English
Therefore, since in all cases, the absence of fruits like rice is the same, why do you only take the specifically determined rice seeds, etc., and not take the seeds of Kotraba, etc.? Why don't those who want to obtain rice take Kotraba, etc.? Because there is no difference. If it is because they are empty of fruit that they are not taken, if that is the case, then rice seeds should also not be taken by those who want to obtain rice, because like the seeds of Kotraba, they are also empty of fruit. Even so, it is not the case, because in that way, it can be understood that it has its fruit. In order to establish the third reason, here it is said "in all," etc. If according to your view, you say that something can arise without fruit, then at that time, all things like grass, dust, barley, etc., will be able to produce all fruits like gold and silver from grass. Why? Because being separated from its own nature, there is no difference for everything. Because according to your view, wanting to say that the nature of things like grass is separated, there is no difference for all things that have the ability to arise, that is its meaning. Previously, the fault was stated from the perspective of the cause, now it is from the perspective of the effect, that is the difference. It is also not the case that everything arises from everything, therefore, it can be understood that it is certain that it itself has it. Thinking like this, for each specific fruit, the energy of the causes is definite, therefore even if there is no fruit, it can produce a little fruit, but not like a lotus in the sky, etc. The cause that has energy will only take a little, not all. Only some arise from some, not everything from everything, like this raising a debate of speculation, in the guise of answering, in order to establish the fourth reason, it is said "because of the certainty of this energy," etc. "This" refers to the things that appear as causes. "Not that" refers to not being like the fault mentioned before.