English
If the entity of fire is established in dependence on firewood, then if the entity of fire is not established, how can it depend on firewood, like the horns of a donkey? If it is said that fire is already established, so it depends on firewood, then what is already established is not something to be established again, so dependence is meaningless, so it should not depend on firewood. Similarly, firewood, whether established or not, should not depend on fire. Therefore, there is no fire that depends on firewood, and there is no fire that does not depend on firewood. Because fire, whether established or not, should not depend on firewood, and if it does not depend on firewood, then fire becomes without a cause. Similarly, there is no firewood that depends on fire, because whether established or not, it should not depend on fire. (The root of "Without depending on fire, there is no firewood" is cut off.) There is also no firewood that does not depend on fire, because that would become without a cause. Third, refuting the view that it is established by direct perception. Here someone says: What is the use of doing such a detailed analysis? We have directly seen fire burning firewood, so we say that fire and firewood exist. If you say so, then "fire burns firewood" is just a saying, not reality. For example, if there is fire in the wood, then it will burn the firewood, but in reality there is not. Fire does not come from other places, and there is no fire in the wood. First of all, fire does not come from outside the firewood, because it has not been seen; and because there is no cause, there is no arrival of fire separated from firewood; and because it is with firewood, there is no need to arrive; and there, through mutual questioning and investigation, it will lead to the fault of no end. Similarly, there is no fire in the wood, because it has not been seen; and the statement that it exists in an unobvious way has no proof, so it is just a statement. Furthermore, similarly, the remainder of the firewood is shown by measuring what has been burned and what has not been burned. Regarding the statement "directly seeing fire burning firewood," the refutation of the remainder of the firewood, like the previous refutation of going to the gone and the not-gone, should be known. First of all, what has been burned does not burn, and what has not been burned does not burn either. Apart from what has been burned and what has not been burned, it is impossible to know what is burning.