Second Debate 16 Without knowing the details with regard to conventions, one cannot realize emptiness. Conventions have to be validly established. 17 The ultimate is other than conventionalities. 18 Without knowing how to posit the valid establishment of 19 conventions it is impossible to realize naturelessness. Third Debate Without knowing how to posit valid establishment, it cannot 20 be posited that emptiness is realized through holding that phenomena are natureless. Without knowing how to posit valid establishment, it cannot be 21 posited that the emptiness of former and later births is realized through holding that former and later births are natureless. The Diverged Afars’, that is, Nihilists’, holding former and later 22 births as natureless, for example, is not a view of emptiness. The reasons why this view of the Diverged Afars is a view of annihilation but the Middle Way Proponents’ holding former and 23 later births as natureless is a pure view are respectively due to the Diverged Afars’ not asserting but the Middle Way Proponents’ asserting establishment in conventional terms. The Diverged Afars’ holding that former and later births are 24 natureless is a view of annihilation. The Diverged Afars do not realize naturelessness as the 25 Proponents of the Middle Way do within knowing how to posit the valid establishment of conventionalities. The Middle Way view and mode of holding that former and later 26 births are natureless do not accord with those of the Diverged Afars. Both the Diverged and the Proponents of the Middle Way 27 hold that former and later births are natureless. Although the Diverged Afars and the Proponents of the Middle Way are similar in holding that the objects, former and later 28 births, are natureless, whether it is the Middle Way view or not is posited separately due to differences in the inner modes of the realizers’ awarenesses. For example, when both someone who identified a man as a robber and another who did not identify such say, is the “He 29 robber,” it is posited that the one who knew the robber identified the robber and that the one did not identify the robber.
16 Second Debate Without knowing the details with regard to conventions, one cannot realize emptiness. 17 Conventions have to be validly established. 18 The ultimate is other than conventionalities. 19 Without knowing how to posit the valid establishment of conventions it is impossible to realize naturelessness. 20 Third Debate Without knowing how to posit valid establishment, it cannot be posited that emptiness is realized through holding that phenomena are natureless. 21 Without knowing how to posit valid establishment, it cannot be posited that the emptiness of former and later births is realized through holding that former and later births are natureless. 22 The Diverged Afars’, that is, Nihilists’, holding former and later births as natureless, for example, is not a view of emptiness. 23 The reasons why this view of the Diverged Afars is a view of annihilation but the Middle Way Proponents’ holding former and later births as natureless is a pure view are respectively due to the Diverged Afars’ not asserting but the Middle Way Proponents’ asserting establishment in conventional terms. 24 The Diverged Afars’ holding that former and later births are natureless is a view of annihilation. 25 The Diverged Afars do not realize naturelessness as the Proponents of the Middle Way do within knowing how to posit the valid establishment of conventionalities. 26 The Middle Way view and mode of holding that former and later births are natureless do not accord with those of the Diverged Afars. 27 Both the Diverged and the Proponents of the Middle Way hold that former and later births are natureless. 28 Although the Diverged Afars and the Proponents of the Middle Way are similar in holding that the objects, former and later births, are natureless, whether it is the Middle Way view or not is posited separately due to differences in the inner modes of the realizers’ awarenesses. 29 For example, when both someone who identified a man as a robber and another who did not identify such say, “He is the robber,” it is posited that the one who knew the robber identified the robber and that the one did not identify the robber.
opposite_of_emptiness_SEPT2014.docx