Kathavatthu 9.9: Nayathācittassavācātikathā

9.9.1.1

Na yathācittassa vācāti?

Does speech not accord with consciousness?

Controverted Point: That speech does not accord with thought.

9.9.1.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Controverted Point: That speech does not accord with thought.

9.9.1.3

Aphassakassa vācā avedanakassa vācā asaññakassa vācā acetanakassa vācā acittakassa vācāti?

Is speech of one who is without contact, is speech of one who is without feeling, is speech of one who is without perception, is speech of one who is without volition, is speech of one who is without consciousness?

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.5

nanu saphassakassa vācā savedanakassa vācā sasaññakassa vācā sacetanakassa vācā sacittakassa vācāti?

is not speech of one who is with contact, is speech of one who is with feeling, is speech of one who is with perception, is speech of one who is with volition, is speech of one who is with consciousness?

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.7

Hañci saphassakassa vācā …pe…

If speech is of one who is with contact …

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.8

sacittakassa vācā, no ca vata re vattabbe—

speech is of one who is with consciousness, then indeed one should not say:

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.1.9

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti.

“Speech does not accord with consciousness.”

Theravādin: If this be so, then a fortiori neither does speech accord with mental contact, feeling, perception, volition, nor with any property of consciousness. But surely, as you agree, the opposite is the case.

9.9.2.1

Na yathācittassa vācāti?

Does speech not accord with consciousness?

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.3

Anāvaṭṭentassa vācā …pe…

Is speech of one not directing [the mind] …

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.4

anābhogassa vācā …pe… appaṇidahantassa vācāti?

is speech of one without advertence … is speech of one not aspiring?

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.5

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.6

nanu āvaṭṭentassa vācā ābhogassa vācā …pe… paṇidahantassa vācāti?

is not speech of one directing [the mind], is speech of one with advertence … is speech of one aspiring?

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.7

Āmantā.

Yes.

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.8

Hañci āvaṭṭentassa vācā ābhogassa vācā paṇidahantassa vācā, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If speech is of one directing [the mind], speech is of one with advertence, speech is of one aspiring, then indeed one should not say:

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.2.9

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti.

“Speech does not accord with consciousness.”

You must, again, deny that speech accords with adverting, ideating, co-ordinated application, willing, intending, aiming—which you will not, the opposite being true.

9.9.3.1

Na yathācittassa vācāti?

Does speech not accord with consciousness?

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.3.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.3.3

Nanu vācā cittasamuṭṭhānā cittena sahajātā cittena saha ekuppādāti?

Is not speech originated by consciousness, conascent with consciousness, arising together with consciousness?

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.3.4

Āmantā.

Yes.

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.3.5

Hañci vācā cittasamuṭṭhānā cittena sahajātā cittena saha ekuppādā, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If speech is originated by consciousness, conascent with consciousness, arising together with consciousness, then indeed one should not say:

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.3.6

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti.

“Speech does not conform to one’s mind.”

You admit that speech which is provoked by thought is co-existent, and one in its origin, with the thought. Yet this is in contradiction to your proposition.

9.9.4.1

Na yathācittassa vācāti?

Does speech not conform to one’s mind?

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.2

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.3

Na bhaṇitukāmo bhaṇati, na kathetukāmo katheti, na ālapitukāmo ālapati, na voharitukāmo voharatīti?

Does one not speak when wishing to speak, not converse when wishing to converse, not address when wishing to address, not converse colloquially when wishing to converse colloquially?

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.4

Na hevaṃ vattabbe …pe…

It should not be said thus …pe…

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.5

nanu bhaṇitukāmo bhaṇati, kathetukāmo katheti, ālapitukāmo ālapati, voharitukāmo voharatīti?

Doesn't one speak when wishing to speak, converse when wishing to converse, address when wishing to address, converse colloquially when wishing to converse colloquially?

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.6

Āmantā.

Yes.

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.7

Hañci bhaṇitukāmo bhaṇati, kathetukāmo katheti, ālapitukāmo ālapati, voharitukāmo voharati, no ca vata re vattabbe—

If one speaks when wishing to speak, converses when wishing to converse, addresses when wishing to address, converses colloquially when wishing to converse colloquially, then surely it should not be said:

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.4.8

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti.

“Speech does not conform to one’s mind.”

Again, you commit yourself to this, that one speaks of what one does not wish to speak, discourses, addresses others, converses about what one does not wish. Surely the opposite is the case.

9.9.5.1

Na vattabbaṃ—

Should it not be said:

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.2

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti?

“Speech does not conform to one’s mind”?

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.3

Āmantā.

Yes.

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.4

Nanu atthi koci “aññaṃ bhaṇissāmī”ti aññaṃ bhaṇati, “aññaṃ kathessāmī”ti aññaṃ katheti, “aññaṃ ālapissāmī”ti aññaṃ ālapati, “aññaṃ voharissāmī”ti aññaṃ voharatīti?

Is there not someone who, thinking “I will speak one thing,” speaks another; thinking “I will converse of one thing,” converses of another; thinking “I will address one thing,” addresses another; thinking “I will converse colloquially of one thing,” converses colloquially of another?

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.5

Āmantā.

Yes.

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.6

Hañci atthi koci “aññaṃ bhaṇissāmī”ti aññaṃ bhaṇati …pe…

If there is someone who, thinking “I will speak one thing,” speaks another …pe…

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.7

“aññaṃ voharissāmī”ti aññaṃ voharati, tena vata re vattabbe—

thinking “I will converse colloquially of one thing,” converses colloquially of another, then surely it should be said:

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.8

“na yathācittassa vācā”ti.

“Speech does not conform to one’s mind.”

Pubbaseliya: You say I am wrong, but you must admit that people can speak, discourse, address others, converse about something different from that which is occupying their minds. Hence my proposition is tenable.

9.9.5.9

Na yathācittassa vācātikathā niṭṭhitā.

The discussion on “Speech does not conform to one’s mind” is finished.