[179]
P. Should it not be said, "The person (puggala) is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact (sacchikaṭṭha-paramaṭṭhena)"?
S. Yes.
P. Is there not someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body (kāye kāyānupassī)?
S. Yes.
P. If there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body, then indeed, good sir, you should say, "The person is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact."
P. Should it not be said, "The person is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact"?
S. Yes.
P. Is there not someone who, in feelings (vedanā) … in mind (citta) … dwells contemplating dhammas (dhammā) in dhammas?
S. Yes.
P. If there is someone who dwells contemplating dhammas in dhammas, then indeed, good sir, you should say, "The person is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact."
S. Taking it that "there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body," is it then for that reason that the person is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?
P. Yes.
S. He who dwells contemplating the body in the body — is that very one the person; and he who does not dwell contemplating the body in the body — is he not the person?
P. It should not be said thus. …
S. He who, in feelings … in mind … dwells contemplating dhammas in dhammas — is that very one the person; and he who does not dwell contemplating dhammas in dhammas — is he not the person?
P. It should not be said thus. …
S. Taking it that "there is someone who dwells contemplating the body in the body," is it then for that reason that the person is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?
P. Yes.
S. Is the body one thing, and he who dwells contemplating the body in the body another?
P. It should not be said thus. …
S. Are feelings one thing … is mind one thing … are dhammas one thing, and he who dwells contemplating dhammas in dhammas another?
P. It should not be said thus. …
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.