English
the word 'I' is intended as the meaning. For the use of a word is for the understanding of meaning. A mere meaning-word, dependent on meaning, becomes a word-meaning when followed by the word 'iti' (thus), which reverses the meaning of the word, just as "he says 'cow'" is understood as "he says the word 'cow'". This shows that a word accompanied by an expressive modification is a designation (paññatti). Thus, "the Buddha's speech is heard in the worldly ear" (Kathāvatthu 347) and so on, proves that designation is speech. By "otherwise" and so on, it states the fault if designation were not of the nature of a word. It could be a term (adhivacana) and so on, and in that case, there would be no distinction between terms and paths of terms, and so a pair (duka) would not be possible; this is the intention. In the commentary, however, the designation of appropriation (upādā-paññatti) is reckoned and spoken of as 'I' when the states of form and so on, belonging to one's own continuum, are taken as one by way of group and continuity. is meant by the term. Thus, in the remaining cases, it should be understood as appropriate. Therefore, it is said: “By saying ‘given,’ after showing the designation of a being, he also shows other dependent designations,” and so on. Of the meaning of the word: of what is denoted by words like “I,” or of the ultimate meaning. The word is a designation: with the intention that it is said, “by speaking,” and so on. For it is only when one has known the meaning that is to be made known by oneself that one makes it known. Therefore, it is said, “by one who has previously grasped the connection,” that a word is not capable of expressing meaning to one who has not grasped the connection. It is known in a special way: thus, it indicates the special meaning of the prefix “saṃ.” It is made: this is a designation of this meaning, thus it is defined. The word, being a name, determines that particular meaning, makes it causal, and speaks and expresses it. Thus, it is said, “it is said to be a name.” Therefore, it is said, “for earth is not,” and so on. Called earth: what is denoted by the word “earth.” Teachers: the teachers who comment on the commentary, not the commentary teachers, is the intention. In the mātikā: in the commentary on the mātikā. By that: by the words of the mātikā commentary. There would be a contradiction between the meaning shown in this Pāḷi text and the commentary, and this statement of the teachers as described. He explains that contradiction with “for it is not,” and so on. There, the mere word, which is a sound accompanied by manifestation and change, whose nature is the revealer of the dhammas spoken of as designation, path, and so on, is made the subject of the discussion, and its arising and so on are appropriate, not of what is not its nature. With this intention, it is said, “devoid of the function of arising and passing away,” and so on. There, of what is of undetermined nature: of what is ultimately of unapprehended nature. Two kinds: two kinds based on the distinction of what designates and what is designated. Of the kind described: of the kind such as “devoid of the function of arising and passing away,” and so on. In the commentary: in the commentary on the designation of persons. But there, other designations such as the designation by comparison, and so on, are also mentioned. Why then is it said, “only six designations are mentioned”? It is true that they are mentioned, but those are are included in the six, such as 'existing designation', it is said, "In the commentary, the six designations, such as 'existing designation', are spoken of as designations." There, because it does not exist like form, etc., and because it needs to be designated, it is 'non-existing designation'; and because it designates non-existing things like 'being' and 'chariot', it is 'non-existing designation'. Thus, by the term 'non-existing designation', both kinds of designation, as described, are included. Therefore, it says, "non-existing... (etc.)... spoken of." By the others: by the remaining five, such as 'existing designation'. Because the meanings of form, feeling, etc., and of 'being', 'chariot', etc., are made known in various ways, the very word that denotes them, due to differences in its object, is spoken of as designation, with divisions like 'existing designation', etc., by ten terms such as 'number'. This is the former meaning, and it is also called "straightforward, conforming to the Pāli," because it is understood directly from the Pāli text. If, etc.: if the 'designation by appropriation' of 'being', etc., as described, is 'non-existing designation', then it should not be said that it exists. And it is non-existent, and it is a designation because it needs to be designated. This is the doctrine of those teachers. Now, in accordance with that doctrine, it points out a fault in the 'path of designation' by charging that even the described phenomena become 'existing designations', saying, "And just as..." There: the meaning is, just as 'being' and 'chariot' are 'non-existing designations' because they are non-existent and need to be designated, so too, all inherent phenomena become 'existing designations' because they exist and need to be designated. By "Now," etc., it raises the question of the reason for the specific designation of phenomena of designation, which is distinct from the 'path of designation'. By "Nor," etc., it shows that reason to be unproven. In "A person is a number," etc., it says that terms like 'number' are spoken of as not different in meaning from 'name', etc., saying, "because terms like 'number' are synonymous." 'Vacanaggahaṇaṃ' is the utterance of a word. 'Of another' refers to 'name designation'. 'Of them' refers to the grasping of convention and the utterance of words. Inability. is to be connected as "does not occur." He explains that impossibility with "if indeed," etc. By designation means by name-designation. Designating a designation means when by which name-designation the dependent designation, and forms, etc., are designated, and which, after the stream of ear-door consciousness, is grasped by the stream of mind-door consciousness with a previously grasped convention, that "this is a name"— in designating that, there is no confusion, it is established. Or, in causing the designation to be grasped and delimited by the stream of mind-door consciousness arising immediately after the stream of ear-door consciousness. Another designation of it should be said to exist, meaning another name-designation which is a co-operative cause for knowing that name-designation, for grasping conventions, and for grasping words, should be said to exist, should be admitted. Then there would be no understanding of meaning, meaning that mere grasping of conventions and grasping of words are incapable of designating meaning, just as they are incapable of knowing designation. And designation, when known, is a co-operative cause for them. And if designation were to be conceived immediately after designation for the purpose of knowing it, there would be an infinite regress. Thus, the attainment of meaning would not be possible at all. A convention is not anything in forms, etc. It is merely a usage, like the kasiṇa designation, which is used based on the sign of elements, etc., and a special kind of development, and based on that which is to be conventionalized and the act of conventionalizing. And the name-designation is that which designates it. Showing the occurrence of the aforementioned fault, he said, "nor by grasping a convention." But is not the non-existence of grasping a convention also shown by the charge of the impossibility of understanding meaning? That is true. But there is a difference of opinion among teachers regarding convention. To show that this fault is specific to one side, he mentioned it separately, saying that forms, etc., are the things to be designated, the meanings of words, and the word that expresses them is the designation. With this, all usage is accomplished. With this intention, he said, "word...etc....there is no person." The verbal nature of designation is established because it indicates counteraction, audibility, etc., of those recitations. Beginning. -by the sound, it collects such statements as ‘‘some hear the discourse of the Buddha, the Blessed One, and their analytical knowledge of language is focused on the present moment.’’ Therefore, because in the case where the word ‘‘conventional realities’’ has the meaning of the aforementioned conventional realities, there is a contradiction with the commentary on the matrix, it is not stated in the commentary, it does not follow this Pāli text, all phenomena would have to be designated as conventional realities, the word ‘‘path of conventional reality’’ would not be new, and there would be many faults such as the impossibility of understanding the meaning due to the arising of instability; but if sound, accompanied by a change in intonation, is a conventional reality, the aforementioned faults are absent, and it is in accordance with many textual passages, therefore. With the intention that ‘‘what is suitable there should be taken,’’ he says, ‘‘Pāli…etc.…should be.’’ By ‘‘if beings, etc.,’’ he states the contradiction in the commentary regarding sound being a conventional reality. If sound is a conventional reality in this way, because it exists in the ultimate sense, and it designates the meaning of form, etc., it would only be a conventional reality that exists, not a conventional reality that does not exist. For those beings, etc., are not conventional realities. And in this way, there would be an absence of conventional reality that does not exist. And it is stated in the commentary (Pa. Pa. Aṭṭha. 1, Mātikāvaṇṇanā) ‘‘conventional reality that does not exist.’’ The other, showing the absence of the aforementioned contradiction