Controverted Point: That all that belongs to the Arahant is devoid of intoxicants.

Theravādin: The things devoid of intoxicants are the Four Paths, the Four Fruits, Nibbāna, and the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment; but these do not constitute everything belonging to an Arahant. His five sense-organs, for instance, you do not call free from intoxicants—hence your proposition falls through.

His body, again, is destined to be seized and coerced, cut off and broken up, and shared by crows, vultures, and kites—is anything “free from intoxicants” to be so described?

Into his body poison may get, and fire and the knife—is anything “free from intoxicants” to be so described?

His body may get bound by captivity, by ropes, by chains, may be interned in a village, town, city, or province, may be imprisoned by the fourfold bondage, the fifth being strangling—is anything “free from intoxicants” liable to this?

Moreover, if an Arahant give his robe to a man of the world, does that which was free from intoxicants thereby become co-intoxicant? You may admit this in general terms, but do you admit that that which is free from intoxicants may also be the opposite? If you say “yes”, then, by the analogy of the robe, anything else about the Arahant—his religious characters: Path, Fruit, etc.—having been free from intoxicants, may become co-intoxicant. The analogy may also be based on the gift of food, lodging, or medicine.

Or, conversely, if a man of the world give a robe or other requisite to an Arahant, does that which is co-intoxicant become thereby the opposite? Does that which has been co-intoxicant become free from intoxicants—lust, for instance, hate, delusion … indiscretion such as beset and characterize the man of the world?

Uttarāpathaka: You condemn my proposition. But is not the Arahant free from intoxicants? If he is, then I say that everything connected with him is so.