English
And this question arises by way of individually specifying the distinctions in "in all parts," so it is not left over from the previous ones. "Is found"… and so on… "wrong" means that the tradition which proceeds by way of the direct and reverse order of accepting a proposition, rejecting acceptance, and refuting, and by way of establishing a proposition, refuting, bringing to a conclusion, and imposing, is one limb, one part of the first fivefold series—this is the meaning. Similarly, it should be understood in the remaining ones. For one's own debater who desires the refutation to be a good refutation, by establishing the proposition "if you think that the person is not found to be spoken of" (Kathā. 3) and so on, and by saying "then, since you have that proposition there, by asserting thus, you are to be refuted thus; then we refute you, and you are well refuted," then "if the person is not found…" "He eats," and so on (Kathā. 2), when an opponent's counter-argument is such that the proponent cannot unravel it, that is called "entangling the counter-argument." When the proponent wishes the opponent's counter-argument to be difficult to counter, by citing it, saying, "If this is difficult to grasp," by citing the counter-argument, "Indeed, a person is found… …in the ultimate sense" (Kathā. 1). "But we are not to be refuted by you in that matter, by that assertion, by asserting thus. If you refute us, we are difficult to refute," having said this, by showing the refutation to be difficult to grasp, saying, "If indeed a person is found," and so on (Kathā. 5), making it unrefuted, is "unraveling the refutation." "Therefore, what you refute, 'If indeed a person is found,' " having said this, "Therefore, those refutations made, those refutations are ill-done, the counter-arguments are well-done, the presentations are well-done," by attributing unrefutedness to the proponent's refutation, and by making one's own counter-argument well-countered, the proponent's refutation is cut off, destroyed, because it arose in the manner of refuting the personality view. The "anuloma-paccanīka-pañcaka" (fivefold opposition to the direct), which arose in accordance with the Dhamma and proceeded in opposition to it, is to be understood as the second fivefold group, in the reverse order of what was stated. "That as its basis" means those ultimate realities, form and so on, are its bases, thus "that as its basis." By this, the personality view of the type "self in form" is shown. Or "that which is based on them," by this, the type "form in self." Or "apart from them" means without those forms and so on. Unmixed, distinct, apart, in the manner of basis and based. By this, "a person unmixed with qualities like being," and so on. Or "by being their master," or "by being dependent on them," is said as "apart from them," and is to be understood as showing the personality view of the type "the self possesses form." "Not other" means the type "form is self." The nature of being afflicted, and so on, is the specific characteristic of the form aggregate, and so on, the nature of having conditions, and so on. Existence is the characteristic of commonality. Is it different or not different from form and so on? And being found as its basis and so on in difference, it follows, says the proponent of one's own doctrine, since no other mode is possible. The Personalist does not wish for the person to be different from form and so on, because it cannot be grasped directly or by inference like form and so on, and because its being an agent or experiencer is not fitting. Nor is it not different, because of the implication of the nature of being crushed, conditioned, and so on, and because of the implication of the non-existence of the person itself. Just as fire is not designated without fuel, and one cannot declare fire to be different from fuel, nor not different. For if it were different, the fuel would not be hot. If it were not different, that which is to be burned would be the burner itself. In the same way, the person is not designated without form and so on, nor is it different from them, nor not different, because of the implication of eternalism or annihilationism. Standing on this doctrine, the Personalist rejects it, saying, "It is not so!" Now, regarding the simile of fire and fuel: If it is spoken of in terms of conventional usage, unlit wood and so on is fuel and is to be burned, lit, bright, hot fire is the burner, and that is the eight-fold subtle form, earlier and later, impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. If so, the person is different from form and so on, and is also impermanent. But if in terms of ultimate reality, the heat in that very lit wood and so on is fire, and the three elements co-arisen with it are fuel. Even so, the difference of fire and fuel is established by the distinction of characteristics. Thus, it is to be understood that the statement that the person is different from form and so on, like fire from fuel, and is also impermanent, is contradictory. For one who asserts that the person is found, since no other mode is possible, that it is found in one of the stated modes, is what is meant by "it follows," that is, "it follows from the agreement of the assertion." Because it follows from the agreement, it should not be rejected. When the person is refuted, even the attachment to it is not right, and the refuter is dislodged from his position by demonstrating the emptiness of the form grasped by the Personalist. that it is called by that name, it is said, "rejecting the view of a person." Or, it is a view because a person is to be seen in that way. Indeed, a person, who is merely a conceptual construct that is the object of attachment as "master, resident, doer, experiencer, permanent, stable," is here rejected. The conventional person, spoken of as "these four persons, monks," and so on, is not questioned, just as the examination of the color of a sky-flower as red or blue is not questioned—this is the meaning. Having previously declared "is not found," and then not falling into a specific accusation, the subsequent rejection "it is not so" is a trace of falling into the declaration. The non-questioning of a person who is utterly not found in ultimate reality, regarding whether he is different or not different from form and so on, is like questioning the length or shortness of a barren woman's son— this alone is the correct meaning here. "Because of which cause"— by this, it shows that the elision of the case ending in "from which origin" should be understood. "They overcome" means they overpower. Delight and so on should be connected with craving and so on respectively, or delight and attachment with craving and views, or the three with all three without distinction, or the three should be connected with the three. And here, by indicating the absence of delight and so on with "there is nothing to delight in here," and so on, the path and fruit, which are the cessation and appeasement of delight and so on by way of result, are spoken of. And that touching back is this very thing— having made this, it is said, "delight... or the fruit." "He knows because he knows"— by knowing the highest state, the entire range of knowable things is encompassed. Therefore, the act of knowing concerning that can only be omniscience. Thus it is said, "He knows what is to be known by omniscience." Alternatively, this meaning should be explained according to the context, or by the proximity of another word, "the Blessed One." The same method applies to "seeing, he sees." Even knowing, the sectarians know by way of perversion, those who advocate the full understanding of the sense-sphere and form-sphere by means of the first jhana and the formless jhanas. Knowing, the Blessed One knows by the paths of non-return and arahantship. Due to speaking without error. And this meaning should be explained according to the Discourse on the Mass of Suffering (MN 1.163, 175, etc.). Or, having arisen by the eye of wisdom, he is the eye. The same method applies to "he is knowledge," etc. Or, having attained the five kinds of eyes, such as the divine eye, he is the eye. Thus, it should be understood for "he is knowledge," etc. It is said that the Buddha's state of being a speaker, etc., is extraordinary due to his general teaching of the Dhamma, as in "he speaks the Four Noble Truths, thus he is a speaker," etc. To show the excellence of the prefix 'pa-' in "pavattā" (initiator), it is said "for a long time... (etc.)... initiator." Having determined, he leads, he guides. "Eighty-nine consciousnesses" are said by way of association with consciousness, just as "spears move about." And although the consciousnesses are classified in the section on the arising of consciousness by extracting only the terms of the wholesome triad from each Pāli passage, it is said that since there are no remaining terms of the other triads and dyads that are not included in the wholesome triad as inherent phenomena, the other triad and dyad terms are also extracted by way of showing the method through the extraction of the wholesome triad terms. And having done so, the taking of the matrix becomes justified. And that Dhamma, in passages like "three wholesome roots" (Dhs. 1060), it is said that the later Pāli passages explain the meaning of the earlier ones. To show that the grammatical method of the word "samānenti" (they make equal) should be understood like the word "paṭapaṭāyati" (it crackles), it is said "they make equal." And making equal is done either by adding what is lacking or by removing what is excessive; here, to show that it is by adding what is lacking, it is said "they complete." "Samānetabba" (to be made equal) here also refers to "the Patthāna is to be made equal." By a strong current of knowledge, flowing by way of reviewing the Abhidhamma. Of a strong current of knowledge, flowing by way of dispelling all defilements.