Kathavatthu 9.2: Amatārammaṇakathā

9.2.1.1

Amatārammaṇaṃ saṃyojananti?

Is a fetter that which has the deathless as its object?

Controverted Point: That the Ambrosial as an object of thought is a “fetter”.

9.2.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That the Ambrosial as an object of thought is a “fetter”.

9.2.1.3

Amataṃ saṃyojaniyaṃ ganthaniyaṃ oghaniyaṃ yoganiyaṃ nīvaraṇiyaṃ parāmaṭṭhaṃ upādāniyaṃ saṅkilesiyanti?

Is the deathless subject to fetters, subject to ties, subject to floods, subject to yokes, subject to hindrances, clung to, subject to grasping, subject to defilement?

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.1.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus … and so on …

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.1.5

nanu amataṃ asaṃyojaniyaṃ aganthaniyaṃ …pe… asaṅkilesiyanti?

is the deathless not not-subject to fetters, not-subject to ties … and so on … not-subject to defilement?

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.1.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.1.7

Hañci amataṃ asaṃyojaniyaṃ …pe… asaṅkilesiyaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If the deathless is not-subject to fetters … and so on … not-subject to defilement, then indeed you should not say:

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.1.8

“amatārammaṇaṃ saṃyojanan”ti.

“A fetter has the deathless as its object.”

Theravādin: If you say that, are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial is the object of consciousness accompanied by “Fetters”, “Ties”, “Floods”, “Bonds”, “Hindrances”, “Infections”, “Graspings”, “Corruptions”? Is it not rather an object accompanied by the very opposite?

9.2.2.1

Amataṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjatīti?

Does lust arise with reference to the deathless?

You affirm that, on account of the Ambrosial occupying the mind, lust, hate, ignorance may spring up. But are you prepared to admit that the Ambrosial itself conduces to occasions for lusting, to lusting after, wishing for, being inebriated, and captivated by, languishing for? That it conduces to occasions for hatred, anger, and resentment? That it conduces to occasions for delusion, for depriving of knowledge, for blinding vision, for suspending insight, for siding with trouble, for failing to win Nibbāna? Is it not rather the opposite of all these? How then can you say that, on account of the Ambrosial occupying the mind, lust, hate, and ignorance spring up? All these things you may truly predicate as springing up because of the occupation of the mind with material qualities (rūpa). But material qualities are not the Ambrosial.

9.2.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.2.3

Amataṃ rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ rajaniyaṃ kamaniyaṃ madaniyaṃ bandhaniyaṃ mucchaniyanti?

Is the deathless a basis for lust, enticing, alluring, intoxicating, binding, infatuating?

9.2.2.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.2.5

nanu amataṃ na rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ na rajaniyaṃ na kamaniyaṃ na madaniyaṃ na bandhaniyaṃ na mucchaniyanti?

Is it not that the deathless is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not alluring, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating?

9.2.2.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.2.7

Hañci amataṃ na rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ na rajaniyaṃ na kamaniyaṃ na madaniyaṃ na bandhaniyaṃ na mucchaniyaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If the deathless is not a basis for lust, not enticing, not alluring, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating, then indeed, sir, it should not be said:

9.2.2.8

“amataṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjatī”ti.

‘Lust arises concerning the deathless.’

9.2.3.1

Amataṃ ārabbha doso uppajjatīti?

Does hatred arise concerning the deathless?

9.2.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.3.3

Amataṃ dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Is the deathless a basis for hatred, a basis for anger, a basis for resentment?

9.2.3.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.3.5

nanu amataṃ na dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ na kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ na paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Is it not that the deathless is not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for resentment?

9.2.3.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.3.7

Hañci amataṃ na dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ na kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ na paṭighaṭṭhāniyaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If the deathless is not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for resentment, then indeed, sir, it should not be said:

9.2.3.8

“amataṃ ārabbha doso uppajjatī”ti.

‘Hatred arises concerning the deathless.’

9.2.4.1

Amataṃ ārabbha moho uppajjatīti?

Does delusion arise concerning the deathless?

9.2.4.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.4.3

Amataṃ mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ aññāṇakaraṇaṃ acakkhukaraṇaṃ paññānirodhiyaṃ vighātapakkhiyaṃ anibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Is the deathless a basis for delusion, causing ignorance, causing lack of vision, destructive of wisdom, associated with vexation, leading away from unbinding?

9.2.4.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.4.5

nanu amataṃ na mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ na aññāṇakaraṇaṃ na acakkhukaraṇaṃ paññābuddhiyaṃ avighātapakkhiyaṃ nibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Is it not that the deathless is not a basis for delusion, not causing ignorance, not causing lack of vision, promoting wisdom, not associated with vexation, leading to unbinding?

9.2.4.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.4.7

Hañci amataṃ na mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ na aññāṇakaraṇaṃ …pe…

If the deathless is not a basis for delusion, not causing ignorance …pe…

9.2.4.8

nibbānasaṃvattaniyaṃ, no ca vata re vattabbe—

leading to unbinding, then indeed, sir, it should not be said:

9.2.4.9

“amataṃ ārabbha moho uppajjatī”ti.

‘Delusion arises concerning the deathless.’

9.2.5.1

Rūpaṃ ārabbha saṃyojanā uppajjanti, rūpaṃ saṃyojaniyaṃ ganthaniyaṃ …pe… saṅkilesiyanti?

Do fetters arise concerning material form, [and] is material form favorable to fetters, favorable to ties …pe… favorable to defilement?

9.2.5.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.5.3

Amataṃ ārabbha saṃyojanā uppajjanti, amataṃ saṃyojaniyaṃ …pe… saṅkilesiyanti?

Do fetters arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless favorable to fetters …pe… favorable to defilement?

9.2.5.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.6.1

Rūpaṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjati, rūpaṃ rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ rajaniyaṃ kamaniyaṃ madaniyaṃ bandhaniyaṃ mucchaniyanti?

Does lust arise concerning material form, [and] is material form a basis for lust, enticing, alluring, intoxicating, binding, infatuating?

9.2.6.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.6.3

Amataṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjati, amataṃ rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ …pe… mucchaniyanti?

Does lust arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless a basis for lust …pe… infatuating?

9.2.6.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.7.1

Rūpaṃ ārabbha doso uppajjati, rūpaṃ dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Does hatred arise concerning material form, [and] is material form a basis for hatred, a basis for anger, a basis for resentment?

9.2.7.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.7.3

Amataṃ ārabbha doso uppajjati, amataṃ dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Does hatred arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless a basis for hatred, a basis for anger, a basis for resentment?

9.2.7.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.8.1

Rūpaṃ ārabbha moho uppajjati, rūpaṃ mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ aññāṇakaraṇaṃ …pe… anibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Does delusion arise concerning material form, [and] is material form a basis for delusion, causing ignorance …pe… leading away from unbinding?

9.2.8.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.8.3

Amataṃ ārabbha moho uppajjati, amataṃ mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ aññāṇakaraṇaṃ …pe… anibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Does delusion arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless a basis for delusion, causing ignorance …pe… leading away from unbinding?

9.2.8.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.9.1

Amataṃ ārabbha saṃyojanā uppajjanti, amataṃ asaṃyojaniyaṃ aganthaniyaṃ anoghaniyaṃ ayoganiyaṃ anīvaraṇiyaṃ aparāmaṭṭhaṃ anupādāniyaṃ asaṅkilesiyanti?

Do fetters arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless not favorable to fetters, not favorable to ties, not favorable to floods, not favorable to bonds, not favorable to hindrances, not misapprehended, not favorable to clinging, not favorable to defilement?

You would not say that, whereas the Fetters spring up because of material qualities, the latter do not conduce to Fetters, Ties, Floods, and all such spiritual defects and dangers. How then can you affirm just the same of the Ambrosial: that, whereas the Fetters spring up because of it, it does not conduce to Fetters, and so forth? Or that, whereas lust, hate, and ignorance spring up because of the Ambrosial, nevertheless the Ambrosial is not an occasion for lusting and all the rest?

9.2.9.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.9.3

Rūpaṃ ārabbha saṃyojanā uppajjanti, rūpaṃ asaṃyojaniyaṃ aganthaniyaṃ …pe… asaṅkilesiyanti?

Do fetters arise concerning material form, [and] is material form not favorable to fetters, not favorable to ties …pe… not favorable to defilement?

9.2.9.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.10.1

Amataṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjati, amataṃ na rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ na rajaniyaṃ na kamaniyaṃ na madaniyaṃ na bandhaniyaṃ na mucchaniyanti?

Does lust arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless not a basis for lust, not enticing, not alluring, not intoxicating, not binding, not infatuating?

9.2.10.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.10.3

Rūpaṃ ārabbha rāgo uppajjati, rūpaṃ na rāgaṭṭhāniyaṃ …pe…

Does lust arise concerning material form, [and] is material form not a basis for lust …pe…

9.2.10.4

na mucchaniyanti?

not infatuating?

9.2.10.5

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.11.1

Amataṃ ārabbha doso uppajjati, amataṃ na dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ na kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ na paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Does hatred arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for resentment?

9.2.11.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.11.3

Rūpaṃ ārabbha doso uppajjati, rūpaṃ na dosaṭṭhāniyaṃ na kopaṭṭhāniyaṃ na paṭighaṭṭhāniyanti?

Does hatred arise concerning material form, [and] is material form not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for resentment?

9.2.11.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.12.1

Amataṃ ārabbha moho uppajjati, amataṃ na mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ na aññāṇakaraṇaṃ …pe… nibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Does delusion arise concerning the deathless, [and] is the deathless not a basis for delusion, not causing ignorance …pe… leading to unbinding?

9.2.12.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.12.3

Rūpaṃ ārabbha moho uppajjati, rūpaṃ na mohaṭṭhāniyaṃ na aññāṇakaraṇaṃ …pe… nibbānasaṃvattaniyanti?

Does delusion arise concerning material form, [and] is material form not a basis for delusion, not causing ignorance …pe… leading to unbinding?

9.2.12.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.2.13.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said:

9.2.13.2

“amatārammaṇaṃ saṃyojanan”ti?

‘A fetter has the deathless as its object’?

9.2.13.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.2.13.4

Nanu vuttaṃ bhagavatā—

Was it not said by the Blessed One:

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

9.2.13.5

“nibbānaṃ nibbānato sañjānāti, nibbānaṃ nibbānato sañjānitvā nibbānaṃ maññati, nibbānasmiṃ maññati, nibbānato maññati, nibbānaṃ meti maññati, nibbānaṃ abhinandatī”ti.

“He perceives unbinding as unbinding; having perceived unbinding as unbinding, he conceives unbinding, he conceives in unbinding, he conceives from unbinding, he conceives ‘unbinding is mine’, he delights in unbinding”?

“He perceives Nibbāna as such, and having perceived it he imagines things about Nibbāna, with respect to Nibbāna, things as Nibbāna, that “Nibbāna is mine”, dallying with the idea”?

9.2.13.6

Attheva suttantoti?

Does such a discourse exist?

“He perceives Nibbāna as such, and having perceived it he imagines things about Nibbāna, with respect to Nibbāna, things as Nibbāna, that “Nibbāna is mine”, dallying with the idea”?

9.2.13.7

Āmantā.

Yes.

“He perceives Nibbāna as such, and having perceived it he imagines things about Nibbāna, with respect to Nibbāna, things as Nibbāna, that “Nibbāna is mine”, dallying with the idea”?

9.2.13.8

Tena hi amatārammaṇaṃ saṃyojananti.

Therefore, a fetter has the deathless as its object.

Therefore the Ambrosial is an object of thought not yet freed from bondage.

9.2.13.9

Amatārammaṇakathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on having the deathless as an object is finished.