English
Is form wholesome, with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... Is form wholesome, without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? Yes. Is non-greed wholesome, without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... Is form wholesome, without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? Yes. Is non-hatred wholesome... is wisdom wholesome, without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... 762. Is form unwholesome? Yes. Is it with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... Is it not without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? Yes. If it is without an object, there is no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it, then indeed it should not be said – "Form is unwholesome."... 763. Is greed unwholesome, with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? Yes. Is form unwholesome, with an object, and does it have turning back... and aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is hatred... delusion... conceit... lack of shame unwholesome, with an object, and does it have turning back... and aspiration? Yes. Is form unwholesome, with an object, and does it have turning back... and aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is form unwholesome, without an object, and does it not have turning back... and aspiration? Yes. Is greed unwholesome, without an object, and does it not have turning back... and aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is form unwholesome, without an object, and does it not have turning back... and aspiration? Yes. Is hatred... delusion... lack of shame unwholesome, without an object, and does it not have turning back... and aspiration? It should not be said thus... 764. Should it not be said: "Form is both wholesome and unwholesome"? Yes. But isn't bodily action and verbal action both wholesome and unwholesome? Yes. If bodily action and verbal action are both wholesome and unwholesome, then indeed it should be said: "Form is both wholesome and unwholesome." The discussion on whether form is wholesome or unwholesome is concluded. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (163) 8. The discussion on whether form is a result 765. Is form a result? Yes. Is form experienced as pleasure, experienced as pain, experienced as neither-pain-nor-pleasure, associated with pleasant feeling, associated with painful feeling, associated with neither-pain-nor-pleasant feeling, associated with contact... associated with consciousness, with an object, and does it have turning back... and aspiration? It should not be said thus... But isn't it not experienced as pleasure, not experienced as pain... without an object, and does it not have turning back... and aspiration? Yes. If it is not experienced as pleasure, not experienced as pain... without an object, and does not have turning back... and aspiration, then indeed it should not be said: "Form is a result." 766. Is contact a result? Is contact experienced as pleasure, experienced as pain... with an object, and does it have turning back... and aspiration? Yes. Is form resultant, is form feeling pleasant, feeling painful… …with an object, is there its turning… …as aspiration? It should not be said thus… Is form resultant, is form neither feeling pleasant nor feeling painful… …without an object, is there no its turning… …as aspiration? Yes. Is contact resultant, is contact neither feeling pleasant nor feeling painful… …without an object, is there no its turning… …as aspiration? It should not be said thus… 767. Should it not be said – “Form is resultant”? Yes. Are not mind and mental factors arisen due to action resultant? Yes. If mind and mental factors arisen due to action are resultant, then indeed it should be said – “Form arisen due to action is resultant.” The discussion on whether form is resultant is concluded. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (164) 9. The discussion on whether form is of the form-sphere and formless-sphere 768. Is there form of the form-sphere? Yes. Is it for attainment, for rebirth, for a pleasant abiding in this very life, accompanied, co-arisen, conjoined, associated, with a single arising, a single cessation, a single basis, a single object, with the mind of attainment, with the mind of rebirth, with the mind of a pleasant abiding in this very life? It should not be said thus… …Is it not not for attainment, not for rebirth, not for a pleasant abiding in this very life, not accompanied, not co-arisen, not conjoined, not associated, not with a single arising, a single cessation, a single basis, a single object, with the mind of attainment, with the mind of rebirth, with the mind of a pleasant abiding in this very life? Yes. If it is not for attainment, not for rebirth, not for a pleasant abiding in this very life, not with the mind of attainment… …a single object, then indeed it should not be said – “There is form of the form-sphere.” 769. Is there form of the formless-sphere? Yes. Is it for attainment, for rebirth, for a pleasant abiding in this very life, with the mind of attainment, with the mind of rebirth, with the mind of a pleasant abiding in this very life… accompanied by a mind dwelling unhappily, arisen together, associated, conjoined, of one arising, of one cessation, of one base, of one object? It should not be said thus... Surely it is not for attainment, not for rebirth, not for a pleasant dwelling in this very life, not with a mind for attainment... of one object? Yes. If it is not for attainment, not for rebirth... of one base, of one object, then indeed it should not be said: "there is form in the formless realm." 770. Should it not be said: "there is form in the form realm, there is form in the formless realm"? Yes. Surely, because of having done kāmāvacara kamma, form is kāmāvacara? Yes. If, because of having done kāmāvacara kamma, form is kāmāvacara, then indeed it should be said: "because of having done rūpāvacara kamma, form is rūpāvacara; because of having done arūpāvacara kamma, form is arūpāvacara." The discussion on form in the form realm and formless realm is finished. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (165) 10. Discussion on what is included in the form and formless realms 771. Is lust for form included in the form realm? Yes. Is it for attainment, for rebirth, for a pleasant dwelling in this very life, accompanied by a mind for attainment, by a mind for rebirth, by a mind for a pleasant dwelling in this very life, arisen together, associated, conjoined, of one arising, of one cessation, of one base, of one object? It should not be said thus... Surely it is not for attainment, not for rebirth, not for a pleasant dwelling in this very life, not with a mind for attainment... of one base, of one object? Yes. If it is not for attainment, not for rebirth, not for a pleasant dwelling in this very life, not with a mind for attainment... of one base, of one object, then indeed it should not be said: "lust for form is included in the form realm." 772. Is lust for form included in the form realm? Yes. Is lust for sound included in the sound realm? It should not be said thus... Is lust for form included in the form realm? Yes. Lust for smell... Lust for taste... Touch... Is lust for tangibles included in the tangible element? It should not be said so… Is lust for sounds not to be said “included in the sound element”? Yes. Is lust for forms not to be said “included in the form element”? It should not be said so… Lust for smells… Lust for tastes… Is lust for tangibles not to be said “included in the tangible element”? Yes. Is lust for forms not to be said “included in the form element”? It should not be said so… 773. Is lust for formless things included in the formless element? Yes. Is lust for formless things not to be said “included in the formless element”? It should not be said so… Is lust for formless things included in the formless element? Yes. Are attainments, and higher attainments, and pleasant abiding in this very life, accompanied, co-arisen, conjoined, associated, with one arising, one cessation, one basis, one object, with a mind of attainments, with a mind of higher attainments, with a mind of pleasant abiding in this very life? It should not be said so… Are they not attainments, not higher attainments, not pleasant abiding in this very life, not with a mind of attainments… one basis, one object? Yes. If they are not attainments, not higher attainments, not pleasant abiding in this very life, not accompanied, not co-arisen, not conjoined, not associated, not with one arising, not one cessation, not one basis, not one object, with a mind of attainments, with a mind of higher attainments, with a mind of pleasant abiding in this very life, then indeed it should not be said “lust for formless things is included in the formless element.” 774. Is lust for formless things included in the formless element? Yes. Is lust for sounds included in the sound element? It should not be said so… Is lust for formless things included in the formless element? Yes. Lust for smells… Lust for tastes… Is lust for tangibles included in the tangible element? It should not be said so… Is lust for sounds not to be said “included in the sound element”? Yes. Is lust for formless things not to be said “included in the formless element”? It should not be said so… ... lust for smell... lust for taste... lust for touch should not be said: "is included in the element of touch"? Yes. Lust for the formless should not be said: "is included in the formless element"? It should not be said thus... ... 775. Should it not be said: "Lust for form is included in the form element, lust for the formless is included in the formless element"? Yes. Is not lust for sensual pleasure included in the sensual pleasure element? Yes.