English
English version: Some argue that the non-awareness of the root is not a necessary cause. If I am definitively non-existent, then the non-awareness of the root cannot force existence. This is called 'non-arising'. If someone asserts that sound is permanent, it can also be refuted using the twenty methods mentioned above, from the perspectives of similarity and difference. Question: Are there other causes and conditions that can explain these twenty methods themselves? Answer: Yes. You should ask: Because of the existence of 'I', you refute me. If there is no 'I', what do you refute? Because there is a refuter, there is something to be refuted. Objection: In reality, there is no 'I'. You wrongly assume there is an 'I', so I refute you. You say that because there is something to be refuted, there is an 'I'. Then, because there is a refuter, it is known that there is no 'I'. If you say that you insist on the meaning of 'I' to prove that there is no 'I', that is incorrect. I am not using your meaning, but my own insistence. The proponent says: How do you know that I insist on your meaning? You should explain the reason. Objection: I have already said that I am not insisting on your meaning, but on the views established by others. Why do you ask again, how do I know that I insist on your meaning? Your own words contradict themselves, and you are already in a losing position. Moreover, you initially used the non-awareness of the root to prove that there is indeed an 'I', and later used various methods to prove it. The cause you established is unstable, violates your own principles, and you are also in a losing position. Your theory has collapsed. If I say more, it will not go beyond your initial statement, and it will only be superfluous. Generally speaking, the number of questions and answers should be limited to five. Saying more than that is called redundant. If a wise person can deeply contemplate the principles, and widely use metaphors to understand the meaning, then what he discusses will not go beyond these methods. The commentator says: I have already stated the essentials of the various teachings above. The essentials of these discussions are the foundation of all discussions. Through these discussions, questions and answers can be widely generated, and wisdom can be increased. For example, if a seed encounters fertile soil, the roots and stems will flourish. If it is planted in barren soil, there will be no fruit. This Dharma is also like that. If a wise person can contemplate well, he can widely generate various discussions. If a foolish person lacks wisdom, even if he studies these discussions, he cannot understand them. Such a person cannot be called a true good knowledge or good view. Therefore, all those who want to generate true wisdom and distinguish between good and evil should diligently study this correct Dharma treatise. The 'Upayahrdaya' (Convenient Heart) Treatise, one fascicle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------