Illuminating the Intent

This has two parts: (1) repelling objections from the worldly perspective assuming that arising from other is accepted in worldly convention and (2) repelling objections from the worldly perspective on the basis that arising from other does not exist even in worldly convention.

The first has two parts: (1) the opponent’s objection that such refutation is invalidated by worldly convention and (2) the response that worldly convention does not invalidate the refutation.

[Opponent:] “You may claim that the arguments we have put forth to prove arising from other have all been burned up by the fire of your intelligence like dry logs soaked in melted butter.

Those who do not understand without distortion the meaning of the scriptures, those who are bereft of the means — repeated study of the nature of no-intrinsic existence — that helps one part from the long-acquainted friend, the manifest clinging to the true existence of things stemming from the ripening of the habitual propensities for grasping at true existence imprinted within during the beginningless cycle of existence, such people might appeal to mere worldly convention, the arbitrary terms of the world.