[22]
P.: Is the person (puggala) not apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact (sacchikaṭṭha-paramaṭṭha)?
S.: Yes.
P.: Was it said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare,"¹ and is form (rūpa) apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?
S.: Yes.
P.: Is form one thing and the person another?
S.: It should not be said thus.
P.: Acknowledge the rejoinder (paṭikamma): If it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and form is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, then indeed, sir, it should be said that form is one thing and the person another. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that form is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but that it should not be said that form is one thing and the person another — is wrong. But if it should not be said that form is one thing and the person another, then indeed, sir, it should not be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that form is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that form is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but that it should not be said that form is one thing and the person another — is wrong. …
P.: Is the person not apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?
S.: Yes.
P.: Was it said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and is feeling (vedanā) apprehended … and is perception (saññā) apprehended … and are volitional formations (saṅkhārā) apprehended … and is consciousness (viññāṇa) apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?
S.: Yes.
P.: Is consciousness one thing and the person another?
S.: It should not be said thus.
P.: Acknowledge the rejoinder: If it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and consciousness is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, then indeed, sir, it should be said that consciousness is one thing and the person another. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that consciousness is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but that it should not be said that consciousness is one thing and the person another — is wrong. But if it should not be said that consciousness is one thing and the person another, then indeed, sir, it should not be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that consciousness is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practices for his own welfare," and that consciousness is apprehended in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but that it should not be said that consciousness is one thing and the person another — is wrong. …
¹ Abhi. Pu. (Puggalapaññatti) 127.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.