Points of ControversyKathāvatthu
Points of ControversyMahāpaṇṇāsaka
3.12 Ofthe planewherein Consciousness neither is nor is notTatiyavagga

the planeNevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā

Controverted Point: That it is wrong to say that, in the plane wherein consciousness neither is nor is not, there is consciousness.Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—Controverted Point“saññā atthī”ti? Theravādin:But you would not describe that plane as one of life, destiny, habitation of beings, continued existence, birth, acquired personality that is unconscious?Nor as a life, etc., of one constituent only? Would you not call it a life offourconstituents?Āmantā. If we deny consciousness among the Unconscious Beings, and call that sphere a life, destiny … personality without consciousness, how can you deny consciousness to this plane where consciousness neither is nor is not, without describing it in the same terms? Or how can we speak of that sphere as a life of a single organic constituent without describing this plane in the same terms?If your proposition be right, and yet you describe this plane as conscious life, etc., then similarly, in refusing consciousness to the Unconscious sphere, you must describe that sphere as conscious life, etc., which is absurd. So also for the fourfold organic life.For if you deny consciousness to this plane, and yet call it a life of fourmentalconstituents, then your proposition obviously falls through.Asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? mentalNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

You grant me that this plane, wherein consciousness neither is nor is not, is a life of four constituents, saying the while that there is no consciousness in this plane—you allow, do you not, that in thelowerplane called “infinity of space” there is consciousness? And that there is consciousness in thenext higherplanes: “infinity of consciousness”, and “nothingness”. Why not then for ourfourth and highestplane? How can you admit consciousness for those three and not for this, while you allow that each is a life of fourmentalconstituents?Nanu saññābhavo saññāgati saññāsattāvāso saññāsaṁsāro saññāyoni saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? lowerĀmantā. next higherHañci saññābhavo saññāgati …pe… fourth and highestsaññattabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—mental“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—Do you object to this: in this plane consciousness either is or is not? Yes? But why, when you admit the co-presence of those four constituents? Why, again, when you admit them in the case of the other three planes, and allow that there, too, consciousness either is or is not?‘saññā atthī’”ti.

You admit that the plane in question is that wherein is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, and yet you maintain that it is wrong to say: in that plane consciousness neither is nor is not!But take neutral feeling—is it wrong to say that neutral feeling is either feeling or not feeling? “Yes”, you admit, “that cannot truly be said”. Then how can the other be said?Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—Shwe Zan Aung“saññā atthī”ti? This SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Āmantā. Manfred WierichEkavokārabhavo gati …pe… Ven. Vimalaattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Josephine TobinNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

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.Nanu catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Cross-references were linked.Āmantā. 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 “:”.Hañci catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.attabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—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/‘saññā atthī’”ti.

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.Asaññasattesu na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Asaññasattesu na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca ekavokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca ekavokārabhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca saññābhavo saññāgati …pe… saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Asaññasattesu na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca saññābhavo saññāgati …pe… saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Asaññasattesu na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Nanu nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavoti? Āmantā. Hañci nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, no ca vata re vattabbe—“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—‘saññā atthī’”ti.

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo ākāsānañcāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ …pe… ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, ākiñcaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ …pe… ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti vā “natthī”ti vāti? Āmantā. Nanu nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavoti? Āmantā. Hañci nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, no ca vata re vattabbe—“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—‘saññā atthī’ti vā ‘natthī’ti vā”ti.

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti vā “natthī”ti vāti? Āmantā. Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ …pe… viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ …pe… ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, ākiñcaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti vā “natthī”ti vāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti vā “natthī”ti vāti? Āmantā. Nanu nevasaññānāsaññāyatananti? Āmantā. Hañci nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ, tena vata re vattabbe—“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—‘saññā atthī’ti vā ‘natthī’ti vā”ti.

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatananti katvā nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti vā “natthī”ti vāti? Āmantā. Adukkhamasukhā vedanāti katvā adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya na vattabbaṁ—“vedanā”ti vā “avedanā”ti vāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā niṭṭhitā.
Tatiyo vaggo.

Tassuddānaṁ

Balaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ ariyaṁ, sarāgaṁ cittaṁ vimuccati; Vimuttaṁ vimuccamānaṁ, atthi cittaṁ vimuccamānaṁ.
Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṁ pahīnaṁ; Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Natthi pañcindriyāni cakkhuṁ.
Sotaṁ dhammupatthaddhaṁ, Yathākammūpagataṁ ñāṇaṁ; Devesu saṁvaro asañña- Sattesu saññā evameva bhavagganti.

English Translation

Pāli Text

Points of Controversy
Points of Controversy
3.12 Ofthe planewherein Consciousness neither is nor is not

the plane

Controverted Point: That it is wrong to say that, in the plane wherein consciousness neither is nor is not, there is consciousness.Controverted PointTheravādin:But you would not describe that plane as one of life, destiny, habitation of beings, continued existence, birth, acquired personality that is unconscious?Nor as a life, etc., of one constituent only? Would you not call it a life offourconstituents?If we deny consciousness among the Unconscious Beings, and call that sphere a life, destiny … personality without consciousness, how can you deny consciousness to this plane where consciousness neither is nor is not, without describing it in the same terms? Or how can we speak of that sphere as a life of a single organic constituent without describing this plane in the same terms?If your proposition be right, and yet you describe this plane as conscious life, etc., then similarly, in refusing consciousness to the Unconscious sphere, you must describe that sphere as conscious life, etc., which is absurd. So also for the fourfold organic life.For if you deny consciousness to this plane, and yet call it a life of fourmentalconstituents, then your proposition obviously falls through.mental

You grant me that this plane, wherein consciousness neither is nor is not, is a life of four constituents, saying the while that there is no consciousness in this plane—you allow, do you not, that in thelowerplane called “infinity of space” there is consciousness? And that there is consciousness in thenext higherplanes: “infinity of consciousness”, and “nothingness”. Why not then for ourfourth and highestplane? How can you admit consciousness for those three and not for this, while you allow that each is a life of fourmentalconstituents?lowernext higherfourth and highestmentalDo you object to this: in this plane consciousness either is or is not? Yes? But why, when you admit the co-presence of those four constituents? Why, again, when you admit them in the case of the other three planes, and allow that there, too, consciousness either is or is not?

You admit that the plane in question is that wherein is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, and yet you maintain that it is wrong to say: in that plane consciousness neither is nor is not!But take neutral feeling—is it wrong to say that neutral feeling is either feeling or not feeling? “Yes”, you admit, “that cannot truly be said”. Then how can the other be said?Shwe Zan AungThis SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Manfred WierichVen. VimalaJosephine Tobin

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.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

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nanu saññābhavo saññāgati saññāsattāvāso saññāsaṁsāro saññāyoni saññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Hañci saññābhavo saññāgati …pe… saññattabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—‘saññā atthī’”ti.

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthī”ti? Āmantā. Ekavokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nanu catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Hañci catuvokārabhavo gati …pe… attabhāvapaṭilābho, no ca vata re vattabbe—“nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—‘saññā atthī’”ti.

Asaññasattesu na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatane na vattabbaṁ—“saññā atthi”, so ca asaññabhavo asaññagati asaññasattāvāso asaññasaṁsāro asaññayoni asaññattabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā niṭṭhitā.
Tatiyo vaggo.

Tassuddānaṁ

Balaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ ariyaṁ, sarāgaṁ cittaṁ vimuccati; Vimuttaṁ vimuccamānaṁ, atthi cittaṁ vimuccamānaṁ.
Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṁ pahīnaṁ; Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Natthi pañcindriyāni cakkhuṁ.
Sotaṁ dhammupatthaddhaṁ, Yathākammūpagataṁ ñāṇaṁ; Devesu saṁvaro asañña- Sattesu saññā evameva bhavagganti.

Points of ControversyKathāvatthu
Points of ControversyMahāpaṇṇāsaka
3.12 Ofthe planewherein Consciousness neither is nor is notTatiyavagga

the planeNevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā

Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Āmantā. Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavo, atthi tattha saññāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanakathā niṭṭhitā.
Tatiyo vaggo.

Tassuddānaṁ

Balaṁ sādhāraṇaṁ ariyaṁ, sarāgaṁ cittaṁ vimuccati; Vimuttaṁ vimuccamānaṁ, atthi cittaṁ vimuccamānaṁ.
Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṁ pahīnaṁ; Aṭṭhamakassa puggalassa, Natthi pañcindriyāni cakkhuṁ.
Sotaṁ dhammupatthaddhaṁ, Yathākammūpagataṁ ñāṇaṁ; Devesu saṁvaro asañña- Sattesu saññā evameva bhavagganti.