scent? Would place cosmetics? Etc. Would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right? Yes. If a Worthy One would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is not accumulation of merit for a Worthy One."

The discussion on there being accumulation of merit for a Worthy One is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(167) 2.

Discussion on There Being No Untimely Death for a Worthy One

780. Is there not untimely death for a Worthy One? Yes. Is there not a killer of an arahant? That should not be said. Etc. Is there a killer of an arahant? Yes. Is there untimely death for a Worthy One? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not untimely death for a Worthy One? Yes. One who deprives a Worthy One of life, does one deprive of life when there is life, when there is a remainder of life, or does one deprive of life when there is no life, when there is no remainder of life? One deprives of life when there is life, when there is a remainder of life. If one deprives of life when there is life, when there is a remainder of life, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is not untimely death for a Worthy One." Does one deprive of life when there is no life, when there is no remainder of life, is there not a killer of an arahant? That should not be said. Etc.

781. Is there not untimely death for a Worthy One? Yes. Would poison not penetrate the body of a Worthy One, would a knife not penetrate, would fire not penetrate? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that poison would penetrate the body of a Worthy One, a knife would penetrate, fire would penetrate? Yes. If poison would penetrate the body of a Worthy One, a knife would penetrate, fire would penetrate, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is not untimely death for a Worthy One."

Would poison not penetrate the body of a Worthy One, would a knife not penetrate, would fire not penetrate? Yes. Is there not a killer of an arahant? That should not be said. Etc.

782. Is there untimely death for a Worthy One? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I do not say, monks, that there is destruction of intentional actions that have been done and accumulated without experiencing them; and that indeed either in this very life, or upon rebirth, or in some other subsequent existence." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is no untimely death for a Worthy One.

The discussion on there being no untimely death for a Worthy One is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(168) 3.

Discussion on All This Being from Action

783. Is all this action? Yes. Is action also action? That should not be said. Etc. Is all this action? Yes. Is all this caused by what was done in the past? That should not be said. Etc. Is all this action? Yes. Is all this the result of action? That should not be said. Etc.

784. Is all this the result of action? Yes. Would one kill a living being by the result of action? Yes. Is killing living beings fruitful? Yes. Is the result of action fruitful? That should not be said. Etc. Is the result of action fruitless? Yes. Is killing living beings fruitless? That should not be said. Etc.

Would one take what is not given by the result of action? Etc. Would speak falsely? Would speak divisively? Would speak harshly? Would engage in idle chatter? Would break into houses? Would plunder? Would commit burglary? Would wait in ambush? Would go to another's wife? Would sack a village? Would sack a market town? Would one give a gift by the result of action? Would give a robe? Would give almsfood? Would give lodging? Would give the requisite of medicines for the sick? Yes. Is the requisite of medicines for the sick fruitful? Yes. Is the result of action fruitful? That should not be said. Etc. Is the result of action fruitless? Yes. Is the requisite of medicines for the sick fruitless? That should not be said. Etc.

785. Should it not be said - "all this is from action"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"By action the world goes on, by action the generation goes on;

Beings are bound by action, like the linchpin of a moving chariot.

"By action one obtains fame and praise,

By action loss and murder and bondage;

Having known that action of various kinds,

Why would one say there is no action in the world?"

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, "all this is from action."

The discussion on all this being from action is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(169) 4.

Discussion on Being Bound by the Faculties

786. Is only that which is bound by the senses suffering? Yes. Is only that which is bound by the senses impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is not that which is not bound by the senses impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. If that which is not bound by the senses is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Only that which is bound by the senses is suffering."

That which is not bound by the senses is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, etc. subject to change, and is that not suffering? Yes. That which is bound by the senses is impermanent, conditioned, etc. subject to change, and is that not suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

That which is bound by the senses is impermanent, conditioned, etc. subject to change, and is that suffering? Yes. That which is not bound by the senses is impermanent, conditioned, etc. subject to change, and is that suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

787. Is only that which is bound by the senses suffering? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - "That which is not bound by the senses is impermanent"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - that which is not bound by the senses is impermanent, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Only that which is bound by the senses is suffering."

788. Should it not be said - "Only that which is bound by the senses is suffering"? Yes. Just as the holy life is lived under the Blessed One for the full understanding of suffering that is bound by the senses, so too is the holy life lived under the Blessed One for the full understanding of suffering that is not bound by the senses? That should not be said. Etc. Just as suffering that is bound by the senses, when fully understood, does not arise again, so too suffering that is not bound by the senses, when fully understood, does not arise again? That should not be said. If so, only that which is bound by the senses is suffering.

The discussion on being bound by the faculties is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(170) 5.

Discussion on Setting Aside the Noble Path

789. Setting aside the noble path, are the remaining activities suffering? Yes. Is the origin of suffering also suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is the origin of suffering also suffering? Yes. Are there only three noble truths? That should not be said. Etc. Are there only three noble truths? Yes. Were not four noble truths spoken of by the Blessed One - suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the practice leading to the cessation of suffering? Yes. If four noble truths were spoken of by the Blessed One - suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the practice leading to the cessation of suffering; then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there are only three noble truths."

Is the origin of suffering also suffering? Yes. For what purpose? In the meaning of impermanence. Is the noble path impermanent? Yes. Is the noble path suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the noble path impermanent, and is it not suffering? Yes. Is the origin of suffering impermanent, and is it not suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is the origin of suffering impermanent, and is it suffering? Yes. Is the noble path impermanent, and is it suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

790. Should it not be said - "Setting aside the noble path, are the remaining activities suffering"? Yes. Is it not that practice leading to the cessation of suffering? Yes. If it is that practice leading to the cessation of suffering, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "Setting aside the noble path, the remaining activities are suffering."

The discussion on setting aside the noble path is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(171) 6.

Discussion on It Should Not Be Said that the Community Receives Offerings

791. Should it not be said - "The Community receives offerings"? Yes. Is not the Community worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world? Yes. If the Community is worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community receives offerings."

Should it not be said - "The Community receives offerings"? Yes. Were not the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings? Yes. If the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, were declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community receives offerings."

Should it not be said - "The Community receives offerings"? Yes. Is it not that there are some who give gifts to the Community? Yes. If there are some who give gifts to the Community, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community receives offerings." Is it not that there are some who give robes to the Community? Etc. They give almsfood... They give lodging... They give the requisite of medicines for the sick... They give solid food... They give soft food... Etc. They give drinking water? Yes. If there are some who give drinking water to the Community, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community receives offerings."

Should it not be said - "The Community receives offerings"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Like fire accepts an oblation, like the earth accepts a great rain cloud;

The Community, accomplished in concentration, accepts offerings."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the Community accepts offerings.

792. Does the Community accept offerings? Yes. Does the path accept, does the fruit accept? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on it should not be said that the Community receives offerings is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(172) 7.

Discussion on It Should Not Be Said that the Community Purifies Offerings

793. Should it not be said - "The Community purifies offerings"? Yes. Is not the Community worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world? Yes. If the Community is worthy of offerings, etc. an unsurpassed field of merit for the world, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community purifies offerings."

Should it not be said - "The Community purifies offerings"? Yes. Were not the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings? Yes. If the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, were declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community purifies offerings."

Should it not be said - "The Community purifies offerings"? Yes. Is it not that there are some who, having given a gift to the Community, succeed in their offering? Yes. If there are some who, having given a gift to the Community, succeed in their offering, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community purifies offerings."

Is it not that there are some who, having given a robe to the Community, etc. having given almsfood, etc. having given lodging, having given the requisite of medicines for the sick, having given solid food, having given soft food, etc. having given drinking water, succeed in their offering? Yes. If there are some who, having given drinking water to the Community, succeed in their offering, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community purifies offerings."

794. Does the Community purify the offering? Yes. Does the path purify, does the fruit purify? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on it should not be said that the Community purifies offerings is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(173) 8.

Discussion on It Should Not Be Said that the Community Eats

795. Should it not be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes"? Yes. Is it not that there are some who prepare meals for the Community, prepare meals for recitation, prepare rice gruel beverages? Yes. If there are some who prepare meals for the Community, prepare meals for recitation, prepare rice gruel beverages, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes."

Should it not be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Group meal, replacing a meal invitation, leftover food, not leftover food"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One - "Group meal, replacing a meal invitation, leftover food, not leftover food", then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes."

Should it not be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes"? Yes. Were not eight beverages spoken of by the Blessed One - mango beverage, rose-apple beverage, banana with seeds beverage, seedless banana beverage, madhuka beverage, grape beverage, lotus root beverage, sweet lovi-lovi beverage? Yes. If eight beverages were spoken of by the Blessed One - mango beverage, rose-apple beverage, banana with seeds beverage, seedless banana beverage, madhuka beverage, grape beverage, lotus root beverage, sweet lovi-lovi beverage, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes."

796. "The Community eats, drinks, chews, and tastes"? Yes. "The path eats, drinks, chews, and tastes; the fruit eats, drinks, chews, and tastes"? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on it should not be said that the Community eats is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(174) 9.

Discussion on It Should Not Be Said that What Is Given to the Community Is of Great Fruit

797. Should it not be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit"? Yes. Is not the Community worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world? Yes. If the Community is worthy of offerings, etc. an unsurpassed field of merit for the world, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit."

Should it not be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit"? Yes. Were not the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings? Yes. If the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, were declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit."

798. Should it not be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Give it to the monastic community, Gotamī. When you have given it to the monastic community, both I shall be venerated and the monastic community as well." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, what is given to the Community is of great fruit.

Should it not be said - "What is given to the Community is of great fruit"? Yes. Did not Sakka, the lord of the gods, say this to the Blessed One -

"For human beings who sacrifice, for beings hoping for merit,

Making merit leading to acquisition, where is what is given of great fruit?"

"Four practising and four established in the fruit;

This is the Community, upright, concentrated in wisdom and morality.

"For human beings who sacrifice, for beings hoping for merit,

Making merit leading to acquisition, what is given to the Community is of great fruit."

"For this Community is vast and exalted,

This is immeasurable like the ocean sea;

For these are the foremost disciples of the Hero among Men,

Light-bringers who proclaim the Dhamma.

"For them it is well-given, well-offered, well-sacrificed,

Those who give a gift with reference to the Community;

That offering given to the Community, established,

Rich in result, praised by the knowers of the world.

"Those who, recollecting such a sacrifice,

Wander in the world filled with joy;

Having removed the stain of stinginess with its root,

Blameless, they go to the heavenly state."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, what is given to the Community is of great fruit.

The discussion on it should not be said that what is given to the Community is of great fruit is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(175) 10.

Discussion on It Should Not Be Said that What Is Given to the Buddha Is of Great Fruit

799. Should it not be said - "What is given to the Buddha is of great fruit"? Yes. Is not the Blessed One the foremost of two-footed beings, the best of two-footed beings, the chief of two-footed beings, the highest of two-footed beings, the most excellent of two-footed beings, matchless, equal to the matchless, without equal, without counterpart, matchless person? Yes. If the Blessed One is the foremost of two-footed beings, the best of two-footed beings, the chief of two-footed beings, the highest of two-footed beings, the most excellent of two-footed beings, matchless, equal to the matchless, without equal, without counterpart, matchless person, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "What is given to the Buddha is of great fruit."

Should it not be said - "What is given to the Buddha is of great fruit"? Yes. Is there anyone equal to the Buddha - in morality, concentration, and wisdom? There is not. If there is not anyone equal to the Buddha - in morality, concentration, and wisdom, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "What is given to the Buddha is of great fruit."

Should it not be said - "What is given to the Buddha is of great fruit"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Neither in this world nor in another world,

Is there found one superior or equal to the Buddha;

He who has reached the foremost among those worthy of offerings,

For those seeking merit with abundant fruit."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, what is given to the Buddha is of great fruit.

The discussion on it should not be said that what is given to the Buddha is of great fruit is finished.

17. Seventeenth Chapter

(176) 11.

Discussion on Purification of Offerings

800. Does giving become pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient? Yes. Is it not that there are some recipients who are worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world? Yes. If there are some recipients who are worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Giving becomes pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient."

Does giving become pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient? Yes. Were not the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings? Yes. If the four pairs of persons, the eight individual persons, were declared by the Blessed One to be worthy of offerings, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Giving becomes pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient."

Does giving become pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient? Yes. Is it not that there are some who, having given a gift to a stream-enterer, succeed in their offering? Yes. If there are some who, having given a gift to a stream-enterer, succeed in their offering, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Giving becomes pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient."

Is it not that there are some who, having given a gift to a once-returner, etc. to a non-returner, etc. to a Worthy One, succeed in their offering? Yes. If there are some who, having given a gift to a Worthy One, succeed in their offering, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Giving becomes pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient."

801. Does giving become pure on account of the recipient? Yes. Is one the doer for another, is pleasure and pain made by another, does one act and another experience? That should not be said. Etc.

Does giving become pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Ānanda, there are these four purifications of offerings! What are the four? There is, Ānanda, an offering that becomes pure on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient; there is, Ānanda, an offering that becomes pure on account of the recipient, not on account of the donor; there is, Ānanda, an offering that becomes pure both on account of the donor and on account of the recipient; there is, Ānanda, an offering that becomes pure neither on account of the donor nor on account of the recipient. These, Ānanda, are the four purifications of offerings." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Giving becomes pure only on account of the donor, not on account of the recipient."

The discussion on purification of offerings is finished.

Seventeenth Chapter.

Its summary:

There is accumulation of merit for a Worthy One, there is no untimely death for a Worthy One, all this is from action, only that which is bound by the senses is suffering, setting aside the noble path the remaining activities are suffering, the Community receives offerings, the Community purifies offerings, the Community eats drinks chews and tastes, what is given to the Community is of great fruit, there is giving for purification.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(177) 1.

Discussion on the Human World

802. Should it not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world"? Yes. Are there not shrines, parks, monasteries, villages, market towns, cities, countries and provinces where the Buddha dwelt? Yes. If there are shrines, parks, monasteries, villages, market towns, cities, countries and provinces where the Buddha dwelt, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world."

Should it not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world"? Yes. Was not the Blessed One born in Lumbinī, fully awakened at the foot of the Bodhi tree, the wheel of the Teaching set in motion by the Blessed One at Bārāṇasī, the life principle relinquished at the Cāpāla shrine, the Blessed One attained final Nibbāna at Kusinārā? Yes. If the Blessed One was born in Lumbinī, etc. the Blessed One attained final Nibbāna at Kusinārā, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world."

Should it not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "On one occasion, monks, I was dwelling at Ukkaṭṭhā in the Subhaga Grove at the root of a royal sal tree"; "On one occasion, monks, I was dwelling at Uruvelā at the goatherd's banyan tree, newly fully enlightened"; "On one occasion, monks, I was dwelling at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove at the Squirrels' Feeding Ground"; "On one occasion, monks, I was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's park"; "On one occasion, monks, I was dwelling at Vesālī in the Great Wood in the Pinnacled Hall"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world.

803. Did the Buddha, the Blessed One, stay in the human world? Yes. Is it not that the Blessed One, born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world, dwells untainted by the world? Yes. If the Blessed One, born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world, dwells untainted by the world, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world."

The discussion on the human world is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(178) 2.

Discussion on Teaching the Dhamma

804. Should it not be said - "The Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One"? Yes. By whom was it taught? It was taught by a created being. Is the created being a conqueror, a Teacher, a perfectly Self-awakened One, omniscient, all-seeing, lord of the Teaching, one who has the Teaching as refuge? That should not be said. Etc.

Should it not be said - "The Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One"? Yes. By whom was it taught? It was taught by the Venerable Ānanda. Is the Venerable Ānanda a conqueror, a Teacher, a perfectly Self-awakened One, omniscient, all-seeing, lord of the Teaching, one who has the Teaching as refuge? That should not be said. Etc.

805. Should it not be said - "The Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I could teach the Teaching in brief, Sāriputta; I could teach the Teaching in detail, Sāriputta; I could teach the Teaching both in brief and in detail, Sāriputta; but those who understand are rare." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One.

806. Should it not be said - "The Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I teach the Teaching having directly known, monks, not without having directly known; I teach the Teaching with a source, monks, not without a source; I teach the Teaching with the wondrous effect of liberation, monks, not without the wondrous effect of liberation; Since I teach the Teaching having directly known, monks, not without having directly known, since I teach the Teaching with a source, not without a source, since I teach the Teaching with the wondrous effect of liberation, not without the wondrous effect of liberation, exhortation is to be done, instruction is to be done; And it is enough for you, monks, for contentment, enough for gladness, enough for pleasure - 'The Blessed One is the perfectly Self-awakened One, well proclaimed is the Teaching, the Community is practicing well.' And while this explanation was being spoken, the ten-thousand world-system trembled"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One.

The discussion on teaching the Dhamma is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(179) 3.

Discussion on Compassion

807. There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. There is no friendliness in the Buddha, the Blessed One? That should not be said. Etc. There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. There is no altruistic joy in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Etc. Equanimity? That should not be said. Etc.

There is friendliness in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. There is compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? That should not be said. Etc. There is altruistic joy in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Etc. Equanimity? Yes. There is compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? That should not be said. Etc.

There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. Is the Blessed One without compassion? That should not be said. Etc. Is not the Blessed One compassionate, seeking the welfare of the world, having compassion for the world, acting for the benefit of the world? Yes. If the Blessed One is compassionate, seeking the welfare of the world, having compassion for the world, acting for the benefit of the world, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One." Etc.

There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. Did not the Blessed One attain the great compassion attainment? Yes. If the Blessed One attained the great compassion attainment, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One."

808. There is compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One? Yes. Is the Blessed One with lust? That should not be said. If so, there is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One.

The discussion on compassion is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(180) 4.

Discussion on Types of Odour

809. Does the faeces and urine of the Buddha, the Blessed One, surpass very much other kinds of perfumes? Yes. Does the Blessed One feed on odour? That should not be said. Etc. Does not the Blessed One eat cooked rice and food made with flour? Yes. If the Blessed One eats cooked rice and food made with flour, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The faeces and urine of the Buddha, the Blessed One, surpasses very much other kinds of perfumes."

Does the faeces and urine of the Buddha, the Blessed One, surpass very much other kinds of perfumes? Yes. Are there any who bathe in, anoint with, rub with the faeces and urine of the Buddha, the Blessed One, set it in order in a box, put it in a casket, spread it out in a market, and with that odour make perfumery? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on types of odour is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(181) 5.

Discussion on the Single Path

810. Does one realize the four fruits of asceticism by one noble path? Yes. Of four contacts... etc. Is there a combination of four perceptions? That should not be said. Etc. Does one realize the four fruits of asceticism by one noble path? Yes. By the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Once-returner, etc. By the path of non-returning? That should not be said. Etc.

By which path? By the path of arahantship. Does one give up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the abandoning of the three mental fetters is the fruition of stream-entry? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the abandoning of the three mental fetters is the fruition of stream-entry, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up identity view, sceptical doubt, and adherence to moral rules and austerities by the path of arahantship."

Does one give up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of once-returning is due to the diminution of sensual lust and anger, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up gross sensual lust and gross anger by the path of arahantship."

Does one give up subtle sensual lust and subtle anger by the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up subtle sensual lust and subtle anger by the path of arahantship? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the fruition of non-returning is due to the complete abandoning of sensual lust and anger? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the fruition of non-returning is due to the complete abandoning of sensual lust and anger, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up subtle sensual lust and subtle anger by the path of arahantship."

811. Should it not be said - "Does one realize the four fruits of asceticism by one noble path?" Yes. Was the path of stream-entry developed by the Blessed One? Yes. Is the Blessed One a stream-enterer? That should not be said. Etc. By the Blessed One the once-returner, etc. Was the path of non-returning developed? Yes. Is the Blessed One a non-returner? That should not be said. Etc.

812. Does the Blessed One realize the four fruits of asceticism by one noble path, while disciples realize the four fruits of asceticism by four noble paths? Yes. Do disciples see what has not been seen by the Buddha, the Blessed One, attain what has not been attained, realize what has not been realized? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the single path is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(182) 6.

Discussion on Transition between Meditative Absorptions

813. Does one pass over from meditative absorption to meditative absorption? Yes. Does one pass over from the first meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc. Does one pass over from meditative absorption to meditative absorption? Yes. Does one pass over from the second meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one pass over from the first meditative absorption to the second meditative absorption? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of the first meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the second meditative absorption, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

One passes over from the first meditative absorption to the second meditative absorption, should it not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of the first meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the second meditative absorption, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does the second meditative absorption arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the second meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If the second meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One passes over from the first meditative absorption to the second meditative absorption." Etc.

Does one pass over from the first meditative absorption to the second meditative absorption? Yes. Does the first meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in sensual pleasures? Yes. Does the second meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in sensual pleasures? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the first meditative absorption with applied thought and sustained thought? Yes. Is the second meditative absorption with applied thought and sustained thought? That should not be said. Etc. Does one pass over from the first meditative absorption to the second meditative absorption? Yes. Is that very first meditative absorption that second meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

814. Does one pass over from the second meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of the second meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the third meditative absorption, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

One passes over from the second meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption, should it not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of the second meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the third meditative absorption, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does the third meditative absorption arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the third meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If the third meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One passes over from the second meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption."

Does one pass over from the second meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption? Yes. Does the second meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in applied and sustained thought? Yes. Does the third meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in applied and sustained thought? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the second meditative absorption with rapture? Yes. Is the third meditative absorption with rapture? That should not be said. Etc. Does one pass over from the second meditative absorption to the third meditative absorption? Yes. Is that very second meditative absorption that third meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

815. Does one pass over from the third meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Whatever adverting for the arising of the third meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the fourth meditative absorption, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

One passes over from the third meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption, should it not be said - "Whatever adverting for the arising of the third meditative absorption, etc. aspiration, is that same adverting for the arising of the fourth meditative absorption, etc. aspiration"? Yes. Does the fourth meditative absorption arise for one not adverting, etc. arise for one not directing? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the fourth meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing? Yes. If the fourth meditative absorption arises for one adverting, etc. arises for one directing, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One passes over from the third meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption."

Does one pass over from the third meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Does the third meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in rapture? Yes. Does the fourth meditative absorption arise for one attending to the danger in rapture? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the third meditative absorption accompanied by pleasure? Yes. Is the fourth meditative absorption accompanied by pleasure? That should not be said. Etc. Does one pass over from the third meditative absorption to the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Is that very third meditative absorption that fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

816. Should it not be said - "One passes over from meditative absorption to meditative absorption"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, etc. enters and dwells in the fourth meditative absorption"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one passes over from meditative absorption to meditative absorption.

The Discussion on Transition between Meditative Absorptions is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(183) 7.

Discussion on the Intermediate State between Meditative Absorptions

817. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is there an intermediate state between contacts? Etc. Is there an intermediate state between perceptions? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the third meditative absorption and the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption? Yes. If there is not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions."

Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the third meditative absorption and the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. If there is not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the third meditative absorption and the fourth meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions."

818. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the first meditative absorption and the second meditative absorption? Yes. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the first meditative absorption and the second meditative absorption? Yes. Is there an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the third meditative absorption and the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption? Yes. Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the first meditative absorption and the second meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the third meditative absorption and the fourth meditative absorption? Yes. Is there not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions in between the first meditative absorption and the second meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc.

819. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is concentration with applied and sustained thought an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? That should not be said. Etc.

Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is concentration without applied and sustained thought an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? That should not be said. Etc.

Is concentration with applied and sustained thought not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? That should not be said. Etc.

Is concentration without applied and sustained thought not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? That should not be said. Etc.

820. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only in between two present meditative absorptions? Yes. Is it not that when concentration without applied but with sustained thought only is occurring, the first meditative absorption has ceased and the second meditative absorption is present? Yes. If when concentration without applied but with sustained thought only is occurring, the first meditative absorption has ceased and the second meditative absorption is present, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Concentration without applied but with sustained thought only in between two present meditative absorptions is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions."

821. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only not an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only the first meditative absorption... etc. the second meditative absorption... etc. the third meditative absorption... etc. the fourth meditative absorption? That should not be said. If so, concentration without applied but with sustained thought only is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions.

822. Is concentration without applied but with sustained thought only an intermediate state between meditative absorptions? Yes. Were not three concentrations said by the Blessed One - concentration with applied and sustained thought, concentration without applied but with sustained thought only, concentration without applied and sustained thought? Yes. If three concentrations were said by the Blessed One - with applied thought, etc. without sustained thought concentration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Concentration without applied but with sustained thought only is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions."

The Discussion on the Intermediate State between Meditative Absorptions is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(184) 8.

Discussion on "One Hears Sound"

823. Does one who has attained hear sound? Yes. Does one who has attained see form with the eye... etc. with the ear... etc. with the nose, etc. with the tongue, etc. touches tangible object with the body? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one who has attained hear sound? Yes. Is one who has attained endowed with ear-consciousness? That should not be said. Is not concentration for one endowed with mind-consciousness? Yes. If concentration is for one endowed with mind-consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "one who has attained hears sound."

Concentration is for one endowed with mind-consciousness, does one endowed with ear-consciousness hear sound? Yes. If concentration is for one endowed with mind-consciousness, and one endowed with ear-consciousness hears sound, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "one who has attained hears sound." Concentration is for one endowed with mind-consciousness, does one endowed with ear-consciousness hear sound? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

824. Should it not be said - "one who has attained hears sound"? Yes. Was not sound said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption? Yes. If sound was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "one who has attained hears sound."

825. Sound was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption, does one who has attained hear sound? Yes. Applied and sustained thought were said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the second meditative absorption, is there applied and sustained thought for him? That should not be said. Etc.

Sound was said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for the first meditative absorption, does one who has attained hear sound? Yes. Rapture is a thorn for the third meditative absorption. Etc. In-breath and out-breath is a thorn for the fourth meditative absorption... Perception of material form is a thorn for one who has attained the plane of infinite space... Perception of the plane of infinite space is a thorn for one who has attained the plane of infinite consciousness... Perception of the plane of infinite consciousness is a thorn for one who has attained the plane of nothingness... Perception of the plane of nothingness is a thorn for one who has attained the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... Perception and feeling were said by the Blessed One to be a thorn for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, is there perception and feeling for him? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on "One Hears Sound" is finished.

18. Eighteenth Chapter

(185) 9.

Discussion on "One Sees Form with the Eye"

826. Does one see materiality with the eye? Yes. Does one see materiality by materiality? That should not be said. Etc. Does one see materiality by materiality? Yes. Does one recognize materiality by materiality? That should not be said. Etc. Does one recognize materiality by materiality? Yes. Is materiality mind-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Does one see materiality with the eye? Yes. Is there adverting of the eye, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is not adverting of the eye, etc. aspiration? Yes. If there is not adverting of the eye, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "one sees materiality with the eye."

Does one hear sound with the ear? Etc. Does one smell odour with the nose? Etc. Does one taste flavour with the tongue? Etc. touches tangible object with the body? Yes. Does one touch materiality by materiality? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one touch materiality by materiality? Yes. Does one recognize materiality by materiality? That should not be said. Etc. Does one recognize materiality by materiality? Yes. Is materiality mind-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. touches tangible object with the body? Yes. Is there adverting of the body, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that there is not adverting of the body, etc. aspiration? Yes. If there is not adverting of the body, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "one touches tangible object with the body." Etc.

827. Should it not be said - "one sees materiality with the eye"? Etc. "one touches tangible object with the body"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk sees materiality with the eye... etc. touches tangible object with the body"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one sees materiality with the eye... etc. touches tangible object with the body.

The Discussion on "One Sees Form with the Eye" is finished.

Eighteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

The Buddha, the Blessed One, stayed in the human world; the Teaching was taught by the Buddha, the Blessed One; there is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One; the faeces and urine of the Buddha, the Blessed One, surpasses very much other kinds of perfumes; one realizes the four fruits of asceticism by one noble path; one passes over from meditative absorption to meditative absorption; there is an intermediate state between meditative absorptions; one who has attained hears sound; one sees materiality with the eye, touches tangible object with the body.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(186) 1.

Discussion on Abandoning Defilements

828. Does one give up mental defilements in the past? Yes. Does one cease what has ceased, make depart what has departed, exhaust what is eliminated, make pass away what has passed away, make completely pass away what has completely passed away? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up mental defilements in the past? Yes. Is not the past ceased? Yes. If the past is ceased, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements in the past." Does one give up mental defilements in the past? Yes. Is not the past non-existent? Yes. If the past does not exist, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements in the past."

829. Does one give up mental defilements in the future? Yes. Does one generate the unborn, does one produce the unproduced, does one bring forth the not generated, does one make manifest what has not become manifest? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up mental defilements in the future? Yes. Is not the future unborn? Yes. If the future is unborn, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements in the future." Does one give up mental defilements in the future? Yes. Is not the future non-existent? Yes. If the future does not exist, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "One gives up mental defilements in the future."

830. Does one give up mental defilements in the present? Yes. Does one who is lustful give up lust, does one who is hateful give up hate, does one who is deluded give up delusion, does one who is defiled give up mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up lust by lust, give up hate by hate, give up delusion by delusion, give up mental defilements by mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is lust associated with consciousness, is the path associated with consciousness? Yes. Is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Is lust unwholesome, is the path wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

831. Should it not be said - "One gives up mental defilements in the past, one gives up mental defilements in the future, one gives up mental defilements in the present"? Yes. There is no giving up of mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. If so, one gives up mental defilements in the past, one gives up mental defilements in the future, one gives up mental defilements in the present.

The Discussion on Abandoning Defilements is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(187) 2.

Discussion on Emptiness

832. Is emptiness included in the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. Is the signless included in the aggregate of mental activities? That should not be said. Etc. Is emptiness included in the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. Is the desireless included in the aggregate of mental activities? That should not be said. Etc. Is the signless not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? Yes. Is emptiness not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? That should not be said. Etc. Is the desireless not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? Yes. Is emptiness not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? That should not be said. Etc.

Is emptiness included in the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. Is the aggregate of mental activities not impermanent, not conditioned, not dependently arisen, not subject to destruction, not having the nature of falling, not subject to fading away, not having the nature of cessation, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is the aggregate of mental activities not impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. If the aggregate of mental activities is impermanent, etc. subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "emptiness is included in the aggregate of mental activities."

833. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of material body included in the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of mental activities included in the aggregate of material body? That should not be said. Etc. Of the aggregate of feeling, etc. of the aggregate of perception, Is the emptiness of the aggregate of consciousness included in the aggregate of mental activities? Yes. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of mental activities included in the aggregate of consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the emptiness of the aggregate of mental activities not to be said - "included in the aggregate of material body"? Yes. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of material body not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? That should not be said. Etc. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of mental activities not to be said - "included in the aggregate of feeling, etc. included in the aggregate of perception, included in the aggregate of consciousness"? Yes. Is the emptiness of the aggregate of consciousness not to be said - "included in the aggregate of mental activities"? That should not be said. Etc.

834. Should it not be said - "emptiness is included in the aggregate of mental activities"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "This is empty, monks, activities are empty of a self or of what belongs to a self"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, emptiness is included in the aggregate of mental activities.

The Discussion on Emptiness is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(188) 3. Discussion on the Fruit of Asceticism

835. Is the fruit of asceticism unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the fruit of asceticism unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

836. Is the fruit of asceticism unconditioned? Yes. Is asceticism unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is asceticism conditioned? Yes. Is the fruit of asceticism conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the fruition of stream-entry unconditioned? Yes. Is the path of stream-entry unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the path of stream-entry conditioned? Yes. Is the fruition of stream-entry conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

The fruition of once-returning? Etc. the fruition of non-returning, etc. Is the fruition of arahantship unconditioned? Yes. Is the path of arahantship unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Is the path of arahantship conditioned? Yes. Is the fruition of arahantship conditioned? That should not be said. Etc.

The fruition of stream-entry is unconditioned, the fruition of once-returning, etc. The fruition of non-returning, etc. The fruition of arahantship is unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there five unconditioned things? That should not be said. Etc. Are there five unconditioned things? Yes. Are there five shelters, etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Fruit of Asceticism is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(189) 4.

Discussion on Attainment

837. Is attainment unconditioned? Yes. Is Nibbāna shelter, rock cell, refuge, ultimate goal, imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is attainment unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

838. Is the attainment of a robe unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. The Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the attainment of a robe unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc. Of almsfood... etc. Of lodging... etc. Is the attainment of the requisite of medicines for the sick unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. Imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the attainment of the requisite of medicines for the sick unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is attainment of robe unconditioned? Etc. Of almsfood... etc. Of lodging... etc. Is the attainment of the requisite of medicines for the sick unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there five unconditioned things? That should not be said. Etc. Are there five unconditioned things? Yes. Are there five shelters, etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

839. Is the attainment of the first meditative absorption unconditioned (thus all should be expanded) of the second meditative absorption... the third meditative absorption... of the fourth meditative absorption... of the plane of infinite space... of the plane of infinite consciousness... of the plane of nothingness... of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... of the path of stream-entry... of the fruition of stream-entry... of the path of once-returning... of the fruition of once-returning... of the path of non-returning... of the fruition of non-returning... of the path of arahantship... Is the attainment of the fruition of arahantship unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. Imperishable, the Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the attainment of the fruition of arahantship unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the attainment of the path of stream-entry unconditioned... Is the attainment of the fruition of stream-entry unconditioned... Is the attainment of the path of arahantship unconditioned... Is the attainment of the fruition of arahantship unconditioned... Is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there nine unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there nine unconditioned? Yes. Are there nine shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

840. Should it not be said - Is attainment unconditioned? Yes. Is attainment materiality... feeling... perception... activities... Is it consciousness? That should not be said. If so, attainment is unconditioned.

The Discussion on Attainment is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(190) 5.

Discussion on Actuality

841. Is the actuality of all phenomena unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. The Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. Is the actuality of all phenomena unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

842. The materiality of matter - is not materiality unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. The Deathless? That should not be said. Etc. The materiality of matter - is not materiality unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there two unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there two unconditioned? Yes. Are there two shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

The feeling-ness of feeling - is not feeling-ness... etc. The perception-ness of perception - is not perception-ness... etc. The activity-ness of activities - is not activity-ness... etc. The consciousness-ness of consciousness - is not consciousness-ness unconditioned? Yes. Nibbāna... etc. The Deathless? That should not be said. Etc.

The materiality of matter - is not materiality... etc. The consciousness-ness of consciousness - is not consciousness-ness unconditioned, is Nibbāna unconditioned? Yes. Are there six unconditioned? That should not be said. Etc. Are there six unconditioned? Yes. Are there six shelters? Etc. Or intervals? That should not be said. Etc.

843. Should it not be said - "The actuality of all phenomena is unconditioned"? Yes. Is the actuality of all phenomena materiality... feeling... perception... activities... Is it consciousness? That should not be said. If so, the actuality of all phenomena is unconditioned.

The Discussion on Actuality is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(191) 6.

Discussion on the Wholesome

844. Is the element of Nibbāna wholesome? Yes. Is it with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. If it is without sense-object, there is not adverting for it, etc. aspiration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the element of Nibbāna is wholesome".

845. Non-greed is wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is the element of Nibbāna wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Non-hate is wholesome, etc. non-delusion is wholesome, etc. faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is the element of Nibbāna wholesome, with sense-object, is there adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

Is the element of Nibbāna wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Is non-greed wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc. Is the element of Nibbāna wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? Yes. Non-hate is wholesome, etc. non-delusion is wholesome, etc. faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. Is wisdom wholesome, without sense-object, is there not adverting for it, etc. aspiration? That should not be said. Etc.

846. Should it not be said - "the element of Nibbāna is wholesome"? Yes. Is not the element of Nibbāna blameless? Yes. If the element of Nibbāna is blameless, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "the element of Nibbāna is wholesome".

The Discussion on the Wholesome is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(192) 7.

Discussion on Absolute Fixed Course

847. Is there absolute certainty for a worldling? Yes. Is a matricide absolutely certain, is a patricide... etc. is a killer of a Worthy One... etc. is one who draws blood... etc. is a schismatic absolutely certain? That should not be said. Etc.

848. Is there absolute certainty for a worldling? Yes. Could sceptical doubt arise for an absolutely certain person? Yes. If sceptical doubt could arise for an absolutely certain person, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is absolute certainty for a worldling."

Could sceptical doubt not arise for an absolutely certain person? Yes. Has it been abandoned? That should not be said. Etc. Has it been abandoned? Yes. By the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. By the path of once-returning, etc. by the path of non-returning, etc. By the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

By which path? By the unwholesome path. Is the unwholesome path leading to liberation, leading to elimination, leading to enlightenment, without mental corruptions, etc. Not subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc. Is not the unwholesome path not leading to liberation, etc. Subject to defilement? Yes. If the unwholesome path is not leading to liberation, etc. Subject to defilement, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Sceptical doubt of an absolutely certain person has been abandoned by the unwholesome path."

849. Could annihilationist view arise for a person fixed in destination by eternalist view? Yes. If annihilationist view could arise for a person fixed in destination by eternalist view, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is absolute certainty for a worldling."

Could annihilationist view not arise for a person fixed in destination by eternalist view? Yes. Has it been abandoned? That should not be said. Etc. Has it been abandoned? Yes. By the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. By the path of once-returning, etc. by the path of non-returning, etc. By the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

By which path? By the unwholesome path. The unwholesome path, etc. then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Annihilationist view of a person fixed in destination by eternalist view has been abandoned by the unwholesome path."

850. Could eternalist view arise for a person fixed in destination by annihilationist view? Yes. If eternalist view could arise for a person fixed in destination by annihilationist view, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is absolute certainty for a worldling."

Could eternalist view not arise for a person fixed in destination by annihilationist view? Yes. Has it been abandoned? That should not be said. Etc. Has it been abandoned? Yes. By the path of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. By the path of once-returning, etc. by the path of non-returning, etc. By the path of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

By which path? By the unwholesome path. The unwholesome path, etc. then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "Eternalist view of a person fixed in destination by annihilationist view has been abandoned by the unwholesome path."

851. Should it not be said - "There is absolute certainty for a worldling"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a certain person is endowed with exclusively dark unwholesome mental states, he once submerged remains submerged"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is absolute certainty for a worldling.

852. It was said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a certain person is endowed with exclusively dark unwholesome mental states, he once submerged remains submerged" - and by that reason is there absolute certainty for a worldling? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a certain person having emerged, sinks down"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. At all times having emerged, does he sink down? That should not be said. Etc.

It was said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a certain person is endowed with exclusively dark unwholesome mental states, he once submerged remains submerged" - and by that reason is there absolute certainty for a worldling? Yes. It was said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a certain person having emerged, remains standing, having emerged sees with insight and looks around, having emerged crosses over, having emerged has gained a foothold"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. At all times having emerged, has he gained a foothold? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on Absolute Fixed Course is finished.

19. Nineteenth Chapter

(193) 8.

Treatise on Faculties

853. Is there no mundane faith faculty? Yes. Is there no mundane faith? That should not be said. Etc. Is there no mundane energy faculty? Etc. The mindfulness faculty, etc. The concentration faculty, etc. Is there no wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there no mundane wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mundane faith? Yes. Is there mundane faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane energy? Etc. Mindfulness... etc. concentration, etc. wisdom for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling? Yes. Is there mundane wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mundane mind, is there mundane mind faculty? Yes. Is there mundane faith, is there mundane faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane mind, is there mundane mind faculty? Yes. Is there mundane wisdom, is there mundane wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mundane pleasure, is there mundane pleasure faculty? Etc. Is there mundane life, is there mundane life faculty? Yes. Is there mundane faith, is there mundane faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane life, is there mundane life faculty? Yes. Is there mundane wisdom, is there mundane wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

854. Is there mundane faith, is there no mundane faith faculty? Yes. Is there mundane mind, is there no mundane mind faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane wisdom, is there no mundane wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there mundane mind, is there no mundane mind faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mundane faith, is there no mundane faith faculty? Yes. Is there mundane pleasure, is there no mundane pleasure faculty? Is there mundane life, is there no mundane life faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane wisdom, is there no mundane wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there mundane mind, is there no mundane mind faculty? Etc. Is there mundane life, is there no mundane life faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

855. Is there supramundane faith, is there supramundane faith faculty? Yes. Is there mundane faith, is there mundane faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there supramundane energy? Etc. Is there supramundane wisdom, is there supramundane wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there mundane wisdom, is there mundane wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there mundane faith, is there no mundane faith faculty? Yes. Is there supramundane faith, is there no supramundane faith faculty? That should not be said. Etc. Is there mundane energy? Etc. Is there mundane wisdom, is there no mundane wisdom faculty? Yes. Is there supramundane wisdom, is there no supramundane wisdom faculty? That should not be said. Etc.

856. There are no mundane five spiritual faculties? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "I saw, monks, surveying the world with the Buddha-eye, beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with sharp faculties and with soft faculties, of good disposition, easy to instruct, some dwelling seeing the danger in the world beyond and in fault"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there are mundane five spiritual faculties.

The Treatise on Faculties is concluded.

Nineteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

One gives up mental defilements in the past, one gives up mental defilements in the future, one gives up mental defilements in the present, emptiness is included in the aggregate of mental activities, the fruit of asceticism is unconditioned, attainment is unconditioned, the actuality of all phenomena is unconditioned, the element of Nibbāna is wholesome, there is absolute certainty for a worldling, there are no mundane five spiritual faculties.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(194) 1.

Treatise on the Unintentional

857. Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, does one become one with immediate result? Yes. Having unintentionally killed a living being, does one become a killer of living beings? That should not be said. Etc. Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, does one become one with immediate result? Yes. Having unintentionally taken what is not given, etc. Having spoken falsely, does one become a liar? That should not be said. Etc.

Having unintentionally killed a living being, does one not become a killer of living beings? Yes. Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, does one not become one with immediate result? That should not be said. Etc. Having unintentionally taken what is not given, etc. Having spoken falsely, does one not become a liar? Yes. Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, does one not become one with immediate result? That should not be said. Etc.

858. Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, does one become one with immediate result? Yes. "Having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, one becomes one with immediate result" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. "Having intentionally deprived one's mother of life, one becomes one with immediate result" - Is there such a discourse? Yes. If "having intentionally deprived one's mother of life, one becomes one with immediate result" - there is such a discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "having unintentionally deprived one's mother of life, one becomes one with immediate result."

859. Should it not be said - "A matricide is one with immediate result"? Yes. Is it not that a mother has been deprived of life? Yes. If a mother has been deprived of life, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A matricide is one with immediate result."

Should it not be said - "A patricide is one with immediate result"? Yes. Is it not that a father has been deprived of life? Yes. If a father has been deprived of life, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A patricide is one with immediate result."

Should it not be said - "A killer of a Worthy One is one with immediate result"? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One has been deprived of life? Yes. If a Worthy One has been deprived of life, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "A killer of a Worthy One is one with immediate result."

Should it not be said - "One who draws blood is one with immediate result"? Yes. Is it not that blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata? Yes. If blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "One who draws blood is one with immediate result."

860. Is a schismatic one with immediate result? Yes. Are all schismatics ones with immediate result? That should not be said. Etc. Are all schismatics ones with immediate result? Yes. Is a schismatic who perceives the Teaching one with immediate result? That should not be said. Etc.

861. Is a schismatic who perceives the Teaching one with immediate result? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There is, Upāli, a schismatic who is bound for the realm of misery, doomed to Niraya Hell, will remain there for a cosmic cycle, incurable; there is, Upāli, a schismatic who is not bound for the realm of misery, not doomed to Niraya Hell, will not remain there for a cosmic cycle, not incurable"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "A schismatic who perceives the Teaching is one with immediate result."

862. Should it not be said - "A schismatic who perceives the Teaching is one with immediate result"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Bound for the realm of misery, doomed to hell, remaining for a cosmic cycle, the schismatic;

Delighting in discord, established in what is not the Teaching, he falls from freedom from bondage;

Having split a united Community, he is tormented in hell for a cosmic cycle."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, a schismatic is one with immediate result.

The Discussion on the Unintentional is finished.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(195) 2.

Treatise on Knowledge

863. There is no knowledge for a worldling? Yes. There is no wisdom, understanding, investigation, thorough investigation, investigation of phenomena, discernment, discrimination, counter-discrimination for a worldling? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not wisdom, understanding, investigation, etc. counter-discrimination for a worldling? Yes. If there is wisdom, understanding, investigation, etc. counter-discrimination for a worldling, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no knowledge for a worldling."

864. There is no knowledge for a worldling? Yes. Would a worldling attain the first meditative absorption? Yes. If a worldling would attain the first meditative absorption, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no knowledge for a worldling."

Would a worldling attain the second meditative absorption? Etc. the third meditative absorption... etc. the fourth meditative absorption... etc. Would attain the plane of infinite space, would attain the plane of infinite consciousness, the plane of nothingness, the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, would a worldling give a gift? Etc. Would give a robe, would give almsfood, would give lodging, would give the requisite of medicines for the sick? Yes. If a worldling would give the requisite of medicines for the sick, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is no knowledge for a worldling."

865. There is knowledge for a worldling? Yes. Does a worldling fully understand suffering, abandon origin, realize cessation, develop the path by that knowledge? That should not be said. Etc.

The treatise on knowledge is concluded.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(196) 3.

Treatise on Hell Guardians

866. There are no guardians in hell? Yes. There is no bodily punishment in hell? That should not be said. Etc. There is bodily punishment in hell? Yes. There are guardians in hell? That should not be said. Etc.

There is bodily punishment among human beings, and there are torturers? Yes. There is bodily punishment in hell, and there are torturers? That should not be said. Etc. There is bodily punishment in hell, and there are no torturers? Yes. There is bodily punishment among human beings, and there are no torturers? That should not be said. Etc.

867. There are guardians in hell? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Neither Vessabhū nor the king of the departed,

Soma, Yama, and King Vessavaṇa;

One's own actions strike one there, one driven from here, arrived at the world beyond."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there are no guardians in hell.

868. There are no guardians in hell? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Then, monks, the guardians of hell inflict on him the torture called the fivefold binding - they drive a red-hot iron stake into his hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake into his other hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake into his foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake into his other foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake into the middle of his chest; there he experiences painful, sharp, severe feelings; and he does not die until that evil deed is exhausted"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there are guardians in hell.

There are no guardians in hell? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Then, monks, the guardians of hell lay him down and plane him with axes... etc... Then, monks, the guardians of hell, having placed him feet up and head down, plane him with adzes... etc... Then, monks, the guardians of hell, having yoked him to a chariot, drive him back and forth over ground that is blazing, in flames, aglow... etc... Then, monks, the guardians of hell make him climb up and down a great mountain of embers, blazing, in flames, aglow... etc... Then, monks, the guardians of hell, having seized him feet up and head down, throw him into a red-hot copper cauldron, blazing, in flames, aglow. There, being cooked, throwing up foam, he goes up once, he goes down once, he goes across once. There he experiences painful, sharp, severe feelings, and he does not die until that evil deed is exhausted. Then, monks, the guardians of hell throw him into the great hell! Now, monks, that great hell -

"Four-cornered, with four doors, divided into sections, measured;

Surrounded by an iron wall, covered over with iron.

"Its floor is made of iron, blazing, endowed with heat;

Having pervaded a hundred yojanas all around, it stands always."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there are guardians in hell.

The Discussion on Hell Guardians is finished.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(197) 4.

Treatise on Animals

869. Are there animals among the gods? Yes. Are there gods among the animals? That should not be said. Etc. Are there animals among the gods? Yes. Is the heavenly world the animal realm? That should not be said. Etc. Are there animals among the gods? Yes. Are there insects, grasshoppers, mosquitoes, flies, snakes, scorpions, centipedes, and earthworms there? That should not be said. Etc.

870. There are no animals among the gods? Yes. Is there not there the noble elephant named Erāvaṇa, a divine vehicle yoked with a thousand? Yes. If there is there the noble elephant named Erāvaṇa, a divine vehicle yoked with a thousand, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "There are animals among the gods."

871. Are there animals among the gods? Yes. Are there elephant keepers, grooms, barley-givers, torturers, cooks there? That should not be said. If so, there is no animals among the gods.

The Discussion on Animals is finished.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(198) 5.

The Treatise on the Path

872. Is the path fivefold? Yes. Was not the eightfold path said by the Blessed One, as follows - right view, etc. right concentration? Yes. If the eightfold path was said by the Blessed One, as follows - right view, etc. right concentration, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the path is fivefold."

Is the path fivefold? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

"Of paths, the eightfold is foremost; of truths, the four terms;

Dispassion is foremost of phenomena, and of two-footed beings, the one with vision."

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the path is eightfold.

873. Is right speech a path factor, and is that not the path? Yes. Is right view a path factor, and is that not the path? That should not be said. Etc. Is right speech a path factor, and is that not the path? Yes. Right thought, etc. right effort, etc. right mindfulness, etc. Is right concentration a path factor, and is that not the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Right action, etc. Is right livelihood a path factor, and is that not the path? Yes. Right view... etc. Is right concentration a path factor, and is that not the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Is right view a path factor, and is that the path? Yes. Is right speech a path factor, and is that the path? That should not be said. Etc. Is right view a path factor, and is that the path? Yes. Right action, etc. Is right livelihood a path factor, and is that the path? That should not be said. Etc.

Right thought, etc. right effort, etc. right mindfulness, etc. Is right concentration a path factor, and is that the path? Yes. Right speech, etc. right action, etc. Is right livelihood a path factor, and is that the path? That should not be said. Etc.

874. The noble eightfold path? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "But already his bodily action, verbal action, and livelihood are well purified; thus this noble eightfold path goes to fulfilment through development for him"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the path is fivefold.

875. Is the path fivefold? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "In whatever Teaching and discipline, Subhadda, the noble eightfold path is not found, an ascetic is not found there, a second ascetic is not found there, a third ascetic is not found there, a fourth ascetic is not found there. But in whatever Teaching and discipline, Subhadda, the noble eightfold path is found, an ascetic is found there, a second ascetic etc. a third ascetic etc. a fourth ascetic is found there. In this Teaching and discipline, Subhadda, the noble eightfold path is found. Here only, Subhadda, is an ascetic, here is a second ascetic, here is a third ascetic, here is a fourth ascetic. The other doctrines are empty of other ascetics"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, the path is eightfold.

The Treatise on the Path is concluded.

20. Twentieth Chapter

(199) 6.

Treatise on Knowledge

876. Is knowledge with twelve bases supramundane? Yes. Are there twelve supramundane knowledges? That should not be said. Etc. Are there twelve supramundane knowledges? Yes. Are there twelve paths of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Are there twelve paths of stream-entry? Yes. Are there twelve fruitions of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Twelve paths of once-returning, etc. Paths of non-returning, etc. Are there paths of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc. Are there twelve paths of arahantship? Yes. Are there twelve fruitions of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

877. Should it not be said - "Knowledge with twelve bases is supramundane"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "'This is the noble truth of suffering' - thus, monks, regarding things not heard before, vision arose for me, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, true knowledge arose, light arose. 'But this noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been fully understood' - thus, monks, etc. 'This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been abandoned' - thus, monks, etc. 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been realized' - thus, monks, etc. 'This is the noble truth of the practice leading to the cessation of suffering' - thus, monks, etc. 'But this noble truth of the practice leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed' - thus, monks, etc. 'has been developed' - thus, monks, regarding things not heard before, vision arose for me, etc. light arose"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, knowledge with twelve bases is supramundane.

The treatise on knowledge is concluded.

Twentieth Chapter.

Its summary:

A matricide is one with immediate result, a patricide is one with immediate result, a killer of a Worthy One is one with immediate result, one who draws blood is one with immediate result, a schismatic is one with immediate result, there is no knowledge for a worldling, there are no guardians in hell, there are animals among the gods, the fivefold path, knowledge with twelve bases is supramundane.

The Fourth Fifty.

Its summary:

Refutation, accumulation of merit, stood, and with the past a matricide.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(200) 1.

Treatise on the Dispensation

878. Has the Dispensation been made new? Yes. Have the establishments of mindfulness been made new? That should not be said. Etc. Has the Dispensation been made new? Yes. Are the right strivings, etc. the bases for spiritual power, etc. the faculties, etc. the powers, etc. the factors of enlightenment been made new? That should not be said. Etc. Has what was formerly unwholesome been made wholesome afterwards? That should not be said. Etc. Has what was formerly with mental corruptions, etc. subject to mental fetters, subject to mental knots, subject to mental floods, subject to mental bonds, subject to mental hindrances, adhered to, subject to clinging, etc. subject to defilement been made not subject to defilement afterwards? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there anyone who makes the Tathāgata's Dispensation new? Yes. Is there anyone who makes the establishments of mindfulness new? That should not be said. Etc. Is there anyone who makes the right strivings, etc. the bases for spiritual power, etc. the faculties, etc. the powers, etc. the factors of enlightenment new? That should not be said. Etc. Is there anyone who makes what was formerly unwholesome into wholesome afterwards? That should not be said. Etc. Is there anyone who makes what was formerly with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement into not subject to defilement afterwards? That should not be said. Etc.

Is it possible to make the Tathāgata's Dispensation new again? Yes. Is it possible to make the establishments of mindfulness new again? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible to make the right strivings, etc. the bases for spiritual power, etc. the faculties, etc. the powers, etc. the factors of enlightenment new again? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible to make what was formerly unwholesome afterwards wholesome? That should not be said. Etc. Is it possible to make what was formerly with mental corruptions, etc. subject to defilement afterwards not subject to defilement? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Dispensation is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(201) 2.

Discussion on the Non-Secluded

879. Is a worldling not secluded from mental states of the three elements? Yes. Is a worldling not secluded from contacts of the three elements? Etc. from feelings of the three elements... from perceptions... from volitions... from consciousnesses... from faiths... from energies... from mindfulnesses... from concentrations... etc. Is a worldling not secluded from wisdoms of the three elements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a worldling not secluded from actions of the three elements? Yes. At the moment when a worldling gives a robe, at that moment does he enter and dwell in the first meditative absorption? Etc. Does he enter and dwell in the plane of infinite space? That should not be said. Etc. At the moment when a worldling gives almsfood... etc. gives lodging... etc. gives the requisite of medicines for the sick, at that moment does he enter and dwell in the fourth meditative absorption... Does he enter and dwell in the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? That should not be said. Etc.

880. Should it not be said - "A worldling is not secluded from actions of the three elements"? Yes. Has action leading to the fine-material sphere element and immaterial sphere element been fully understood by a worldling? That should not be said. If so, a worldling is not secluded from actions of the three elements. Etc.

The Discussion on the Non-Secluded is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(202) 3.

Discussion on Fetters

881. Is there attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter? Yes. Is there without abandoning any identity view... etc. without abandoning sceptical doubt... etc. without abandoning adherence to moral rules and austerities... without abandoning lust... without abandoning hate... without abandoning delusion... without abandoning moral fearlessness, attainment of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter? Yes. Is a Worthy One with lust, with hate, with delusion, with conceit, with contempt, with insolence, with anguish, with mental defilement? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One is without lust, without hate, without delusion, free from conceit, without contempt, without insolence, without anguish, free from mental defilement? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust... etc. free from mental defilement, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter."

882. Should it not be said - "there is attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter"? Yes. Does a Worthy One know the entire domain of a Buddha? That should not be said. If so, there is attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter.

The Discussion on Fetters is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(203) 4.

Treatise on Supernormal Power

883. Is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? Yes. "Let trees have permanent leaves" - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc. let trees have permanent flowers... etc. let trees have permanent fruit... let there be permanent moonlight... let there be permanent security... let there be permanent plenty of food... "Let there be permanent well-being" - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? Yes. "Let arisen contact not cease" - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Arisen feeling... etc. perception... volition... consciousness... faith... energy... mindfulness, concentration, etc. let wisdom not cease - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? Yes. "Let matter be permanent" - is there supernormal power of intention... feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. "Let consciousness be permanent" - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? Yes. "Let beings subject to birth not be born" - is there... etc. "Let beings subject to ageing not age"... etc. "Let beings subject to disease not become diseased"... etc. "Let beings subject to death not die" - is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples? That should not be said. Etc.

884. Should it not be said - "is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples"? Yes. Did not the Venerable Pilindavaccha resolve upon the mansion of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha as "gold", and it became gold? Yes. If the Venerable Pilindavaccha resolved upon the mansion of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha as gold, and it became gold, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "there is supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples".

The Treatise on Supernormal Power is concluded.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(204) 5.

Discussion on the Buddha

885. Is there inferiority or superiority among Buddhas compared to Buddhas? Yes. With respect to the establishments of mindfulness? That should not be said. Etc. With respect to the right strivings? Etc. With respect to the bases for spiritual power? With respect to the faculties? With respect to the powers? With respect to the factors of enlightenment? With respect to mastery? Etc. With respect to the knowledge and vision of omniscience? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on the Buddha is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(205) 6.

Discussion on All Directions

886. Do Buddhas remain in all directions? Yes. Does a Buddha remain in the eastern direction? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Buddha remain in the eastern direction? Yes. What is the name of that Blessed One, what is his birth, what is his clan, what are the names of that Blessed One's mother and father, what is the name of that Blessed One's pair of disciples, what is the name of that Blessed One's attendant, what kind of robe does he wear, what kind of bowl does he carry, in which village or town or city or country or province? That should not be said. Etc.

In the southern direction, etc. In the western direction, etc. In the northern direction, etc. Does a Buddha remain in the lower direction? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Buddha remain in the lower direction? Yes. What is the name of that Blessed One, etc. or in a province? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Buddha remain in the upper direction? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Buddha remain in the upper direction? Yes. Does he remain among the gods ruled by the Four Great Kings, etc. Does he remain among the Thirty-three, etc. Does he remain among the Yāma, etc. Does he remain among the Tusita, etc. Does he remain among the gods who delight in creating, etc. Does he remain among the gods who control others' creations, etc. Does he remain in the Brahma world? That should not be said. Etc.

The Discussion on All Directions is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(206) 7.

Discussion on the Teaching

887. Are all phenomena fixed in destination? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. There is no undetermined category? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not an undetermined category? Yes. If there is an undetermined category, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All phenomena are fixed in destination."

Are all phenomena fixed in destination? Yes. Were not three categories said by the Blessed One - The category with fixed course of the wrong path, the category with fixed course of the right path, the undetermined category? Yes. If three categories were said by the Blessed One - The category with fixed course of the wrong path, the category with fixed course of the right path, the undetermined category, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All phenomena are fixed in destination."

Is materiality fixed in destination in the meaning of materiality? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is consciousness fixed in destination in the meaning of consciousness? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc.

888. Should it not be said - materiality is fixed in destination in the meaning of materiality... etc. feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. Is consciousness fixed in destination in the meaning of consciousness? Yes. Does materiality become feeling... etc. become perception... become activities... become consciousness... feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. does consciousness become materiality... etc. feeling exists... become perception... become activities? That should not be said. If so, materiality is fixed in destination in the meaning of materiality, feeling... etc. perception... etc. activities... etc. consciousness is fixed in destination in the meaning of consciousness.

The Discussion on the Teaching is finished.

21. Twenty-first Chapter

(207) 8.

The Treatise on Action

889. Are all actions fixed in destination? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. There is no undetermined category? That should not be said. Etc. Is there not an undetermined category? Yes. If there is an undetermined category, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All actions are fixed in destination."

Are all actions fixed in destination? Yes. Were not three categories said by the Blessed One - The category with fixed course of the wrong path, the category with fixed course of the right path, the undetermined category? Yes. If three categories were said by the Blessed One - The category with fixed course of the wrong path, the category with fixed course of the right path, the undetermined category, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All actions are fixed in destination."

890. Is action experienced in present life fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced in present life? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. Action experienced in next life, etc. Is action experienced from one life to another fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced from one life to another? Yes. With fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc. With fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc.

891. Should it not be said - action experienced in present life is fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced in present life, action experienced in next life, etc. Is action experienced from one life to another fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced from one life to another? Yes. Action experienced in present life becomes experienced in next life, becomes experienced from one life to another, etc. Action experienced in next life becomes experienced in present life, becomes experienced from one life to another, etc. Action experienced from one life to another becomes experienced in present life, becomes experienced in next life? That should not be said. If so, action experienced in present life is fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced in present life, action experienced in next life, etc. action experienced from one life to another is fixed in destination in the meaning of experienced from one life to another.

The Treatise on Action is concluded.

Twenty-first Chapter.

Its summary:

The Dispensation has been made new, is there anyone who makes the Tathāgata's Dispensation new, is it possible to make the Tathāgata's Dispensation new again, a worldling is not secluded from mental states of the three elements, is there attainment of arahantship without abandoning any mental fetter, is there supernormal power of intention for Buddhas or disciples, is there inferiority or superiority among Buddhas compared to Buddhas, Buddhas remain in all directions, all phenomena are fixed in destination, all actions are fixed in destination.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(208) 1.

Discussion on Final Nibbāna

892. Is there final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter? Yes. Is there without abandoning any identity view... etc. without abandoning moral fearlessness, final nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

Is there final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter? Yes. Is a Worthy One with lust... etc. with mental defilement? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One is without lust... etc. free from mental defilement? Yes. If a Worthy One is without lust... etc. free from mental defilement, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "there is final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter."

893. Should it not be said - "there is final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter"? Yes. Does a Worthy One know the entire domain of a Buddha? That should not be said. If so, there is final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter.

The discussion on final nibbāna is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(209) 2.

Discussion on Wholesome Consciousness

894. Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness? Yes. Does a Worthy One generating meritorious volitional activity... generating imperturbable volitional activity... performing action leading to destination... performing action leading to existence... performing action leading to supremacy... performing action leading to lordship... performing action leading to great wealth... performing action leading to great retinue... performing action leading to divine fortune... performing action leading to human fortune attain final nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness? Yes. Does a Worthy One accumulating, diminishing, abandoning, clinging, scattering, heaping up, extinguishing, kindling attain final nibbāna? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes; having diminished, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither accumulates nor diminishes, having diminished, stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness." Is it not that a Worthy One neither abandons nor clings, having abandoned, stands firm; neither scatters nor heaps up, having scattered, stands firm; is it not that a Worthy One neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, he stands firm? Yes. If a Worthy One neither extinguishes nor kindles, having extinguished, he stands firm, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness."

895. Should it not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness"? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One attains final nibbāna mindful, having established mindfulness, fully aware? Yes. If a Worthy One attains final nibbāna mindful, having established mindfulness, fully aware, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness."

The discussion on wholesome consciousness is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(210) 3.

Discussion on Imperturbability

896. Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in imperturbability? Yes. Is it not that a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in normal consciousness? Yes. If a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in normal consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability."

Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in imperturbability? Yes. Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in functional consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in resultant consciousness? Yes. If a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in resultant consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability."

Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in imperturbability? Yes. Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in functional-indeterminate consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in resultant indeterminate consciousness? Yes. If a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in resultant indeterminate consciousness, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability."

Does a Worthy One attain final nibbāna while established in imperturbability? Yes. Is it not that the Blessed One, having emerged from the fourth meditative absorption, immediately attained final Nibbāna? Yes. If the Blessed One, having emerged from the fourth meditative absorption, immediately attained final Nibbāna, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability."

The discussion on imperturbability is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(211) 4.

Discussion on Full Realization of the Teaching

897. Is there full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb? Yes. Is there teaching of the Teaching, hearing of the Teaching, discussion of the Teaching, interrogation, undertaking of morality, guarding the doors of the sense faculties, moderation in eating, pursuit of wakefulness in the first and last watches of the night during conception in a womb? That should not be said. Etc. There is not teaching of the Teaching, hearing of the Teaching, etc. during conception in a womb? Pursuit of wakefulness in the first and last watches of the night? Yes. If there is not teaching of the Teaching, hearing of the Teaching, etc. during conception in a womb, pursuit of wakefulness in the first and last watches of the night, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb."

Is there full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb? Yes. Are there not two conditions for the arising of right view - the utterance of another and wise attention? Yes. If there are two conditions for the arising of right view - the utterance of another and wise attention, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "There is full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb."

Is there full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb? Yes. Is there full realization of the teaching for one who is asleep, heedless, unmindful, and not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on full realization of the teaching is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(212-4) 5-7.

Discussion on Tissa Too

898. Is there attainment of arahantship during conception in a womb? Yes. Is there attainment of arahantship for one who is asleep, heedless, unmindful, and not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

899. Is there full realization of the teaching for one who is dreaming? Yes. Is there full realization of the teaching for one who is asleep, heedless, unmindful, and not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

900. Is there attainment of arahantship for one who is dreaming? Yes. Is there attainment of arahantship for one who is asleep, heedless, unmindful, and not fully aware? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on Tissa too is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(215) 8.

The Discussion on the Indeterminate

901. Is all consciousness of one who is dreaming indeterminate? Yes. Would one kill a living being in a dream? Yes. If one would kill a living being in a dream, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate."

Would one take what is not given in a dream? Etc. Would speak falsely, would speak divisively, would speak harshly, would engage in idle chatter, would break into houses, would plunder, would commit burglary, would wait in ambush, would go to another's wife, would sack a village, would sack a market town, would engage in sexual intercourse in a dream, would emit semen while dreaming, would give a gift in a dream, would give a robe, would give almsfood, would give lodging, would give the requisite of medicines for the sick, would give solid food, would give soft food, would give drinking water, would venerate a shrine, would place a garland at a shrine, would place odour, would place cosmetics? Etc. Would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right? Yes. If one would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right in a dream, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "All consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate."

902. Should it not be said - "All consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One that the consciousness of one who is dreaming is without consequence? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One that the consciousness of one who is dreaming is without consequence, then indeed, hey, it should be said - "All consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate."

The discussion on the indeterminate is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(216) 9.

Discussion on Repetition Condition

903. There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Killing living beings, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, conducive to the animal realm, conducive to the sphere of ghosts. Whatever is the very lightest result of killing living beings, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to a short life span." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Taking what is not given, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, conducive to the animal realm, conducive to the sphere of ghosts. Whatever is the very lightest result of taking what is not given, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to disaster of wealth. Etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of sexual misconduct, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to enmity with rivals. Etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of lying, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to false accusation. Etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of divisive speech, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to breaking with friends. Etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of harsh speech, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to disagreeable sounds. Etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of idle chatter, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to speech not to be heeded. Drinking spirits and liquor, monks, when practised, etc. Whatever is the very lightest result of drinking spirits and liquor, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to madness." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

904. There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Wrong view, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, conducive to the animal realm, conducive to the sphere of ghosts." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Wrong thought, etc. wrong concentration, monks, when practised, developed, etc. is conducive to the sphere of ghosts"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

905. There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Right view, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, is grounded upon the Deathless, heading for the Deathless, having the Deathless as its final goal"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

There is no repetition conditionality whatsoever? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Right thought, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, etc. right concentration, monks, when practised, developed, and cultivated, is grounded upon the Deathless, heading for the Deathless, having the Deathless as its final goal" - is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is some repetition conditionality.

The discussion on repetition condition is finished.

22. Twenty-second Chapter

(217) 10.

Discussion on the Momentary

906. Are all phenomena lasting one mind-moment? Yes. Does the great earth remain in consciousness, does the great ocean remain, does Sineru the king of mountains remain, does water remain, does fire remain, does air remain, do grass, wood, and trees remain? That should not be said. Etc.

Are all phenomena lasting one mind-moment? Yes. Is the eye sense base conascent with eye-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the eye sense base conascent with eye-consciousness? Yes. Did not the Venerable Sāriputta say this - "Friends, when the internal eye is intact, but external forms do not come into range, and there is no corresponding attentiveness, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. Friends, when the internal eye is intact, and external forms come into range, but there is no corresponding attentiveness, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when, friends, the internal eye is intact, and external forms come into range, and there is corresponding attentiveness, thus there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The eye sense base is conascent with eye-consciousness."

The ear sense base... etc. nose sense base... etc. tongue sense base... etc. Is the body sense base conascent with body-consciousness? That should not be said. Etc. Is the body sense base conascent with body-consciousness? Yes. Did not the Venerable Sāriputta say this - "Friends, when the internal body is intact, but external tangible objects do not come into range, and there is no... etc. Friends, when the internal body is intact, and external tangible objects come into range, but there is no... etc. But when, friends, the internal body is intact, and external tangible objects come into range, and there is corresponding attentiveness, thus there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "The body sense base is conascent with body-consciousness."

907. Should it not be said - "All phenomena are lasting one mind-moment"? Yes. Are all phenomena permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? That should not be said. If so, all phenomena are lasting one mind-moment.

The discussion on the momentary is finished.

Twenty-second Chapter.

Its summary:

There is final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter, a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness, a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability, there is full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb, there is attainment of arahantship during conception in a womb, there is full realization of the teaching for one who is dreaming, there is attainment of arahantship for one who is dreaming, all consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate, there is no repetition conditionality whatsoever, all phenomena are lasting one mind-moment.

23. Twenty-third Chapter

(218) 1.

Discussion on One Intention

908. Should sexual intercourse be indulged in with one intention? Yes. Should one become a non-recluse with one intention, should one become a non-monk with one intention, should one become one whose root is cut with one intention, should one become one who is expelled with one intention? That should not be said. Etc. Should sexual intercourse be indulged in with one intention? Yes. Should a living being be killed with one intention, should what is not given be taken, should falsehood be spoken, should divisive speech be spoken, should harsh speech be spoken, should idle chatter be engaged in, should houses be broken into, should plundering be done, should burglary be committed, should one wait in ambush, should another's wife be gone to, should a village be sacked, should a market town be sacked? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on one intention is finished.

23. Twenty-third Chapter

(219) 2.

Discussion on Praise of the Worthy One

909. Do nonhuman spirits engage in sexual intercourse in the appearance of Worthy Ones? Yes. Do nonhuman spirits in the appearance of Worthy Ones kill living beings? Etc. Do they take what is not given, speak falsely, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, break into houses, plunder, commit burglary, wait in ambush, go to another's wife, sack a village? Etc. Do they sack a market town? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on praise of the Worthy One is finished.

23. Twenty-third Chapter

(220-4) 3-7.

Discussion on Supremacy, Sensual Pleasure, Commentary, and so on

910. Does a Bodhisatta go to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. Does a Bodhisatta because of acting according to the desire for supremacy go to hell, go to Sañjīva, go to Kālasutta, go to Tāpana, go to Mahātāpana, go to Saṅghātaka, go to Roruva, etc. go to Avīci? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Bodhisatta go to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. "A Bodhisatta goes to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. If "a Bodhisatta goes to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - there is no such discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "a Bodhisatta goes to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy."

911. Does a Bodhisatta enter upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. Would a Bodhisatta be reborn in hell because of acting according to the desire for supremacy, would he be reborn in the animal realm? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Bodhisatta enter upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. Does a Bodhisatta possess supernormal power? That should not be said. Etc. Does a Bodhisatta possess supernormal power? Yes. Has the basis for spiritual power of desire been developed by a Bodhisatta? Etc. The basis for spiritual power of energy, etc. The basis for spiritual power of developed mind, etc. Has the basis for spiritual power of investigation been developed? That should not be said. Etc.

Does a Bodhisatta enter upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. "A Bodhisatta enters upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. If "a Bodhisatta enters upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - there is no such discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "A Bodhisatta enters upon conception in a womb because of acting according to the desire for supremacy."

912. Did the Bodhisatta perform austerities because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. Did the Bodhisatta because of acting according to the desire for supremacy return to "the world is eternal," "the world is non-eternal," etc. "The world is finite," etc. "The world is infinite," "The soul is the same as the body," "The soul is one thing and the body another," "The Tathāgata exists after death," "The Tathāgata does not exist after death," "The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death," etc. Did he return to "the Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death"? That should not be said. Etc.

Did the Bodhisatta perform austerities because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. "The Bodhisatta performed austerities because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. If "the Bodhisatta performed austerities because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - there is no such discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "The Bodhisatta performed austerities because of acting according to the desire for supremacy."

913. Did the Bodhisatta because of acting according to the desire for supremacy practise self-mortification and point to another teacher? Yes. Did the Bodhisatta because of acting according to the desire for supremacy return to "the world is eternal," etc. Did he return to "the Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death"? That should not be said. Etc.

914. Did the Bodhisatta point to another teacher because of acting according to the desire for supremacy? Yes. "The Bodhisatta pointed to another teacher because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - Is there such a discourse? There is not. If "the Bodhisatta pointed to another teacher because of acting according to the desire for supremacy" - there is no such discourse, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the Bodhisatta pointed to another teacher because of acting according to the desire for supremacy."

The discussion on supremacy, sensuality and action is finished.

23. Twenty-third Chapter

(225) 8.

Discussion on the Suitable

915. Is there what is not lust resembling lust? Yes. Is there what is not contact resembling contact, is there what is not feeling resembling feeling, is there what is not perception resembling perception, is there what is not volition resembling volition, is there what is not consciousness resembling consciousness, is there what is not faith resembling faith, is there what is not energy resembling energy, is there what is not mindfulness resembling mindfulness, is there what is not concentration resembling concentration, is there what is not wisdom resembling wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

916. Is there what is not hate resembling hate, is there what is not delusion resembling delusion, is there what is not mental defilement resembling mental defilement? Yes. Is there what is not contact resembling contact? Etc. Is there what is not wisdom resembling wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the suitable is finished.

23. Twenty-third Chapter

(226) 9.

Discussion on Not Predetermined

917. Is matter not predetermined? Yes. Is matter not impermanent, not conditioned, not dependently arisen, not subject to destruction, not having the nature of falling, not subject to fading away, not having the nature of cessation, not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that matter is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change? Yes. If matter is impermanent, conditioned, etc. subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "matter is not predetermined".

Is only suffering predetermined? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - "matter is impermanent"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - "matter is impermanent", then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "only suffering is predetermined". Etc.

918. Feeling... etc. perception... activities... consciousness... The eye sense base... etc. the mind-object sense base... the eye-element... the element of phenomena... the eye-faculty, etc. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge not predetermined? Yes. Is the faculty of one who has final knowledge not impermanent... etc. not subject to change? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the faculty of one who has final knowledge is impermanent, conditioned... etc. subject to change? Yes. If the faculty of one who has final knowledge is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, having the nature of falling, subject to fading away, having the nature of cessation, subject to change, then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "the faculty of one who has final knowledge is not predetermined".

Is only suffering predetermined? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - "the faculty of one who has final knowledge is impermanent"? Yes. If it was said by the Blessed One, "What is impermanent, that is suffering" - "the faculty of one who has final knowledge is impermanent", then indeed, hey, it should not be said - "only suffering is predetermined".

The discussion on not predetermined is finished.

Twenty-third Chapter.

Its summary:

Sexual intercourse should be indulged in with one intention, nonhuman spirits engage in sexual intercourse in the appearance of Worthy Ones, a Bodhisatta goes to the nether world because of acting according to the desire for supremacy, enters upon conception in a womb, performed austerities, practised self-mortification, pointed to another teacher, is there what is not lust resembling lust, is there what is not hate resembling hate, is there what is not delusion resembling delusion, is there what is not mental defilement resembling mental defilement, matter is not predetermined, the faculty of one who has final knowledge is not predetermined.

The Minor Half-Fifty.

Its summary:

New, quenching, with one intention.

Summary of the fifty:

The great procedure, underlying tendencies, refutation, the minor fifth;

Crushing of others' doctrines, grounded in the discourse root;

Illumination in the Teacher's time, the Points of Controversy treatise.

Thirty-five recitation sections.

The Points of Controversy treatise is finished.

Text

View

Font

Theme

05. Points of Controversy

All

Root Texts

Commentaries

Sub Commentaries

Chapters

Bookmarks

Hello ,How can i help you ?

Canon of the Higher Teaching

Points of Controversy

1.

Discussion on the Existence of 'Person'

1.

Pure Highest Truth

1.

Conformity and Reverse

1.

Pure Highest Truth

2.

Reverse and Conformity

2.

Highest Truth with Permission

1.

Conformity and Reverse

3.

Highest Truth with Time

1.

Conformity and Reverse

4.

Highest Truth with Constituent

1.

Conformity and Reverse

2.

Highest Truth with Permission

2.

Reverse and Conformity

3.

Highest Truth with Time

2.

Reverse and Conformity

4.

Highest Truth with Constituent

2.

Reverse and Conformity

5.

The Pure Comparison

6.

The Comparison by Simile

7.

The Comparison by the Tetrad Method

8.

The Discussion on Characteristic and Reasoning

9.

The Purification of Expression

10.

The Pursuit of Designation

11.

The Pursuit of Destination

12.

The Pursuit of Derived Designation

13.

The Pursuit of Personal Effort

14.

The Pursuit of Direct Knowledge

15-18.

The Pursuit of Relatives and so on

19.

The Pursuit of Penetration

20.

Pursuit of the Community

21.

Pursuit of the Common Highest Truth

2.

Discussion on Falling Away

1.

Decline in Logical Consistency of the Argument