English
Then the other, referring to the ultimate truth he has in mind, says, "that which is ultimate truth," and so on. Or, combining conventional truth and ultimate truth, he says thus. The proponent rejects, "it is not so," because 'person' is both a designation of appropriation and because the two truths are asked about together. Now, although he first accepted that he is not to be found in terms of ultimate truth, later he rejected it in terms of conventional truth or in a mixed way, the opponent, relying on the mere generality of the word "he is not found," says, "what you first acknowledged, that you later rejected," like a counter-argument to an argument, doing a counter-action to the censure he has made, he says, "know the counter-action." Now, just as the direct five The refuter, having established the debate, with forward and reverse applications, the refutation is made clear. Thus, making the counter-argument clear, he says, "If, indeed, a person..." and so on. That should be understood in meaning in the way stated below. Because here, establishment is merely the establishment to show the opponent's position, "This is your fault," it is only the establishment, not making the refutation or counter-argument clear, but the making clear is by applications. Therefore, this, by way of forward and reverse applications, in four ways, because the counter-argument is done, it is called the "counter-argument quartet," one quartet should be understood. 3. Having made the counter-argument thus, now, because the refutation was done by the refuter in the forward pentad, showing the wrongness of that by relying on that very fallacy argument, he says, "If, however, you think..." and so on. There, "If, however, you think," means, "If you think." "Should be said, indeed," this is said referring to the admission, an invitation in the opposite. "And should not be said," this is said referring to the rejection, "Indeed, not." "Therefore, in that," therefore, because you are not found in that position, "Thus, admitting," thus, admitting. "Thus, should be refuted," again, rejecting, "Indeed, not," thus, should be refuted. "Then, we refute him," then, thus, we refute him, who is worthy of refutation. "And you will be well refuted," because of the binding by one's own view, you will be well refuted. Having shown thus that he should be refuted, now, refuting him, he says, "If, indeed..." and so on. There, establishment, application, and reversal should be understood in the way stated below. But in the end, "This is false for you," this means, "This statement of yours is false." This, because the refutation is done in four ways by the fallacy argument, is called the "refutation quartet." 4. Having made the refutation thus, now, "If this refutation, done by me according to your view, is a bad refutation, which was done to me by you below, in the forward pentad..." Showing that "therefore restraint, that too is difficult to restrain," he said, beginning with "if this is difficult to grasp." Therein, "if this is difficult to grasp" means if this your statement is difficult for me to grasp. Or, if this restraint imposed on me by you is difficult to bear. "Just so, see there" means even there, in the restraint imposed on me by you, see just so. Now, showing the restraint imposed on him by his own proponent with the statement beginning "it should be said," and then bringing that restraint to a state of non-restraint, he said, beginning with "and we are not by you." Therein, "and we are not by you there, for that reason, by that assertion," the meaning is this: since that restraint imposed on me by you is difficult to bear, therefore, though we, being addressed by you there in the fivefold affirmation, thus asserting, again say "no indeed" in denial, still, "understand the restraint" should not be restrained in this way. Though I should not be restrained in this way, you restrain me; but by such restraint, we are difficult to restrain. Now, to show the restraint to which he referred when he said, "and we are difficult to restrain," he said, "if a person...etc....this is false for you." Thus, because this restraint is brought about by the four applications of affirmation and negation, it is called the fourfold application. 5. Now, what begins with "it should not be restrained thus" is called the fourfold refutation. Therein, "it should not be restrained thus" means as I am restrained by you, it should not be restrained thus. For the difficulty of bearing this restraint has been proven by me. "Therefore" means for that reason, since this restraint is difficult to bear, therefore, "if a person...etc....this is false for you," this restraint is false for you, is the meaning. "Therefore, whatever restraint is imposed" means for whatever reason this is false, for that reason, whatever restraint is imposed by you is a wrong deed. Whatever counter-action is done by me, that is well done. And whatever presentation of the path of discussion is done by way of the fourfold counter-action, that too is well done. Thus, this person... It should be understood that the fivefold counter-affirming (paccanīkānuloma) beginning with "is not found" is specified by way of the fourfold counter-action, refutation, application, and conclusion beginning with "counter-action." Thus far, when the proponent has a prior position, the opponent wins by a mere similarity of words, through chicanery. 2. Explanation of Counter-Affirmation 6. Now, to show how, when the opponent has a prior position, the proponent truly wins by means of the Dhamma itself, the fivefold counter-affirming beginning with "a person is not found" is begun. Therein, the question is from the opponent, the assertion is from the proponent, referring to the ultimate reality of things as they are, distinguished by form, etc. The opponent's further questioning is whether things as they are are pure conventional truth or conventional truth mixed with ultimate reality; the proponent's denial is "no," because it should not be said that it is not found conventionally, or because the questioning is confused due to being mixed. The opponent's statement is, "Understand, he refutes what was asserted," etc., by mere similarity of words, "a refutation," etc. Thus, it should be understood that a second refutation occurs based on this second argument that a person is not found. Thus, a refutation is imposed by that chicanery. 7-10. Now, to show victory in one's own argument by means of the Dhamma itself, the question in the affirming method is from the proponent, the assertion is from the opponent, relying on their own doctrine. Without giving an opportunity to the doctrine, the proponent's further questioning is in terms of ultimate reality; the opponent's denial is because of the absence of a person in terms of ultimate reality. Thereafter, to show one's own victory by means of the Dhamma itself, everything beginning with "understand, a counter-action," etc., is the proponent's statement alone. Therein, the meaning of all the fourfold counter-action, refutation, application, and conclusion should be understood in the same way as stated below. Thus, this fivefold counter-affirming beginning with "a person is not found" and the fourfold counter-action, refutation, application, and conclusion beginning with "is found" are... This is called the "Consistent-Inconsistent Quintet." Thus, these two quintets have been defined in the first truth-context. In the first quintet, the refutation of the opponent by the proponent is a good refutation. But the victory achieved by the opponent through counter-argument, relying on equivocation, is a difficult victory. In the second quintet, the refutation of the proponent by the opponent is a bad refutation. But the victory achieved by the proponent through counter-argument, relying on righteous argument, is a good victory. This is the first truth-context. Therefore, it is said: "The refutation of the opponent, is pure in the first quintet; But his victory through counter-argument there, is impure. "The refutation of the proponent, is impure in the second quintet; But his victory through counter-argument there, is pure. "Therefore, in both these contexts, victory belongs to the proponent; For victory through righteousness exists, but where is victory through unrighteousness? "As in the truth-context here, adorned with the pair of quintets; Victory and defeat are spoken of, solely based on righteousness and unrighteousness. "In all the truth-contexts beyond this, the wise one; Should discern both victory and defeat, in just this way." 2. The Opportunity-Truth-Context 1. Description of Consistency and Inconsistency 11. Having expanded the pure truth-context in this way, now, to expand it again with other methods such as opportunity, etc., it is begun again with "Is a person found?" Here, the question is for the proponent, the assertion for the opponent. Then, the inquiry "everywhere" referring to the body, is for the proponent, and seeing the fault of regarding the self in the form, and the fault of incurring "the life is one thing, the body another," the rejection is for the opponent. The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated below in the consistent-inconsistent quintet. But the text is concise. There, because when it is said "is not found everywhere" referring to the body, it follows that it is found outside the body. Therefore, in the inconsistent, the rejection is for the proponent, because he first agrees and then disavows, he is under the control of equivocation. by countering the opponent's argument. The rest is obvious. 3. The Truth of the Time 1. Description of Anuloma-Paccanīka 12.