Controverted Point: That “result” is itself a state entailing resultant states.

Theravādin: If your proposition is true it is tantamount, to saying that the result of that result entails other results—which you deny… . Or, if you assent, then you are asserting that in a given series there is no making an end of suffering, no cutting off the round of birth and death no Nibbāna without residual stuff of life—which is contrary to doctrine.

Again, are you asserting that “result” and “state entailing resultant states “are identical, equivalent terms—of one import, the same, of the same content and origin?

That they are concomitant, co-existent, conjoined, connected, one in genesis, in cessation, in basis, and in mental object? All this you deny… .

Again, do you mean that a given bad mental state is its own result, a given good state its own result? That the consciousness with which we take life is the very consciousness with which we burn in purgatory? That the consciousness with which we give a gift of merit is the very consciousness with which we rejoice in heaven?…

Andhaka: You deny my proposition; but are not “results, of karma” the four immaterial aggregates in reciprocal relation? If so, surely it is right to say that a result is. a mental state resulting from other mental states?