English
"It should indeed be said – 'the person is found by ultimate reality,' but it should not be said – 'that which is true ultimate reality, by that is the person found by true ultimate reality'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "that which is true Ultimate reality in the true sense, from that, the person is apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense. But indeed it should not be said: "The person is apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense." What you say there: "Indeed it should be said: 'The person is apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense,' and it should not be said: 'From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense'" this of yours is wrong. 9. If this is a bad refutation, then see it there in the same way. Indeed it should be said: "The person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense," and it should not be said: "From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense." And we, acknowledging that statement there by you, should not be thus refuted. Yet you refute me. And we are badly refuted. If the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense, then indeed it should be said: "From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense." What you say there: "Indeed it should be said: 'The person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense,' and it should not be said: 'From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense'" is wrong. But if it should not be said: "From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense," then indeed it should not be said: "The person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense." What you say there: "Indeed it should be said: 'The person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense,' and it should not be said: 'From that ultimate reality in the true sense, the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense'" this of yours is wrong. The Tetralemma of Application. 10. It should not be refuted thus. Therefore, what you refute: "If the person is not apprehended by means of ultimate reality in the true sense, then indeed it should be said: 'That which...'" The ultimate reality is true, therefore the person is not found in ultimate reality. What you say there – 'it should be said – the person is not found in ultimate reality, but it should not be said – that which is ultimate reality, therefore the person is not found in ultimate reality' – is wrong. If it should not be said – "that which is ultimate reality, therefore the person is not found in ultimate reality," then indeed it should not be said – "the person is not found in ultimate reality." What you say there – 'it should be said – "the person is not found in ultimate reality," but it should not be said – "that which is ultimate reality, therefore the person is not found in ultimate reality"' – this of yours is wrong. Therefore, the refutations you made, those refutations are ill-done. The counter-arguments are well-made. The presentations are well-made. The fourfold conclusion. The second refutation. 2. (a) True in terms of context. 1. Affirmative-Negative. 11. Is the person found in ultimate reality? Yes. Is the person found everywhere in ultimate reality? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the person is found in ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said – "the person is found everywhere in ultimate reality." What you say there – 'it should be said – "the person is found in ultimate reality," but it should not be said – "the person is found everywhere in ultimate reality"' – is wrong. If it should not be said – "the person is found everywhere in ultimate reality," then indeed it should not be said – "the person is found in ultimate reality." What you say there – 'it should be said – "the person is found in ultimate reality," but it should not be said – "the person is found everywhere in ultimate reality..." ...in the ultimate sense" is wrong... (and so on). The third refutation. 3. (a) In the ultimate real sense of time 1. Affirmative-Negative 12. Is a person apprehended in the ultimate real sense? Yes. Is a person always apprehended in the ultimate real sense? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense, then indeed it should be said – "a person is always apprehended in the ultimate real sense." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense,' but it should not be said – 'a person is always apprehended in the ultimate real sense'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "a person is always apprehended in the ultimate real sense," then indeed it should not be said – "a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense,' but it should not be said – 'a person is always apprehended in the ultimate real sense'" – is wrong... (and so on). The fourth refutation. 4. (a) In the ultimate real sense of parts 1. Affirmative-Negative 13. Is a person apprehended in the ultimate real sense? Yes. Is a person apprehended in all (parts/aspects) in the ultimate real sense? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense, then indeed it should be said – "a person is apprehended in all (parts/aspects) in the ultimate real sense." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense,' but it should not be said – 'a person is apprehended in all (parts/aspects) in the ultimate real sense'" – is wrong. But if it should not be said – "a person is apprehended in all (parts/aspects) in the ultimate real sense," then indeed it should not be said – "a person is apprehended in the ultimate real sense." That which you say there – "it should indeed be said – 'a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, but it should not be said – ‘the person is found in all [places] in the ultimate sense of reality’” – is wrong…pe…. The fifth refutation. 2. (Kha) Ultimate sense of place 2. Counter-affirmation 14. Is the person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is the person not found everywhere in the ultimate sense of reality? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed it should be said – “the person is not found everywhere in the ultimate sense of reality.” That which you say there – “It should indeed be said – ‘the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said – ‘the person is not found everywhere in the ultimate sense of reality’” – is wrong. But if it should not be said – “the person is not found everywhere in the ultimate sense of reality,” then indeed it should not be said – “the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality.” That which you say there – “It should indeed be said – ‘the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said – ‘the person is not found everywhere in the ultimate sense of reality’” – is wrong…pe…. The sixth refutation. 3. (Kha) Ultimate sense of time 2. Counter-affirmation 15. Is the person not found in the ultimate sense of reality? Yes. Is the person not found always in the ultimate sense of reality? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed it should be said – “the person is not found always in the ultimate sense of reality.” That which you say there – “It should indeed be said – ‘the person is not found in the ultimate sense of reality,’ but it should not be said – ‘the person is not found always in the ultimate sense of reality’” – is wrong. But if it should not be said – “the person is not found always in the ultimate sense of reality,” Indeed, it should not be said that a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality. What you say there: ‘It should be said that a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘A person is never apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality’ is wrong... (and so on). The seventh refutation. 4. (Kha) Ultimate reality of a part 2. Affirmation of the opposite 16. Is a person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes. Is a person not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality in all cases? It should not be said so. Understand the refutation. If a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, then indeed it should be said: ‘A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality in all cases.’ What you say there: ‘It should be said that a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality in all cases’ is wrong. But if it should not be said: ‘A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality in all cases,’ then indeed it should not be said: ‘A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality.’ What you say there: ‘It should be said that a person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality,’ but it should not be said: ‘A person is not apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality in all cases’ is wrong... (and so on). The eighth refutation. 5. Pure comparison 17. Is a person apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality, and is form apprehended in the sense of ultimate reality? Yes.