[49] [Puggalavādin:] "The ear faculty (sotindriya) is apprehended … the perfect-knower faculty (aññātāvindriya) is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense (sacchikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhena), and the eye faculty (cakkhundriya) is apprehended … and the perfect-knowledge faculty (aññindriya) is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense: the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the perfect-knowledge faculty another?"
[Sakavādin:] "Yes."
[Puggalavādin:] "The Blessed One said, 'There is a person (puggala) who practices for his own welfare,' and the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense?"
[Sakavādin:] "Yes."
[Puggalavādin:] "The perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the person another?"
[Sakavādin:] "It should not be said so."
[Puggalavādin:] "Acknowledge the rejoinder (paṭikamma): If the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense and the perfect-knowledge faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense; if the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the perfect-knowledge faculty another; and if the Blessed One said, 'There is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense — then indeed, good sir, it should be said that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the person another. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense and that the perfect-knowledge faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense, that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the perfect-knowledge faculty another, that the Blessed One said, 'There is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense, but that it should not be said that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the person another — is wrong. But if it should not be said that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the person another, then indeed, good sir, it should not be said that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense and that the perfect-knowledge faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense, that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the perfect-knowledge faculty another, that the Blessed One said, 'There is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense. What you say there — that it should indeed be said that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense and that the perfect-knowledge faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense, that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the perfect-knowledge faculty another, that the Blessed One said, 'There is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and that the perfect-knower faculty is apprehended in the real and ultimate sense, but that it should not be said that the perfect-knower faculty is one thing, the person another — is wrong. …"
[Here ends] the Comparison by Simile (opammasaṃsandanaṃ).
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.