Controverted Point: That there is articulate utterance on the part of one who has entered intoJhāna.Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Controverted PointĀmantā. Theravādin:You affirm thisin general. Your statement should hold good for such an one everywhere, always, for all such persons, and for all such attainments in ecstatic meditation. But you do not admit all such cases. Then you cannot affirm it at all.Sabbattha samāpannānaṁ atthi vacībhedoti, na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

in generalSamāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Does such an one make utterance by bodily movements? You deny that he does so, but why not, if your thesis is true? If he make no bodily expression, you should not affirm that he makes vocal expression.Āmantā. If one duringJhānahavingthe power ofspeech, gives vocal expression, it follows that, having a body, he may also make bodily expression.Sabbadā samāpannānaṁ atthi vacībhedoti? the power ofNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

You affirm that, knowing the fact of Ill, he utters the word “Sorrow”, yet you deny that, knowing the fact of Causeof Ill, he utters the word “Cause”. But why? Why, again, deny that he, knowing the facts of “Cessation”of Ill, and “Path”leading to that Cessation, utters those words?Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? of IllĀmantā. of IllSabbesaṁ samāpannānaṁ atthi vacībhedoti? leading to that CessationNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Or, taken negatively, why deny that he utters any of the last three terms, yet not deny that he utters the first?Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? You say that the object of such an one's insight is theAriyantruth. But you deny that the object ofsuch an one's ear is truth. This, you say, is sound. But you deny that the object of his insight is sound.Āmantā. AriyanSabbasamāpattīsu atthi vacībhedoti? No, you say, the truth is the object of his insight, sound the object of his ear. But if his insight has the truth as its object, and his ear has sound as its object, then, good sir, you should not affirm that such an one makes articulate utterance.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

If you say, that while his insight is concerned with thefirsttruth and his ear with the sound, the attainer makes articulate utterance, you must admit a combination of two contacts, two feelings, two perceptions, two volitions, two consciousnessesat a given moment, (which is absurd).Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? firstĀmantā. at a given momentSamāpannassa atthi kāyabhedoti? You affirm your thesis, yet you deny that it applies to one who has attainedJhānaby any one of the eight artifices, to wit, earth, water, fire, or air; blue-green, yellow, red, or white colour, or byany of the four immaterial conceptual inductions, to wit,infinity of space or of consciousness, “nothingness”, or “neither perception nor non-perception”. How is this intelligible?If you deny each of these possibilities, you cannot affirm your proposition.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

any of the four immaterial conceptual inductions, to wit,Samāpannassa natthi kāyabhedoti? You deny, further, that one who practisesJhānafor merely mundane objects makes articulate expression, whether he attain any of the four stages. Neither then can you affirm your proposition.If you deny the former, you must deny the latter.Āmantā. You affirm your proposition only of one attaining the first supramundaneJhāna, not the second, third, or fourth. But if you affirm it of the first stage, what is there to make you deny it of the other three stages?Samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Pubbaseliya:Is it wrong to say that there is articulate utterance on the part of one who has enteredJhāna?Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Pubbaseliya:Samāpannassa atthi vācā, atthi vacībhedoti? Pubbaseliya:But was it not said by the Exalted One that initialand sustained application of mind was vocal activity? And does not such application belong to one in firstJhāna? Surely then my proposition is true.Āmantā. Pubbaseliya:Samāpannassa atthi kāyo, atthi kāyabhedoti? Theravādin:Granting that you quote correctly, and that one in firstJhānais engaged in such application, I say, you have just denied that anyone attainingJhānaby any of the eight artifices does make articulate utterance. How then can you also affirm your proposition?Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Pubbaseliya:But was it not said by the Exalted One that speech arises from initial applicationor directingof thought? And does not such movement of thought belong to one in firstJhāna?Samāpannassa atthi kāyo, natthi kāyabhedoti? Pubbaseliya:Āmantā. or directingSamāpannassa atthi vācā, natthi vacībhedoti? Theravādin:That is no good reason. The Exalted One also said that speech is caused by perception. Now one in second, third, or fourthJhānahas perception, butwe know thathe no longer applies or sustains thought. So also for the four more abstractJhānastates (see).Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

we know thatDukkhanti jānanto dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Moreover, is it not said in the Suttanta:Āmantā. “In one who has entered firstJhānaspeech has ceased”?Samudayoti jānanto samudayoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? If you maintain your proposition in the teeth of this one, you must cease to holdin accordance with the next wordsin the Suttanta: thatNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

in accordance with the next wordsDukkhanti jānanto dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? “in one who has entered secondJhāna, thought initial and sustained has ceased”.Āmantā. Similarly you must contradict the remaining words:Nirodhoti jānanto nirodhoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? “in one who has entered thirdJhāna, zest has ceased; in one who has induced fourthJhāna, respiration has ceased; in one who has induced ecstasy of infinite space, perception of bodily qualities has ceased; in one who has induced ecstasy of infinite consciousness, perception of space infinity has ceased;in one who has induced ecstasy of nothingness, perception of infinity of consciousness, has ceased; in one who has induced ecstasy wherein is neither perception nor non-perception, perception of nothingness has ceased; in one who has induced trance, both perception and feeling have ceased”.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Pubbaseliya:But if my proposition is wrong, why did the Exalted One say thatDukkhanti jānanto dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Pubbaseliya:Āmantā. “for firstJhānasound is obnoxious”?Maggoti jānanto maggoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Does not this show that one who has attainedJhānacan emit speech?Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

Theravādin:You accept both the Suttanta dictum and your proposition. But, by the same Sutta, that which is eliminated successively, as each further stage ofJhānais reached, was pronounced to be obnoxious in its turn. Does that therefore indicate that one who attained each stage, practised each obstacle to that stage?Samudayoti jānanto na ca samudayoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Pubbaseliya:But did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta:Āmantā. Pubbaseliya:Dukkhanti jānanto na ca dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? “O Ānanda, Abhibhu, disciple of Sikhin, the Exalted One, Arahant Buddha Supreme, standing in the Brahma-world, lifted up his voice over ten thousand worlds, saying:Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

“Arise and strive! go forth and giveYourselves unto the Buddha's Rule!Sweep ye away the hosts of DeathAs elephant a rush-built shed.Who in this Norm and DisciplineEarnest and zealous shall abide,Casting away the round of births,He shall make utter end of Ill”.Nirodhoti jānanto na ca nirodhoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? “Arise and strive! go forth and giveYourselves unto the Buddha's Rule!Sweep ye away the hosts of DeathAs elephant a rush-built shed.Who in this Norm and DisciplineEarnest and zealous shall abide,Casting away the round of births,He shall make utter end of Ill”.Āmantā. Surely then an attainer does utter articulate sounds during ecstasy.Dukkhanti jānanto na ca dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Shwe Zan AungNa hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

This SuttaCentral edition was prepared byManfred WierichandVen. Vimalaand proofread byJosephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:Maggoti jānanto na ca maggoti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? Manfred WierichĀmantā. Ven. VimalaDukkhanti jānanto na ca dukkhanti vācaṁ bhāsatīti? 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.Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.Āmantā. Cross-references were linked.Ñāṇaṁ kiṅgocaranti? 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 “:”.Ñāṇaṁ saccagocaranti. Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.Sotaṁ saccagocaranti? The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…

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/Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? 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.Āmantā. Sotaṁ kiṁ gocaranti. Sotaṁ saddagocaranti. Ñāṇaṁ saddagocaranti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe.

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo ñāṇaṁ saccagocaraṁ, sotaṁ saddagocaranti? Āmantā. Hañci ñāṇaṁ saccagocaraṁ, sotaṁ saddagocaraṁ, no ca vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo ñāṇaṁ saccagocaraṁ, sotaṁ saddagocaranti? Āmantā. Dvinnaṁ phassānaṁ, dvinnaṁ vedanānaṁ, dvinnaṁ saññānaṁ, dvinnaṁ cetanānaṁ, dvinnaṁ cittānaṁ samodhānaṁ hotīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe.

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Pathavīkasiṇaṁ samāpattiṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe.

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Āpokasiṇaṁ …pe… tejokasiṇaṁ … vāyokasiṇaṁ … nīlakasiṇaṁ … pītakasiṇaṁ … lohitakasiṇaṁ … odātakasiṇaṁ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ …pe… nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Pathavīkasiṇaṁ samāpattiṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Hañci pathavīkasiṇaṁ samāpattiṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedo, no ca vata re vattabbe “samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Āpokasiṇaṁ … tejokasiṇaṁ … vāyokasiṇaṁ … nīlakasiṇaṁ … pītakasiṇaṁ … lohitakasiṇaṁ … odātakasiṇaṁ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ … nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Hañci nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedo, no ca vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokiyasamāpattiṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokiyaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe…. Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokiyaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ … tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokiyaṁ samāpattiṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Hañci lokiyaṁ samāpattiṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedo, no ca vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Lokiyaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Hañci lokiyaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedo, no ca vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Lokiyaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ … tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Hañci lokiyaṁ catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedo, no ca vata re vattabbe “samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokiyaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokiyaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ … tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokiyaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokiyaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ … tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokuttaraṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Lokuttaraṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ … tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ … catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Lokuttaraṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa natthi vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Na vattabbaṁ—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti? Āmantā. Nanu vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhārā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti? Āmantā. Hañci vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhārā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”, tena vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhārā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Pathavīkasiṇaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhārā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Āpokasiṇaṁ … tejokasiṇaṁ … vāyokasiṇaṁ … nīlakasiṇaṁ … pītakasiṇaṁ … lohitakasiṇaṁ … odātakasiṇaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Na vattabbaṁ—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti? Āmantā. Nanu vitakkasamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti? Āmantā. Hañci vitakkasamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”, tena vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Vitakkasamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Saññāsamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—“dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi saññā, atthi tassa vitakkavicārā”ti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Vitakkasamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—“paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa atthi vitakkavicārā”ti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Saññāsamuṭṭhānā vācā vuttā bhagavatā—tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa atthi saññā, atthi tassa vitakkavicārāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Nanu “paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa vācā niruddhā hotī”ti. Attheva suttantoti? Āmantā. Hañci “paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa vācā niruddhā hotī”ti, attheva suttantoti, no ca vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

“Paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa vācā niruddhā hotī”ti, attheva suttantoti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. “Dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa vitakkavicārā niruddhā hontī”ti, attheva suttantoti, atthi tassa vitakkavicārāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

“Paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa vācā niruddhā hotī”ti, attheva suttantoti, atthi tassa vacībhedoti? Āmantā. “Tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa pīti niruddhā hoti, catutthaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa assāsapassāsā niruddhā honti, ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ samāpannassa rūpasaññā niruddhā hoti, viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samāpannassa ākāsānañcāyatanasaññā niruddhā hoti, ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa viññāṇañcāyatanasaññā niruddhā hoti, nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa ākiñcaññāyatanasaññā niruddhā hoti, saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpannassa saññā ca vedanā ca niruddhā hontī”ti, attheva suttantoti, atthi tassa saññā ca vedanā cāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Na vattabbaṁ—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti? Āmantā. Nanu—“paṭhamassa jhānassa saddo kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā”ti? Āmantā. Hañci paṭhamassa jhānassa saddo kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā, tena vata re vattabbe—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti.

Paṭhamassa jhānassa saddo kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatāti, samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti? Āmantā. Dutiyassa jhānassa vitakkavicārā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … tatiyassa jhānassa pīti kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … catutthassa jhānassa assāsapassāsā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ samāpannassa rūpasaññā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samāpannassa ākāsānañcāyatanasaññā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa viññāṇañcāyatanasaññā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samāpannassa ākiñcaññāyatanasaññā kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā … saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpannassa saññā ca vedanā ca kaṇḍako vutto bhagavatā, atthi tassa saññā ca vedanā cāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Na vattabbaṁ—“samāpannassa atthi vacībhedo”ti? Āmantā. Nanu vuttaṁ bhagavatā—“sikhissa, ānanda, bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa abhibhū nāma sāvako brahmaloke ṭhito dasasahassilokadhātuṁ sarena viññāpesi—

‘Ārabbhatha nikkamatha, yuñjatha buddhasāsane; Dhunātha maccuno senaṁ, naḷāgāraṁva kuñjaro.

Yo imasmiṁ dhammavinaye, appamatto vihassati; Pahāya jātisaṁsāraṁ, dukkhassantaṁ karissatī’”ti.

Attheva suttantoti? Āmantā. Tena hi samāpannassa atthi vacībhedoti.

Vacībhedakathā niṭṭhitā.