11.1 Of Three Facts about Latent Bias (KV11.1)

Controverted Points: (i.) That latent bias is unmoral (indeterminate).

Theravādin: But are you prepared to identify latent bias with any of the morally indeterminate ultimates—with resultant or with inoperative indeterminates, with matter or body, with Nibbāna, or with the organs and objects of sense? Of course you deny this … .

Again, take each form of bias—unless you can prove that each form is something different in kind or degree from the corresponding kind of “fetter”, or “outburst”, or “flood”, or “yoke”, or “hindrance”, which are indisputably immoral states, you cannot call the corresponding form of bias unmoral, whether it be sensual desires, or enmity, or conceit, or mere opinion, or doubt, or lust of life, or nescience.

Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitiya: Well, but would you say that an average man, while thinking moral or unmoral thoughts, had latent bias?

Theravādin: Yes.

Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitiya: Do you tell me then that good and bad ideas can come together side by side in consciousness?

Theravādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said … .

Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitiya: Then latent bias must be unmoral.

Theravādin: Then you must go further and admit that lust is unmoral, because you will agree that the average man, when thinking good or unmoral thoughts, has not got rid the while of the root-condition of lust or greed … .

(ii.) That latent bias is without moral motive (or root-condition).

Theravādin: Since you cannot identify latent bias with any ultimate cf. PTS CS 11.1.1, these being admittedly independent of the root-conditions or hetu's, it only remains for you to show that each form of latent bias is something different in kind or degree from the corresponding kind of “fetter”, or “outburst”, or “flood”, or “yoke”, or “hindrance”, which are indisputably motived by the root-conditions of lust, or enmity, or dullness … .

Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitiya: You urge that latent biases are not unconditioned by these root-conditions, and you still maintain that an average person, while thinking moral or unmoral thoughts, is possessed the while by forms of latent bias. But you deny that these forms are conditioned by any of the root-conditions accompanying those thoughts. Surely then latent bias is unconditioned.

Theravādin: You admit that such an average person is still possessed of lust, even while thinking moral or unmoral thoughts. But you deny that that lust is conditioned by the “hetu” accompanying those thoughts. According to you, therefore, lust is unconditioned—which is absurd.

(iii.) That latent bias is independent of consciousness.

Argued verbatim as in Kv 9.4 PTS CS 9.4.1–PTS CS 9.4.8, substituting “independent of” or “conjoined with” “consciousness” for “without” or “with” “mental object” respectively.

Mahāsaṅghika, Sammitiya: You affirm that an average person is still possessed of latent bias, even while thinking moral or unmoral thoughts. But you deny that the latent bias is conjoined with such thoughts. Surely then latent bias is independent of mind.

Theravādin: If, as you admit, such a person is still possessed of lust while thinking moral or immoral thoughts, your denial that lust is conjoined with those thoughts does not necessarily lead to the false conclusion that lust is independent of mind.

The Points of Controversy, an English translation of the Pali Abhidhamma Kathāvatthu. Translated by Shwe Zan Aung and C.A.F. Rhys Davids. First published by Pali Text Society, 1915.

This SuttaCentral edition was prepared by Manfred Wierich and Ven. Vimala and proofread by Josephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:

Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.

Cross-references were linked.

Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.

Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.

The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.

This electronic version is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) as found here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

All copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society. See also the statement under http://www.palitext.com/ → Publications → Copyright Announcement. For non-commercial use only.