summarized they are included within two [types] because of being included into the reasoning of analyzing the ultimate and the reasoning of analyzing conventions. Logically feasible (’thad suitable (rung and reasonable (rigs pa), ba), are equivalent because Vasubandhu’s says pa) Principles of Explanation such. The [rigs of] (’thad logicality and pa rigs pa dang rigs pa, ’thad reasoning) and the of (blo awareness and rig pa blo rig dang rig pa, knowledge) are not equivalent because in Tibetan the presence and absence of the suffix differ, and in Sanskrit the terms also differ since sa is used for [the of] (logicality and reasoning) and yoṣir rigs pa rigs ’thad is used for [the of] (awareness and knowledge), and vidyā rig pa blo rig also that the meanings differ is to be known from the earlier [discussion] (see above, 68ff.). Therefore, the opposite of logicality is taken as an object of negation by reasoning because when comparing the high speech (gsung of Tsong-kha-pa and his spiritual sons rab, pravacana) and Gyal-tshab], it turns out that the four non-reasonables, which are the opposites of the four reasonings, are taken as objects of negation.
summarized they are included within two [types] because of being included into the reasoning of analyzing the ultimate and the reasoning of analyzing conventions. Logically feasible (’thad pa), suitable (rung ba), and reasonable (rigs pa) are equivalent because Vasubandhu’s Principles of Explanation says such. The [rigs pa of] ’thad rigs (’thad pa dang rigs pa, logicality and reasoning) and the rig pa of blo rig (blo dang rig pa, awareness and knowledge) are not equivalent because in Tibetan the presence and absence of the suffix sa differ, and in Sanskrit the terms also differ since yoṣir is used for [the rigs pa of] ’thad rigs (logicality and reasoning) and vidyā is used for [the rig pa of] blo rig (awareness and knowledge), and also that the meanings differ is to be known from the earlier [discussion] (see above, 68ff.). Therefore, the opposite of logicality is taken as an object of negation by reasoning because when comparing the high speech (gsung rab, pravacana) of Tsong-kha-pa and his spiritual sons and Gyal-tshab], it turns out that the four non-reasonables, which are the opposites of the four reasonings, are taken as objects of negation.
opposite_of_emptiness_SEPT2014.docx