Kathavatthu 9.2.2

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.’