Kathavatthu - Of The Plane Wherein Consciousness Neither Is Nor Is Not

Points of Controversy
OR
Subjects of Discourse
BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE KATHAVATTHU
FROM THE ABHIDHAMMA-PITAKA
BY
SHWE ZAN AUNG, B.A
AND
MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A

12. Of [the plane] wherein Consciousness neither is nor
is not.2
Controverted Point.—That it is wrong to say that, in the
plane wherein consciousness neither is nor is not, there is
consciousness.
From the Commentary.—This inquiry was directed against those
who, like the Andhakas of our time, hold that, from the Word:-'the
sphere of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness,'3—it is not
right to say that in that realm of life there is consciousness.
[1] Th.—But you would not describe that plane as one
of life, destiny, habitation of beings, continued existence,
birth, acquired personality that is unconscious? [2] Nor
as a life, etc., of one constituent only ? Would you not call
it a life of four constituents?4

2
In the Pali summary, at the end of Book III., the title becomes
'of the topmost sphere of life.'
3
Cf . any account of the more abstract Jhanas (e.g., Bud. Psy. Eth.,
74), or of the remoter heavens (e.g., Vibhanga, 421).
4
I.e., of the four mental aggregates. We are now concerned with
the remotest, Arupa or immaterial heavens. The PTS ed. has here
omitted a sentence. Cf . the next § (2), and also III. 11, § 1. For
Hanci asannabhavo, etc., read . . . sannabhavo .


[3] If we deny consciousness among the Unconscious
Beings, and call that sphere a life, destiny . . . personality
without consciousness, how can you deny consciousness to
this plane where consciousness neither is nor is not, with-
out describing it in the same terms ? Or how can we speak
of that sphere as a life of a single organic constituent with-
out describing this plane in the same terms ? [4] If your
proposition be right, and yet you describe this plane as
conscious life, etc., then similarly, in refusing conscious-
ness to the Unconscious sphere, you must describe that
sphere as conscious life, etc., which is" absurd. So also for
the fourfold- organic life. [5] For if you deny conscious-
ness to this plane, and yet call it a life o f four [mental]
constituents, then your propositioD obviously falls through.
[6] You grant me that this plane, wherein consciousness
neither is nor is not, is a life of four constituents, saying
the while that there is no consciousness in this plane—
you allow, do you not, that in the [lower] plane called
'infinity of space ' there is consciousness ? And that there
is consciousness in the [next higher] planes: ' infinity of
consciousness,' and 'nothingness.' Why not then for our
[fourth and highest] plane? [7] How can you admit
consciousness for those three and not for this, while you
allow that each is a life of four [mental] constituents ?
[8-10] Do you object to this:—in this plane consciousness
either is or is not ? Yes ? but why, when you admit the
co-presence of those four constituents ? Why, again, when
you admit them in the case of the other three planes, and
allow that there, too, consciousness either is or is not ?
[11] You admit that the plane in question is that
wherein is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, and
yet you maintain that it is wrong to say: in that plane
consciousness neither is nor is not ! [12] But take
neutral feeling—is it wrong to say that neutral feeling is
either feeling or not feeling? ' Yes,' you admit, 'that can-
not truly be said.' Then how can the other be said ?