With this position, not only does worldly consensus make the usage of the conventional designation chariot perfectly clear, but the particular implications of the term will also, when not subjected to analysis, be acceptable according to worldly norms. As such,
It’s something that has parts, composed of separate bits.
A chariot is held to be a functional thing.
For people it is real as what assimilates.
The chariot is something that has parts based on the fact that it consists of parts such as wheels and so forth. And it is composed of separate bits from the fact that its bits are the wheels and so forth. It is a functional thing in relation to how it assimilates the constituent wheels and so forth. It is posited as an assimilator in relation to what it assimilates.
There are some with a mistaken understanding of the scriptures, who say that the mere collection of parts exists, but the possessor of the parts has no existence whatsoever, because it is not apprehended as distinct from them. They likewise say that only the bits exist but not what they compose; that only the action exists but not the actor; and as nothing is perceived apart from the assimilated, the assimilated exist but the assimilator does not. And when they adhere to this distorted description of the worldly relative, the consequence of their own argument will be that the parts, and so forth, too are non-existent.
Do not lay waste to what the world agrees upon! (6.159)
This should certainly be avoided.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
