Controverted PointAsaññasattesu saññā atthīti? Theravādin:But you surely cannot admit that such a being has conscious life or destiny, dwells among conscious beings, fares onward with conscious continuity from birth to birth, has consciousness as his birthright, has acquired a conscious personality? Is not the opposite of all these terms true of him?Is their life, etc., fivefold in its constituents? Is it not rather a life, destiny … acquisition of personality, of a single constituent? Hence, even if we grant your proposition, you cannot say that such a being, when consciously functioning, functions by just thatact ofconsciousness you ascribe to him; nor do you claim this.Āmantā. act ofSaññābhavo saññāgati saññāsattāvāso saññāsaṁsāro saññāyoni saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? If, in“unconscious beings” “men”, you could and would describe the latter further as “having conscious life, and destiny, and so on”. And you would describe them, further, as having a life, destiny, habitation, further rebirth, constitution, acquisition of personalityas determined for themby five organic constituents. But when I say you have committed yourself to all this with respect to unconscious beings, in virtue of your proposition, you deny. Similarly for“man” for “such a being”.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

as determined for themNanu asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Let us assume the truth of your proposition, admitting, of course, that there is consciousness in the human sphere—why do you go on to affirm, for those devas, an unconscious life, destiny, habitation, further rebirth, constitution, acquisition of personality, but deny it for men? And why do you go on, further, to affirm a life, destiny, etc., of one organic constituent for those devas, but deny it for men? Why, finally, do you deny, for the unconscious beings, the functioning in consciousness by just thatquota ofconsciousness you assign to them, but affirm it in the case of human beings?Āmantā. quota ofHañci asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—Andhaka:If it is wrong to say “there is consciousness in the Unconscious devas”, let me remind you of a Suttanta in which the Exalted One said:“asaññasattesu saññā atthī”ti.

Andhaka:Asaññasattesu saññā atthīti? “There are devas,bhikkhus, called the Unconscious Beings; now those devas, when consciousness does arise, decease from that group”.Āmantā. But our view really is this, thatthey are only conscious sometimes.Pañcavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Theravādin:That is to say, they are sometimes conscious beings, having conscious life, having fivefold organic life, and sometimes unconscious beings, having unconscious life, having a single organic life—which is absurd.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Again, at what time are they conscious, at what time not?Nanu ekavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Andhaka:At decease and at rebirth, but not during life.Āmantā. Andhaka:Hañci ekavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—Theravādin:But then the same absurd transformation must happen.“asaññasattesu saññā atthī”ti.

Shwe Zan AungAsaññasattesu saññā atthīti? This SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Āmantā. Manfred WierichTāya saññāya saññākaraṇīyaṁ karotīti? Ven. VimalaNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Josephine TobinManussesu saññā atthi, so ca saññābhavo saññāgati saññāsattāvāso saññāsaṁsāro saññāyoni saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? 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.Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, so ca saññābhavo saññāgati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? 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 “:”.Manussesu saññā atthi, so ca pañcavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.Āmantā. The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, so ca pañcavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? 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.Manussesu saññā atthi, tāya saññāya saññākaraṇīyaṁ karotīti? Āmantā. Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, tāya saññāya saññākaraṇīyaṁ karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Manussesu saññā atthi, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati …pe… asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, so ca ekavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Manussesu saññā atthi, so ca ekavokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññasattesu saññā atthi, na ca tāya saññāya saññākaraṇīyaṁ karotīti? Āmantā. Manussesu saññā atthi, na ca tāya saññāya saññākaraṇīyaṁ karotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Na vattabbaṁ—“asaññasattesu saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Nanu vuttaṁ bhagavatā—“santi, bhikkhave, asaññasattā nāma devā; saññuppādā ca pana te devā tamhā kāyā cavantī”ti. Attheva suttantoti? Āmantā. Tena hi asaññasattesu saññā atthīti.

Asaññasattesu saññā atthīti? Kiñci kāle atthi, kiñci kāle natthīti. Kiñci kāle saññasattā kiñci kāle asaññasattā, kiñci kāle saññabhavo kiñci kāle asaññabhavo, kiñci kāle pañcavokārabhavo kiñci kāle ekavokārabhavoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññasattesu saññā kiñci kāle atthi, kiñci kāle natthīti? Āmantā. Kaṁ kālaṁ atthi, kaṁ kālaṁ natthīti? Cutikāle upapattikāle atthi, ṭhitikāle natthīti. Cutikāle upapattikāle saññasattā, ṭhitikāle asaññasattā; cutikāle upapattikāle saññabhavo, ṭhitikāle asaññabhavo; cutikāle upapattikāle pañcavokārabhavo, ṭhitikāle ekavokārabhavoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññakathā niṭṭhitā.