Kathavatthu 8.2.8

8.2.8.1

Atthi antarābhavoti?

Is there an intermediate state of existence?

For whom then do you deny the intermediate state? For the person whose retribution is immediate? If you assent, to that extent your proposition is for you not true. Or is it for the person whose retribution is not immediate that you affirm this state? Yes, you say. Then you must deny it for his opposite.

8.2.8.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

8.2.8.3

Ānantariyassa puggalassa atthi antarābhavoti?

Is there an intermediate existence for a person liable to immediate [retribution]?

8.2.8.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

8.2.8.5

ānantariyassa puggalassa natthi antarābhavoti?

Is there no intermediate existence for a person liable to immediate [retribution]?

8.2.8.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

8.2.8.7

Hañci ānantariyassa puggalassa natthi antarābhavo, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If there is no intermediate existence for a person liable to immediate [retribution], then indeed you should not say:

8.2.8.8

“atthi antarābhavo”ti.

“There is an intermediate existence.”