Controverted Point: That whereas actions are conditioned by ignorance, we may not say that ignorance is conditioned by actions.

Theravādin: But is not ignorance coexistent with action? If so, here is a reciprocal correlation namely, of coexistence.

Again, “grasping is conditioned by craving”. Now, is it wrong to say that craving is conditioned by grasping? Yes, you say. But the argument above is valid here also.

Mahāsaṅghika: “Birth, bhikkhus, is conditioned by decay and death, the tendency to become is conditioned by birth”—is the Suttanta thus?

Theravādin: No.

Mahāsaṅghika: Neither is the reciprocal conditioning correlation between ignorance and activities reciprocal, nor that between craving and grasping.

Theravādin: “Mind and body, bhikkhus, are conditioned by rebirth-consciousness, and this by mind and body”—is the Suttanta thus?

Mahāsaṅghika: Yes.

Theravādin: Then the conditioning relation may be reciprocal.