To this we reply:
To claim that it’s an issue whether this critique makes contact with
The criticised or not while criticising will only apply
To those thinking in absolutes, but we do not endorse a stance,
And therefore this unwanted consequence does not apply to us. (6.173)
Concerning the statement because your cavilling is subject to the self-same consequence; it is not in fact the case that this consequence applies equally to ourselves, because in our point of view the critique does not make contact with the criticised while criticising, nor does it not make contact, since neither the critique nor the criticised are inherently established.
Do not therefore entertain the idea that there must be either contact or not. As stated:
[…]: … Venerable Subhūti. Does the attainment when not yet attained already exist as something, or does it not?
Subhūti replied: Venerable Śāriputra. I do not think the attainment when not yet attained already exists as something, nor that it does not already exist as something.
Śāriputra said: But, venerable Subhūti, is there then no attainment and no realisation?
Subhūti replied: Venerable Śāriputra, there is both attainment and realisation, but not in a dualistic manner. Attainment and realisation are worldly conventions, venerable Śāriputra. The stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, arhat, solitary buddha and bodhisattva are worldly conventions, but ultimately there is neither attainment nor realisation.1
Here, that the attainment attained can exist or not exist as something is refuted as duality would be a consequence, and duality is unreasonable for a non-entity, so attainment is accepted as a worldly convention when not analysed. Similarly, although the criticised and the critique neither connect nor do not connect, there can still be the convention of the critique discrediting the criticised.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
