Controverted Point: That a person who, as abettor, is involved in “immediate retribution” may enter on the True Path of Assurance.

Uttarapāthakas: Do you mean that such a culpable abettor can enter on both the False and the True Path of Assurance? If you deny, neither can you affirm your proposition.

Again, if he become worried and uneasy after his connection with the deed, how can he ever enter on the True Path of Assurance?

Theravādin: You say he is incapable of entering on that Path. But are you assuming that one or other of the five cardinal crimes has actually been committed through his abettment? Your proposition implies this.

Again, you affirm that an abettor of such crimes, when he has withdrawn his instigation, and has dispelled his worry and remorse, is still incapable of entering upon the True Path of Assurance. Hereby you imply that some one of the grave misdeeds just named has been actually committed at his instigation. But can you maintain your position in the face of his reforming before the commis-sion of the act?

Uttarapāthakas: But has he not previously instigated someone to commit it? How then can you judge him capable of entering on the True Path of Assurance?