English
is called sophistry. It is called sophistry because it speaks of sophistry which is merely a conception of the commonality of statements. Therefore it is said, "It is sophistry because it is the cause of sophistry." Merely the commonality of statements, which is real, relying on that sophistry for that purpose. "It should be investigated" is said, what is to be investigated here? Even if the showing of the falsity of allowing and disallowing, which is based on the setting aside of the position, is its subject, it is made clear by accusations and imputations, not by setting aside. This meaning is obvious. 4-5. Therefore: by the proponent. By that method: by the method, by the way, by which the proponent censured him with four accusations and imputations. That censure is wrong, it is no censure at all. Showing this, he says, "Or because of having resorted to non-censure..." ...means, "by one who has done wrong." Just so, just as the presentation of non-punishment was stated by "you have inflicted punishment on me," etc., just so. Of this, that which was stated in this Pāli text by "therefore," etc. The explanation of the Direct-Opposite is finished. 2. Explanation of the Opposite-Direct 7-10. "By another" means, by what is conventionally true. "Of another" means, of one's own debater. For he is called "another" by the opponent. Because the subjects of assertions and rejections are different, it is said, "because there is no contradiction." For just as a non-different substratum with a non-different subject would indeed be contradictory, not otherwise, is the intention. To clarify that very meaning, he said, "for not...etc....it falls into." If so, how did this point of defeat arise? he said, "by bringing oneself," etc. By this, he shows that "other assertion" is indeed another point of defeat. The explanation of the Opposite-Direct is finished. The explanation of the Pure Truth-Aspect is finished. 2. The Truth-Aspect of Place 1. Explanation of the Direct-Opposite 11. What is said generally becomes specific, he said, "everywhere" means "in the whole body," this is the meaning. For a general indication stands in the specific, therefore, by one seeking the specific, the specific should not be used. "By this" means, by the word "everywhere" in the rejection in terms of place. 3. The Truth-Aspect of Time 1. Explanation of the Direct-Opposite 12. "In the time of the middle birth" means, in the time of the present existence. For existence here is intended as "birth." Past from that is the time of previous birth, future is the time of later birth. "In these three" means, "everywhere, always, in all," in these three ways. The brevity of the text is easily understood, therefore, setting that aside, clarifying the similarity of meaning, he said, "for here too...etc....should be applied." Here too, "a person is not found by any nature," this meaning is stated. For indeed, for one who is found by no nature, there is no time of occurrence separated from whole or part. 4. The Truth-Aspect of Parts 1. Explanation of the Direct-Opposite 13. In the third method, not all at once. It should be understood that there is a basis for occurrence called 'free from fault'. The true sense of space etc. 2. Explanation of the Contrary and the Direct 14. In the commentary's statement beginning with "of the five direct". Again, "there" refers to the commentary's statement as mentioned, or to those contraries of the five direct groups. The meaning of the textual passage beginning with "a person is not found everywhere" should be understood by the method stated in the commentary, beginning with "referring to the body". "The Pāli text beginning with Paṭikamma" means the Pāli text of counter-action, refutation, application, and conclusion. "In the three aspects" refers to the three modes of discourse stated beginning with "everywhere". The connection is that the Pāli text of the contrary is stated. That is the Pāli text. Because it has come summarized, it is not stated in its full form. Suddhika... it is said that there, in the passage beginning "everywhere", there is no reference to the body etc., but here there is. This is the only distinction; the rest is similar. The explanation of the true sense is completed. 5. Explanation of the Simple Correlation 17-27. Showing that there are two compounds, "correlation of the true sense" and "correlation in the true sense", he said beginning with "of the true sense". There, "of the person in the true sense" means of the person whose nature is the true sense, whose nature is existing in the ultimate sense. "Correlation with form etc." means making similar with form etc. by the commonality of being the true sense. "In the true sense" means due to the true sense, or having made that the basis there. Because the particle 'ca' (and) has the meaning of conjunction, and because form is brought here by the commonality of perception with the true sense, its state of being exemplified is appropriate. Thus, the meaning is stated by way of example as "just as form". Otherwise, what would be the purpose of bringing up form here? Thus, also in the remaining phenomena. But here, any question of difference also elaborates for the purpose of example, because it is based on the difference of that. But in metaphorical correlation, the meaning of example is taken. Therefore, in this simple correlation, showing the meaning merely by way of conjunction is appropriate. the intention. Since form and so on are merely designations of clinging, the individual is different from them, and not different from them, so it should not be said. This is the method of the teaching, so it is said, "by form and so on... and so on... agreement." When it is allowed, at that time, when it is not rejected in the Sutta. And this meaning should be understood as being stated from the perspective of an opponent of the teaching. The reading "Ājānāhiniggaha" (understand the refutation) must have been seen, otherwise it would not be possible to say "the five counter-arguments are shown, the four counter-actions and so on are summarized," this is the intention. Without a challenge, there is no making the opponent admit, so it is said, "for making admit... and so on... for challenging." For his admission is preceded by a challenge. Therefore, it shows that the cause is stated by the result-designation. Because of being indeterminate, because of being unanswerable, or because it was not declared by the Blessed One. If it should be rejected because it is to be set aside, in this opposing method, the question should be rejected by one's own side because it is to be set aside. And by the opponent, too, the rejection is made in the affirmative method, relying on the very doctrine that it is to be set aside. This is the appropriate intention here for the purification and comparison, that even in the affirmative, the opponent made the rejection only of the challenge of difference from form and so on. The explanation of purification and comparison is finished. 6. Explanation of Analogy and Comparison 28-36. "The question of difference by commonality of apprehension" and so on, by this, both are extracted: the question of difference by commonality of apprehension, and the question by commonality of apprehension. Regarding the latter, it is said, "the commonality of the two" and so on. Its meaning is: the commonality of the two, like form and feeling, or form and the individual, in terms of reality, is not a suitable cause for their difference. But rather... and so on... "apprehensibility," and this comparison should be considered. This is the intention here: if the commonality of apprehension of form and the individual is desired by the commonality of reality, then their difference should also be desired by that. But if their difference is not desired, therefore the commonality of apprehension is also not desired. 37-45. Apprehension means the apprehension, the existence, of a person. "The fivefold refutation" is to be understood as "is known." The description of the simile and comparison is finished. 7. Description of the fourfold method of comparison 46-52. Even from one phenomenon means even from one phenomenon among the fifty-seven real things. By this, it shows the non-admission of the person's difference from all of them. Therefore, it is said in the commentary, "referring to the entire ultimate truth." It should not be inquired into in terms of individual phenomena like form, etc., because there is no aggregate apart from its constituents. But since the constituents of an aggregate have distinct natures, the opponent raises the doubt, "Therefore, from the aggregate... he would be liable to censure." This is the occasion for the statement: even if one does not desire the person's difference from the aggregate of fifty-seven phenomena, due to the absence of a real thing apart from it, one also does not desire his non-difference from a part of it. For an aggregate is not a constituent. Therefore, to show that "it should not be possible to say, 'What is the ground for censure for one who refutes that?'" it is said, "And this..." The first alternative, which proceeds by showing the manner of grasping "person" exhaustively through the division of the categories of phenomena like form, etc., and the second, which proceeds by the commonality of ultimate truth without division—this is the distinction between these two alternatives. "Thus" refers to the aforementioned manner, so it is said, "even so." From the analysis of nature means from being analyzable by nature. For a phenomenon distinct in nature obtains analysis from another phenomenon. Therefore, it is said, "because its nature is different from form." "Excluding form" means excluding phenomena of form. In all three means in all three inquiries that proceed thus: "the person in form, apart from form, form in the person.