Kathavatthu 19.2: Suññatākathā

19.2.1.1

Suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is emptiness included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Controverted Point: That “the Void” is included in the aggregate of mental coefficients (sankhārakkhandha).

19.2.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That “the Void” is included in the aggregate of mental coefficients (sankhārakkhandha).

19.2.1.3

Animittaṃ saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannanti?

Is the signless included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.5

suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is emptiness included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.7

Appaṇihito saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannoti?

Is the undirected included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.8

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.9

animittaṃ na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said that the signless

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.10

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannan”ti?

is “included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.11

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.12

Suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said that emptiness

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.13

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

is “included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.14

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.15

appaṇihito na vattabbo—

Should it not be said that the undirected

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.16

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpanno”ti?

is “included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.17

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.18

Suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said that emptiness

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.19

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

is “included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.1.20

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless”, that the “Not-hankered-after” is also so included? If not, “the Void” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.

19.2.2.1

Suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is emptiness included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.3

Saṅkhārakkhandho na anicco na saṅkhato na paṭiccasamuppanno na khayadhammo na vayadhammo na virāgadhammo na nirodhadhammo na vipariṇāmadhammoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations not impermanent, not conditioned, not dependently arisen, not subject to cessation, not subject to vanishing, not subject to fading away, not subject to cessation, not subject to change?

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.5

nanu saṅkhārakkhandho anicco saṅkhato paṭiccasamuppanno khayadhammo vayadhammo virāgadhammo nirodhadhammo vipariṇāmadhammoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations not impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to cessation, subject to vanishing, subject to fading away, subject to cessation, subject to change?

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.7

Hañci saṅkhārakkhandho anicco …pe…

If the aggregate of volitional formations is impermanent …

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.8

vipariṇāmadhammo, no ca vata re vattabbe—

subject to change, then surely, friend, it should not be said:

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.2.9

“suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti.

“Emptiness is included in the aggregate of volitional formations.”

Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include “the Void”, it must be not impermanent, not arisen through a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease, nor to change!

19.2.3.1

Rūpakkhandhassa suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is the emptiness of the material form aggregate included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

Moreover, is the “emptiness” of the material aggregate included under the fourth aggregate? Or the “emptiness” of the second, third, and fifth aggregates thereunder? Or is the “emptiness” of the fourth aggregate itself included under any of the other four? If the one inclusion is wrong, so are all the other inclusions.

19.2.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

19.2.3.3

Saṅkhārakkhandhassa suññatā rūpakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is the emptiness of the aggregate of volitional formations included in the material form aggregate?

19.2.3.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

19.2.3.5

vedanākkhandhassa …pe…

Of the feeling aggregate …

19.2.3.6

saññākkhandhassa …

Of the perception aggregate …

19.2.3.7

viññāṇakkhandhassa suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is the voidness of the consciousness aggregate included in the aggregate of volitional formations?

19.2.3.8

Āmantā.

Yes.

19.2.3.9

Saṅkhārakkhandhassa suññatā viññāṇakkhandhapariyāpannāti?

Is the voidness of the aggregate of volitional formations included in the consciousness aggregate?

19.2.3.10

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

19.2.4.1

Saṅkhārakkhandhassa suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said: “The voidness of the aggregate of volitional formations

19.2.4.2

“rūpakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

is included in the aggregate of material form”?

19.2.4.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

19.2.4.4

Rūpakkhandhassa suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said: “The voidness of the aggregate of material form

19.2.4.5

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

is included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

19.2.4.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

19.2.4.7

saṅkhārakkhandhassa suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said: “The voidness of the aggregate of volitional formations

19.2.4.8

“vedanākkhandhapariyāpannā …pe…

is included in the feeling aggregate …

19.2.4.9

saññākkhandhapariyāpannā …

included in the perception aggregate …

19.2.4.10

viññāṇakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

included in the consciousness aggregate”?

19.2.4.11

Āmantā.

Yes.

19.2.4.12

Viññāṇakkhandhassa suññatā na vattabbā—

Should it not be said: “The voidness of the consciousness aggregate

19.2.4.13

“saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

is included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

19.2.4.14

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …

19.2.5.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said that

19.2.5.2

“suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā”ti?

“Voidness is included in the aggregate of volitional formations”?

19.2.5.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

19.2.5.4

Nanu vuttaṃ bhagavatā—

Was it not said by the Blessed One:

Andhaka: But was it not said by the Exalted One:

19.2.5.5

“suññamidaṃ, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā attena vā attaniyena vā”ti.

“This is void, monks, of self or what belongs to self: volitional formations”?

“Empty is this, bhikkhus—the sankhāra's—either of soul or of what belongs to soul”?

19.2.5.6

Attheva suttantoti?

Is there such a discourse?

“Empty is this, bhikkhus—the sankhāra's—either of soul or of what belongs to soul”?

19.2.5.7

Āmantā.

Yes.

“Empty is this, bhikkhus—the sankhāra's—either of soul or of what belongs to soul”?

19.2.5.8

Tena hi suññatā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannāti.

Therefore voidness is included in the aggregate of volitional formations.

“Empty is this, bhikkhus—the sankhāra's—either of soul or of what belongs to soul”?

19.2.5.9

Suññatākathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on voidness is finished.