Points of ControversyKathāvatthu
Points of ControversyMahāpaṇṇāsaka
3.2 Ofthe Quality CalledAriyanTatiyavagga

the Quality CalledAriyantikathā

Controverted Point: (a) That the power of a Tathāgata,e.g., in discerning as it really is the causal occasion of anything, and its contradictory, is Ariyan.Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Controverted PointĀmantā. Theravādin:If it be so, you should also affirm of that power that it is the (Ariyan) Path,or other Ariyan doctrine, such asFruit,Nibbāna, one of the Four Paths to Arahantship, or of the Four Fruits thereof, one of the Applications in Mindfulness, Supreme Efforts, Steps to Potency, Controlling Powers, Forces, or Factors of Enlightenment. But you do not agree to this.Maggo phalaṁ nibbānaṁ, sotāpattimaggo sotāpattiphalaṁ, sakadāgāmimaggo sakadāgāmiphalaṁ, anāgāmimaggo anāgāmiphalaṁ, arahattamaggo arahattaphalaṁ, satipaṭṭhānaṁ sammappadhānaṁ iddhipādo indriyaṁ balaṁ bojjhaṅgoti? or other Ariyan doctrine, such asNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Or isthe concept ofEmptiness the object of that power? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, then you must affirm that one who is attending to the exercise of this power attends also to Emptiness. If you deny, you cannot affirm that Emptiness is the object of the power in your proposition. If youassent, then you are claiming a combination of two (mental) contacts, two consciousnesses—which of course you deny.Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? the concept ofĀmantā. A similar argument holds good for the other two concepts of the “Signless” and the “Not-hankered-after”.Suññatārammaṇanti? Or, to argue conversely, you admit that (1) the Applications in Mindfulness are Ariyan, and have as their object the concepts of “Emptiness”, the “Signless”, and the “Not-hankered-after”. But you deny that these are the object of that power of a Tathāgata. Hence that power cannot be classified under things “Ariyan”.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…. Or, to argue converselySuññatārammaṇanti? This argument applies also to (2) the Supreme Efforts and (3–6) the Steps to Potency, etc. ().Āmantā. Andhaka:You say then that my proposition is wrong—that it is not Ariyan, and has not as its object Emptiness, the Signless, or the Not-hankered-after. Yet you do not deny that the six foregoing doctrines are Ariyan, and also have that Threefold object—why deny the same of that power of which my proposition speaks?Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Andhaka:Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Theravādin:Nay, why doyoumaintain that the power of a Tathāgata, in discerning as it really is the decrease and rebirth of beings is Ariyan, while you are not prepared to class that power with things we call Ariyan—the Path, and so on?Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? The arguments in–'s propositions: that the other powers of a Tathāgata discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are, etc., are Ariyan.Āmantā. The arguments in–'s propositions: that the other powers of a Tathāgata discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are, etc., are Ariyan.Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Andhaka:You admit then that the tenth of the “Powers” ascribed to a Tathāgata—insight into the extinction as it really is of intoxicants—is Ariyan, but you deny it in the case of the two powers named above. How can you affirm it of the tenth?Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… Andhaka:ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? The Andhaka puts the case negatively.Āmantā. The Andhaka puts the case negatively.Animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… As in–“Three Signs”, as “object”, added to the predicate “is Ariyan”.appaṇihitārammaṇanti? As in–“Three Signs”, as “object”, added to the predicate “is Ariyan”.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… Shwe Zan Aungappaṇihitārammaṇanti? This SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Āmantā. Manfred WierichṬhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Ven. VimalaNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Josephine TobinṬhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.Cross-references were linked.Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.Āmantā. Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Cross-references were linked.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā suññatārammaṇāti? Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.Āmantā. The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇanti? This electronic version is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) as found here:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

All copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society. See also the statement under http://www.palitext.com/ → Publications → Copyright Announcement. For non-commercial use only.Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā animittārammaṇā … appaṇihitārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sammappadhānā, iddhipādā, indriyā, balā, bojjhaṅgā ariyā suññatārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Bojjhaṅgā ariyā animittārammaṇā … appaṇihitārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“suññatārammaṇan”ti? Āmantā. Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā na vattabbā—“suññatārammaṇā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā na vattabbā—“appaṇihitārammaṇā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—suññatārammaṇaṁ …pe… animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Sammappadhānaṁ …pe… bojjhaṅgā ariyā na vattabbā—“appaṇihitārammaṇā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Maggo phalaṁ nibbānaṁ, sotāpattimaggo sotāpattiphalaṁ …pe… bojjhaṅgoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Suññatārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… suññatārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Animittārammaṇaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā suññatārammaṇā …pe… animittārammaṇā …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sammappadhānaṁ …pe… bojjhaṅgā ariyā suññatārammaṇā …pe… animittārammaṇā …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—suññatārammaṇaṁ …pe… animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā na vattabbā—“appaṇihitārammaṇā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—suññatārammaṇaṁ …pe… animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Sammappadhānā …pe… bojjhaṅgā ariyā na vattabbā—“appaṇihitārammaṇā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“ariyan”ti? Āmantā. Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“ariyan”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“ariyan”ti? Āmantā. Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“ariyan”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ animittārammaṇaṁ … appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇaṁ …pe… animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā …pe…. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“suññatārammaṇan”ti? Āmantā. Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“suññatārammaṇan”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—animittārammaṇaṁ … appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“appaṇihitārammaṇan”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—suññatārammaṇaṁ …pe… animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ na vattabbaṁ—“appaṇihitārammaṇan”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ariyantikathā niṭṭhitā.

English Translation

Pāli Text

Points of Controversy
Points of Controversy
3.2 Ofthe Quality CalledAriyan

the Quality Called

Controverted Point: (a) That the power of a Tathāgata,e.g., in discerning as it really is the causal occasion of anything, and its contradictory, is Ariyan.Controverted PointTheravādin:If it be so, you should also affirm of that power that it is the (Ariyan) Path,or other Ariyan doctrine, such asFruit,Nibbāna, one of the Four Paths to Arahantship, or of the Four Fruits thereof, one of the Applications in Mindfulness, Supreme Efforts, Steps to Potency, Controlling Powers, Forces, or Factors of Enlightenment. But you do not agree to this.or other Ariyan doctrine, such as

Or isthe concept ofEmptiness the object of that power? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, then you must affirm that one who is attending to the exercise of this power attends also to Emptiness. If you deny, you cannot affirm that Emptiness is the object of the power in your proposition. If youassent, then you are claiming a combination of two (mental) contacts, two consciousnesses—which of course you deny.the concept ofA similar argument holds good for the other two concepts of the “Signless” and the “Not-hankered-after”.Or, to argue conversely, you admit that (1) the Applications in Mindfulness are Ariyan, and have as their object the concepts of “Emptiness”, the “Signless”, and the “Not-hankered-after”. But you deny that these are the object of that power of a Tathāgata. Hence that power cannot be classified under things “Ariyan”.Or, to argue converselyThis argument applies also to (2) the Supreme Efforts and (3–6) the Steps to Potency, etc. ().Andhaka:You say then that my proposition is wrong—that it is not Ariyan, and has not as its object Emptiness, the Signless, or the Not-hankered-after. Yet you do not deny that the six foregoing doctrines are Ariyan, and also have that Threefold object—why deny the same of that power of which my proposition speaks?Andhaka:

Theravādin:Nay, why doyoumaintain that the power of a Tathāgata, in discerning as it really is the decrease and rebirth of beings is Ariyan, while you are not prepared to class that power with things we call Ariyan—the Path, and so on?The arguments in–'s propositions: that the other powers of a Tathāgata discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are, etc., are Ariyan.The arguments in–'s propositions: that the other powers of a Tathāgata discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are, etc., are Ariyan.Andhaka:You admit then that the tenth of the “Powers” ascribed to a Tathāgata—insight into the extinction as it really is of intoxicants—is Ariyan, but you deny it in the case of the two powers named above. How can you affirm it of the tenth?Andhaka:The Andhaka puts the case negatively.The Andhaka puts the case negatively.As in–“Three Signs”, as “object”, added to the predicate “is Ariyan”.As in–“Three Signs”, as “object”, added to the predicate “is Ariyan”.Shwe Zan AungThis SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Manfred WierichVen. Vimala

Josephine TobinAbbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.Cross-references were linked.Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.Cross-references were linked.

Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.This electronic version is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) as found here:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

All copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society. See also the statement under http://www.palitext.com/ → Publications → Copyright Announcement. For non-commercial use only.

Kathāvatthu
Mahāpaṇṇāsaka
Tatiyavagga

Ariyantikathā

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Maggo phalaṁ nibbānaṁ, sotāpattimaggo sotāpattiphalaṁ, sakadāgāmimaggo sakadāgāmiphalaṁ, anāgāmimaggo anāgāmiphalaṁ, arahattamaggo arahattaphalaṁ, satipaṭṭhānaṁ sammappadhānaṁ iddhipādo indriyaṁ balaṁ bojjhaṅgoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Suññatārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…. Suññatārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Animittārammaṇaṁ …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ṭhānāṭhānañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā suññatārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ suññatārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Satipaṭṭhānā ariyā animittārammaṇā … appaṇihitārammaṇāti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyaṁ appaṇihitārammaṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ariyantikathā niṭṭhitā.

Points of ControversyKathāvatthu
Points of ControversyMahāpaṇṇāsaka
3.2 Ofthe Quality CalledAriyanTatiyavagga

the Quality CalledAriyantikathā

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, suññatañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Sattānaṁ cutūpapātañca manasi karoti, appaṇihitañca manasi karotīti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Ṭhānāṭhāne yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Āsavānaṁ khaye yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Āmantā. Sattānaṁ cutūpapāte yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇaṁ tathāgatabalaṁ ariyanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ariyantikathā niṭṭhitā.