[10] [Sakavādin:] I am not to be refuted thus. Now then, as to that wherewith you refute (niggaṇhāsi) me — "If the person (puggala) is not apprehended (nūpalabbhati) in the sense of what is real and ultimate (sacchikaṭṭha-paramaṭṭhena), then indeed, good sir, it should be said: 'Whatever is real and ultimate — the person is not apprehended in accordance with that (tato), in the sense of what is real and ultimate.' What you say there — 'It should be said that the person is not apprehended in the sense of what is real and ultimate, but it should not be said that whatever is real and ultimate, the person is not apprehended in accordance with that, in the sense of what is real and ultimate' — is wrong. But if it should not be said that whatever is real and ultimate, the person is not apprehended in accordance with that, in the sense of what is real and ultimate, then indeed, good sir, neither should it be said that the person is not apprehended in the sense of what is real and ultimate. What you say there — 'It should be said that the person is not apprehended in the sense of what is real and ultimate, but it should not be said that whatever is real and ultimate, the person is not apprehended in accordance with that, in the sense of what is real and ultimate' — this of yours is wrong." — Therefore the refutation (niggaha) that you made — that refutation is ill done; the rejoinder (paṭikamma) is well done; the carrying-through of the argument (paṭipādanā) is well done.
The Conclusion Tetrad (niggama-catukka).
The Second Refutation.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.