English
Therefore, it is necessary to look for other examples. Because if the concomitance cannot be established by other valid cognitions, then looking for other examples will be endless. Even so, since the concomitance is uncertain, how can it be included in inference? Therefore, if it is like this, since the relationship is uncertain, it is not correct to recognize without error that it is another valid cognition merely by relying on one aspect of the dharma. Saying "it is not" is to prevent it from being not an inference. Like this, if it is because there is no valid cognition that can harm the cause of the certainty of concomitance, so there is no example, then it will not become an inference. Because there is also a valid cognition that can harm, so there is an example of its object. How is it there? In response to this, it is said "through indicating the object," etc. By indicating the sprout that will exist if that object exists, and similarly, by taking the place devoid of a pot as the nature of non-perception. Here, one should also observe the indication of the reason through meaning, like this, one should indicate the cause and the object through the words of non-existence and the words of the result. Among them, the object of the word of non-existence is the place devoid of a pot, and its knowledge is the cause, because both are shown as the word of non-perception without difference. The object of the word of the result is its existence itself, and the direct perception and non-perception that hold it are the cause. Similarly, in other places, the word of the object leads to the cause, and the word of the cause also leads to the object. In short, the words of the scholar are like this. Therefore, by means of this object and cause, you have previously entered this word, and by indicating the object with the cause, you make the confused opponent remember the word of non-existence with the cause. Even so, you are establishing the relationship of entering in the manner of remembering. Therefore, in order to remember the relationship of the word, because there is an example that is the object of the valid cognition of the cause of the certainty of concomitance, it is inference itself, this is the conclusion of the meaning. Because the opponent himself has previously entered this word, if it is without a cause, then it is a word with certainty.