9.

Commentary on the Treatise on "It Is Indeed So"

304. Now there is the discussion called "it-thus-exists." Therein, for those whose view is "all phenomena of divisions such as past and so on exist by way of matter and so on, the past does not exist by way of future and present, or the future and present do not exist by way of past and so on; therefore all this thus exists, thus does not exist," just as the Andhakans of the aforementioned classification hold at present; with reference to them, "is there the past?" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine. "It indeed exists, it indeed does not exist" is the answer of the opponent. Therein, "heva" means "thus." Then the proponent of one's own doctrine, asking him "if the view is that the past itself thus exists, thus does not exist, this being so, that very thing exists, that very thing does not exist," said "it thus exists, it thus does not exist." The other rejects with reference to existence by that very intrinsic nature, and nonexistence by that very intrinsic nature. When asked the second time, he acknowledges with reference to existence by its own nature, and nonexistence by another nature. Beyond that, he asks "the meaning of existence is the meaning of non-existence" means is it the case that the intrinsic nature of existence is the intrinsic nature of non-existence. By this same method, the meaning should be understood in all instances. But at the conclusion, having said "if so, the past indeed exists, indeed does not exist" and "if so, matter indeed exists, indeed does not exist" and so on, although the view was established by the opponent, because it was unwisely established, it is as if not established at all.

Commentary on the Treatise on "It Is Indeed So."

The Great Chapter is concluded.