Meaning to be inferred vs already inferred. neyyatthaṃ vs nītatthaṃ

Does anyone has passages from the Comy that explain what these two are and how to distinguish which is one is applicable and where?

Are there general tips that:
“this passage needs to be inferred”
“this passage’s meaning has already been inferred?”

I had this sutta in mind:

“Monks, these two slander the Tathāgata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are the two who slander the Tathāgata.” Neyyattha Sutta, AN2.24

1 Like

Bodhi note 243 cites the Commentary:

Mp: “Those suttas that speak of one person (puggala), two persons, etc., require interpretation, for their meaning has to be interpreted in the light of the fact that in the ultimate sense a person does not exist (paramatthato pana puggalo nāma natthi). One who misconceives the suttas that speak about a person, holding that the person exists in the ultimate sense, explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as one whose meaning is explicit. A sutta whose meaning is explicit is one that explains impermanence, suffering, and non-self; for in this case the meaning is simply impermanence, suffering, and non-self. One who says, ‘This discourse requires interpretation,’ and interprets it in such a way as to affirm that ‘there is the permanent, there is the pleasurable, there is a self,’ explains a sutta of explicit meaning as one requiring interpretation.”


Thank you, RobertK.

So it is basically about not forgetting that in the grand scheme of things: asubha, anicca, dukkha, anatta are the Final Truth.

yes. Think of the people who cite suttas where conventional terms like people, I , me, are used as evidence that the Buddha believed in a subtle self…