Controverted Point: That insight into the thoughts of another has no object beyond bare other-consciousness as such.

Theravādin: You admit, do you not, that one may discern a “lust-ridden consciousness,” and so on as such? Then this disposes of your proposition.

Again, you cannot deny that, in thought-discerning, insight can have as its object contact, feeling, etc. or any of the concomitants of consciousness. Where then is bare consciousness as sole object?

Or do you dispute the statement that insight having contact, or feeling, or the rest as its object, comes into thought-discerning? “Yes” you say? But does not thought-discerning include discerning the course of contact, feeling, etc.? This you now deny.

Andhaka: You say my proposition is wrong. But is not this thought-discerning insight limited to a portion of the course of thought in others? Then surely I am right.