[508] When one attends [to formations] as impermanent, reflecting on what does knowledge (ñāṇa) arise? When one attends [to them] as suffering (dukkha), reflecting on what does knowledge arise? When one attends [to them] as not-self, reflecting on what does knowledge arise? When one attends [to them] as impermanent, knowledge arises reflecting on the sign (nimitta); when one attends [to them] as suffering, knowledge arises reflecting on the occurrence (pavatta); when one attends [to them] as not-self, knowledge arises reflecting on both the sign and the occurrence.
The desire for deliverance (muñcitukamyatā), the contemplation of reflection (paṭisaṅkhānupassanā), and equanimity toward formations (saṅkhārupekkhā) — are these dhammas different in meaning and different in phrasing, or are they one in meaning, differing only in the phrasing? The desire for deliverance, the contemplation of reflection, and equanimity toward formations: these dhammas are one in meaning; only the phrasing differs.
When one attends [to formations] as impermanent, from what does the mind (citta) emerge, and into what does the mind enter? When one attends [to them] as suffering, from what does the mind emerge, and into what does the mind enter? When one attends [to them] as not-self, from what does the mind emerge, and into what does the mind enter? When one attends [to them] as impermanent, the mind emerges from the sign, and the mind enters into the signless; when one attends [to them] as suffering, the mind emerges from the occurrence, and the mind enters into the non-occurrence; when one attends [to them] as not-self, the mind emerges from both the sign and the occurrence, and the mind enters into the Nibbāna-element that is cessation (nirodha), the signless, the non-occurring.
The wisdom in emergence and turning away externally (bahiddhā-vuṭṭhāna-vivaṭṭana) and the change-of-lineage (gotrabhū) dhammas — are these dhammas different in meaning and different in phrasing, or are they one in meaning, differing only in the phrasing? The wisdom in emergence and turning away externally and the change-of-lineage dhammas: these dhammas are one in meaning; only the phrasing differs.
When one attends [to formations] as impermanent, by which liberation (vimokkha) is one liberated? When one attends [to them] as suffering, by which liberation is one liberated? When one attends [to them] as not-self, by which liberation is one liberated? When one attends [to them] as impermanent, one is liberated by the signless liberation (animittavimokkha); when one attends [to them] as suffering, one is liberated by the desireless liberation (appaṇihitavimokkha); when one attends [to them] as not-self, one is liberated by the void liberation (suññatavimokkha).
The wisdom in emergence and turning away from both (dubhato-vuṭṭhāna-vivaṭṭana) and the knowledge of the path — are these dhammas different in meaning and different in phrasing, or are they one in meaning, differing only in the phrasing? The wisdom in emergence and turning away from both and the knowledge of the path: these dhammas are one in meaning; only the phrasing differs.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.