Kathavatthu 2.10: Vohārakathā

2.10.1.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Controverted Point: That the Exalted Buddha's ordinary speech was supramundane.

2.10.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That the Exalted Buddha's ordinary speech was supramundane.

2.10.1.3

Lokuttare sote paṭihaññati no lokiye, lokuttarena viññāṇena paṭivijānanti no lokiyena, sāvakā paṭivijānanti no puthujjanāti?

Does it strike upon a supramundane ear, not a mundane one; do they understand it with supramundane consciousness, not with mundane [consciousness]; do disciples understand it, not ordinary people?

Theravādin: Does this not involve the further statement that his speech impinged only on the spiritual, but not on the mundane ear; and that the spiritual, not the mundane, intelligence responded to it, and thus that disciples alone were aware of it, not average persons? You do not admit this … Nay, you know that the Exalted Buddha's speech struck on the mundane hearing of men, was responded to by mundane intelligence, and that average persons were aware of it.

2.10.1.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.2.1

Nanu buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiye sote paṭihaññatīti?

Does not the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, strike upon a mundane ear?

2.10.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.2.3

Hañci buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiye sote paṭihaññati, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, strikes upon a mundane ear, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.2.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.3.1

Nanu buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ lokiyena viññāṇena paṭivijānantīti?

Do they not understand the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, with mundane consciousness?

2.10.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.3.3

Hañci buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ lokiyena viññāṇena paṭivijānanti, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If they understand the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, with mundane consciousness, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.3.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.4.1

Nanu buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ puthujjanā paṭivijānantīti?

Do not ordinary people understand the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One?

2.10.4.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.4.3

Hañci buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ puthujjanā paṭivijānanti, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If ordinary people understand the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.4.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.5.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

The terms he used, are they supramundane— Path, Fruit, Nibbāna, Path and Fruit of Stream-Winning, Once-Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship, earnest application in mindfulness, supreme endeavour, steps to magic potency, controlling power or faculty, force, factor of enlightenment?

2.10.5.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

The terms he used, are they supramundane— Path, Fruit, Nibbāna, Path and Fruit of Stream-Winning, Once-Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship, earnest application in mindfulness, supreme endeavour, steps to magic potency, controlling power or faculty, force, factor of enlightenment?

2.10.5.3

Maggo phalaṃ nibbānaṃ, sotāpattimaggo sotāpattiphalaṃ, sakadāgāmimaggo sakadāgāmiphalaṃ, anāgāmimaggo anāgāmiphalaṃ, arahattamaggo arahattaphalaṃ, satipaṭṭhānaṃ sammappadhānaṃ iddhipādo indriyaṃ balaṃ bojjhaṅgoti?

Is it the path, the fruit, unbinding; the path of stream-entry, the fruit of stream-entry; the path of once-returning, the fruit of once-returning; the path of non-returning, the fruit of non-returning; the path of arahantship, the fruit of arahantship; an establishment of mindfulness, a right exertion, a basis for spiritual power, a faculty, a power, an awakening factor?

The terms he used, are they supramundane— Path, Fruit, Nibbāna, Path and Fruit of Stream-Winning, Once-Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship, earnest application in mindfulness, supreme endeavour, steps to magic potency, controlling power or faculty, force, factor of enlightenment?

2.10.5.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

The terms he used, are they supramundane— Path, Fruit, Nibbāna, Path and Fruit of Stream-Winning, Once-Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship, earnest application in mindfulness, supreme endeavour, steps to magic potency, controlling power or faculty, force, factor of enlightenment?

2.10.6.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Were there any who heard his everyday speech? But you deny that a supramundane object is known by way of the ear, impinges on the ear, comes into the avenue of hearing. Therefore you cannot affirm that men “heard” his everyday speech.

2.10.6.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.6.3

Atthi keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ suṇantīti?

Are there some who hear the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One?

2.10.6.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.6.5

Lokuttaro dhammo sotaviññeyyo, sotasmiṃ paṭihaññati, sotassa āpāthaṃ āgacchatīti?

Is a supramundane phenomenon cognizable by the ear, does it strike upon the ear, does it enter the range of the ear?

2.10.6.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.7.1

Nanu lokuttaro dhammo na sotaviññeyyo, na sotasmiṃ paṭihaññati, na sotassa āpāthaṃ āgacchatīti?

Is not a supramundane phenomenon not cognizable by the ear, does it not strike upon the ear, does it not enter the range of the ear?

2.10.7.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.7.3

Hañci lokuttaro dhammo na sotaviññeyyo, na sotasmiṃ paṭihaññati, na sotassa āpāthaṃ āgacchati, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If a supramundane phenomenon is not cognizable by the ear, does not strike upon the ear, does not enter the range of the ear, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.7.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.8.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Were there any who were ravished by his everyday speech? We know that there were such. But is a supramundane thing an occasion of sensuous desire, ravishing, entrancing, intoxicating, captivating, enervating? Is it not rather the opposite? … .

2.10.8.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.8.3

Atthi keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāre rajjeyyunti?

Are there some who become lustful toward the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One?

2.10.8.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.8.5

Lokuttaro dhammo rāgaṭṭhāniyo rajanīyo kamanīyo madanīyo bandhanīyo mucchanīyoti?

Is a supramundane phenomenon a basis for lust, enticing, captivating, intoxicating, binding, infatuating?

2.10.8.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.9.1

Nanu lokuttaro dhammo na rāgaṭṭhāniyo na rajanīyo na kamanīyo na madanīyo na bandhanīyo na mucchanīyoti?

Is not a supramundane phenomenon not a basis for lust, not enticing, not captivating, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating?

2.10.9.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.9.3

Hañci lokuttaro dhammo na rāgaṭṭhāniyo na rajanīyo na kamanīyo na madanīyo na bandhanīyo na mucchanīyo, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If a supramundane phenomenon is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not captivating, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.9.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.10.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Further, there were some who were offended by his habitual speech. But is a supramundane thing an occasion of hate, of anger, of resentment? Is it not rather the opposite? … .

2.10.10.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.10.3

Atthi keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāre dusseyyunti?

Are there some who become angry toward the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One?

2.10.10.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.10.5

Lokuttaro dhammo dosaṭṭhāniyo kopaṭṭhāniyo paṭighaṭṭhāniyoti?

Is a supramundane phenomenon a basis for hatred, a basis for anger, a basis for irritation?

2.10.10.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.11.1

Nanu lokuttaro dhammo na dosaṭṭhāniyo na kopaṭṭhāniyo na paṭighaṭṭhāniyoti?

Is not a supramundane phenomenon not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for irritation?

2.10.11.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.11.3

Hañci lokuttaro dhammo na dosaṭṭhāniyo na kopaṭṭhāniyo na paṭighaṭṭhāniyo, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If a supramundane phenomenon is not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for irritation, then indeed, sir, it should not be said—

2.10.11.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.12.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Further, there were some who were baffled by his habitual speech. But is a supramundane thing an occasion of obfuscation, causing want of insight and blindness, extinguishing understanding, provoking vexation, not conducing to Nibbāna? Is it not rather the opposite? … .

2.10.12.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.12.3

Atthi keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāre muyheyyunti?

Are there some who become confused about the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One?

2.10.12.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.12.5

Lokuttaro dhammo mohaṭṭhāniyo aññāṇakaraṇo acakkhukaraṇo paññānirodhiko vighātapakkhiko anibbānasaṃvattanikoti?

Is a supramundane phenomenon a basis for delusion, causing lack of knowledge, causing lack of vision, destructive of wisdom, aligned with distress, not conducive to unbinding?

2.10.12.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe….

2.10.13.1

Nanu lokuttaro dhammo na mohaṭṭhāniyo na aññāṇakaraṇo na acakkhukaraṇo paññāvuddhiko avighātapakkhiko nibbānasaṃvattanikoti?

Isn’t supramundane dhamma not a basis for delusion, not making for non-knowledge, not making for blindness, conducing to the growth of wisdom, non-injurious, leading to unbinding?

2.10.13.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.13.3

Hañci lokuttaro dhammo na mohaṭṭhāniyo na aññāṇakaraṇo na acakkhukaraṇo paññāvuddhiko avighātapakkhiko nibbānasaṃvattaniko, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If supramundane dhamma is not a basis for delusion, not making for non-knowledge, not making for blindness, conducing to the growth of wisdom, non-injurious, leading to unbinding, then indeed you should not say—

2.10.13.4

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro”ti.

“the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is supramundane.”

2.10.14.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokuttaroti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, supramundane?

Now those who heard the Exalted Buddha's habitual speech, did they all develop the paths? Yes, you say? But foolish average people heard him—matricides, too, and parricides, slayers of Arahants, shedders of holy blood, schismatics—therefore you are affirming that these developed the paths!… .

2.10.14.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.14.3

Ye keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ suṇanti, sabbe te maggaṃ bhāventīti?

Do all those who hear the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, develop the path?

2.10.14.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.15.1

Ye keci buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ suṇanti, sabbe te maggaṃ bhāventīti?

Do all who hear the conventional speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, develop the path?

2.10.15.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

2.10.15.3

Bālaputhujjanā buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ suṇanti, bālaputhujjanā maggaṃ bhāventīti?

Foolish worldlings hear the conventional speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One; do foolish worldlings develop the path?

2.10.15.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

2.10.15.5

mātughātako maggaṃ bhāveti …pe…

Does a matricide develop the path? …

2.10.15.6

pitughātako …

a patricide …

2.10.15.7

arahantaghātako …

a slayer of an arahant …

2.10.15.8

ruhiruppādako …

one who sheds [the Buddha’s] blood …

2.10.15.9

saṅghabhedako buddhassa bhagavato vohāraṃ suṇāti, saṅghabhedako maggaṃ bhāvetīti?

A schismatic hears the conventional speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One; does a schismatic develop the path?

2.10.15.10

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

2.10.16.1

Labbhā sovaṇṇamayāya laṭṭhiyā dhaññapuñjopi suvaṇṇapuñjopi ācikkhitunti?

Can one point out both a heap of grain and a heap of gold with a golden rod?

Andhaka: But you may with one golden wand point out both a heap of paddy and a heap of gold. So the Exalted One, with his supramundane habitual speech, habitually spoke about both mundane and supramundane doctrine.

2.10.16.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Andhaka: But you may with one golden wand point out both a heap of paddy and a heap of gold. So the Exalted One, with his supramundane habitual speech, habitually spoke about both mundane and supramundane doctrine.

2.10.16.3

Evamevaṃ bhagavā lokuttarena vohārena lokiyampi lokuttarampi dhammaṃ voharatīti.

Even so, the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane dhamma through supramundane speech.

Andhaka: But you may with one golden wand point out both a heap of paddy and a heap of gold. So the Exalted One, with his supramundane habitual speech, habitually spoke about both mundane and supramundane doctrine.

2.10.17.1

Labbhā elaṇḍiyāya laṭṭhiyā dhaññapuñjopi suvaṇṇapuñjopi ācikkhitunti?

Can one point out both a heap of grain and a heap of gold with a castor-oil plant rod?

Theravādin: It is no less possible to point out both paddy and gold with a wand of castor-oil wood. So the Exalted One,

2.10.17.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: It is no less possible to point out both paddy and gold with a wand of castor-oil wood. So the Exalted One,

2.10.17.3

Evamevaṃ bhagavā lokiyena vohārena lokiyampi lokuttarampi dhammaṃ voharatīti.

Even so, the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane dhamma through mundane speech.

with his mundane habitual speech, habitually spoke about both mundane and supramundane matter.

2.10.18.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiyo hoti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttaro hotīti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane?

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.18.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.18.3

Lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiye sote paṭihaññati, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttare sote paṭihaññati;

When he expresses the mundane, does it strike upon a mundane ear; and when he expresses the supramundane, does it strike upon a supramundane ear?

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.18.4

lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiyena viññāṇena paṭivijānanti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttarena viññāṇena paṭivijānanti;

When he expresses the mundane, do they understand with mundane consciousness; and when he expresses the supramundane, do they understand with supramundane consciousness?

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.18.5

lokiyaṃ voharantassa puthujjanā paṭivijānanti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa sāvakā paṭivijānantīti?

When he expresses the mundane, do worldlings understand; and when he expresses the supramundane, do disciples understand?

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.18.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

Now some of you say that the habitual speech of the Exalted One, the Buddha, was mundane when speaking to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supramundane things; also that his hearers understood with their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that average persons understood in the former case, disciples in the latter. To which you do not agree.

2.10.19.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said:

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.2

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiyo hoti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttaro hotī”ti?

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane”?

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.4

Nanu bhagavā lokiyampi lokuttarampi dhammaṃ voharatīti?

Does not the Blessed One express both mundane and supramundane dhamma?

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.6

Hañci bhagavā lokiyampi lokuttarampi dhammaṃ voharati, tena vata re vattabbe—

If the Blessed One expresses both mundane and supramundane dhamma, then indeed, sir, it should be said:

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.19.7

“buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiyo hoti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttaro hotī”ti.

“The speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, is mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane.”

It Andhaka: is wrong then, according to you, to say that the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use both kinds of speech? You assent. Then surely what you maintain is untenable.

2.10.20.1

Buddhassa bhagavato vohāro lokiyaṃ voharantassa lokiyo hoti, lokuttaraṃ voharantassa lokuttaro hotīti?

Is the speech of the Buddha, the Blessed One, mundane when expressing the mundane, and supramundane when expressing the supramundane?

Again, your proposition involves this further admission: that the speech of anyone becomes that of which he is speaking—that if you speak of Path, your word becomes Path; similarly of what is not Path, of Fruit, of Nibbāna, of the Conditioned, of matter, of mind and their opposites.

2.10.20.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, your proposition involves this further admission: that the speech of anyone becomes that of which he is speaking—that if you speak of Path, your word becomes Path; similarly of what is not Path, of Fruit, of Nibbāna, of the Conditioned, of matter, of mind and their opposites.

2.10.20.3

Maggaṃ voharantassa maggo hoti, amaggaṃ voharantassa amaggo hoti, phalaṃ voharantassa phalaṃ hoti, aphalaṃ voharantassa aphalaṃ hoti, nibbānaṃ voharantassa nibbānaṃ hoti, anibbānaṃ voharantassa anibbānaṃ hoti, saṅkhataṃ voharantassa saṅkhataṃ hoti, asaṅkhataṃ voharantassa asaṅkhataṃ hoti, rūpaṃ voharantassa rūpaṃ hoti, arūpaṃ voharantassa arūpaṃ hoti, vedanaṃ voharantassa vedanā hoti, avedanaṃ voharantassa avedanā hoti, saññaṃ voharantassa saññā hoti, asaññaṃ voharantassa asaññā hoti, saṅkhāre voharantassa saṅkhārā honti, asaṅkhāre voharantassa asaṅkhārā honti, viññāṇaṃ voharantassa viññāṇaṃ hoti, aviññāṇaṃ voharantassa aviññāṇaṃ hotīti?

When expressing the path, is it path; when expressing the non-path, is it non-path; when expressing the fruit, is it fruit; when expressing the non-fruit, is it non-fruit; when expressing unbinding, is it unbinding; when expressing non-unbinding, is it non-unbinding; when expressing the conditioned, is it conditioned; when expressing the unconditioned, is it unconditioned; when expressing material form, is it material form; when expressing immateriality, is it immateriality; when expressing feeling, is it feeling; when expressing non-feeling, is it non-feeling; when expressing perception, is it perception; when expressing non-perception, is it non-perception; when expressing volitional formations, is it volitional formations; when expressing non-volitional formations, is it non-volitional formations; when expressing consciousness, is it consciousness; when expressing non-consciousness, is it non-consciousness?

Again, your proposition involves this further admission: that the speech of anyone becomes that of which he is speaking—that if you speak of Path, your word becomes Path; similarly of what is not Path, of Fruit, of Nibbāna, of the Conditioned, of matter, of mind and their opposites.

2.10.20.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

Again, your proposition involves this further admission: that the speech of anyone becomes that of which he is speaking—that if you speak of Path, your word becomes Path; similarly of what is not Path, of Fruit, of Nibbāna, of the Conditioned, of matter, of mind and their opposites.

2.10.20.5

Vohārakathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on speech is finished.