Here it might be interjected: ‘But if the chariot is found not to exist when scrutinised in the sevenfold manner just explained, without the existence of the chariot the conventional designation of chariot employed in the world would be invalidated. However, we do see the use of such commands as, “Fetch the chariot!”, “Please buy a chariot,” “Please mend the chariot,” and so forth. Based on general consensus then, things such as chariots must exist.’
To respond: It is in fact you who end up with this problem. A chariot is found to be untenable when subjected to the scrutiny of the sevenfold analysis explained above, but you refuse to accept that there are alternative ways of allowing existent things to remain valid. How can such worldly conventions as the statement, ‘Fetch the chariot!’, then retain their validity for you? We are not affected by this problem, because:
These seven points leave it unjustified
Both in reality, and in the world.
But left unanalysed the world will still
Identify it based upon its parts. (6.158)
When scrutinised in this sevenfold manner – by saying that the chariot is not distinct from its own parts and so forth – one cannot prove that there is a chariot either ultimately or relatively. But if analysis is suspended, just as there are things such as the colour blue or the experience of feelings, it is still the case that in the worldly context it is imputed in relation to its parts, such as the wheels and so forth. The consequence that worldly conventions will be violated does not therefore apply to us, because the assertion of a dependent imputation is similar to asserting the mere conditionality of dependent arising. Our opponents would therefore do well to accept this.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
