[1563]
[S.] Does eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇa) have form (rūpa) alone as its object (ārammaṇa), and not another object?
[P.] Yes.
[S.] Does ear-consciousness (sotaviññāṇa) have form alone as its object, and not another object?
[P.] It should not be said thus. …
[S.] Does eye-consciousness arise dependent on the eye (cakkhu) and forms?
[P.] Yes.
[S.] Does ear-consciousness arise dependent on the eye and forms?
[P.] It should not be said thus. …
[S.] Does ear-consciousness arise dependent on the eye and forms?
[P.] Yes.
[S.] Is there indeed a discourse (suttanta) [saying]: "Ear-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms"?
[P.] There is not.
[S.] Is there indeed a discourse [saying]: "Eye-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms"?
[P.] Yes.
[S.] If there is indeed a discourse [saying]: "Eye-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms," then surely, good sir, it should not be said: "Ear-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms."
[S.] Does ear-consciousness arise immediately after (anantarā) eye-consciousness?
[P.] Yes.
[S.] Is that very eye-consciousness the ear-consciousness?
[P.] It should not be said thus. …
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.