Controverted Point: That one phenomenon can be related to another in one way only.

Theravādin: But take the attitude of investigation, is not that correlated both as moral condition and as dominance? You assent. Then your proposition falls through.

Again, is not predominant desire-to-do the dominant factor in coexistent mental states? If so, we ought to admit a dual correlation by way of (i.) dominance, (ii.) co-existence. The same holds when energy is the dominant factor. Or if dominant energy be considered as “controlling power” or faculty (indriya), we ought to admit a dual correlation by way of dominance and controlling power. Or if we consider dominant energy as a factor of the Path,we ought to admit a dual correlation by way of dominance and path or means (magga). The same holds when apperception is the dominant factor. Or if dominant consciousness be considered as nutriment (or cause, āhāra), we ought to admit a dual correlation by way of dominance and nutriment. The argument holds when we consider conscious dominance as controlling power, or investigation as a dominant factor, or, again, as part of the Path, or means.

Once more, if, on adequately revering an Ariyan phenomenon, reflection arises having that phenomenon as its dominant object, we ought here to admit the dual relation—dominance and object.

Or again, if this or that previous moral consciousness be related to this or that subsequent moral consciousness as consecutive, and is also repeated, have we not to admit here the dual correlation of contiguity and repetition? The same being valid for immoral states? The same correlation being valid if, for moral, or immoral, we substitute “inoperative” or “unmoral” states?

Mahāsaṅghikas: Nevertheless, you admit the definitely distinct modes of correlation, such as “moral condition, or hetu,” contiguity, immediate succession? Then surely my proposition is right.