[506] When one attends as impermanent, what dhammas does one know (pajānāti) and see as they really are? How is there right seeing (sammādassana)? How, following upon that, are all formations (saṅkhārā) well seen as impermanent? Where is doubt abandoned?
When one attends as suffering (dukkha), what dhammas does one know and see as they really are? How is there right seeing? How, following upon that, are all formations well seen as suffering? Where is doubt abandoned?
When one attends as not-self, what dhammas does one know and see as they really are? How is there right seeing? How, following upon that, are all dhammas well seen as not-self? Where is doubt abandoned?
When attending as impermanent, one knows and sees the sign (nimitta) as it really is; therefore it is called right seeing. Thus, following upon that, all formations are well seen as impermanent; here doubt is abandoned.
When attending as suffering, one knows and sees occurrence (pavatta) as it really is; therefore it is called right seeing. Thus, following upon that, all formations are well seen as suffering; here doubt is abandoned.
When attending as not-self, one knows and sees both the sign and occurrence as they really are; therefore it is called right seeing. Thus, following upon that, all dhammas are well seen as not-self; here doubt is abandoned.
Knowledge (ñāṇa) of things as they really are, right seeing, and the overcoming of doubt (kaṅkhāvitaraṇa): are these dhammas different in meaning and different in phrasing, or are they one in meaning, differing only in phrasing? Knowledge of things as they really are, right seeing, and the overcoming of doubt — these dhammas are one in meaning, differing only in phrasing.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.