English
Here is the word division: "It should not be said thus." Some also read "Na ha eva," the meaning of both being that it should not be said thus. "Understand the defeat," is the proponent's statement. Since your later acknowledgment that it should not be said does not agree with your earlier acknowledgment that it should be said, and the earlier does not agree with the later, therefore you have incurred defeat. Understand that defeat, that fault, that offense, accept it, is the meaning. Thus, having made him understand the defeat, now, to establish it, and making it clear by way of direct and reverse applications and imputations, he says, "If a person." Here, "hañci" means "if," the meaning being, "if a person is found." This, then, is called the direct establishment, being the characteristic of the direct establishment of the defeat, by way of stating the opponent's position. "Tena vata re," etc., is called the direct application, because it causes the defeat in the direct case. There, "tena" is a causal word. "Vata" is a word of acceptance, a word of certainty. "Re" is a vocative word. This is what is said: "Therefore, indeed, friend, it should indeed be said, O good sir, for that reason it should indeed be said." "That which you say there," because of the imposition of defeat in the direct mode, is called direct imposition. And the word "wrong" at its conclusion, "this is" should be added before it. "This is wrong for you," this is the meaning here. Likewise above. This also appears later in the text. But if "should not be said" etc., because of the establishment through the repetition of the rejected side, which is the characteristic of imposing defeat in reverse, it is called reverse establishment. "Surely not" etc., because of the imposition of defeat in the reverse mode, it is called reverse imposition. Again, "that which you say there" etc., because of the imposition of defeat in the reverse mode, it is called reverse imposition. Here, the meaning in brief from the beginning is this: If a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed, sir, it should be said that he is found. But that which you say there, "It should be said in the first question 'He is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said in the second question 'Therefore that person is found,'" this is wrong for you. Thus, there are direct establishment, imposition, and imposition. Then, if it should not be said in the second question "Therefore that person is found," it should not be said even in the first question. But that which you say there, "It should be said in the first question 'He is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said in the second question 'Therefore that person is found,'" this is wrong for you. Thus, there are reverse establishment, imposition, and imposition. Thus, this is called the direct set of five, beginning with "is found," because of the statement of the defeat and the direct two, and the reverse two, that is, the four impositions. And here, although two defeats are made, one by the direct imposition and imposition, and one by the reverse imposition and imposition, know that this is only one defeat, because of the imposition of that first defeat in two ways. The first defeat. Now, pa There is a method called ccanīka. There, the question "Is a person not found?" is for the opponent. The proponent, just as form, feeling, etc., are found, agrees with "Yes" because of not being found. Then the other, referring to the ultimate truth as he understands it, says, "That which is the ultimate truth," and so on. Or the opponent says this, combining conventional truth and ultimate truth. The proponent rejects with "No indeed," because a person is merely a designation based on aggregates, and because the two truths are combined in the question. Now, although he first agreed to not being found in terms of ultimate truth, later he rejected it in terms of conventional truth or a mixture. The opponent, relying on the mere similarity of the words "not found" as a deceptive argument, says, "What you first affirmed, you later rejected," like a counter-argument to a quarrel, doing a counter-action to his own act of censure, says, "Understand the counter-action." Now, just as in the progressive set of five, the proponent, having established the thesis, made the opponent's censure clear through leading and imposing from progressive to regressive, so, making the counter-action clear, he says, "If a person," and so on. That should be understood in meaning according to the method stated below. Because here, establishment is merely the establishment to show "This is your fault" from the establishment of the opponent's position, not making clear the censure or counter-action, but making it clear through leading and imposing, therefore, since this counter-action is done in four ways based on progressive and regressive leading and imposing, one should understand one set called the set of four counter-actions. Having done the counter-action in this way, now, showing the wrongness of that censure which was done by the proponent in the progressive set of five, relying on that same deceptive argument, he says, "But if you think," and so on. There, "But if you think" means if you. You think. "One should say" refers to acknowledging with "yes" in the opposite case, while "one should not say" refers to rejecting with "no indeed." Therefore, because of that, you yourself, in that position of "what is not found," thus acknowledging with "yes," thus acknowledging. Thus, one should refute, again rejecting with "no indeed," thus one should refute. Then, we will refute you, then we will refute you who are worthy of refutation, and you will be well refuted, and you will be well refuted because your own view is refuted. Having shown thus the state of being refuted, now, refuting him, he said, beginning with "if indeed." There, establishing, bringing, and placing should be understood in the same way as stated below. But at the end, "this is false for you" means this statement of yours is false. This is called a tetrad of refutation because the refutation has been done in four ways by means of equivocation. Having made the refutation thus, now, showing "if this refutation done by me according to your view is a bad refutation, and also the refutation done by you to me below in the five conformities is also a bad refutation," he said, beginning with "if this is badly refuted." There, "if this is badly refuted" means if this argument of yours is badly refuted by me, or if this refutation done by me to you is a bad refutation. "Thus, see thus there" means even in the refutation done by you to me below, see thus. Now, having shown the refutation that was done to him below by his own proponent with the statement beginning with "one should say," again, bringing up that refutation as a non-refutation, he said, beginning with "and we are not by you." There, in "and we are not by you there in that reason, in that proposition," the meaning is this: because that refutation done by you to me is a bad refutation, therefore, we, acknowledging thus with "yes" in the five conformities, even when a rejection is made with "no indeed," should be refuted with "understand the refutation." Just as the wind, so you restrain me, though I should not be restrained, but with such restraint we are poorly restrained. Now, to show what restraint he meant when he said, "we are poorly restrained," he said, "If a person... this is false for you." Thus, this, being brought to restraint by four applications in direct and reverse order, is called the tetrad of application. Now, "one should not restrain thus," and so on, is called the tetrad of release. Therein, "one should not restrain thus" means: as I am restrained by you, one should not restrain thus, for the poor restraint of this restraint has been proven by me. "Therefore," means for that reason. Since this restraint is a poor restraint, therefore, you restrain me. "If a person... this is false for you" means: this restraint is false for you. "Therefore, the restraint made is wrong" means: for the reason that this is false, therefore, the restraint made by you is wrong. What was done by me as a counter-action, that indeed is well done. And this way of presenting the path of discussion, by way of the tetrad of counter-actions, etc., that too is well done. It should be understood that the direct and reverse order is named in terms of the direct five beginning with "a person is found," and the tetrads of counter-action, restraint, application, and release, beginning with "is not found." Thus far, when the proponent's initial position is present, the opponent wins by a sophistical argument based merely on the similarity of words. Now, to show how, when the opponent's initial position is present, the proponent wins by truth alone, the reverse direct five beginning with "a person is not found" is begun. Therein, the question in the reverse order is for the opponent, the assertion is for the proponent, referring to the ultimate reality of things as they truly are, differentiated by form, etc., the further inquiry "what is truly real?" is for the opponent, referring to conventional truth, either pure or mixed with ultimate reality, since "a person is not found" should not be said in terms of convention. Because of the inclination to fault-finding or the confusion of the investigation, "It is not" is the refutation of the proponent, and "Understand the censure," etc., are the words of the opponent, merely from the similarity of saying that the acknowledged is refuted. Thus, relying on the second statement that this person is not found, the second censure should be understood to occur. Thus, censure was imposed by that trick. Now, to show victory in one's own argument by means of the Dhamma, which is equal to the opponent's proposition,