Ok so here is the passage I am reading. With one question following it.
49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case.
50. "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are partial-eternalists proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. Whatever recluses and brahmins there may be who proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
Pardon the confusion, but I just need clarification. I think it's because of the way in which the context and wording is, but is he pointing out that mind/mentality/consciosness is impermanent too right? I have realized that it's all impermanent, but I have difficulty reading some of the suttas and just want clarification.
He is pointing out that there are some of those who believe that citta/mano/vinnana is permanent and having that view is a wrong view right?