In the continuums of those who are not involved in tenet systems such as animals and so forth, there is apprehension that 49 the self is permanent in the sense of not disintegrating until death. Since the Proponents of the Great Exposition, the Proponents of Sūtra, and so forth have not entered the Middle Way view, they 50 cannot harm the conceived object of the apprehension of true existence. The thesis that statement—“Refutation of objects imputed only by Forders and Proponents of Tenets does not 51 harm the apprehension of inherent existence that has operated beginninglessly”—is not logically feasible is not logically feasible. Eighth Debate 52 There are two objects of negation by correct reasoning: existent and nonexistent. Object of negation by a correct reasoning and object of negation 53 that is the opposite of the probandum of a correct sign are not equivalent. The apprehension of true existence is an object of negation by a 54 correct reasoning. The apprehension of true existence is not an object of negation 55 by a correct sign proving the absence of true existence. The apprehension of true existence is not a probandum of a 56 correct sign. The apprehension of true existence is an object of negation by a 57 correct reasoning proving something as not truly existent. 58 Reasoning (rigs and logicality (’thad are equivalent. pa) pa) Both an apprehension of true existence as well as its conceived object—that is, true establishment—must be posited as objects 59 of negation by a correct reasoning, which is also called a correct logicality. the apprehension of true existence is not logically feasible in accordance with its apprehension, the apprehension of true 60 existence comes to be an object of negation by a correct logicality. 61 The apprehension of true existence is existent. You cannot negate by of a correct sign something that 62 exists.
49 In the continuums of those who are not involved in tenet systems such as animals and so forth, there is apprehension that the self is permanent in the sense of not disintegrating until death. 50 Since the Proponents of the Great Exposition, the Proponents of Sūtra, and so forth have not entered the Middle Way view, they cannot harm the conceived object of the apprehension of true existence. 51 The thesis that statement—“Refutation of objects imputed only by Forders and Proponents of Tenets does not harm the apprehension of inherent existence that has operated beginninglessly”—is not logically feasible is not logically feasible. 52 Eighth Debate There are two objects of negation by correct reasoning: existent and nonexistent. 53 Object of negation by a correct reasoning and object of negation that is the opposite of the probandum of a correct sign are not equivalent. 54 The apprehension of true existence is an object of negation by a correct reasoning. 55 The apprehension of true existence is not an object of negation by a correct sign proving the absence of true existence. 56 The apprehension of true existence is not a probandum of a correct sign. 57 The apprehension of true existence is an object of negation by a correct reasoning proving something as not truly existent. 58 Reasoning (rigs pa) and logicality (’thad pa) are equivalent. 59 Both an apprehension of true existence as well as its conceived object—that is, true establishment—must be posited as objects of negation by a correct reasoning, which is also called a correct logicality. 60 the apprehension of true existence is not logically feasible in accordance with its apprehension, the apprehension of true existence comes to be an object of negation by a correct logicality. 61 The apprehension of true existence is existent. 62 You cannot negate by of a correct sign something that exists.
opposite_of_emptiness_SEPT2014.docx