[59] … "Is the eye faculty (cakkhundriya) the person (puggala)? …" "Is the person in the eye faculty? …" "Is the person other than the eye faculty? …" "Is the eye faculty in the person? …" "Is the perfect-knower faculty (aññātāvindriya) the person? …" "Is the person in the perfect-knower faculty? …" "Is the person other than the perfect-knower faculty? …" "Is the perfect-knower faculty in the person?"
"It should not be said thus."
"Acknowledge the rejoinder (paṭikamma): if it was said by the Blessed One, 'There is a person who practices for his own welfare,' then indeed, good sir, it should be said, 'The perfect-knower faculty is in the person.' What you say there — namely, that it should indeed be said, 'It was said by the Blessed One: there is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and yet it should not be said, 'The perfect-knower faculty is in the person' — is wrong. But if it should not be said, 'The perfect-knower faculty is in the person,' then indeed, good sir, neither should it be said, 'It was said by the Blessed One: there is a person who practices for his own welfare.' What you say there — namely, that it should indeed be said, 'It was said by the Blessed One: there is a person who practices for his own welfare,' and yet it should not be said, 'The perfect-knower faculty is in the person' — is wrong." …
The Comparison by the Fourfold Method (Catukkanayasaṃsandana).
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.