English
this is the intention." The explanation of the "Abandonment" section is finished. 5. Explanation of the "All Exists" Section 1. Explanation of the Argumentation In "All Exists," since the opponent's doctrine is that the past and future also exist in a present state, "all" refers to all, divided by time into past and so on. But the question, "That which does not exist, also exists," is an inquiry in terms of being free from time, and it is an imputation of fault to the opponent's assertion by showing over-extension. Or it is a demonstration of the non-existence of past and future. The word "exists" (atthīti) refers to this existence, which does not occur without place, time, form, and phenomena. Therefore, to show the inquiry by connecting it with these, the Pāli text proceeds with "all exists everywhere" and so on. Although "everywhere" (sabbattha) is a general term, since it is specified, and later "in all" (sabbesu) refers to phenomena divided, therefore, to show the meaning in terms of the gross, manifest aggregate of material phenomena, it is said in the commentary, "everywhere means in the whole body." Or this should be seen as merely an example. And thus, just as space, time, etc., and the seven puruṣas asserted by the Kaṇāda and Kapila schools, so too, all that is asserted by the opponent is necessarily all-pervading. And "in the whole body" is the locative of pervasion, like "oil in sesame seeds," meaning that which is encompassed by the body. It is said that it must be, “feet on the head… …meaning.” The meaning is that everything exists at all times. In this view, another statement of his might be revealed: “What exists, that exists; what does not exist, that does not exist. There is no arising of the non-existent, there is no destruction of the existent.” Thus, in every way, everything exists in all phenomena, this is the meaning. By these views, the doctrine “everything is of every nature, there is no arising of the non-existent due to its being a collection of many powers” might be revealed. “Devoid of connection” means devoid of any connection to what is proper or improper. That, however, being of a single nature, devoid of connection, is in reality of a single nature, meaning it is a single phenomenon. By this, the view of the gods, the assertion that the vision of Brahma exists, might be revealed. “He asks if it exists” means: if your view is that everything exists, then you must absolutely accept that my view, as stated, is correct. Therefore, the meaning is, “what does he ask if it exists?” The explanation of the arguments is finished. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on the Conjunction of Time 285. In “past… …having made,” this is the brief meaning: without taking this distinction of form, or such a distinction of form, as past or future, only form distinguished by the present state, being dear, must be applied to this very subject, due to the co-referentiality of present form states, and brought into the range of speech, even though there is a division of them called distinction and non-distinction, yet having made it undivided. Since in the Pāli text, “or present, or form,” the way of speaking of its meaning is shown by the words for present form, therefore he says, “by the word ‘present’… …it is said.” “Designation of form” means the designation of the form base. For that is a designation born of the ultimate reality, being based on ultimate phenomena. Therefore he says, “a designation existing, occurring in what is delimited by ultimate reality.” “Taking the aggregate of form” means the manner of conceiving the non-existence of those that are the basis for each self-designation. on account of the collection of material phenomena that are occurring. For even taking a taking is a taking. Therefore, on account of being dependent on the collection-taking, due to the non-existence of a designation. "It cannot be said to cease" means the non-sayability of the cessation of the basis. For it does not become baseless by the cessation of whiteness. But the phrase "the cessation of the nature of form cannot be said" is not appropriate. And "the nature of form" means the nature of the form-base, the object-sphere of eye-consciousness. For if its present existence ceases, it is not appropriate to say that its cessation cannot be said. The explanation of the discourse on the correlation of time is concluded. Explanation of the Purification of Expression 288. In "future or present," the word "or" indicates indefiniteness, just as in "it should be tied to an acacia or to a palmyra." Therefore, showing that the word "is" in "having been, it is" can be connected by making any of the future or present predominant, he says "future...etc....should be seen." There, "being present" means becoming present, attaining the state of being present. Therefore, he says, "that very same future, that present, in the sense of having obtained." "Does that too, having been, become?" He asks whether that which is said to "have been, become" —that is, the future having been, attains the state of being present— does that too again "having been, become"? "Because that state does not cease" means because it does not attain the state of "having been, become" from the state of being present. "Because of the absence of presentness" means because of the absence of presentness. By "it deserves expression," he shows that there is no fault in the mere expression. This is what is meant: Even if there is no state of "having been, become" for that which has again been, yet, for the sake of being repeatedly understood, it deserves to be spoken of in that way a second time and beyond. Thus, he acknowledges "yes." "In phenomena" means in natural phenomena. "By its rejection" means in non-phenomena, in non-existent phenomena. Therefore, he says, "in a hare's horn." "By the rejected method" means, in "having been, it is; having been, it is," what you previously said, "the future having been, becomes present," that very same future, that present... " 'happened' is used by way of acquisition, it is said, 'the past or the present, having been, it is.' When asked, 'Is that too, having been, it is for you?' the opponent, because what has been does not again come to be, made a rejection saying, 'No, indeed.' By that rejected method. And this, whatever form etc. is past, that same is present; even if there is no difference in meaning, yet 'past' and 'present' imply a difference in time. So, to oppose that difference in time, the rejection proceeds. Thus it is said, 'by the rejected method means by difference in time.' Therefore, that and this rejection is led to proceed. 'By the acknowledged method' - this too refers to what was acknowledged immediately after the aforementioned rejection. Just as that acknowledgement was led and proceeded by no difference in meaning, so too is this. Therefore it is said, 'by no difference in meaning.' The meaning is: by no difference in the underlying reality which is the basis for the designation of time, such as past, etc. Just as, even with no difference in the underlying reality of form etc., their non-recurrence in the three moments, their being endowed with that, their non-recurrence as past and present, so too, the states of 'having been, it is' spoken of there, proceed respectively in the former and latter as former and latter actions. Showing this meaning, having said 'no difference in meaning... and so on... acknowledges,' again, with 'indeed, no difference in meaning' etc., it supports that very meaning. Just as, for one who acknowledges 'that is the life, that is the body,' life is indeed the body, the body is indeed the life, and thus the non-difference of life and body arises; similarly, for one who acknowledges 'that same is past, that is present,' the non-difference of past and present arises. Thus, the states of 'it is' and 'it has been' spoken of in the present and past would also apply to the past and present. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: 'If this is so, the past too is called "having been, it is," and the present too is called "having been, it is." ' 'To the question that was assented to' means: 'Is that same past, that present? Yes.' Thus, to the meaning that was assented to, referring to the non-difference in meaning. Indeed, the desired meaning is the question. The fault mentioned is, in the former method, the fault reckoned as the future having become the present, and again the future having become the present state. But in the latter method, the meaning is that the fault mentioned is reckoned as each of the future and present having become and being. "Rejected question" means a question rejected by referring to such a difference in time, like "Is that same future that same present? It should not be said thus." "By that" means by the rejection of the future and present being and having become. "He challenges" means he challenges that the future is called "is" by that, the present is called "has become" by that, and both are of a dual nature due to their non-difference. "Here" means, in this question "having become, is," how is there a fault? Thus he challenges. "Of that very one" he refutes. How is the challenge made, and how is the refutation made? The challenge is due to the different scope of acceptance and rejection; the refutation of them is due to their having an undifferentiated basis, being concerned with the non-difference of meaning and the difference of time. "Of that very one" indeed means of the opponent. "Taking both of those" means taking both "that future, that present" together. "Each one" means each one of those. "Each one only" means, without taking both together, each one separately is not appropriate in this context. "This method" means, having made an analogy, it is difficult to understand due to its brevity, so he explains it starting with "for the future..." The intention is that it should be acknowledged