1"Bhikkhus, these two misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation. These two misrepresent the Tathāgata." [n.243] Mp: "Those suttas that speak of one person (puggala), two persons, etc., require interpretation, for their meaning has to be interpreted in the light of the fact that in the ultimate sense a person does not exist (paramatthato pana puggalo nāma natthi). One who misconceives the suttas that speak about a person, holding that the person exists in the ultimate sense, explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as one whose meaning is explicit. A sutta whose meaning is explicit is one that explains impermanence, suffering, and non-self; for in this case the meaning is simply impermanence, suffering, and non-self. One who says, ‘This discourse requires interpretation,’ and interprets it in such a way as to affirm that ‘there is the permanent, there is the pleasurable, there is a self,’ explains a sutta of explicit meaning as one requiring interpretation." The first criticism here is probably directed against the Puggalavādins, who held the person to be ultimately existent. The latter might have been directed against an early form of the tathāgatagarbha theory, which (in the Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa Sūtra) affirmed a permanent, blissful, pure self.

1"Dveme, bhikkhave, tathāgataṁ abbhācikkhanti. Katame dve? Yo ca neyyatthaṁ suttantaṁ nītattho suttantoti dīpeti, yo ca nītatthaṁ suttantaṁ neyyattho suttantoti dīpeti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve tathāgataṁ abbhācikkhantī"ti.