substantial entity is forming, but prior to that the smallest particles not have parts Answer: That is incorrect If a particle has no sides, it cannot be surrounded by particles on its four sides If it has sides, such as an eastern one, it definitely must have parts, since any particle with an eastern side must also have an eastern part For that reason any opponent who holds that particles have sides prior to the formation of a composite admits those particles are not partless ones, because of accepting that they are located within the ten boundless directions It follows that such particles would not move from one place to another When a thing moves from one place to another, its front takes up a position ahead while its rear relinquishes the rearward position, but partless particles neither take up nor relinquish a position If it is asserted that they not move, it is contradictory for partless particles to form the substantial entity of a composite Thus truly existent particles should never be accepted Assertion: Permanent particles exist because adepts perceive them by virtue of the divine eye.1e Answer: What adept sees such a permanent particle? Seeing it is not feasible because such a form - a particle which firstly has no front, nor any middle, and finally does not have a rear portion - is not evident to any kind of perception Assertion: Since coarse things would have no cause if particles did not exist, particles exist and, moreover, are permanent because of being causeless functional things Answer: It follows that causal particles are not permanent, for just as the seed changes and disintegrates when the sprout is produced, the causal particles are destroyed by the production of the resultant composite Objection: This is not established, for they produce a separate effect without giving up their causal identity Answer: Alternatively, since the presence of the causal particles in a place precludes that of the resultant composite, it follows that they are not cause and effect because of being simultaneous and occupying individual positions, like a pot and a woollen cloth in their respective places For the following reason, too, particles are not permanent: particles are obstructive in that they cannot be penetrated completely by other particles That which is obstructive cannot be permanent The reason why Buddhas never say that permanent particles exist is because they not perceive obstructive permanent things Cittamatrins, who refute the existence of particles by applying the reasoning of ultimate analysis but assert that consciousness is truly existent, should accept objects and consciousnesses as they are conventionally accepted, since exactly the same reasoning applies." Assertion of our own sectarians1e who not understand uncompounded phenomena as merely nominal: Although it is true that Buddhas not mention permanent particles, they say uncompounded phenomena are permanent Thus there is substantially existent cessation, which is like a dam If this were not so it would be inappropriate to speak of the third noble truth Answer: True sources bind to cyclic existence, true sufferings are that which is bound and true paths are the means which liberate one from sufferings and their sources If liberation which is other than these were a functional phenomenon it should facilitate an effect, but it does not produce any effect and not the slightest facilitation occurs Thus it is inappropriate to call such a substantially existent cessation "liberation." It contradicts what the Teacher said: "Monks, these five are only names-past time, future time, space, nirvana and the person." One should therefore accept liberation as a mere term, a mere imputation and not as substantially existent The Subduer said, "That which is the complete abandonment, removal, and extinction of this suffering the abandonment of all the aggregates, the end of worldly existence and separation from attachment, is cessation and nirvana." According to proponents of functional things as truly existent, this citation means the aggregates are entirely non-existent in the sphere of nirvana Nor can there be a person imputed in dependence upon them, for neither the reliance nor reliant exist Neither the aggregates nor the person are seen as a truly existent reliance which reaches nirvana through the ending of disturbing attitudes and rebirth What truly existent nirvana reliant upon that is there? Not the slightest, thus one should accept liberation, too, as a mere imputation Siimkhya assertion: According to us there is no flaw that nirvana is not liberation because of lacking a reliance When an adept understands that the principal and person are different the process of involvement in cyclic existence such as the great one and so forth stops.19 When everything subsides into the latent state of the principal, the conscious person remains alone Thus there is a liberated self Answer: It follows that it is illogical to accept the existence of a conscious person at the time of liberation when there is freedom from attachment to objects, because you assert that the intellect makes known to the person objects to which there is attraction You also assert that it is the person's nature to be conscious and that this is permanent and immutable What is the value of accepting the existence of consciousness during liberation? There is not the slightest value, because while accepting the conscious person as an experiencer of objects, the transformations which are experienced no longer exist, having subsided into a latent state Question: What if the person remains without consciousness at liberation? Answer: It follows that to accept the existence of a liberated person without consciousness clearly amounts to accepting the person's non-existence, because of accepting that the person and consciousness are of one nature, being either equally existent or non-existent Assertion: There is a self during liberation, for though there is no actual consciousness, the potential to be conscious of objects exists Answer: That too is illogical If at liberation a self existed, there could be such a potential or seed of consciousness, but at that time there is no consciousness Objection: If there is no liberated self, there is no liberation and thus cyclic existence is indestructible Many such unwanted entailments arise Answer: It is irrelevant to speculate whether, because there is consciousness, [people would or would not enter liberation] or whether, because its seed is truly existent, people would or would not enter worldly existence It would be relevant if a self as reliance existed but there is no liberated self It is certain that in the state of nirvana, people who have gained liberation from suffering by completely abandoning the contaminated aggregates through the total elimination of disturbing attitudes and emotions have no other causeless permanent self which does not depend on the aggregates Therefore people who aspire to become free should always affirm that the complete ending forever of conceptions of a self is good and should never assert the existence of such a useless liberated self Assertion: If during liberation there is no liberated self, and nirvana which is termed the ultimate is said to be the mere ending of conceptions of a self through the nonrecurrence of that which is composite, what is the purpose of striving for such an ultimate? It is preferable21 for those interested in their own good to accept conventionalities like eyes, sprouts and so forth but not to assert any ultimate,22 for ordinary people have some belief in virtuous and non-virtuous actions, their homes, forests and so forth but none whatsoever in the ultimate This stanza was written in connection with the extensive refutation of the self in the following chapter Since it is interpreted as a controversial contention in Candrakirti's commentary, it should not be accepted as our own contention.23 The summarizing stanza: ... citation means the aggregates are entirely non-existent in the sphere of nirvana Nor can there be a person imputed in dependence upon them, for neither the reliance nor reliant exist Neither the. .. but none whatsoever in the ultimate This stanza was written in connection with the extensive refutation of the self in the following chapter Since it is interpreted as a controversial contention... person without consciousness clearly amounts to accepting the person's non-existence, because of accepting that the person and consciousness are of one nature, being either equally existent or non-existent