Kathavatthu 15.2: Aññamaññapaccayakathā

15.2.1.1

Avijjāpaccayāva saṅkhārā, na vattabbaṃ—

[Do] volitional formations [arise] only with ignorance as condition, and should it not be said:

Controverted Point: That whereas actions are conditioned by ignorance, we may not say that ignorance is conditioned by actions.

15.2.1.2

“saṅkhārapaccayāpi avijjā”ti?

“Ignorance also [arises] with volitional formations as condition”?

Controverted Point: That whereas actions are conditioned by ignorance, we may not say that ignorance is conditioned by actions.

15.2.1.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That whereas actions are conditioned by ignorance, we may not say that ignorance is conditioned by actions.

15.2.1.4

Nanu avijjā saṅkhārena sahajātāti?

Is not ignorance co-nascent with volitional formations?

Theravādin: But is not ignorance coexistent with action? If so, here is a reciprocal correlation namely, of coexistence.

15.2.1.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: But is not ignorance coexistent with action? If so, here is a reciprocal correlation namely, of coexistence.

15.2.1.6

Hañci avijjā saṅkhārena sahajātā, tena vata re vattabbe—

If ignorance is co-nascent with volitional formations, then surely, friend, it should be said:

Theravādin: But is not ignorance coexistent with action? If so, here is a reciprocal correlation namely, of coexistence.

15.2.1.7

“avijjāpaccayāpi saṅkhārā, saṅkhārapaccayāpi avijjā”ti.

“Volitional formations also [arise] with ignorance as condition, and ignorance also [arises] with volitional formations as condition.”

Theravādin: But is not ignorance coexistent with action? If so, here is a reciprocal correlation namely, of coexistence.

15.2.2.1

Taṇhāpaccayāva upādānaṃ, na vattabbaṃ—

[Does] grasping [arise] only with craving as condition, and should it not be said:

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.2

“upādānapaccayāpi taṇhā”ti?

“Craving also [arises] with grasping as condition”?

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.4

Nanu taṇhā upādānena sahajātāti?

Is not craving co-nascent with grasping?

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.6

Hañci taṇhā upādānena sahajātā, tena vata re vattabbe—

If craving is co-nascent with grasping, then surely, friend, it should be said:

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.2.7

“taṇhāpaccayāpi upādānaṃ, upādānapaccayāpi taṇhā”ti.

“Grasping also [arises] with craving as condition, and craving also [arises] with grasping as condition.”

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

15.2.3.1

“Jarāmaraṇapaccayā, bhikkhave, jāti, jātipaccayā bhavo”ti—

“With old age and death as condition, monks, there is birth; with birth as condition there is existence”:

Mahāsaṅghika: “Birth, bhikkhus, is conditioned by decay and death, the tendency to become is conditioned by birth”—is the Suttanta thus?

15.2.3.2

attheva suttantoti?

is there such a discourse?

Mahāsaṅghika: “Birth, bhikkhus, is conditioned by decay and death, the tendency to become is conditioned by birth”—is the Suttanta thus?

15.2.3.3

Natthi.

There is not.

Theravādin: No.

15.2.3.4

Tena hi avijjāpaccayāva saṅkhārā, na vattabbaṃ—

Therefore indeed volitional formations [arise] only with ignorance as condition; it should not be said:

Mahāsaṅghika: Neither is the reciprocal conditioning correlation between ignorance and activities reciprocal, nor that between craving and grasping.

15.2.3.5

“saṅkhārapaccayāpi avijjā”ti.

“Ignorance also [arises] with volitional formations as condition.”

Mahāsaṅghika: Neither is the reciprocal conditioning correlation between ignorance and activities reciprocal, nor that between craving and grasping.

15.2.3.6

Taṇhāpaccayāva upādānaṃ, na vattabbaṃ—

Grasping [arises] only with craving as condition; it should not be said:

Mahāsaṅghika: Neither is the reciprocal conditioning correlation between ignorance and activities reciprocal, nor that between craving and grasping.

15.2.3.7

“upādānapaccayāpi taṇhā”ti.

“Craving also [arises] with grasping as condition.”

Mahāsaṅghika: Neither is the reciprocal conditioning correlation between ignorance and activities reciprocal, nor that between craving and grasping.

15.2.4.1

“Viññāṇapaccayā, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ, nāmarūpapaccayāpi viññāṇan”ti—

“With consciousness as condition, monks, there is mentality-and-materiality; with mentality-and-materiality as condition there is consciousness”:

Theravādin: “Mind and body, bhikkhus, are conditioned by rebirth-consciousness, and this by mind and body”—is the Suttanta thus?

15.2.4.2

attheva suttantoti?

is there such a discourse?

Theravādin: “Mind and body, bhikkhus, are conditioned by rebirth-consciousness, and this by mind and body”—is the Suttanta thus?

15.2.4.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Mahāsaṅghika: Yes.

15.2.4.4

Tena hi avijjāpaccayāpi saṅkhārā, saṅkhārapaccayāpi avijjā;

Therefore indeed volitional formations also [arise] with ignorance as condition, and ignorance also [arises] with volitional formations as condition;

Theravādin: Then the conditioning relation may be reciprocal.

15.2.4.5

taṇhāpaccayāpi upādānaṃ, upādānapaccayāpi taṇhāti.

grasping also [arises] with craving as condition, and craving also [arises] with grasping as condition.

Theravādin: Then the conditioning relation may be reciprocal.

15.2.4.6

Aññamaññapaccayakathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on condition by way of mutuality is finished.