English
Therefore, with the language of dependence, another well-known answer was given. Why show another? Because it is easy to understand by stating through a well-known example. This is about the Dharma of dependence. Because this does not directly show the example, how can it become a well-known answer? No, because the word "saying" shows the well-known, so the example is actually shown, and the meaning is implied. The third is the explanation: For example, manifest from the proximate clay, and a flame as a co-operative condition fires it, the dependent vase and so on, and the alms bowl and so on, the same thing, with a sequential order in time, depending on the internal essence, the difference of pouring in honey, sugar, and oil, etc., and calling that and that container different, similarly, the dependent Dharma, encompassed by the three vehicles, because the qualities to be realized are different, so the nature of the six sense bases as the basis, the lineage of the three vehicles are different. In the context of the example, "manifest from one clay" indicates that the dependent vase is the same, therefore it is thought that when one person gradually enters the three vehicles, his Dharma nature is called the three lineages of the three vehicles. That is not so, because it is not in the way that one person gradually enters the vehicle, to argue that different lineages are not allowed. Therefore, in the context of meaning, the Dharmadhatu of different people is not different, which is also admitted by the opponent himself, so it is established. In the context of the example, if three similar pottery jars are taken as examples, because one lineage has different substances, it cannot be established as an example of one basis, therefore, in order to establish that the substance of the basis is the same, it is said "manifest from one clay" etc.