Controverted Point: That “becoming emancipated” has reference to the heart being at the time in touch with lust, etc

Theravādin: You affirm this. Then you must equally affirm that “becoming emancipated” refers to a heart which is accompanied by, co-existent with, mixed with, associated with, has developed with, goes about with, lust; to a heart, again, which is immoral, worldly, in touch with defilements, allied with fetters, ties, floods, bonds, hindrances, is infected, allied with grasping, corrupt—which you refuse to do.

If the heart or mind which is in contact be emancipated, are both contact and mind emancipated? “Yes” you say. But then you must equally affirm that, if the heart which is in touch with lust be emancipated, both lust and heart are emancipated—which you refuse to do.

The same reasoning holds good not only of contact, but also of the other properties of the mind—feeling, perception, volition, … reason, or understanding.

Once more, if mind which is in contact, and in touch with lust, be emancipated, are both contact and mind emancipated? Yes, you say. But then you must equally affirm that both lust and mind are emancipated—which you refuse to do.

The same reasoning holds good of the other properties of the mind.

The same argument is then applied to “emancipation” referred to “hate,” and to “delusion’—the other two of the fundamental conditions of evil doing.

Andhaka: You say that we are wrong in affirming that a mind full of lust, hate and delusion undergoes emancipation. But your denial that a mind which is devoid of all three undergoes emancipation rather confirms our view.