Controverted Point: That speech does not accord with thought.

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeing, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

Pubbaseliyas: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.