Here they might interject: ‘I won’t stand for any more of your discourteous talk! You display some skill in criticising others and have refuted the dependent nature through logical reasoning. But, in doing so you refute the very relative that you accept, as the arguments presented render it illogical.’
You’re like someone who feigns friendship and serves poisoned food to the person who has stolen all your wealth accumulated since beginningless time so that you can get it back. If this is how you prefer to avenge yourself we will relish it. That is excellent! As,
The claims concerning the dependent you have made,
I wouldn’t venture even for the relative.
Although they don’t exist, pragmatically I say
They do, in order to comply with worldly view. (6.81)
For us the relative is not how you independently propose in your philosophical system that the dependent nature is something realised by the noble ones’ wisdom. How is it then? Although without existence, since the worldly consensus is that things exists, we will say so merely to express the viewpoint of the world, since agreeing with them becomes a remedial method. As stated:
The Illustrious One said: The world may quarrel with me, but I have no quarrel with the world. I accept as existent whatever the world claims exists. I accept as without existence whatever the world claims does not exist.1
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
