‘Venerable Nāgasena, the Tathāgata said:

“Brahman! why do you ask an unconscious thing,
Which cannot hear you, how it does to-day?
Active, intelligent, and full of life,
How can you speak to this so senseless thing—
This wild Palāsa tree ?”

And on the other hand he said:

“And thus the Aspen tree then made reply:
’I, Bhāradvāja, can speak too. Listen to me.’”

‘Now if, Nāgasena, a tree is an unconscious thing, it must be false that the Aspen tree spoke to Bhāradvāja. But if that is true, it must be false to say that a tree is unconscious. This too is a double-edged problem now put to you, and you have to solve it.’

The Master said, O king, that a tree is unconscious. And the Aspen tree conversed with Bhāradvāja. But that last is said, O king, by a common form of speech. For though a tree being unconscious cannot talk, yet the word “tree” is used as a designation of the dryad who dwells therein, and in that sense that “the tree talks” is a well-known expression. just, O king, as a waggon laden with corn is called a corn-waggon. But it is not made of corn, it is made of wood, yet because of the corn being heaped up in it the people use the expression “corn-waggon.” Or just, O king, as when a man is churning sour milk the common expression is that he is churning butter. But it is not butter that he is churning, but milk. Or just, O king, as when a man is making something that does not exist the common expression is that he is making that thing which all the while as yet is not, but people talk of the work as accomplished before it is done. And the Tathāgata, when expounding the Dhamma, does so by means of the phraseology which is in common use among the people.’

‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’

Here ends the dilemma as to the talking tree.