English
Therefore, it should be understood that these things do not have inherent existence. Here it is said: If it is said that these things do not have inherent existence because things that exist by their own nature do not change, and also because change is observed. Even so, if there is no inherent existence, then what is the change of? Now, like a flower in the sky, since inherent existence, that is, existence by its own nature, does not exist, then what would it become a change of? Therefore, since change is not observed in things that do not have inherent existence, and also because change is seen, therefore there is inherent existence. It should be said: If according to your view, since things that do not have inherent existence, that is, existence by their own nature, do not change, and also because change is seen, therefore there is inherent existence, if it is said like this, even if there is no inherent existence, how can there be change? Now, just as it happens now, because inherent existence, that is, existence by its own nature, exists, then what would it become a change of? Therefore, for things that exist by their own nature, change itself does not exist, so change is impossible in any way. Therefore, it should be understood that things do not have inherent existence. Also, saying that because change is seen, therefore there is no inherent existence, that is also said in terms of seeing change as others believe, but we have never admitted that change exists in anything. Therefore, in this way, inherent existence is completely non-existent, all dharmas are of the nature of non-existence, and for them, change also does not exist, now if someone thinks that things are existent or non-existent, then for such a thought, it will definitely: Hold on to what is called existence as permanent, and view what is called non-existence as annihilation. Because this view of clinging to permanence and annihilation also blocks the path to heaven and liberation, therefore it causes great harm. Therefore, the wise should not abide in existence and non-existence. Also, why is it that if there is a view of things and the non-existence of things, there will be views of permanence and annihilation?