[3] But if you think: "It should indeed be said: 'The person (puggala) is not apprehended (nūpalabbhati) in a real and ultimate sense (saccikaṭṭha-paramaṭṭhena)'; yet it should not be said: 'That which is real and ultimate (yo saccikaṭṭho paramaṭṭho) — in terms of that, that person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense'" — then, in this matter, by this very admission (paṭiññā), you who admit thus are to be refuted (niggahetabba) thus. So then we refute you: you are indeed well refuted. If the person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense, then indeed, good sir, it should be said: "That which is real and ultimate — in terms of that, that person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense." What you say there — "It should indeed be said: 'The person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense'; yet it should not be said: 'That which is real and ultimate — in terms of that, that person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense'" — is wrong. But if it should not be said: "That which is real and ultimate — in terms of that, that person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense," then indeed, good sir, it should not be said: "The person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense." What you say there — "It should indeed be said: 'The person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense'; yet it should not be said: 'That which is real and ultimate — in terms of that, that person is not apprehended in a real and ultimate sense'" — this of yours is wrong.
The Refutation Tetrad (Niggahacatukka)
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.