Chapter I - Human Language ( Puggalakatha ).

I. Rate debate Ego

At this point the question as follows: "Ego" can be found as an object of absolute reality and reasonable? "The answer is" Yes ". So who has raised this issue and nobody answered this question? can not say (absolute): who has raised the issue and who answered this question. "

Blessed Key has taken the form of an oral content, to clarify many doctrine. Follow the method proposed by the Buddha, elders arranged into a set of texts [1] . Not elders who argue all the theories outlined here. Therefore, in order to easily understand and understand the whole meaning of the controversial issues, we will set out to explain arranged as follows: Sakavadin your question [2] (Theravada), and statements corresponding answer a Paravadin, [3]  (who seconded the opposite), and vice versa, a rival sect's questions and answers from our group.

"Ego" can be found as an object of absolute reality and reasonable? This is a known problem due Sakavadin (Theravada) raised. As we know the people of the Catholic Mission Puggalavadins undertakings is: "Ego" existence is a matter should be raised for discussion. [8] But those Puggalavadins are? According to the teachings (Sasana) [4]  of the Buddha "who Vajjiputtakas sect, Sammitiyas, and a lot of teachers outside the Dhamma (Sasana).

In this case the "people" ( puggala ) (person) means "self" or ego, being, the principle of life. [5]  "To be found out" is recognized means can understand and can be accessed. "As a real object and the absolute"; Here the word "Yes indeed" is understood as a reality (the specific eligibility), rather than magic, illusion and what similar. "Absolutely" here means something to be recognized not legend; this is most true sense. Through the expression "primary because of ego," was discovered in an objective [6]  both on the level of "reality" and "absolute", so the "Lust" (rupa) (physical forms ) can be discovered ", etc .. Based on the experience of our perceptions have a classification of 57 absolute thing is: (5) Aggregates (12) origin (sense-organes), (18) world and (22) the right ( indriya ), all of which have been clarified.

We find out: "Your Ego" can be discovered the same way so no, that is like an object and the absolute reality or not?Opposite sect (the opponent) is said to be: "Yes". In some cases we see the phrase "Yes, sir" is also used to express assertion, then there is sometimes simply "Yes, yes" only.

Yu means the above paragraph shall be construed as follows: There are all Beijing by the Blessed One theory to explain the views of some people as follows: " billion as, the" ego "(humans) that, acting as benefit oneself "  [7] , (opposite sex) has accepted this, because the teachings of the Buddha is true and always fit together, he did not lecture teachings from a conviction traditional news, or something similar, and place himself with extensive knowledge, taught like that and so (opposite sex) to be " billions example a" self "(the person) that is active again only for his own sake , "and thus that" ego "(human) existence in the sense that as a reality and absolute: - accepted views this (the opposite sex) agree to say is: "Yes, yes" so.

In order to stop the chance not to (opposing sects) make a false statement, Sakavadin immediately added: "That is the real thing" etc .. Here we have the following meanings: Even at this point, considering less than totally objective perspective, this can be explained whether or not promote the cause, with or without any conditions, exists permanently or just temporarily only, 57 titles that absolute, field experience of our consciousness, including gender identity and what material likewise, has been communicated to us. Not only accepted, as things of conventional or traditional. This is a real object, because the state is an "absolute object" so we can recognize directly.

Related to this issue, (opposite sex) asked: "Is the" self "has been discovered the same manner as a [9]" objects "real and absolute?""The same way as" - this is just a "tool idiom". So here we have the following meanings: "Is the ego (people) get the sense of absolute reality and reasonable?" that is, whether the "ego" (humans) have expressed the same way as an object of absolute real and as sharp or not? The reason is probably just the color or similar, or the ego of the categories [8]  ( Sappaccaya-bhedena) correlated similarly certain reasonable? "

"That can not really say this is" the rebuttal of the opposite sex. Opposite sect sect rejected because it was not willing to give the "ego" of that form. Here the word needs to be analyzed is: "That can not really say this is" mean it is not true if I say "Yes, yes" (ie agree), which must be understood as "Really not such can be said to be "related to both (statement) on.

Sakavadin said, "Recognition of his denials." This means that: "Because of his previous statement (opposite sex) does not coincide with the latter, and because it can not be released back to reconcile with the previous word, so that I rejected what his (the opposite sex) speech; he just recognized this was rejected, insulted, messed up. After the rejected claims that, in order to clarify with "admits "(thapana), enlist and fixing [9]  (aropana) with a variety of methods both direct and indirect, then Sakavadin said: If the" ego, "etc ..

Here we should understand the "If" ego, "" etc .. which means that if the "self" is understood, again assuming as "man" was discovered as an object of great practical and team.

The recognition by the direct method, may say so, is because there's an offer rejected by "setting" in possible conditions. For the purposes rebuttal is done by "enlist" and "fixed".

Because of the wording "so then, indeed, good sir," etc .. etc .. and is a clause in directly, to express denials, is done in the form of  enlisting  in the directly. So here, the word "then" (Athens) is an "idiom tool" and the word "indeed" (inded) expresses the conviction. "Good sir," (God sir) is a word to describe the possible conversation. Means, "then indeed, good sir, he should say more," etc .. which means: "Then, indeed, good sir, precisely because of this reason he also needs to say more .

Because saying "What he affirmed above" etc .. are direct words, was coined to (opposite sex) are switched directly, before the word "wrong" at the end of words (the last statement ) His need to bring down the sentence, which means: Say (statement) on your wrong. After this, the word is used a lot in the paragraphs  Pali .

"But he should not say" etc .. means: He should not say that. Since there are contradictory statements set aims rejected by enlisting  and  determined  to be  regarded as true, by speaking indirectly. Because idiom "and then, good sir, he is not," etc .. Back in may indirectly. [10] Because the expression "He insisted," vv.la indirect affirmation, preceded (opposite sex) to reject, also is believed to be correct at indirectly. Here too in advance from the "wrong" is set at the end of the "word (statement) of your" must be documented. Later, too. in similar cases, and this is a rule. In short, this is what is meant in the first place.

If "self" must be interpreted in the sense that the object is a true and absolute, then surely you should say: "The ego," it is understood the same way (like any real object and the top the other that he knows.) Because of what he says here, "self" is understood "in the sense of a real and absolute." Because of questions we can not say "ego" is understood in the same way as (any real objects and other absolute is known). In this way ( "acknowledge," "enlist" and "fixed") will take place in directly. In the following questions we must not say: "(ego) is expressed in the same way (as any (object) and the absolute essence)" is in the previous question, too, we are not talking so. It says here is "wrong", namely, that in the previous question we said: "ego" is expressed in terms of real and absolute. "

But the questions we must not say, "self" is not expressed in the same way as (any real object and absolute) "by," admitted "" enlist " and "fixing" in direct and indirect can be claimed as vay.- here is understood as the assertion presented to five times. Also here any "advantage" and "determined" that from directly or indirectly should be considered as one. the "advantage" and "fixed" from the indirect method is considered to be a way. in this way, the rejection was confirmed twice . But here again alluded underground "recognize your rejection." for the first time also rejected the claim first. "is (the ego) has been discovered etc .. have been raised in two ways, this is just a rebuttal - means that the first rebuttal.

Then followed the opposite approach. Here the question of the opposite sect launched. When he accepted the statement "For example, there is someone to just do the work for their own benefit." opposing sects disagree and ask: "Is (he) has understood or not? and so on .. So this is not understood as assets like Lust, Caution, etc .. are understood, people Sakavadin answered "no, [10]  not so related to the fact that people want to allude, (opposite sex) replied," that is true. " etc ..

Opposite sect say so, because he considered folk truth and absolute truth is only one. "Ego" here only minor significance; so when asked after the two things this truth is seen as homogenous, (opposite sex) again rejected. "Not that." Thus, whatever is relevant to mention as the base is not easy to understand the actual truth and universal, uniform or the base area.

However (opposite sex), using their own words to say: "Whether or not express out?" had wrongly argues, "that you have to accept the beginning, then you are dismissed." and if the only point of debate is concerned, while the rebuttal by his denial that the statement, saying: "Let's recognize the answer (rejoinder)." By this time because the presentation confirmed to five times, Sakavadin has clarified the rejection by "advantage" and "fixed" through methods directly or indirectly, after having "admitted" statement , to further clarify the rejoinder. Opposite sect instant added, namely: "If ego" etc ..

This has to be understood as has been confirmed above. Because here the "recognition" comes from the "opposite sex", this is only the "admitted" to show that "this is an error on your side"; but not to clarify or refute the rejoinder. On the other hand, only the "enlist" and fixing "are shown only.

That's why, because this rejoinder is done through four ways to "enlist" and "determined", derived from the method directly or indirectly, this is regarded as four times rejoinder and is interpreted as a foursome.

Once made to meet, to demonstrate that over the mistakes that justify, the rejection of Sakavadin by presenting confirmed to five times, is done carelessly, (opposite sex) said; "If you imagine," etc ... here "but if he imagined" means that if he carefully considered.

"We must assert" is mentioned here, concerning the affirmation of the opposite sex: "Yes, yes." But saying "we will not be confirmed" to be spoken concerning the Sakavadin rebuttal: "Not so" "Then your arguments here" means: for that reason righteous destiny recommended "not express" etc .. (which implies a negative question). "Thus the affirmation" means, "while confirming" Yes yes, "" Being rejected such "means" rejected that, while it was opposed "to such events "" so let's reject you "means: any refuted let you (the opposite sex) because (the opposite sex) deserves such words. "You deserve to be dismissed rather than go" means you  should  be rejected because of  your own statements  made to treat you as such.

So after he proved (Sakavatin) should reject (the opposite sex), while rejected (the opposite sex), [12] again said, "If (the ego)," etc .. In here the "recognition," "enlist" and "fixed" must be understood to have been confirmed below. However, the final "Your own words are wrong" means your claims process going rather wrong. Because this rebuttal is done in four ways through false arguments, this is what we call Rebuttal to four times (fourfold refutation).

After (the opposite sex) has dismissed the case, and to prove that "if my rebuttal through your argument is true, your rebuttal by identifying up to five times by base in my arguments, also the rebuttal is reprehensible (niggaha). Gender opposite said: "If this is a bad rebuttal," etc ..

Here, "if this is a bad rebuttal," which means that, if your claim was refuted me badly, or that, if my rebuttal to your assertion very bad. Similarly, so then take a close look here, here also means that, in terms you reject my comments above: look closely at this point, the other point of view stars.

At this point (the opposite sex) pointed out, in rebuttal on, Sakavadin made above with the words "can honestly say that," etc .. and so on, that is when the presentation is not is a rebuttal, saying: "we (do not identify themselves: were you denied)" and so on .. this is the meaning of the phrase with the intention of "therein by this affirmation," and so on. . because your rebuttal to me, too bad, that's why when I agree with you by asserting "Yeah," confirmed the presentation of five times, and was again refused by saying " it is true that "we are not rejected, by" recognizing words your doctor "" whether we should not be dismissed as such, but you have rejected us (like that). And we has actually rejected a very bad way.

Then, to demonstrate relevant rebuttal to what has been said, "We have rejected a way badly," (opposite sex) to speak out, if "the ego is this and that ... then your rebuttal is wrong ". In this way, because this rebuttal has reached four times adopted "fixed" and "advantage" from the direct method and indirect Such was known as "the Word Petition to four times."

Now based on the four words: "No, we're not like that dismissed" etc .. Here, the "No, we're not like that dismissed" means there should reject like how you're denied. I pointed out this very bad rebuttal. "By the way" means because this rebuttal has done very bad. Therefore, "Now you reject me ..." "If the" ego "... your problem given is wrong" means your rebuttal is wrong. "Therefore, [13] in this rebuttal," etc .. that is, because of that (word physician) completely wrong, so your rebuttal was done very poorly. I advocated the rejoinder (rejoinder) done well, and that process my logical reasoning to argue through words repartee to four times well done seriously. To understand that, in this way because of the way to meet four times to four times rebuttal, apology to four times, and the epilogue also to four again, beginning with "Will we express" self " or not? etc .. followed by the presentation to five times confirmed begin with "is" self "has been known in detail or not?" this is why the work that is considered as the presentation affirmation and negation. Each type has up to five times. Because Sakavadin has maintained the previous comments, made the opposite sect has confirmed his becoming purely and misleading arguments.

So far, if the opposite sect steadfast stance as above, opposite sect Sakavadin wins (opposite sex) a luminous way the university.

Likewise, in order to prove the origin debate, presented negative words or confirmed. Each type of the contingent, is applied to the question, "whether" self "has been discovered," etc .. In a rebuttal to the contrary, the opposite sect investigate the nature of reality and absolute ( ego) correlated with Sac and things like that. Opposite sect was confirmed, that is absolutely right in terms of purely conventional belief or confidence in conventional reconcile with absolute confidence.

Opposite sect rejected continued: "If you consider the ego as using conventional, can not be expressed reasonable?" Since the question somewhat confusing due to blending such opposing sect denied that: "No, not that." and therefore (the opposite sex) dismissed Sakavadin confirmed. Use expressions like right, opposite sect said: "Accept your rebuttal," etc ..

This way, should understand is related to the second assumption: "Is the" self "can be expressed not?" vv.lai emerged a rebuttal Monday.

Such rejection, through the wrong argument that, now asked by the method Sakavadin affirmed to prove the assertion and claim his own right and is legitimate. Rival sects agree concerning his main argument was devised. Do not let any one of Sakavadin arguments have the opportunity to present the absolute nature (the entity ego). Because of lack of "self" understood as an absolute object, so the opposite sect rejected. Then to prove the opposite sex opposite sex won a whole great clarity what the opposite sex has said, starting with the "Accept rejoinder," etc .. are words Sakavadin.

The meaning of the whole rejoinder to four times, denials, the plea of ​​application, and the conclusion should be interpreted as already mentioned above. Such as whole rejoinder, denials, the plea pleased with the conclusion to four times, they begin with "Can we discovered the" self "or not?" etc .. [14] indicated that the assertion presented to five times. Thus where the first base, either way this presentation, each is presented in respect of the contingent, have been explained. In the way of the first contingent, Sakavadin rejected rival sect very well. But the opposite sect have created for Sakavadin victory after issued a rejoinder through bragging arguing that this becomes very bad, in the way of explanation Monday contingent. Opposite sect rejected wrongly Sakavadin. Claiming victory opposite sex, who Sakavadin after rejoinder issued through proper argument, really glorious victory.

The first debate on the nature (sabhava) or reality ended up here.

In this document we are told the following:

In [11]  the presentation of the first contingent, rebuttal of the opposing sect is correct, but the rival sects lead the way to meet, again not the case.

In a presentation Monday, said uncle Sakavadin inaccurate, but the opposite sect win over rejoinder in this way, to be fully implemented.

Thus in both cases are won Sakavadin opposite sex. Win opposite sex can only be done through the proper causes and conditions. How can you win the opposition victory sent through the nefarious?

Key to this point (in the verification study) carefully on the stand was adorned with two ways described above, each of the five years the way back, so win or lose the opposite sex is mentioned here only comes from the truth or non-truth respectively sequential only.

Therefore, in the study of all the next stand, who should explain the position opposite sex won and lost in this way. [12]

After interpreting the related moot point Self Up (sabhava) or reality, to be able to take this advertising-related places, etc .. "Is" self "can be expressed reasonable? vv.lai start to emerge again.

Here Sakavadin questioned before. Rejoinder is given by the opposite sex. Also, the question is: " Does everywhere?" Related to physical, is the question given by Sakavadin. Opposite sect rejected, because seeing much in the wrong to assume that the "ego" with the material, and the life (jiva) is totally different with the body. This here, should be construed as was explained above in the opposite moot point five points. [15] On the other hand, very precise texts.

Here, when referring to the body, they say. "Self" can not be expressed out .. etc .. this is where implied that, even outside the body, we can still be presenting the "ego". Therefore the debate against up to five times, the opposite sect Sakavadin first answer is in the affirmative, then denied. It was completely clear.

The second method, questions of Sakavadin ( "raw" Ego "has been presented out) always reasonable? So on.Regarding to both the present life and the next life (of a man) again. To is a reminder to remember his life, and all that time go to the end of life as well. mission opposition immediately rejected because the opposite sect realized that there are two shortcomings: (1) error in thinking "current he is a ksatriya, future of clan Brahmin (Brahmana) "etc .. and (2) there are significant differences in the reminder for the present life and at death. it left the similar to what has been said is related to the first method .

A third method, Sakavadin question: "(Can one be presenting" self ")  where  everything  is not? Etc ..  [13]  referring to the department of human and objects senses. Delegation opposing rejection, fear of mistakes in thinking: "self" exists in Sac (rupa ), "self" exists where the eyes etc .. Article remaining similar.

Thus, after the issues were categorized three or three aspects, in a row, in the affirmative, as the five steps presented confirms, again to be able to classify them a negative way, as far as the way negative presents five steps, the problem "Does the" ego "is not reasonable discovery? etc .. again been raised.

On this point, in relation to the brief texts of confirmed presenting five steps, the meaning of this presentation should be construed as a negative presentation, and brief texts in the way the statement to the contrary, should this sense should be understood as a way of presenting identification.

Concerning mere three points this debate (involving myself counted (sabhava) reality ( kāla : time) entity ego) and every four factors (as in the first case), the debate again is presented in the affirmative and negative, so also were grouped into eight different perspective [14] . Because every aspect so there is a way to reject, therefore refutation to eight times was recorded in writing.

As we are well known in this document are:

Thus the four-point moot point, each divided into five points back, so this opinion octahedral was explained.

[16] Of the eight dismissed that way, had four points and four points the wrong right.

Sakavadin opposite sex won everywhere, and the opposite sex were defeated everywhere [15] .

The lectures on related moot point Self properties (sabhava) or reality ended up here.

We now compare myself counted (sabhava) or reality (of the individual entities) with legal etc .. Sac

At this point Sakavadin asking questions related to "legal and other Matter, why? Etc .. means" Ego "is presented like a law known as Sac absolute sense not. Accept quote led to the "ego exists and has," etc. Phai opposition agrees. Sakavadin following question; "If the" ego "absolute sense measures like Sac, then" ego "just the same feelings ( phassa ), feelings ( vedana ) etc .. all that different than the Sac legal? 'Adaptation opposite rejected as realize this goes against Beijing Samaya [16]  what remains completed clear.

In the presentation of positive and negative, with fifty-seven layouts determined, each of the five way back, be clarified towards Sakavadin involving fifty-seven events real and absolute. Vv.lai rejoinder four very brief. In the men's opposition also presenting fifty seven negative and affirmed. Four times rejoinder also presented very briefly. By the wording as follows: "Blessed One has taught that reasonable?" Once proved showed "self" persists. Outstanding legal and well known places have real meaning and absolute. Opposite sect asked retorted "Blessed teach this?" To make the Sakavadin say, that both objects are sharply separated. Sakavadin rejected because of the uniqueness and diversity of the questions relating to traditional faith and the absolute sense of the problem, which has also left clear.

Compare (with other realities) to be considered a simple way, ended up here.

[17] Following is a comparison between the legal reality with Sac etc. .. by analogy. Here, (1) "If Sac legal and sensations (vedana ) is also presented clearly (as the real events and absolute) What if they differ from the other? And (2) whether" ego "is also clearly presented (with a real sense and absolute), as Sac legal or not? the question is in Sakavadin. and the opposite sex has recognized both questions is correct. When rival sects have recognized heterogeneity of the two realities which color and life, immediately objected because Sac Sakavadin legal and different sensations, then under the law of analogies Sac and "ego" and the two issues Full completion problem different, opposite sect denies this. the remaining problem here is obvious.

In the Buddha's teaching, [17]  Lust legal nature, etc .. prominence through the visual senses etc .. again has showed that nine hundred twenty rejoinder, each way back in the ranks , according to the Sakavadin. Quarter-yun  (khandhas) [18]appeared from Sac measures prompted by a formula row. Also, there are twenty-yun sensations appear from related Parish (ayatanas) or areas, have emerged eleven consecutive Aggregates from visual organs. Likewise there are a hundred and thirty two remaining aggregates. Under field elements (aggregates) [19]  had seventeen consecutive aggregates appear from sight. Likewise also has three retail six elements (aggregates) remainder of the five senses (indriyas) [20]  (or sensory organs) have bimodal aggregates emerge from the visual organs. Also similar to four hundred and sixty two remaining units.Thus the whole nine hundred and twenty there rejoinder, every word lies in an army. In the men opposed by the presentation confirmed: "Does Matter has presented legal or not?" etc .. rival sect forced to admit that Sac legal, etc .. feeling is different, and so on the basis of Buddhist scriptures "Ego" is real "etc .. to prove false Sac supposedly legal, etc .. belongs to "self" can discover clearly is. this shows that they are completely different. it is to understand residual meaning is provided here. even both based on the nature, as mentioned under the Sakavadin, nine hundred and twenty rejoinder, each rejoinder was divided into five females and this has to be clarified here. 

Sac legal comparing with other realities by analogy ended here.

Considering that, because what has been discovered to actually make sense and absolute need to be developed, totally different from reality seven years similar to Sac etc .. consider legal implications the absolute reality and through the organic material can vv.hay other terms because of the reliance on legal Lust, Lust legal or dependent upon the essence, that's why the comparison of real property by means four measures were started.

Sakavadin this point again raises the question as follows: "Does Matter law is" self or not? 'Adaptation opposite could find themselves in danger of self-acceptance sect "nothingness" â, immediately denied. main Sakavadin denied this. Even when asked: [18] material nature is not feeling or what? "- have that right? (Sakavadin instant reply) "Yes, denied this was necessary." Because physical, and feelings are two completely different things from nature, not only due to lack of differentiation that out. Sakavadin not want to consider "self" with the difference that, whether "self" is no different than the legal Sac. etc .. Therefore, the rejection of this is true.

In denial: "Lust law is" self "or not? Feeling Is" self "is not? ... The possibility of us have known" self "or not?" - Complete these problems only started when collated with absolute stand alone. However, at the same time we can not answer all of these issues only because of their particular characteristics. This is a problem just yet in the texts only. Thus those who have the knowledge to explain the significance of the problem. On the other hand, after understanding the nature of this feature, the debate should answer the same to the opposite sex no longer have the chance to do so. As this is very appropriate vaiy despite stating in accordance with such matter in writing.

Likewise, we should fully understand the meaning of all issues. However, there still exist differences:

Whether to rely on a certain key elements, still has three elements (aggregates) [21]  Another, in other words, although there are material dependent, should viññāṇa () emerging, likewise we have to say is: "ego" can depend on material or not? "whether we have to say that the whole thing, including feelings etc .. while losing nature, or Switch Formless, the four gathered (aggregates), except for the material, are created Nip-table, "ego" can like it? Or just say: recognize material comes from wisdom, material qualities of feeling existed where, again dependent qualities appear to be .... the quality material from viññāṇa () that out. "ego" with this?

In all these issues, opposing sects recognize the danger, to himself as a nihilist who should have been denied .

By this mean the rest was obvious.

In the Buddhist doctrine, which seventies reality, every reality that is rejected by the four-step approach, as has been demonstrated by two hundred and twenty-eight sets of five. In terms of the opposite sex, also had a way to answer (the word barred).

Related to this issue, recognized Sakavadin declared "The ego is real" because in Buddhist scriptures, the ego was circulated as  a convention . Reason rebuttal is "Is material is" self "or not? Etc .. The main argument by mistake, has led to refute the words of the opposite sex (Paravadin) emerged as a matter of" simple teachers on "Personal Essence" that.

The comparison by means of four-point ends here.

It ends here always comparable surveys.

[19] Now the question is the characteristic of solidarity. Related to this issue, as understood in a real sense and absolutely, any thing in this world, except Nip-table, are binding themselves together in the nature of causal relationship, we just born , formation and kill correlated state where it alone, without any substance at all long-term survival, and ultimately the main factor is the cause for all things appear next. Meanwhile Níp're rid of the constraints mentioned above, should not be any causal relationship governing, Nip-table exists permanently and without any particular shape at all. - And so this is where a characteristic found objects, - therefore Sakavadin raised the issue: "The relationship has dominated on the" self "or not? Etc ... Because if" ego "is understood to mean real and absolute, it must necessarily have this feature. word's rebuttal from the opposite sex.

However, here we should understand succinctly as "Please accept your objections," ø etc ... Thus, through the presentation confirmed, by the method and confirmed negative, contingent eight should be understood to be used by the Sakavadin. And through a negative way by the present method both negative and affirmed, plus eight of the men's contingent is opposed by the undertakings given.

Because here, it should sect Buddhist scriptures support opposite proved to be a base under customary. - And practice free of all constraints are dominant. etc .. - Therefore the word rebuttal of Sakavadin is absolutely correct. "Please accept your objections," and the rest, is presented through false arguments to be presented here in a too brief.

The examination of the characteristics of solidarity ends here.

The next problem is the study of words.

At this point, to clarify the meaning of the phrase: "I can understand the" self "or not?" That's the problem Sakavadin gave: "I can understand the" ego "(and vice versa) to understand that there must be" self "reasonable?

We should understand this as follows: in the sentence: I can understand the "self" is reasonable? "Two words can bring along a different meaning or should - because the material is a longer feel life is something else again. - the "ego" is one thing and the "understanding" is another thing. If only meaningful both similarities - just like "thoughts" (which failure think) also is wisdom[22]  - so we deduce the following: the so-called "self" is also the "what-we-hold-being". Therefore I would like to speak as follows: - If "what-we-understand-is" also the "ego", the next one can also say "ego" is "what-we-understand-is". He has agreed to this?

Then, because just want to know "what-we-hold-being" of the ego, rather than the nature of the "self" is "what-we-understand-is" are material etc .. say "ego" is also "what-we-understand-is" and vice versa, "the so-I-understand-is" also the "ego", what else is left is not where the ego .

This can be interpreted as follows: for my "self" can grasp discovered because the Buddha had said, "self", but not the whole of what we know (ie, what absolute reality) are "ego" where. Some are considered "self" others are not.

Here from  ke [23] is used to mean  not  or  hi  just a sub from only. Therefore here idiom above means: there are some as "ego" others are not. We can say this: "The ego or whatever else exists where material. Etc .. can grasp." Ego "only" ego "but where material etc ..." some "is ego, others are not. 

Therefore new Sakavadin saying "What-I-understand-is" some may be "self" while others do not. Meaning: If you can consider that "self" is "what-we-understand-is." there are two words in the sentence "Whether we can" grasp "," ego "or not?" meaning there is only one. Then "things" (ie "what-we-understand-is") and "ego" (ie humans) must be exactly the same. Next it is: Even something as "self" is some one can "catch" while others do not. Do you agree like that? Instant rival sect denied: "No, it can not be certain where" because the opposite sex does not want to "self" as such must, like the other and can not grasp. Then, "Accept your rebuttal" and what remains is presented briefly. But one should know the details of the above.

This is also another meaning as in the sentence: "Ego" can be aware of the meaning as a real object and absolutely not? "Etc .. All of these points are just the synonym for the phrase "what-we-understand-was" only.

However, because of the opposite sex is acceptable for "self" be aware "in the sense as an object of absolute reality and, in fact, face the opposite sect proposal is" Ego "is understand". Also the same identical meaning, has another problem emerged: "Is the" self "has to be a reasonable reality?" the "Existence" and "Knowing" [24]  again just two synonyms in a statement, namely, "self" there exists ". So the meaning of these words is clear teeth.

Finally another question was raised: "Does" self "exists and (vice versa), what data exists is" self "or not?" Here we have to understand is: - [21] Because the opposite sex specifically declared, "Ego" exists; from what exists that some of the self, others do not "and" Is "self" exists, and (opposite) the existing data that was not all of it self, is not ? "are two questions have the same meaning exactly the same, therefore Sakavedin made the opposite sect agrees to accept this and then the opposite sex allegations, saying," your proposition, namely like, "no self" again just based on a mere statement like: "there were" people "for his own benefit only individual action alone" because of the Blessed one had said this, he did not mean, was rejected: "self" does not exist, why, when he said: "look here, dear Mogharaja, this world is so empty. and be vigilant." etc ..

Therefore, because of your statements as "" self "exists (and vice versa) what exists not the whole are" self latest "next may say the following:" ego "does not exist" (and vice versa) that does not exist, "the whole is only" ego "only. You agree that so? now, when opposing sects disagreed and denied saying" no to that. "It remains as was presented in the rejoinder etc ..

The clarification of the meaning of words to dayla before.

Following examination of this is the "Concept"

Opposite sect definition "ego" is the realm where there is material Lust, Caution; just so, "self" does not have that quality where Formless realms "To refute this idea about all the problems posed by Sakavadin, affirmation and negation of the opposite sect posed by , asked that: "A person may be material realms where Lust, Caution is the" ego "reasonable? This person (opposite sex) to accept this point, because of the physical body with the starting point (ie formed) thus there appears the concept is able to calculate . Add one more question: "Should there be ego who experienced the sensory experience does not desire? The opposition rejected this because he can appear in formless realms ( arupa ) (passionless) and therefore should not have been counted concept of material there. Again further asked: A person does not have the material qualities formless realm right? Phai opposition agree to accept, because this person has may appear in the formless realms. and here you can calculate the current concept appears in both cases the concept of "being" used as an equivalent to the word "ego".

Currently, because he wanted a clear distinction, "the body" is a decent (it) and "Ego" is a decent (things) other, stems from claims that have been accepted, "he thought think of the body in the trunk, " [25]  etc .. therefore to reject this idea, Sakavadin asked:" Two words "physical structure" and "body" with uniform or not? "

Here "we use the word" physical structure "and" body "applies indiscriminately into our body" means considered (two words applied to) the body, not separated sharply , but implies a uniform and have the same meaning, can not be separated: "Both words are exactly the same," - [22] which means physical structure is also the body that only, "this is just another thing" which is a phrase found in the Buddha, which means that this is precisely what the other. "Both just an (equal) together have a meaning, the same origin. The difference here is the wording alone, understood in a" physical structure "and other things (ie body ) set out the questions.

Opposing sects do not see any difference at all immediately accept: "Evening yes" this is the meaning of the question: "The word" ego "and" soul " [26]  have identical or not ? etc ..

Asked: "physical structure" which (with the "ego") or not? etc .. Clearly opposition agreed by it as his opinion, comes from (speech about) way of thinking (contemplation) of flesh that out.

But when asked: "The soul is a decent (it), and" body "back on the one hand (it) is completely different or not?" Sect opposed to instant rejection is not right, because the opposite sex can not refute the Buddhist texts were criticized above.

Then followed "Accept rejection" etc ... meaning it was too obvious.

When the opposing sect to ask: "Is" physical structure "is a decent (it), and" ego "is decent (what) else? Sakavadin rejected. So the question comes from has been set establish, through false plea, opposing sects issued a barred. this meaning is clear.

The verification of the word or the concept to this is the end.

Now we move forward to the matter said on "death" or "kill" and the consequences related to changes in the realm (Gata), the flow of life (samsara saved). [27] 

Here the opposite sex to express themselves and to express an opinion: "People must follow incarnations," is based on Buddhist scriptures, " People do change up to seven times." [28]  etc. ..  therefore, to reject the propositions of the opposite sex, Sakavadin asked: "people have varying incarnations reasonable? etc ... here the word" Transmigrates "means moving constantly" appeared then go "opposite sects agree to accept the proposition of his own.

[23] Sakavadin to ask: "Is there a single person only change it? Etc .. rival sect denies this." At least? "Means" the same thing? "However, the sect opposed to change, he rejected because he could recognize danger must accept as an arch eternal (everlasting) ( sassatavada : usually comment). When asked: "that man what others do not? "opposite sect face the risk of falling towards those who advocate" cessation "( vechedavada : comment section). Similarly, when asked:" are you that person is uniform again just the difference? "sect opposed to siding with the fear of some people, accompanied the (mortgage usually splendid piece)" everlasting "(undertakings immortal).

Finally, the question: "He is not homogeneous nor is different or what?" sect opposed to siding with people afraid of hiding (elwrigglers) [29]  (sophist argument). Again, after the four sentences problems withdraw a question, we again ask the opposite sex, opposite sex continues to be rejected for fear of people siding with four pagan as mentioned above. Then the opposite sect Buddhist scriptures indicate the grounds on which that offer their opinion and said: "That man can not change it or why," etc ..

Again, Sakavadin to ask: "His opinion, if other people do not change from this life, etc .. so, whether the same person from this world that could appear in other realms or not? " and with this allusion, Sakavadin has dispatched opposite direction replied as follows: "There must be only one single man such change or what?" Opposite sect rejected, for fear of having sided with the advocates of "immortal". When Sakavadin repeated the same question, and emphasized more, as opposed to recognized schools because the teaching is: "He's just one man only, not in another state, but died go, then be reborn again, "etc .. When asked the opposite sex:" Does man uniformity that is "self" is not it? "opposite sect denied that human life is life Vassal Thien, again opposite sex when asked to accept this unity, because in the Buddhist has the following passage: "it is I who at that time was a Sunetta, meaning the Exalted." [30]

Then Sakavadin explained: "He was wrong to accept many different existence." and add a paragraph: "After becoming a man," etc ..

At this point, "Then there will be people not dead" means in this case, will not someone die. Then, because there are differences in existence: as Yakshis (yakkha), Hungry spirits (peta) etc .. .chinh so many diverse questions are intimately both. "The data is saved somebody becomes Brahma yet?" Sakavadin acceptance is there, because the way the eighth reincarnation. (then) will no longer be reborn where any other realm anymore [31] .

Rival sect also accept the next question. Because Remember, can not, even in the future life, can not be removed, "the status quo in Save" [32]  is "But if, etc .. That is the realm of the opposite sex.

Again, Sakavadin requested confirmation that the rebirth Remember realm where the gods would not be the human race.

Next, "The immigration that's no different than the present or what?" At this point, "no different" means identical in all respects; "The present" means not disappear in any way. "No, not really being able to say that" to say that, because that person was born in the realm of the gods are no longer human beings anymore.

Also, when asked a greater emphasis, the opposing sect to accept the opinion of a man Sakavadin for uniform has changed.

To refute the idea that (immigrants remain in the present.) "A person who has lost an arm," etc .. when it is said to somehow be able to demonstrate the qualities of the ego can transform how Maat. In that case "a finger cut off, meaning the thumb and toes had been cut off." Hamstring person "means a person who has to foot tendons severed.

Opposite sect rejected because "He is still as someone like first?" etc .. as the first question, because "physical structure" does not disappear [33]  to that person. Opposing sects accept the second question because no longer have any life a period somewhat like current life as a human again (pure).

[24] According to the clause for the man we entered the womb with material qualities and material qualities he then fled."The soul must be reincarnations." Means soul transformed along with its physical product.

Next question: "The soul and the body with uniform or not? Phai opposition denies this, because of the time change, the body must be eliminated; furthermore this is contrary to the Buddhist scriptures." humans have also transformed that feeling or not? "etc .. are rejected is because of the possibility of rebirth but are known to be unconscious, but still considered as having sensation when reincarnated into other realms. Did you change the person with the physical body sensations have not? then ask again. the soul and the body there is a no? " This clause in the "body" [34]  means all sleep aggregates.Opposite sex who reject as this goes against the Buddhist scriptures.

In the question: "Man, there is change with the material qualities or not?" opposite sect that initially rejected, because there is no moment of human life at all and then again accept because that person probably change when (rebirth) into other realms. "The soul (distinct from the body) means the time change, because it is incorporated and abandon the physical body of material qualities there.

Then asked: "So this is very different body to the soul (Jiva) stars?" Opposite sect rejected, as this goes against the Buddhist scriptures. "People do not change that came with emotions or what?" etc .. can be rejected because reborn mindless ( asanni bhumi ), but accepted when reborn into other realms "different spirit." That means that the changes are not accompanied by any emotion, no sense, ignore body sensations associated with. etc ... opposite sect rejected because it goes against what the Buddhist scriptures.

"The quality of material change" etc .. which means the material qualities emerged in aggregates etc .., are defined as "self" as "self" that transforms it even etc .. all it also transforms qualities star? Asked again. Opposite sect rejected because this expression. "Just because the word being uttered change as  " the ignorance being prevented and constraining desires, are modified and have experienced many different realms of existence. [35] "When asked again again, the opposite sex because he accepted to be, because there may be "self" without material qualities etc .. so, are the changes, he or she must change the quality material. This is the method involves feelings etc ..

"Does the material qualities have transformed reasonable?" etc .. meaning "because of the quality of material is not" self "and also modified, so I ask again: [25] raw material qualities have transformed reasonable?" the other did not agree, because he thought the "ontological" change, material qualities, who merely assisted, can not be modified. When asked again, the opposite sect acknowledged for it is said "Only with the new being transformed". It was all too obvious.

The meaning of this paragraph (gathas) as follows: "Sir, in the shade where I got there, the trees provide reasonable? And because fuel fire that, also like (the concept emerged from) Aggregates that out. If the material qualities etc .. do not change and every aggregates back to dissipate, then if the "self" and dashed away, if so, then this view will become the doctrine of nihilism , a false opinion was rejected Buddha. " As it was mentioned in a particular sermon is "Mr. Qiao List Ma (Gotama) Samana is a nihilistic doctrine advocates. [36] " - We do not say so, these have been prove. However, if the ego is regarded as unable to decompose with the breakdown of aggregates, then that person will become immortal, and thus flooded Nip-table. "Like, extremely similar meaning, or just the same as compared with the same, thanks to the same status, even Nip-table can not appear and can not be destroyed, so the men.

Examining ways reborn here is the end.

Following this is the concept of evolution.

This is a question of Sakavadin, while rival sects affirmed and denied. Opposite sect was said to be the concept of "self" comes from the material qualities and spiritual-like shade comes from trees, and fire due to fuel that. Therefore rival sects accept, when asked: "Is the concept of the ego comes from the material qualities and so on. There is not it?

Also, when asked: "The ego has kind of impermanence etc .. like material qualities etc .. ego arising from it or not, like shade and impermanent, such as trees, and impermanent as well as fire fuel from which it comes out? " conservative rival sects have their own opinions and reject it.

On the issue: "Is green concept has come from the quality of leaf green or not?" and similarly, the opposite sect rejected as opposite sex can not accept the nature of a man with blue or its diverse state in an individual apparatus embellished by different colors like green such leaves. etc ..

"Is the concept of a good thing can come from feeling good?" - On this point too opposite sect rejected, because the opposite sex can not accept the characteristics of a human (ego) with sensations and diverse state in a continuum of life, (lifespan) through various kinds of feeling good, bad etc ..

In the next question: "Is it good with good stems from affordable way?" etc .. rival sect recognized as correct, and considered "good thing" as an adept and proficient. When asked: "Is the ego may require natural results or not? À etc .., seconded opposition denies this, because no one has a habit of saying the same about" self "at all. as for the bad feelings opposing sects agree, considered "an analogy bad thing as" good "as mentioned above. As for the neutral feeling ( abyakata) rival sects agree, neutral because of the "self" related to permanent schools and other views. And the other thing here should be interpreted as already explained above.

As for the question: "Is (the ego) that comes from the visual that reasonable?" etc .. rival sects agree, because the opposite sex have a habit for the ego (human) often regarded as people with physical vision and ethics. Avoid evil, etc .. then rejected as unacceptable as visual disappeared, then man is killing always visible.

"Does the concept (the ego) has emerged from the material qualities or feelings or not?" - At this point the audience decide which material qualities must be understood in two three four five times. Opposite sect acceptable if the concept comes from the ego aggregates, it must stem from two, three, four or five different subjects. However, the opposite sect denies this because that is missing two or five cohesive substance into a continuous life of an individual. "This is related to the sense organs, sensory objects. Etc. ...

Now to prove that it was due to the concept of impermanence that certain things occur, so that things became more impermanent and their differences are identified, even in cases "essence." Opposite sect asked, "Is the concept of the ego with the material that comes from the idea that like shade comes from trees that out?" etc .. here the term "derived" means the appearance (or place) is due, without missing this and that. "But the opposite sex does not endorse such things, should have been dismissed and giving his own opinion. a yoke means an iron chain (or prison). a shackled person means a person that bound him in chains. "anyone with excellent qualities Justice, they also understand that quality. "means that because whoever is elected prime material qualities are also specific qualities from that direction.

"Is there a concept of the ego every moment in the process of consciousness?" [27] Delegation of the opposition to accept this, because the conscious expression correlated with the appearance with passion etc .. in a way consciously express with passion etc .. for not accepting the status quo temporarily of consciousness, the opposite sect rejected this question. Asked: "There is nothing similar and different to happen or not?" rival sect also rejected, because the opposite sect afraid sided with the advocates of the theory of eternity and nothingness. Also when asked: "That's the boy, that little girl." That said, something wrong? rival sects agree, saying: "We can say the same," because the opposite sex common parlance fear will become void. It left, it was too obvious.

Want to give their opinion in a different way, this time the opposite sex to speak: "Why pay much attention to the search for concepts such evolution? Please tell me first: we can say: I can understand is "ego" a real and absolutely not? " etc .. Then when Sakavadin answered: "Yes" rival sect said: "Is not the ego is the opposite sect who see reasonable?" etc .. in "Whom" (có who) means self. "Something" (something) as tangible objects, "thereby" (by what) is the eye. "Opposite sex" here means the ego. "It" (It) is a tangible object. "Thus," which means eye. Meaning that question is: not the ego in the case when people see some tangible object through the eye or a star, someone saw any object such as a major eye "ego" or lie? But Sakavadin replied: "Eyes are visible only when subject to consciously look only. Likewise new ears hear only noise. Also new consciousness only knows (a) teachings, This also Arhat have eyes reasonable? whether he has seen the object with the naked eye exist or not? " opposite sex answered: "Yes" because this is the usual way that could speak.

Because from now on opposite sect was determined under false allegations, should be able to say the ego is real. Sakavadin rejected that view, he asked: "I can understand the reasonable ego?" etc .. here "who does not see" is blind, a person does not consciously, to be reborn invisible place, came the end. Even if he is not blind, he did not see anything, except the people who have wisdom (insight) in time. This is also the meaning of the remaining segments. Article rest need to understand the meaning as in the passage.

By applying to the Buddhist Sutra (Sutta), as mentioned, should we see tangible objects and objects in contact with it. By Thien label ( dibbacakkhu ). [37]  In paragraph two. by saying "I see clearly beings". Sect opposed to say, the opposite sex sees "self" in the third paragraph. Opposite sect that says "I recognized the two" according to this opinion, "Once seen tangible objects also helps us to express yourself." because what we observed [28], then we can also understand by a synthesis of four elements "seeing, hearing, thinking, and understanding." Sakavadin this point is opposed to the tangible object as self, the ego is a tangible object or both are visible, meaning on this issue is clear here.

The examination of the concept of evolution ends here.

Now we talk about the verification of operation, (ie human behavior.)

On this point the opposite sect raised the question because rival sects are of the opinion that: "There has been operational, it should also have an affinity." Sakavadin accept this position in the presence of such behavior was too obvious. Next, verify the person next to perform the operation, and who instigated the conduct was given by the opposite sex. In which "the operational implementation" (behavior) means that people do such acts, "while the mastermind," ie people who perform command and dictated by someone else, or by other methods. "

At this time, because the opposite sex who want to verify the performance of the related self and not just related to the causes and conditions (the cause) Sakavadin therefore refused. Then Sakavadin asked retorted: "Is both practitioners and instigators (there exist reasonable)?" Here he wanted to say: If the work performed is known also know as an ego. Are you sure you're familiar with is the one? Whether people actually act and who knows there differently? Opposite sect not prove such a thing, should have dismissed "because of wrong about the creative work of the Blessed One" [38]  Again, when asked, confirmed opposite sex. Because parents born "a man" (ego) named it, and feeding it to grow, both the creator and the people take action and good Samaritans and the teachers, the people it teaches the opposite sex many branches of knowledge are also inspirational. Ytuong supposedly just before new behaviors are performed, and the instigators.

By describing "Is this person create reasonable man?" The question is: if this is due to the other appear reasonable? If we created who perform these actions, whether there a creator "final" make all the reasonable? If such is indeed the "every man earlier are necessarily the creator of his successors so." Whether this has happened so matter, an individual (ego) who carried out the actions most likely creator of an individual (ego) in the future. And therefore, should not "others" (others) at all and no adverse employment targets, there is no process nothingness [29] even Nip-table nor ultimately survive if does not exist a certain residual life. For if means eliminate, the suffering caused by the decision means will also disappear, and never have so-called Nip-table where unconditional.

Or, "We are the creator of others" means that if action is not considered as pure action, it must have an owner that can take action, who is self-created ourselves, and so will definitely have continuity more human (ego). We can understand the problem as follows: if this was certainly the case, then make what we called (others) objectives of suffering, due to the lack of a cycle of operation [39]  constantly well not exist. " opposite sect, because not approved this, should have rejected.

In a series of studies that followed, at which point "the creator" is regarded as identical with the so-called "existing conditions" A question was posed regarding "ego" raised as follows: Does the creator and inspiring people is homogeneous reasonable? "without cause (causal), nor any causal effects that make up this vast earth and other planets. question again set out: "is it good or bad behavior is a paradise, and who made them is something else? Opposite sect denies this because becoming is a comment ( ditthivada ) to be: the one who attained self defense (owner) the intellectual property or acts [40] (coefficient of work into) it.

To refute the opinion of someone proved to be the ego does not exist, thanks to effective sense of action. A question emerges: "We have to understand the consequences of good and bad behavior in accordance with ethical or not?"

The issue here is: "Who feel the consequences of that behavior may be overlooking these things?" This is the question of the opposite sex. Because there is no "someone else" may feel non-existent because any effect yet, Sakavadin refute it. Again, Sakavadin to ask questions, while asserted.

"Some people feel the consequences of such behavior" means that people enjoy the experience of the consequences of such behavior. Because of what he or she can feel is the consequence, and the ego is not the case, therefore the opposite sect rejected.Asked when the opposite sex again, the opposite sect accepted. "So think, a mother hugged me, kissed her husband embracing his wife also had the feel that way." If the subject and others are understood so "means, if the consequences are not only out peripheral object is when we feel such a subjective way, or when enjoying those consequences must be recognized as "all can enjoy," it is now itself also as "the consequences more ", then the other comments can also be inherited (the consequences). by doing so make the opposite sex will be an endless series of self. this means that if such events this place is what is said to be suffering objectives, for lack of a cycle of intermittent consequences would probably not exist. therefore the significance of the problem here, "people feel" (the legacy results) to be used as consistent with "what exists" and should be construed as was explained above.

"Whether the result of good behavior and bad moral sense that is one thing and feel the results are what else? - The problem is emerging. [30] that this was rejected for fear of falling into heresy to be: being identical with feeling. "Does heaven-being (happiness in heaven) as was known there exist reasonable?" etc ... the whole this, after having been sorted into the results of good and bad behavior, are introduced from the perspective of the person should be construed as was explained above. this should be understood as: Sakavadin rejects "the experience" because it involved personal nature idea, but not because it was not felt. population-related things and more earth perspective on subjects, the origin of what is being inherited can not prove that. "He made", "instigators", people feel results, etc .. to be introduced by various methods. therefore "doer" is understood to be the person you called is done or who feel.

"Will the implementation of (behavior) with whom has experience (the consequences) Does [41] ? This is the question Sakavadin. Phai opposition rejected immediately, for fear of going against the Buddhist scriptures.

When asked again, affirm the opposite sex is right, because in the Buddhist scriptures which says: "People have the right to be happy in this life and in the after-life". [42]  Not giving rival sects have been barred opportunities, Sakavadin again asked: "Does happiness and unhappiness are self-created reasonable?" in this regard, "There must be a person who commits (ego) completely else?" questions are speaking up by investigating whether the implementation and enjoyment have two (ego) reasonable difference. On this point, the opposite sect rejected for fear opposed to Buddhist scriptures, but when asked again, the opposite sect assert is true, imagine that "like gods", sect opposed to that enjoy the fruits of his actions when he was human. When we talk so people can fall into happiness and suffering when other people create for themselves, the opposite sect was asked again denied it.

"Is it the same person to be a people? - Has been talked about by survey research carried out and whether the beneficiary may be the same or different character. Then the opposite sex refused for fear of conflict with Buddhist scriptures, but when asked again, affirm the opposite sex is right, for the aforementioned two meanings are the same. but when the opposite sect say, what happens next that is happiness and unhappiness is self-created and also newly created by others for himself anymore. But when the opposite sex is properly asked again, then again denied. "is not the same person ( ego) act or what? "was mentioned manner consistent rejection properties as well as the difference between action and enjoyment. then the opposite sect rejected because the fear of falling into contradictions conflict with Buddhist scriptures. But again the opposite sex so asked, immediately dispatched opposite assertion, so imagine that, when a person commits these acts to reach the realm of the gods, he will not a person must be born again, and never considered himself the reincarnation of another with the opposite sex which made the act, therefore beneficiaries are not consistent which is no different to the implementation.This is just one idea only. But when the opposite sect say, what happens is that happiness and unhappiness is not something self-generated, nor by what others create .; [31] both have a natural origin. When opposing sect properly asked to immediately reject it.

Moreover, in such diverse ways, the meaning should be understood in this way from the beginning. As opposed Phai want the implementation is also enjoying the results, therefore, according to him, the implementation as well as beneficiaries.This is to say, should regard it as the (self) different in both cases. Sakavadin, while posing such a problem and leads to another set of four cases for selection are as follows: The implementation. "Etc ..

The remaining section is similar to what has been explained above. But in the end the four issues have been pooled into one.Which has rejected and confirmed that, as well as the possibility of viewpoints concerning what is self-created. etc .. should be understood as before. Then, nothing about "good behavior and bad behavior," the next question is: Is there a so-called "industrial" (effective behavioral cause) reasonable? "Etc .. also proven , as has been explained above. meaning it should also be understood as explained above.

The investigation of human behavior ends here.  This is also known as a chapter on winning position ( abhinna ) ethics.

Then the meaning of the Arhat level have been clarified by studying thoroughly infiltrated by "superior to knowledge" [43] etc .. In which the word "Yes" is the affirmation of Sakavadin. While the opposite sex think outside themselves under consideration can not be reached any achievement yet similar supernatural "supernatural effectiveness [44]  etc .. all related issues such as not necessarily need the ability to control. Nevertheless, it was so deep, the opposite sex, imagine the effect such as to be a "person" (ego) is capable of creating. Lien asked: "there is no any person with the ability to generate results Unseen them up?" etc ... the whole thing was clear.

The investigation of Divine power has ended here.

Until now, "the mother" etc .. are mentioned concerning the investigation of kinship relationships; "katthiya," etc .. concerning the investigation into the family background [45] , profane or separation proceeding. Regarding the status quo;"Devas, mankind," etc .. about the current state of rebirth; [32] A position in Save, "etc .. about the experience. - Also known as the Divine Master investigation. All of these things have been too obvious." Back then nobody had, after reaching to rank Arhat, is no longer the Arhat or not? "However, no mention here related to this capricious notion." there is no (word is accepted) on four pairs of people? " [46]  this is a survey of corporations Sangha. and this was also apparent.

"The ego can cause [47]  What is not?" Here is the investigation of the nature of the facts and absolute. "In it," whether there is a third option or not? "This is a question of Sakavadin. As opposed sects rejected, for lack of absence of absolute authenticity and new material qualities. When asked again, he accepted concerning the ego as an entity. When Sakava asked: "is the ego has completely the difference?" opposite sect rejected, because the opposite sex does not accept karmic and ego completely different. "like the Aggregates have an affinity? etc .. - this is considered as the search for research, after proved by the physical shape to have an affinity is the dominant aggregates, whether these aggregates are quite different. "Does there have identical appearance is predestined or not?" etc ..: - this is what is survey research, as proved by arranging the aggregates, whether they have a completely different matter.

"Is Ego can start or not?" [48]  (the cause into effect) - This is a question of Sakavadin. Rival sect claiming to be, because in the Buddhist said: "(There are beings) must be reborn, disintegrate and die." [49]  Then the opposite sect rejected, because the opposite sex does not accept have an affinity to nature. Again, when asked: "Is the origin" ego "(humans) have obvious or not?" etc .. rival sect claiming to be, because by the opposite sex, through this proclamation, "It is because of suffering have emerged, exist and are experienced," [50]  etc .. is derived ego etc .. does not mean anything.

"Is the ego exists in reasonable cure?  [51]  " Salvage "means Nip-table and whether the ego exists in it or not?" was asked.If the ego also exists in which the opposite sex fall into a mistake for the "ego" is the eternal longevity and if the "self" does not exist in humans which then in turn destroyed or what? "the opposite sex does not want to admit it, should have rejected both.

In discussing questions origination count (paratantra). "realm" [52]  (Bhava) means that the current state of rebirth [53] (Upapatti).

To the question as follows: "Does anyone feel the feeling of joy that the know (consciousness) is I'm feeling like this?" (it is said), the school property (Yogacara) [54]  zeal conscious, while the average man is not stupid.

Depending anniversary issues, (anussati) of (concept) body, related to "physical structure" buzzing etc .. is clear. In the verses quoted in the Beijing municipal Variable Universal Prophet (Parayana, we find the expression " consider this world as blank. [55] )  that is either anniversary (anussati) this world as blank aggregates empty without "being yet [56] both" "is the ego here as this world was so reasonable?" - this is the question of Sakavadin, has asked the opposite sex, as in the verses language contains idioms: "think of this world as it is empty." He said that who considered that such is "ego." [33] "with physical nuance" means not escape physical group (body-group). Delegation recognized opposed this because there are five elements (aggregates), but when asked again, "whether reasonable ego soul? 'Adaptation opposite dismissed , so as not to conflict with Buddhist scriptures. "(Does" self "concept including custom material without it?" this is the opposite sect accept, because there are four aggregates ( namakkhandha ). But when asked again: "is the soul completely different from the body?" the opposite sect rejected immediately, so as not to fall into conflict with Buddhist scriptures.

"When he abides meditation" (abbhantara-gato.) And exit meditation "- this is the question, referring to the special meaning of" with or not in physical team? "As explained in above. in particular, "When someone entered the meditation" means to enter physical nuance, "and not free from meditation or escape physical nuances as it always existed there, do not get rid of the physical nuances . "Exit" means that previously was not the case, this time went beyond the mind's knowledge of physical nuance.

"No-self [57]  (Na atta)" deprived "the self, the soul, man. This means: Even in a human and have the same qualities, but there is no" ego ". Thus the meaning should be construed as mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures and all annotated files. However, with respect to this point, we only talk about what was said, only.

"The Buddha said to Binh Butter a right? And the following are cited to demonstrate the meaning is not always well matched shades, which have been mentioned. A vase made gold is called "pot of gold", but the vase is made of "butter" does not like the so-called average butter. it is understood here as: a jar of butter just butter jar in one container it. Likewise, an oil tank, etc .. is understood in this sense. a meal ( "regular") are not often as Nip-table. "where existence." "a meal is available continuously, providing a regular food "refers to the meaning we should give alms daily unlimited time.

Even in such expression "someone just actions to benefit only [58] " there is no one type of person who only the physical and mental aggregates, know the significance generic type and where. For example, when talking about the physical and mental aggregates, they often have a habit for this other person who has a name, and have a family. Thus, in common parlance, the idiom that we must understand is: "There is a human OU or ego," and this is the real meaning. Therefore, [34] The Buddha also said: " Tam, just the name, is the wording, is the word to say, to determine (as Duke) using common words in this world alone [59 ] "  something to say here is this: Even if there is something related to the physical and mental aggregates, the word" beings (humans) or (ego) is also used to refer to a common convention often both in the special meaning and its generic. Buddha made two kinds of sermons. one popular type and a kind of truth. what he refers to beings, humans, gods, god Brahma etc .. just the usual lectures only. Meanwhile what He raised related to impermanence, suffering, selflessness, the five aggregates, elements (aggregates), sensory sensations , apply compassion, perception, concept intentional. etc .. which are often higher than the sermon. Where the usual lectures, related to being, the ego, the gods, Brahma, who public can understand, grasp the meaning or further isolation or reach level Arhat, Buddha took the first place prize of being, ego, man, about gods and Pham-level rise disasters etc. .. Whoever heard sermons that diversity with a higher sense of impermanence, or suffering, or what look like, can understand, grasp the meaning, or isolation procedures, or gain to fruition Arhat, the Buddha preached to him another way, about impermanence etc. Thus, at first he did not preach the sublime to anyone, even those who can understand him talking about ordinary things. On the other hand, hold the correct stance, is preaching a conventional way; then, he preached the sublime new, anyone can understand. On the other hand, after having helped them enlightenment, before the sublime problem which he had taught, he has preached the usual things.Sublime goals like a yardstick, so he started teaching. Therefore Buddha preached the usual things, and then preach to the sublime, and he went through a tenacious and with the selection method. Similarly, He is very patient and sublime truths with the method chosen. "

Thus we are heard:

Omniscient Lord, a great preacher, was referring to the two truth is meaningful and significant further base substrate, and only third truth attained [60] .

In particular, sermons are geared to deal with the truth and the way of thinking of their contemporaries. The sublime sermon also brings such authenticity, like the characteristics that all things exist [61] .

[35] There was a problem placing more. The Buddha's teachings are of two types, the sublime teachings include aggregates, etc .. and common doctrine as "butter jar" for example. But Buddha did not pass perseverance, therefore, only within the "self existence" nor cohesive too, meaning supreme Buddha was announced and did not exceed the limit of concept.Therefore. any wise public should not exceed the limit of the meaning of a concept is so.

The remaining sense always always be made clear everywhere.

At this point the debate about "ego" has ended.

II.  Rate Debate: Infestation leave ( Parihani )  [62]

We read in the Buddhist scriptures as the following words: " The risk of damage leaves (belief) (parihani), and the opposite is true. O you monks, there are these two things related to septic problems leave (belief) occasionally happen where you monks are under cultivation, [63] "  and  the five things related to septic problems leave (parihani) (faith) sometimes occurs where you monks have reached liberation. [64]  " a number of sects in the Sangha (Order)" Sammitiyas namely, Vajjiputtiyas, Sabbatthivadins and others like Mahasanghikas under the belief that a-La- drought can also damage leaves (parihani) faith. "Therefore, even if this might just be the perspective of the person or persons that you go again, get rid of that view, Sakavadin (Theravada Buddhist sects) put the issue as follows:" A A -la-drought can damage leaves (belief) fruition Arhat or not? "

Here, from "Infestation depart" (loss, dimunution) clearly means two things - (1) One is missing (from left) of what we have accounted for (specific) are, and (2) the other is not practice what you have not accomplished. " Venerable Godhika depart twice necrosis (cultivation) Deliverance Center (CETO), this happens only occasionally" [65] illustrates the foregoing. "Beware not to miss the reward by the recluse life brought by retrogression (faith) because this is what you're after and searched [66] ." The allusion significant point on the case the first (that is to miss what has been achieved to be). 

In this regard, the opposite sect agrees, saying: "Yes, it is so". In the opinion of Sakavadin, leave or abandon the damage here is what has captured secular or reaches only, rather than reducing loss due reward recluse life brings, like Tier A-La- drought, etc .. for example. In view of the opposite sex, the whole cacVi recluse directed toward this award anytime, anywhere, including even the Arhat, too. These are merely the point (or claim) their only.

In order to eliminate the entire system this view [36] debate has started up by setting the following issues: "in any place or stars (bhava)?" etc .. Here, because the opposite sex does not want to accept it for that Do you Arhat, is corrupt sequential results such leave may continue to enjoy the fruits of him in Save (Stream-winner) ; and also because (the opposite sex) can not accept this in those who are present [67]  both in body and spirit in this world. But not accept this can occur in those who are continuing to work on the five desires, because they are always looking for worldly pleasures and thus they will be destroyed. So when asked: "Everywhere you?" the opposite sect rejected. As is emphasized more, the new rival sects accept only in case of involvement of sensory pleasures. That is the view of the opposite sex, because this world is ever-present sense experience everywhere. The sense pleasure led to decay (beliefs) as I have mentioned above. Thus disintegrates or retrogression (confidence) took place. There is a problem Tuesday, saying: "Are you there retrogression (belief) or not?"Those who are too dependent on the sensual pleasures that would inevitably plunge into search. Therefore "septic depart" (faith) contains the base on which we have sense pleasure where mundane activities, especially sensual and ethnical hatred.For these classes of people, those things do not exist in the place where the body and spirit. Therefore the opposite sect has rejected, saying: "No, not like that."

"At all times ( kāla ) reasonable?" This is a question relating to the timing. In this case, the opposite sect rejected the first question, which is due to happen at a time when he was totally focused meditation concept, the retrogression or disintegrates (confidence) will not happen. In the second question, the opposite sect agree, because meditation is when the mind proves to distract (the retrogression that) can occur at any time, day and night. The third question, which was raised as follows: If possible, the retrogression and decay (faith) was done interwoven, so then the decline or retrogression (faith) just held on each time only. Opposite sect has rejected this, because for those who have never been retrogression (faith) before, but this was so. As for the question, "Is all you Arhat is so reasonable?" In the first case, the opposite sect rejected, because due to the capabilities of each have been sharp. The second case, the opposite sect accepted as true, by the ability to slow because of him. And the third question, the possibility is also keen to mention. The view of the opposite sex is, none of them (the position Arhat) ï fall into that situation at all.

We see in the example a rich, the first question given by the opposite sex; and raised Sakavadin second question. Here is to say is: "It is being asked: You Arhat can damage fruition Arhat is not? Ðang place at the havoc he departed rank retrogression or Arhat , it will damage the entire Noble Fruit leave. it was my turn to ask you: "If a rich man poured walls cracked archives, he had forty thousand rupees contract, losing only one of thousands of forty thousand such contracts , then does the person has escaped from the scene of his riches wealth is reasonable? "Only when considered in case that wealthy people take a small portion of such assets, Sakavadin answer is:" Yes. "Phai opposition asked again: "so that the rich have been missed affluent status by forty thousand rupees contract giving him or not?" because the situation can not happen, Sakavadin then said: " no, he did not fall into poverty due to lose a small part where such fortune "[37] Therefore, should an Arhat can never lose rank retrogression a-la his welding or the Four Noble fruit is. " Opposed such sects recognize any possible restrictions that wealthy people into poverty, immediately agreed. But when asked about the possibility of an Arhat is likely to be escaped from Noble Eightfold too, right opposite the wrong expression is understood: "The then proceed to step firmly on the path to enlightenment "and consistent with the view that you Arhat can not deviate from the path Noble Fruits once became Remember, and rival sects rejected. But this is only the personal views of the opposite sex only.

The application of the thesis ends here.

Resurfaced this point comparing the German saint. There are some who recognized an Arhat can leave Arhat level; some others are said to have not ever again and another back only once and can also leave the Arhat level you have reached it. But no one who accepted a Project Save can secede from the path reasonable.They only accept the retrogression of those who, after having left the Arhat level, to reach [68]  is asserted not born again (never-Returner), or only once born again (there have been time-Returner) only. They do not accept that: Remember Me can leave it any longer ranks. Therefore, a study has been started to learn each sermon of the Buddha.

Related to this issue, to confirm or refute should be understood in view separately. "Does a rebirth never (never-Returner) has left Real hybrids are not?" In this regard not only those who accept the leave (secession) of your holy religion Any hybrid born again rejected, but those who accept the leave of the Sacred Path has become god Real hybrids through the normal average, or those who have left the Arhat level, as in the case who recaptured. This was clearly expressed in the texts below.

Meaning all the sermons of the Buddha should be understood in this sense, that is: It has been mentioned here, namely: "Is he or she has shown the level Arhat" continued follow after have reached the first holy or not? "this is in place with the level reached Arhat after septic leave Arhat fruit, and again tried to reach that level again. the rest dismissed the matter, to be no longer ranks Arhat fruit other than this first church. Then, to further investigate whether this damage can leave or retrogression must due to ignorance of the elimination of pollution have suffered or not, or by cultivating the path that out etc .. [38] not so exaggerated on one side, or the failure to recognize the stand or such questions. "Who has shed a lot more than this pollution?" etc .. all of these issues have been too obvious.

However, the meaning should be understood in the Buddhist scriptures as was raised in the texts as well as in the collective Note. In the question "Does a god Arhat of liberation ( vimuttikala ) [69]  can damage leaves fruition Arhat reasonable?"Here, their view is: He who has the ability to limit, sometimes to gain liberation, and those who have the keen ability to be liberated in any circumstances or at all complete soup. In the opinion of Sakavadin was definitive conclusions were: Who reaches jhānas  Jhana , but no power to control it has been set free, but not continuously, while the person who has reached is jhānas both  jhana  and self-restraint was also reached by all of the kind of holiness in every situation as well as the circumstances were freed thanks to the merit of their work. These (people arguing) tries to hold the view that: "He who only occasionally be freed (ie intermittent) will fall back on. (The) other person does not." It has also left clear.

The comparison of those holy people end here.

The following is taken from Buddhist scriptures evidence. Here "Both High and Low" is compare the highest and lowest."The way" means the holy religion by Salmone (Samana) revealed, so to speak, by the Buddha taught. Noble's subliminal level and sporadic acts quickly attained. Meanwhile ways of operating difficulties and the slow acquisition. The next pair is somewhat higher and somewhat lower. "Those who have reached the other shore" means "does not go twice along the path leading to Nip-table, but only one time only." How so? "For all these things removed pollution and pollution which can not be formed back again. In this way, a condition when there is no left (secession) is explained. "not only once the target was thought to" have means "there came a time that people value achievements that." Why? the reason is because the removal of the whole things just as noble pollution only. [39] through the path this unique, achievement reached Arhat level has also been explained.

Through question: "What needs to be removed, unless removal except what was reasonable?" That is the next question, that is: "Is that something was cut away from the cycle of reincarnation pollution, once was cut off earlier or not?" Opposite sect-related rejected those senses there is talent there and as sharp (opposite sex) to be asked back, then again agreed to remain just as likely to slow. Sakavadin criticized Buddhist scriptures and showed an absence that happens. In which "described save (ogha) and blessed yoke (yoga)" means flooding and pollution of such pollution. "The accumulation of what needs to be accumulated." It means doing noble arise [70]  (Way-Culture). This issue and the rejection should be understood as agreed on.

Kinh yet the corrupt, rotten reduced. Opposite sect has cited. there are five things lead to the decay, rot decrease from what was reached by including secular achievements. But those who think of the decay, rot reduction of the guys do not reach the highest achievement, immediately asked: "The Arhat not feel interested in worldly living or what? Mission opposition rejected who quit because thinking is freed from in any circumstances and all situations, but accepts related to opposite sex was raised above. (Delegation opposed) was rejected because clearly clearly a person can be loved and to be bound by sexual carnal desires, but agreed because there's bound to be loved and to others. etc .. However (opposite sex) was not confirmed be. "(he) has been attacked or not?" means sexual desires were attacked.

In questions related to trends [71]  have also been dismissed and agreed to be understood is related to the agility and the ability to slow respectively. Or, rival only accepted by express: "He still has the tendency (anusaya) good potential."

"Does your Arhat accumulation craving habits reasonable? This question was raised, relating to the representation of the (practice craving). In the next questions related to anger and ignorance passion and this is significant. However, (opposite sex) does not accept any accrued. as far as the interpretation of the opinion (sect opposed) etc .. all this shows that there is nowhere corrupt, rotten decrease appeared. It was too obvious remaining in any place.

Rate debate about the decay, rot reducing ends here.

III .  Rate Debate: Pham almond (brahmacariya) (ie life of holiness)

[40] Pham Hanh importance to two times: that the path is starting and further isolation. There the Gods (Deva) yet is the second cultivation, but nobody prevented [72]  The first thing they do, except those belonging to the realm of mindless (asnni ). But some, such as those belonging to the sect Sammitiyas, they do not believe the path is starting where the Gods[73]  at a higher level ", as the Devas Paranimmitavasavatti, and surpass their class. Concerning Sakavadin they asked, "Pham Hanh does not exist where the devas or what?"

"You monks, beings where Jambudvipa (Jambudipa) (ie India) superior beings in North Aries Liu Chau (kirudipa) and in the realm of the Gods Tam decade .  Three aspects were what is Courage, Right Mindfulness (sati) and Pham Hanh? [74]because of this Buddhist texts, so entrenched sects opposed to the notion that there are two types of discounts can not be and therefore Hanh dispatched to inverse (opposite sex) has agreed to accept. Also, consider the standpoint of things can create obstacles even when there are two kinds of virtue, Sakavadin asked: "are all the devas are ignorant both or what? "etc .. here" opposite sect communicated with hand gestures "means not accepted by gestures, like hand signals so dumb. 

In the next question: "The heavenly beings get Pham Hanh or not? Sakavadin confirmed by the path is starting (Way-culture). Do not look at the meaning of the affirmation, the opposite sect questions raised in connection with the glasses on. Dealing with this question: "Separated process can not be found where?" etc .. rival sects rejected because of the merits of flesh and some devas. When (the opposite sex) asked again, then (He) accepts related to the beings of the countries of the region borders and mindless realm of the gods. "the ones who continue Separated?" etc .. well in this question, we see as significant. also, in the question: "The heavenly beings have continuously cultivate affordable glasses?" Sakavadin agree because the path is starting. When asked again: "The whole the heavenly beings who also cultivate Ly Process reasonable? "He did not agree because the gods of mindless realm can not be done. In both questions:" What about the human being, why? "this sentence should be understands that the approval relates only to those beings of Jambudvipa (Jambudipa) only, and also for being at the border, then (He) denies. "There are many worlds in which people perform further isolation." means having both the realms of heavenly beings or the beings in countries where the practice is further isolation. Thus by distinguishing beings and such countries should have the answers Sakavadin above. Thus, all other questions should be interpreted according to the mentioned above.

By applying to the Buddhist scriptures, in the statement: "The result (of their work) Where did that come from?" Sakavadin asked: For Tier Real Lai, the fruit of Arhat level comes from? "Just be there and there only." Means in place (called the realm) Tinh Pham About (Pure-Abode) only. "Well, then," [41] only a very small amount of people who perform continuous glass all? This meaning is what? Because Tier Real Lai, has demonstrated achievements on this earth, and was not able to cultivate [75]  elsewhere any other Sacred Path, therefore should not say, "Where the Gods are not Hanh Pham could have. ""Then when we express in a holy place, by practicing somewhere. In this case the Remember will be like? Etc .. Similarly they (the Gods) has this may reflect "- to express this sense Sakavadin by comparing asked:" Does Tier Real Lai "etc .. here (opposite sex) involves agreeing holy express, tier Real Lai express. But for other people's holy, opposite sex (opposite sex) are not recognized. Real Lai completed Level holy departed this world after, also cultivate noble only when he was in this world only. After practicing the path of Tier Real Lai in earth, he will be reborn in a natural way, [76]  From the "Finish presence in realms that" opposing sects believe so, for that though no existing noble start, (opposite sex) has also been shown in the ranks holy Arhat by rebirth only. But who in Save and Level Real Lai, performed there and also the path of rebirth out there. They did not return to this world. So when (the opposite sex) was asked about the representation of Real Hybrid Tier holy places, he has accepted. But these other rival sects rejected. Questions about the phrase "Tier Real Lai (rebirth) by the noble practice where this world. Sakavadin asked:" Is he (the opposite sex) can grow to be noble without removing the cells infected reasonable? "Phai opposite concerning holy reject religion exists where Brahma realm [77] . in that holy religion, sect opposed finish at worlds Brahma after leaving this life. in questions with the phrase: "Tier real Lai has done what needs to be done, to be reborn in a natural way," opposite sects agree, because this sentence contains significant "presence is completed there "means the opposite sex will be reborn and" has done must be done [78]  etc .. In questions with the word "Arhat" opposite sex (sect opposed) rejected inter to taste Arhat have reached final Nip-table; when the opposite sex (sect opposed) was asked back: "The Arhat does not reborn?" etc .. meaning questions like this should be understood, "Is it reaching died there or not?" After having achieved Nip-table on this earth? "When (the opposite sex) was asked again:" Do not understand what you Arhat has achieved died there without going through the status quo does not change [79] . (Delegation of the opposition) immediately rejected because the opposite sect believed that an Arhat proved steadfast and noble use that overcome obstacles, what we have in this earthly practice. A fable, specifically as follows: "Like a deer" was originally [42] quoted then Sakavadin also do the same.

Rate Pham Hanh debate end here.

IV .  Rate Debate: Pure gradual (progressive) ( odniso )  [80]

Here, in order to break the prevailing opinion, for example, where the sect Sammitiyas and some other denominations. when they said to Remember and those belonging to non-Christian, have higher intelligence that achieved in entering the meditation  Jahna  or in a state of intoxication and to gain insight into the nature penetrated suffering etc .. work eliminating the pollution (or vice versa) to proceed very slowly, which means that, each time only to achieve a very small amount. " [81] Sakavadin learn more:" (a newly reforming) Having eliminated the pollution slowly reasonable? 'Adaptation opposite agreed. the next question is of Sakavadin. Phai opposition dismissed, because it is likely part as a login Save and relative like. Thus, the meaning should be understood in any context chance scene.

Rate Pure debate about progressive ends here.

V .  Rate Debate: Extinction Ta (evil) ( Jahati : purify polluted)

"A normal human being Removal Ta (ie lust and malice senses) are not?" Sakavadin put this question to break the current ideas are so sectarian Sammitiyas to be a human being, reached jhānas  Jhana , can understand the base and become Tier Real Lai. Kill the senses and desires malice is when that person is still just a normal human being into this world under reasonable? " [82]  However, the opposite sex does not recognize any trends (anusaya) where the who reject meditation jhana , immediately rejected the path through the Tier Real Lai, therefore Sakavadin asked again: "forever reasonable?" etc .. the other (opposite sex) rejected, because no one such killing both fitness. Concerning the sexual destroy forever Sakavadin asked: "Gender opposite sex have not done killing?" it was later made a comparison is made between the people and the other ordinary mortal who is following the Noble Eightfold Real Hybrid Tier. this was so obvious.

Then, when (the opposite sex) was asked: "The flesh can set up the fruits of hybrid Tier Any reasonable?" (Delegation of the opposition) concerning acceptance stage meditation Tier Real Lai enter  Jhana . When (the opposite sex) was asked: "Is that person is established is where Career Arhat reasonable?" [43] sect opposed (opposite sex) rejected because they do not eliminate the hindrances yoke ( samyoga ) (fetters) under the higher sphere where the Holy Path and meditation.

When asked: "(Mission opposition) have cultivated is anything new place Holy Tam Dao reasonable?" opposite sect rejected, because the current lack of a start like that Noble. When asked again, affirm the opposite sex and consent related to the work place of the Three Sacred Path. This is also the meaning of the questions related to the achievement of a recluse (Samana).

Asked again: "By the Holy Path is that?" By the path of Tier Real Lai, related to the period of the Tier Real hybrid enter meditation. When asked a second time, the opposite sex (opposite sex) accepted by entering the first Sacred Way toward the path of meditation Tier Real Lai enter  Jhana . What remains is so clear here.

Rate Extinction debate Ta (evil) ends here.

VI .  Rate Debate: "All things exist" ( sabbamatthiti ).

"Everything can exist?" This is the question raised Sakavadin. "To break the idea, so long remained, for example, now is the issue of" things exist (Sabb'atthivadins) (Everything is literally exist ") study a passage biblical Suttanta: "anything that brings Sac About Physical, past, present and future," etc ..  [83]  phenomena entire past, present. and future, "exist in which the status quo and thus the entire universe exist ". Based on the opinion of the (opposite sex), as has been explained, the opposite sect immediately agreed.

In the question "Everywhere reasonable?" (opposite sex) immediately raised the question: Is all things exist bountiful reasonable? "the question" Does forever? "question was that" All things exist in all times? "In questions "Does any angle?" the question again arises: "everything exists in every way, or what?"  in the question "in all" questions raised is: "everything exists where the does everything? "" nothing related at all, "which means not in a state of coordination, a coordination place where many different states, not just where a certain status. Thus, in this question, using methods from physical Sac and feelings, or sensations and physical phenomena. as a homogeneous, undifferentiated. a question was raised: "All the exist or what? "It does not exist or what is in existence? It does not exist already completed the so-called completed elements (aggregates) Friday [84]  or so horny rabbits, etc. . this is where you do not exist? A question was posed. [44] in the question: "Does Everything exist?" the question was raised: is the right view is considered to be wrong, when things exist? Your opinion namely "things exist." is wrong because there is no truth in it. But you can not accept this view is our opinion. There is truth in it is true. Opposite sect rejected because no such thing exists. As has been mentioned in all the methods.

Now, in every way, in all the points analyzed in this report and, starting with "accept your rejection." etc .. should be understood in every detail.

Related to this issue is considerably more debate.

As for the timing issues are raised as follows: "The past does not exist?" In the past questions exist? etc .. only involves pure idea alone time (times-ideas).

In the "Sac physical methods exist?" etc .. in this question related to the issue purely time this time touched the Aggregates."If the (two words) symbolizes the physical yun regarded as homogeneous" means: remove aside the past and the future, if two words symbolize the physical yun be treated as homogenous , no clear separation. As for the question: "Does (aggregates) have ignored the physical nature reasonable?" (Delegation of the opposition) rejected this, because Sac physical measures are being killed including more physical yun. As for the negative issues of physical nature? Rival sects (sect opposed) to accept, because the physical properties have been grouped in the Aggregates.

In the sentence: "If there exists any distinction is made in two (from)" white "and" fabric, "(opposite sex) has not said whether all the songs are white fabric all or star, or just a white piece of this fabric only. (opposite sex) simply says: If there is no discrimination occurs between the (two words) "white" and "fabric"; so Sakavadin accept the homogeneous in this sense. in the question: "Fabrics with characteristic white remove it?" (opposite sex) rejected the concept because it was unknown here. this is also the method argue the opposite style .

When asked: "The past is not characteristic to abandon his past or what?" (Opposite sex) rejected because I thought, if past abandoned properties (past) her, then turned out the past will become the present or the future. But when asked: "The future is not abandoned properties (future) of me?" Opposite sect rejected because I thought, if the future does not abandon its properties, the future can not reach the current characteristics of its past. On questions relating to the present, too, (opposite sex) reject because they think it must be something wrong, when there is a past feature in it. So we should understand this meaning as defined questions.

After confirming the pure method [45] (question), "The Past Is Sac physical approach reasonable?" etc .. Here, also need to say it is to prove by the aggregates. We will understand the whole of this as in writing.

Next is how to use the word begins with the sentence: "The past exists reasonable?" Here "Assuming that the past does not exist," that is, if the past does not exist. "Saying that the past exists is wrong," this means that it is wrong to say there is something that exists past, and likewise when we asked (the opposite sex): "A similar objects there exist certain hybrid reasonable? " (Delegation of the opposition) dismissed by distinguishing time, because this time the future has yet to exist.When asked, (opposite sex) immediately confirmed, as also in the future, so once that happens, will become current. Saying, "Whatever happened, appeared once again?" That is, that this is the future has become the present or what? (Followed by) a physical future become the present and in view of (sect opposite), it may be, or the future, or the present, too. "When an object (the future) that become current?" Opposite sect that rejects this: "No," because anything has become a reality will not be able to go back to the future again and so just (became) currently only . Asked again, (opposite sex) agreed, thinking can only talk about a future object when realizing it was in the present. "

Sakavadin Then ask again (opposite sex): "You can only refer to a future object, when the object has become" a reality, and so you can just mention something that has improved real character now and when it does not become a reality because there exists in the present. - Like: "The hare with horns - in mythology (Greek) - has become a reality when, does not appear in the present or the stars [85] ?" Thus, (Sakavadin) asks: "So when certain things become a reality at present exist both or what? The other (opposite sex) spoke:" It is something that does not exist because the current lack of it, is just that, a certain future materials, while not becoming a reality (not appear), it has yet to appear (in the present) that is not real. "such , "no object exists, as it has not become a reality, then the object is not present in the current or what? "Sure enough," Again, when asked (the opposite sex): "A character does not appear in the present, when the animal does not become a reality that does not exist in the present or what?" (opposite sex) rejected this, because the opposite sex think that an object has not yet appeared, it does not exist.

[46] With respect to the question: "What a character we've seen before in the past have appeared to be the same character in the present, or will occur in the future or what?" (Delegation of the opposition) dismissed analyzing such time, because at the moment is not yet past. When asked again, (opposite sex) to think that animals have appeared in the present becomes the past before, and (the opposite sex) to accept because it was the animal characters past. Saying "Is the current has become a reality (at present exist), it currently has become the past, and (because of the past has become a reality) so past has become the present or the stars ? " mean when you say, something that has become a reality, immediately becomes the past (design that is) what (exist) immediately present become the past, and according to this view, the current object , immediately becomes the past. Are animals also (exist in) the present, when animals that have become reality or what? (Delegation of the opposition) dismissed, saying: "No," because after the object has not become a reality (in the present), the material does not become a reality, (at present) again, and then become (things) past. After being asked. (Opposite sex) agreed because I thought (the opposite sex) can talk about an existing character (in the present), when it has become the past.

Then Sakavadin asked (the opposite sex): "If it is possible for that now, as has become a reality, is the past, and again, if you can show that something has become a reality as the past and when do not become a reality, it is not the past - "as in the myth" rabbit with horns "- not the past or what was, when it has become a reality? And so Sakavadin asked: "So, no material exists, the animal does not become a reality, to become (exist in) the past?" (Delegation of the opposition) speak: "It is an object that can not exist as such only because animals do not (have the) presence. Similarly currently not become the past, when the (current) less become reality." Does not the present become the past, when the (current) has not become a reality or what? "" It is possible that such "Again when (opposite sex) was asked:" That's not something became (things) past, when (the thing) has become a reality or what? "(mission opposition) dismissed as opposite sex thinks it can not survive right?" If we consider two questions on just one, I should think it necessary to establish a correlation. Thus with the help of both issues in a meeting next following issues.

There is another argument. If such an object (the future) that became a reality in the present, the material (the future) it can be seen as existing plants, followed by current as well as future viewing. That right (is) so, the immediate future is also being (instant) becomes current. Therefore we ask: "Are both of these things are just a (uniform), but completely different from each other?" (Delegation of the opposition) dismissed. As has already been rejected in the question: "Is it (something) future, to become a why?" When asked again, (opposite sex) immediately recognized, as had been agreed, the next question.

And then to be able to ask (the opposite sex) by repeating the question: "Is it still the future, become current is it?" (Opposite sex) has dismissed this before and to make (the opposite sex) to accept every thing out of what has been mentioned here is only one, and can become something else special, Sakavadin asked: "is not something that has to be uniform (just one). Again become something completely different to be reasonable? meaning here is: You did not say that something in the future has become current again or what? By reject the first question [47] both of which, called the future becomes the present and called the present has become a reality and the present has not rejected what is left. that's why the future does not exist, and now does not become a reality. in the second question, too, you have to accept that the future becomes the present. It is so, future that, while not yet a reality, do not exist; both now again, if not become a reality, it does not exist. therefore we ask: "are each of these things, because heterogeneous, it has become something completely different? "

As if being in the dark covered from all sides, the opposite sex do not realize that these things, once impossible become reality is, neither exists and rejects, saying "no, no should be. "

The second question is that, if something is shown in the present becomes the past, the present, the next is shown in the past, and the past and present is said to be so. The can is thus currently exists and has the same past. Therefore we would ask you to see: "Are each of these things, and just one (the largest), has become something completely different?" At first, (the opposite sex) dismissed, as did so in the question: "Does the future has become the present is not, and now has become the past, right?" and then once again asked the opposite sex, the opposite sex having approved, as it did so in the next question below.

Then, to be able to ask for (the opposite sex) by repeating the question: "Does the future could become the present, and (currently) to become the past is not?" this question (sect opposed) had previously rejected, and to make (the opposite sex) to accept all three of the above is just one, but can be analyzed into three separate issues, stating the question Sakavadin asked: "Is not something heterogeneous, can be differentiated stars?" means: "You did not say the current becomes the past is what?" By reject the first question, which is both current and future existence has become a reality. "Therefore, the present did not exist and the past as well. The second question too, because you have recognized the current has become the past. really is thus currently not become a reality if it did not exist; the past too, if not become a reality, it is impossible to survive in. This is why we ask you: "is all three discrete issues, because not a (uniform) to become different things reasonable?" it seemed to be darkness on all sides , rival sects have not seen that all three conditions (current, past and future) because it can not be a (uniform) and once did not become a reality is, it will never be definitively held out, and (opposite sex) denied, saying: "no, not like that."

The third question is that, if something in the future is in the present instance, and (currently) to take place in the past, and then from there we have for the future and now they both express at present and the same sequence and all the past again, we also considered the past and present were also made in the future [48] and sequential so even present. Such is indeed, a future event, too, once they become a reality, it also exists. Therefore, ask yourself: "Are many events does not become a (uniform) and has become one of the other events are not?" At first (the opposite sex) rejected, because (the opposite sex) has denied it in the question: "Does the future has become the present and the past, or not?" and then when asked the (opposite sex) again confirmed to have been accepted in the second question.

Then, to be able to ask (the opposite sex) by repeating the question: "Does the future has become the present and the (current) becomes the past?" - This has been rejected - and to make (the opposite sex) accept each event (past, present and future) are just a (uniform), to become something else, Sakavadin asked: "one event something heterogeneous, can become something else? " Meaning this question as follows: "He (the opposite sex) did not say: the future becomes the present, and (now) have become the past or what?" By reject the first question, for both future and current events at all exist, and that the present and the past can not be a (uniform) is.

The second question, too. You (the opposite sex) has been recognized as future events become current, and that current (becoming) the past. Such is indeed the future, too, when (future) does not become a reality when they can not survive.Therefore we would like to ask him a question: "how not a single event in the three events, has such a (uniform) and was shown something else?"

As may be darkness on every side, opposite sect does not recognize these three issues, once did not become a reality, it can not happen to be, and (opposite sex) rejected said: No, can not be. "

The cleared any doubts about the words end here.

By following the rejection, etc .. should be contacted as explained above. For questions such as: Label has existed in the past, there exist reasonable? [86] "etc .. (sect opposed) recognized, because the eyes exists, even if the visual perception etc. .. has been eliminated. When asked: "We have seen reasonable?" etc .. but the opposite sect has rejected because the function and the nature of the object that sense. and the question: "function understand said due to (past) soon be known or not? "(opposite sex) dismissed, because due process knowledge can be stopped (not continuous) [49] (the opposite sex] not recognize this function. When asked again, (opposite sex) has turned the current events about to be known (coming to know) as if the past citing the current is going to be known objects of the past is the past is going to be known for by the knowledge of the audience past that and accept as necessary to the functioning with (past) soon be known there.

Then Sakavadin, does not create conditions [87]  for the (opposite sex), asked: "One can not understand the wrong one (past) the only known it?" etc .. rival sects rejected, because there is no four conditions to be aware that past objects.

In the question of the future knowledge objects have the same questions posed; The problem of understanding of the current and the relevant comparison is clear.

For questions: "What about craving properties, etc .. your past Arhat exist?" (Delegation of the opposite) is acceptable because of the property damage caused by craving, etc .. cause. On the question: "(This time) the Arhat has become lustful or not?" etc .. Gender opposite rejected for fear that it may be contrary to the Buddhist scriptures and the arguments raised above. So we should understand all these events perfectly match the Buddhist scriptures.

Subsequently, significant sentence, "If something (necessarily) have to exist" should be understood as follows: "If the past does still exist (as craving exists)" past exists it absolutely is past. Present and future existence is not the past. For that reason, the past can not understand the past, or the past events that may be past. Therefore, the past may be the past, not the past (present & future) probably also is the past. In the case of current and future also to arguments similar to the above.

According to Buddhist scriptures prove the opposite sect asked: Saying that "the past and future existence are wrong?" Such re-affirmed Sakavadin. Again, for the benefit of the views of their own, the opposite sex and asked: " O you monks, regardless of matter occurs. [88] "  In this second argument, the key question Sakavadin is. Meanwhile, rival sect was confirmed to be true. Thus, in any case of questions and answers should be confirmed well understood. To prove that "The future exists" opposite sect Buddhist scriptures quoted as follows: " It is not Buddha did not say why :  O monk (If we see the desire, delirium pleasure and longing) for food and drink [89] "  etc .. and the late Beijing Buddha pointed out in the last sentence of Buddhist scriptures were:  definitely reborn exist in the future. [90 ]  But concerning certainty of the opposite sex are given achievement completing a certain number of conditions. This is the meaning of the trade there. Things remaining all too clear.

Rate debate about "all things exist" ends here.

VII .  Rate Debate: "The past aggregates" ( Atitakhandha )

[50] In this case the opposing sect to ask questions, "our past is reinforced at the physical and mental Aggregates is not it?"because (the opposite sex) considered both the past and the present exist, because all the aggregates and other factors (our experience of) exist where the status quo (ie the aggregates and elements other) (as a form of ego complex) Sakavadin consent as "positive" sums up the past into the Aggregates.

Again, the opposite sect asked: "Does the past exist?" Sakavadin rejected, because according to Beijing Niruttipattha [91]  , the self-existence of the past were rejected. Such understanding, meaning there should be construed as in questions related to the organs in the body and the sense objects. With the elements (aggregates), those relating to the future and the next is both of these methods and negative assertion comes from the comparison with the present and in what we started with, "whether past there remains in excellent physical world or not? "

However, in the Buddhist scriptures as evidenced by, Sakavadin asked: "Have to say so ... is it wrong?" etc .. In this case, "Things [92]  does not exist" means that the characteristics (psychic) it does not exist. Opposite sect accepted immediately: "Yes so that" because (sect opposed) for this is in a state of rest Aggregates same things exist at all. Then Sakavadin criticized Buddhist scriptures to prove that these things did not exist. The second question of the opposite sex, too.Sakavadin assertion is correct. Then Phai opposite criticism Buddhist scriptures. to prove that (past and our future) exists where the aggregates, etc .. Questions declared "these things" exist. whether there be brought to discussion, and as if not grasp.

Rate debate: Our Past in Uan not exist? etc .. end here.

VIII .  Score debate: "Some of the (past and future of us) still exists." ( Ekacca mathihi )

In this respect, Sakavadin questioned: "The past does not exist?" To wipe out the reviews from the past remain today, for example, where the sect Kassapikas [93]  for the "past (past life) continues to exist after we die, as currently exist in part somehow. " Opposite sect replied: "Some still exist." This is the meaning of questions.

As opposed seconded the opinion, said that the events that have not yet matured enough holy exist, and what is holy to fully mature, it no longer exists. Therefore Sakavadin asked: "Some past events have destroyed it?" [94]  That is: you think are some of the past events exist, others are not. If so, the next there will be a number of events of the past will be lost, others are not, exist. In the "passing" [95]  (ie disappear Vigata) etc .. this is the moot point, because the question "What is holy remains imperfect" because (the opposite sex) want negotiations guess things have not reached perfection church still exists, and because these things belong to the past, therefore to be able to question the opposing sect, Sakavadin asked: "the fact that things are not get some satisfactory outcomes persist, while others do not? " Like the past cases where: there are some still exist.

"Things have been holy perfection" was referring to the opposite sex, for questioning related to what he said, did not exist."Things did not bring anything holy," also referred to the opposite sex, for questioning related to what remains unclear is ambiguous, therefore particularly relevant to the three groups identified and where negative all of these methods directly or indirectly should be understood as such.

Discussing the past, some have perfectly holy, some do not get such results. What have perfect results, called such, is that "behavior creates rebirth, life and death is the result of them, and the maturity of the results, the survival from birth until death. " This is referred to, is related to things that past. Granted the past so will mature as our holy achieved. Sakavadin asked: "Everything that can be considered as being really exist?" Only acts of virtue is full of holy virtue who were said to exist, even if that person is asleep again. Likewise for the opposite sex habits agreed. Whether the merit of it (in this respect) will become mature, when asked to opposite sex: "The thing is it reasonable now?" Because entrenched with the idea that the act is known as immortal, therefore the opposite sex should be a lot of action accrued, (opposite sex) agreed.

As for the question: "The future exists or not?" etc .., (opposite sex) replied that aside because of events that have emerged.What remained were too clear, as we have mentioned above.

"Score some debate about the past and the future exist" ends here.

IX .  Rate Debate: "Mindfulness Made" ( sati Patthana )  [96]

Some groups advocate, special views have emerged later, ie Andhaka sect, including many other sub groups: group Pubbnaselyas, Apareaselyas. Rajagirikas and Saddhatthikas, to hold the point, to be the object of mindfulness, namely the body, and the rest, is the (conscious subject): "that is mindfulness." They have deduced this from the biblical passage "satipaṭṭhāna-Samyutta as follows:  " Behold, you monks, we will show you see, and stop the practice of mindfulness practice is like. " [ 97] to break down this concept, the Theravada Buddhist sect (Theravada) immediately questioned and (opposing sects) immediately agreed to accept. 

Because  patthanas  (literally, place, origin) means what we apply: Applications anything wrong? Mindfulness. So applications Mindfulness means objects forming the basis for mindfulness; therefore mindful get  Patthanas (applications) within the scope of mindfulness. But who is the application? They were shown an interest (deliberate) (satiyo). Thus the application of mindfulness means that those who are applying mindfulness. Therefore, this also means that there are two consecutive views antithetical.

Sakavadin questions related to those who do not follow this order and insisted emphatically, for the entire law to ( sabba dhamma ) [98]  constitutes the application of mindfulness. Rival sects agree with this, because the object [99]  (the aggregates). When asked again: "Are all the aggregates are formed mindful or not?" But (opposite sex) rejected as not form aggregates all mindfulness.

At this point the expression "lead to kill" etc .. are referring to Sacred Path "led to killing" means the path leading to Nip-table, creating an end to all the pollution. "Which leads to enlightenment" means lead to realize the Four Noble Truths location. "Which leads to the disintegration or decay" means the path that led to the cancellation of the cycle (reincarnation).So these words apply opposite sex and asked: "All things are consciously noble form similar to lead to the same goal or not?" Unlike shackled, bound "etc .. has been mentioned to be able to ask questions about the current state of abstraction," Flashback to the Buddha, "etc .. has been mentioned by asking questions about the analysis. "the visual space may constitute applications of mindfulness or not?" etc .. also be posed by asking questions on how to analyze all the material sense.

On this point the Government also related to consciousness, and confirmed by the object that out. In this whole issue, should be understood as meaning the same. Demonstrating through Buddhist scriptures have become too obvious.

Rate debate about how mindfulness ends here.

X .  Rate Debate: "The invariant methods exist is." ( Hevatthiti )

[53] "All things exist" in time, through physical gender identity and what remains: as the past, present or future, but the past has no future, just as the current at the same time. There is whatever medium is the future and the present is the past, and thus the entire universe exist and do not exist as such [100] . This is the opinion many people are currently being pursued, such ratio, the Andhakas and others, as Pubbaseliyas, etc .. as was mentioned above. Sakavadin asked them: "The past does not exist?" Opposite sect replied: "The past exists in this way, and did not survive otherwise."

Here, the words "by the way" simply means "like this".

Then, Sakavadin said: "The past exists in this way, and can not survive otherwise?" And if the same past that do not exist in this way, they can not exist without the presence okay? Opposite sect rejected, because it can not be, because the main character of the past is just survive but also just does not exist anymore. Asked a second time. Opposite sect confirmed because the past can not exist where its main status quo and does not exist in any other status quo.

Then (Sakavadin) asked: "One of the ontological status quo can become incorporeal status quo is not? It means, if this is (character) exists and (property) does not exist reasonable ? " Thus, the meaning should be understood in all cases. However, finally saying rūpa physical existence in this way and no other way exists and etc .. Gender opposing verification after all, has his views, said that the past exists in this way and no other way exists. But if the past is not verified in an appropriate manner, it can not verify anything at all. END=NAM MO AMITABHA BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=THICH GIAC TAM.THE MIND OF ENLIGHTENMENT.VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=GOLDEN AMITABHA PURELAND=AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.1/12/2016.