________________
( 196 )
(i) wam pi me no ( I do not say so ). (ü) tathapi me no (I do not say thus ). (iii) anlathapi me no (I do not say otherwise ). (iv) no ti pi me no (I do not say no ). (v) no no ti pi me no ( I do not deny it ).
This formula is applied with regard to the answering of several questions as :94
(i) atthi paro loko ( there is another world ). (ii) natthi paro loko ( there is not another world ). (iii) atthi ca natthi ca paro loko (there is and is not another
world ). (iv) Natthi na natthi paro loko ( there neither is nor is not
another world ). The commentary offers two explanations of the meaning of this formula. According to the first explanation, proposition ( 1 ) is an indefinite rejection or denial (aniyamitavikkhepo ). Proposition ( 2 ) is the denial of a specific proposition, e. g. the eternalism (sassatavāda ) when asked whether the world and the soul are eternal. Proposition ( 3 ) is the denial of a variant of ( 3 ) e. g. the rejection of the semi-eternal theory ekaccasassatari ), which is said to be somewhat different from (annatha ). Proposition (4) is the denial of the contrary of (2), e. g. the denial of the nihilist theory (ucchedavādami ) when asked whether a being (tathā gato) does not exist after death. Proposition (5) is the rejection of the dialectian's view ( takkivādam) of a double denial, e. g. denying the position if asked whether a being neither exists nor does not exist. after death.
According to the second explanation, Proposition (1) is the denial of an assertion e. g. if asked whether this is good, he denies it. Proposition (2) is the denial of a simple negation, e. g, if asked whether this is not good, he denies it. Proposition (3) is a denial that what you are stating is different from both (1) and (2) e. g. if asked whether his position is different from both (1) and (2) (wbhaya annathā ) he denies it. Propo
