Kathavatthu 9.4.2
Kathāvatthu 9.4.2
- Language
- Pāli
9.4.2.1
Kāmarāgānusayo anārammaṇoti?
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.2
Āmantā.
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.3
Kāmarāgo kāmarāgapariyuṭṭhānaṃ kāmarāgasaṃyojanaṃ kāmogho kāmayogo kāmacchandanīvaraṇaṃ anārammaṇanti?
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.4
Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.5
kāmarāgo kāmarāgapariyuṭṭhānaṃ kāmarāgasaṃyojanaṃ kāmogho kāmayogo kāmacchandanīvaraṇaṃ sārammaṇanti?
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.6
Āmantā.
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.7
Kāmarāgānusayo sārammaṇoti?
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
9.4.2.8
Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….
But let us take the first form, the bias of sense-desire. If this is without mental object, must you not also affirm the same of all manifestations and notions of sense-desire—to wit, sense-desire as lust, as an outburst of lustful desire, as a Fetter, as a Flood, as a Bond, as an Obstacle? Would you not rather affirm just the opposite of these, that they are concomitant with mental object?
Translations (2)
- Points of Controversy, or Subjects of Discourse — Shwe Zan Aung & Caroline A. F. Rhys Davids 1915, English
- English (machine translation) — English, machine translation
Commentaries (2)
- Mūlaṭīkā — Ānanda (Vanaratana), Pāli
- Pañcappakaraṇaṭṭhakathā — Buddhaghosa, Pāli