^{page 237 note 1} See Journal, April, 1934, p. 397.

^{page 240 note 1} Reference is made here to a simile to be met very often in the sūtra literature.

^{page 240 note 2} Tib. , 128 b. k'ams drug de kun bdag med par k'yod la glad la p'ab pa yin. “It has been ascertained for you that the six constituents are devoid of self.”

^{page 240 note 3} Three are the statements to be demonstrated: (a) existence or nonexistence of a self cannot be proved in se; (b) existence or non-existence of an essence cannot be proved in se; (c) refutation of those who argue against the view of the Master, viz. that the question whether this world has an end or not must be left undetermined: (a) = v. 3; (b) = vv. 4–5; (c) = vv. 6–15. This verse is quoted by Candrakīrti. PP. p. 359.

^{page 241 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 241 note 2} Here the third argument (c) begins; it is intended to prove that the Buddha is right in maintaining that no determination is possible as regards this world. After the thesis (v. 6) there is the objection of the opponent (vv. 7–8), and then the reply, which consists of two examples (10, 11, 12) and a conclusion.

^{page 241 note 3} The reason of the appearance of tho Buddhas in this world is their desire to lead human creatures towards nirvāṇa. If their preaching is really efficacious, this implies that numberless creatures have been saved, are saved, and will be saved by them.

^{page 241 note 4} There is no reason for admitting that beings may come to existence now who did not exist before; since, then, the number of creatures does not increase and, on the other hand, their disappearance into nirvāṇa through the preaching of the Buddhas is proved by past experience, it would seem that the ultimate end of this world is a well established fact. Here the objection of the opponent ends.

^{page 242 note 1} According to rGyal ts'ab, instead of duality and unity, we should understand: “both” and “neither”. This verse refers to the four points as held by four different schools: (a) No existence when this life is over; is Lokāyata, rgyaṅ p'aṅ pa. (b) Continuation of the ātman when this life is over; Sāṃkhya, graṅs can pa. (c) Both end and non-end (viz. its modalities —gnas skabs—subject to an end but not its essence); Nirgranthas, gcer bu pa. (d) Neither end nor non-end; opinion held by some Vātsīputrīyas (gnas ma bui sde), since, for them, individuals are undeterminable.

^{page 242 note 2} Another discussion is here introduced as regards the depth of this teaching. Three points: (a) general statement (vv. 16–17); (b) this depth is the reason why the Buddha did not preach the doctrine to those who were not in a condition to understand it properly (v. 18). (c) Why this depth must be considered: three subdivisions: (a) its wrong interpretation and the sin which follows from it (w. 19—20); (b) advantages of its right understanding (vv. 21–21); (c) instruction for its proper understanding (v. 23).

^{page 243 note 1} vv. 19–20 are quoted by Candrakīrti PP., p. 496, 11. 1 and 8; in 19a durdṛṣṭ instead of durjñāto.

^{page 243 note 2} The discussion on abhyudaya is here introduced.

^{page 244 note 1} According to rGyal ts'ab the order of the arguments is as follows:—

^{page 245 note 1} Tib. slu ba mi ldan bden min te | sems dpas la sgyur ba don du min ||

^{page 246 note 1} Tib. de dag las kyaṅ mi sñan yin | p'an pai rjes su byed pa dkon ‖

^{page 246 note 2} Tib. de bas c'an ni rtag tu spoṅs |