Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Kathavatthu 10.3.3

Kathāvatthu 10.3.3

Language
Pāli

10.3.3.1

Cakkhuviññāṇasamaṅgissa atthi maggabhāvanāti?

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.2

Āmantā.

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.3

Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ suññataṃ ārabbha uppajjatīti?

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.5

cakkhuviññāṇaṃ suññataṃ ārabbha uppajjatīti?

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.6

Āmantā.

Consider visual consciousness and one of the Path-subjects—Emptiness—does the former come to pass concerning the latter? If you deny, you are opposing your thesis. If you assent, I ask whether it is right doctrine to say not only:

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.7

Cakkhuñca paṭicca suññatañca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇanti?

Because of the eye and Emptiness visual consciousness arises?

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.8

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

Because of the eye and Emptiness visual consciousness arises?

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.9

cakkhuñca paṭicca suññatañca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇanti?

Because of the eye and Emptiness visual consciousness arises?

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.10

Āmantā.

Because of the eye and Emptiness visual consciousness arises?

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.11

“Cakkhuñca paṭicca suññatañca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇan”ti—

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.12

attheva suttantoti?

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.13

Natthi.

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.14

“Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇan”ti—

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.15

attheva suttantoti?

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.16

Āmantā.

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.17

Hañci “cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇan”ti—

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.18

attheva suttanto, no ca vata re vattabbe—

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

10.3.3.19

“cakkhuñca paṭicca suññatañca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇan”ti.

Is the Suttanta thus? Of course not.

Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse

Translations (2)

Commentaries (2)