[57]
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 practises for his own welfare"?
S. Yes.
P. Is the person in form (rūpa)? … Is the person apart from form? … Is form in the person? … Is feeling (vedanā) the person? … Is the person in feeling? … Is the person apart from feeling? … Is feeling in the person? … Is perception (saññā) the person? … Is the person in perception? … Is the person apart from perception? … Is perception in the person? … Are volitional formations (saṅkhārā) the person? … Is the person in volitional formations? … Is the person apart from volitional formations? … Are volitional formations in the person? … Is consciousness (viññāṇa) the person? … Is the person in consciousness? … Is the person apart from consciousness? … Is consciousness in the person?
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 practises for his own welfare," then indeed, good sir, it should be said that consciousness is in the person. What you say there — namely, that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practises for his own welfare," but that it should not be said that consciousness is in the person — is wrong. But if it should not be said that consciousness is in the person, then indeed, good sir, it should not be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practises for his own welfare." What you say there — namely, that it should indeed be said that it was said by the Blessed One, "There is a person who practises for his own welfare," but that it should not be said that consciousness is in the person — is wrong. …
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.