Kathavatthu 9.5: Ñāṇaṃanārammaṇantikathā

9.5.1.1

Ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge without an object?

Controverted Point: That insight is without mental object.

9.5.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That insight is without mental object.

9.5.1.3

Rūpaṃ nibbānaṃ cakkhāyatanaṃ …pe…

Is it material form, unbinding, the eye base …pe…

Theravādin: Then insight must be either material quality, or Nibbāna, or one of the five organs of sense, or their five external objects (since these are the things that are without mental object). But this you deny … .

9.5.1.4

phoṭṭhabbāyatananti?

the tangible base?

Theravādin: Then insight must be either material quality, or Nibbāna, or one of the five organs of sense, or their five external objects (since these are the things that are without mental object). But this you deny … .

9.5.1.5

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

Theravādin: Then insight must be either material quality, or Nibbāna, or one of the five organs of sense, or their five external objects (since these are the things that are without mental object). But this you deny … .

9.5.1.6

ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge without an object?

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.7

Āmantā.

Yes.

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.8

Paññā paññindriyaṃ paññābalaṃ sammādiṭṭhi dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo anārammaṇoti?

Are wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, right view, the awakening factor of investigation of phenomena without an object?

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.9

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.10

paññā paññindriyaṃ paññābalaṃ sammādiṭṭhi dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo sārammaṇoti?

Are wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, right view, the awakening factor of investigation of phenomena with an object?

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.11

Āmantā.

Yes.

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.12

Ñāṇaṃ sārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge with an object?

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.1.13

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe….

You deny also that understanding, as controlling power or force, as right views, as the search for truth by intuition, is without mental object, affirming the contrary. Then why exclude insight?

9.5.2.1

Ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge without an object?

Here, too, you judge that the aggregate of mental coefficients is involved. But as in the preceding discourse, so here: you cannot say, a mental aggregate is without object, or partly so. And you cannot affirm that understanding, which is involved in that aggregate, is with mental object, while insight, also involved in it, is without.

9.5.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.2.3

Katamakkhandhapariyāpannanti?

Included in which aggregate?

9.5.2.4

Saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannanti.

Included in the aggregate of volitional formations.

9.5.2.5

Saṅkhārakkhandho anārammaṇoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations without an object?

9.5.2.6

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.5.2.7

saṅkhārakkhandho anārammaṇoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations without an object?

9.5.2.8

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.2.9

Vedanākkhandho saññākkhandho viññāṇakkhandho anārammaṇoti?

Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of consciousness without an object?

9.5.2.10

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.5.2.11

ñāṇaṃ saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannaṃ anārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, without an object?

9.5.2.12

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.2.13

Paññā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā anārammaṇāti?

Is wisdom, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, without an object?

9.5.2.14

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.5.2.15

paññā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā sārammaṇāti?

Is wisdom, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, with an object?

9.5.2.16

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.2.17

Ñāṇaṃ saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannaṃ sārammaṇanti?

Is knowledge, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, with an object?

9.5.2.18

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe….

9.5.3.1

Ñāṇaṃ saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannaṃ anārammaṇaṃ, paññā saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpannā sārammaṇāti?

Is knowledge, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, without an object, while wisdom, being included in the aggregate of volitional formations, is with an object?

9.5.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.3.3

Saṅkhārakkhandho ekadeso sārammaṇo ekadeso anārammaṇoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations in one part with an object and in one part without an object?

9.5.3.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

9.5.3.5

saṅkhārakkhandho ekadeso sārammaṇo ekadeso anārammaṇoti?

Is the aggregate of volitional formations in one part with an object and in one part without an object?

9.5.3.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

9.5.3.7

Vedanākkhandho saññākkhandho viññāṇakkhandho ekadeso sārammaṇo ekadeso anārammaṇoti?

Are the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of consciousness in one part with an object and in one part without an object?

9.5.3.8

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe….

9.5.4.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said that

Andhaka: You deny that insight is objectless. Is it right to say that the Arahant is “full of insight”, while he is visually cognitive?

9.5.4.2

“ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇan”ti?

“knowledge is without an object”?

Andhaka: You deny that insight is objectless. Is it right to say that the Arahant is “full of insight”, while he is visually cognitive?

9.5.4.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Andhaka: You deny that insight is objectless. Is it right to say that the Arahant is “full of insight”, while he is visually cognitive?

9.5.4.4

Arahā cakkhuviññāṇasamaṅgī ñāṇīti vattabboti?

Should an arahant endowed with eye-consciousness be called possessing knowledge?

Andhaka: You deny that insight is objectless. Is it right to say that the Arahant is “full of insight”, while he is visually cognitive?

9.5.4.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: Yes.

9.5.4.6

Atthi tassa ñāṇassa ārammaṇanti?

Is there an object for that knowledge?

Andhaka: Has his insight at that moment an object?

9.5.4.7

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.8

tena hi ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇanti.

Therefore, knowledge is without an object.

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.9

Arahā cakkhuviññāṇasamaṅgī paññavāti vattabboti?

Should an arahant endowed with eye-consciousness be called wise?

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.10

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.11

Atthi tāya paññāya ārammaṇanti?

Is there an object for that wisdom?

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.12

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe….

It should not be said thus …pe….

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.13

Tena hi paññā anārammaṇāti.

Therefore, wisdom has no object.

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … But if you substitute “full of understanding” for “full of insight”, you yourself admit that he is full of understanding while visually cognitive, and at the same time you deny that his understanding, during that process, has an object.

9.5.4.14

Ñāṇaṃ anārammaṇantikathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on whether knowledge has no object is finished.