[21] And the eye faculty (cakkhundriya) is found in a real and ultimate sense (sacchikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhena) … and the ear faculty (sotindriya) is found … and the nose faculty (ghānindriya) is found … and the tongue faculty (jivhindriya) is found … and the body faculty (kāyindriya) is found … and the mind faculty (manindriya) is found … and the life faculty (jīvitindriya) is found … and the femininity faculty (itthindriya) is found … and the masculinity faculty (purisindriya) is found … and the bodily-pleasure faculty (sukhindriya) is found … and the bodily-pain faculty (dukkhindriya) is found … and the joy faculty (somanassindriya) is found … and the grief faculty (domanassindriya) is found … and the equanimity faculty (upekkhindriya) is found … and the faith faculty (saddhindriya) is found … and the energy faculty (viriyindriya) is found … and the mindfulness faculty (satindriya) is found … and the concentration faculty (samādhindriya) is found … and the wisdom faculty (paññindriya) is found … and the faculty "I shall come to know the unknown" (anaññātaññassāmītindriya) is found … and the perfect-knowledge faculty (aññindriya) is found … and the perfect-knower faculty (aññātāvindriya) is found in a real and ultimate sense?
Yes.
Is the perfect-knower faculty one thing and the person (puggala) another?
It should not be said thus.
Acknowledge the refutation (niggaha): If the person is found in a real and ultimate sense, and the perfect-knower faculty is found in a real and ultimate sense, then indeed, good sir, it should be said that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing and the person another. What you say therein — that it should indeed be said, "The person is found in a real and ultimate sense, and the perfect-knower faculty is found in a real and ultimate sense," but it should not be said, "The perfect-knower faculty is one thing and the person another" — is wrong. But if it should not be said, "The perfect-knower faculty is one thing and the person another," then indeed, good sir, it should not be said, "The person is found in a real and ultimate sense, and the perfect-knower faculty is found in a real and ultimate sense." What you say therein — that it should indeed be said, "The person is found in a real and ultimate sense, and the perfect-knower faculty is found in a real and ultimate sense," but it should not be said, "The perfect-knower faculty is one thing and the person another" — is wrong. …
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.