That is not the case. Why?

Were eye-mentation separate from what’s making it,
Like co-occurring eyes, perceptions and so forth,
What purpose would production serve for what exists?
The problems faced if it does not have been explained. (6.20)

If you claim that eyes and so forth, and the simultaneous perceptions and so forth, are the very conditions for such an eye consciousness, then being existent at that time it would be an ‘other’ relying on them, but for something existent to be produced serves no purpose at all, hence it would not be produced. Then, if wishing to avoid its non-production, you do not accept that it is existing, saying, ‘At the time in question there is no otherness of the eye and so forth in relation to the non-existent consciousness,’ the faults of such a position have already been explained. Therefore, if you claim such other-production, even if otherness was a possibility, production would be impossible, and since that is impossible both are impossible. Even if production was possible, otherness would be impossible, and since that is impossible both are impossible. Hence, external objects do not exist in any way whatsoever, and with the emptiness of external objects one is left with nothing but mere words, which shows that this way of understanding it is unacceptable.

Now, to explain how from among cause and effect there is no time when there is reliance on a cause, it was said:

If separate things are made by a productive cause,
Do they exist or not? Both? Neither of these two?
Why need producing if they do? What’s done if not?
What’s done if both? What’s done if neither of the two? (6.21)

A producing cause is not the producer of an existent product, because of the faults that have already been explained in such statements as, ‘That the produced is produced once more is senseless;’ there would not then be the slightest purpose to it having conditions. When the produced does not exist, what would the producers do? It is just as non-existent as the horns of a donkey. As stated:

For you who assert the existence of results,
And you who assert their non-existence,¹
There would be no point in embellishing
Your house with pillars and such.²

And from the Middle Way Treatise:

If a result has an intrinsic essence,
How can a cause produce it?
If a result does not have an intrinsic essence,
How can a cause produce it?

If there is no production,
Causation becomes unfeasible.
If causation is unfeasible,
What becomes of the result?³

For that which is both, what would conditions do for it? The faults that follow from this are those that have already been explained. A dual entity is both, and when it is both it is in fact two. But since having an essence of existence and non-existent in one thing at the same time is impossible, something having that sort of nature cannot occur. And since it cannot occur, what could producing conditions do for it? As the Treatise states:

How can nirvāṇa be both
An existent and a non-existent?
These two cannot coexist,
Just like light and darkness.⁴

Likewise,

What both is and is not an agent
Cannot make what both is and is not.
Since they are mutually exclusive,
How could one thing both be and not be?⁵

If a result could be neither existent nor non-existent, what would be the function of conditions in relation to something which is neither, since a result that defies both existence and non-existence cannot exist? When both existence and non-existence are impossible, to refute them by saying neither existent nor non-existent doesn’t make the slightest difference. When neither are established, to have what is neither existent nor non-existent is impossible. As stated:

Nirvāṇa is taught to be neither
An existent nor a non-existent.
If non-existents and existents were established,
This would be established.⁶

If they say, ’Since any sort of reasoning we put forth in order to establish production is completely incinerated by the fire of your intellect, like firewood soaked in oil, we will no longer encourage the blazing fire of your intelligence with any more logical fuel. You may ask, “Will not your theory fail without backing it up with logical reasoning?” It will not. This is something established from the point of view of the world, hence there is no use at all for reasoning, since worldly perception is very powerful.’

‘What is the point of all these reasoned arguments
When it’s the normal view the world gives credence to.
The world indeed agrees things come from other things,
Which means other-production – what is there to prove?’ (6.22)

‘When all worldly people maintain a certain view, that is something very influential, and it is certainly other-production that is this view. When reasoning finds faults with something, it is only relevant when it comes to what is not directly perceived, and not what is within the scope of direct perception. Therefore, even though it is not reasonable, things are still produced from other.’