19. The text is terse, open to various readings. One alternate reading would be: “If [appropriation] is different [from Parinirvānṃa, since nirvana is defined as the absence of appropriation], then one doesn’t [obtain, i.e., appropriate] Parinirvānṃa. If [appropriation] is not different from [Parinirvānṃa], then one doesn’t [obtain] Parinirvānṃa[since it would be unattainable].” Both readings make a similar point, which is that the extremes of annihilationalism and eternalism lurk in such formulations, rendering them illogical.