English
From e, that is, sentient beings and fire, etc., other than that, there is no thought, and the thought of non-fire. The nature of the characteristics of cause and pervasion is the object to be proven as desired, that is, the meaning of the characteristics of fire and wood, and if it does not exist, it does not arise, because it is established by valid cognition, how can other opponents prove it with the reason of cause and nature? It is the meaning of being able to prove it. The so-called ability, ability is other than the unobstructed cause, not becoming the last, the one who enters into producing the effect, that is, able to prevent. Does the knower also change in the same way? The knower is the arising of realization, which cannot be prevented. To whom does realization arise? To the person who realizes the three aspects. He is the person himself. From the sign, that is, from the reason. If the object to be proven is uncertain, that is, not realized, then at this time, the person does not desire, being burned by the fire, the desire for the suffering of being burned is extremely prevented. The so-called difference is the basis of what is to be established, that is, the non-erroneous nature of what can be established, therefore what is to be proven is the difference, and the non-erroneous nature of what can be established is possessing the difference. The realization that if it does not exist, it does not arise, means that if there is no realization of what is to be proven, it does not arise. What others say, although it is everything that is said immediately, that is, it is true, but because of the establishment that contradicts the scriptures, the opponent will become an unreasonable doer. The so-called contradiction is said to contradict the scriptures. What unreasonable thing did the opponent do here? He is the opponent. The so-called he, is the reason for doing, etc. The so-called such, is said to harm the scriptures. The so-called other, because there is no non-harming of the scriptures. In order to establish that desire, therefore, the reason of the nature of what is done will not become a fault here, thus connecting. What is done itself has no fault here, because it establishes what is to be proven. Then who has the fault? The reason for what is done is not said here, that is the fault of the opponent. Here also