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.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
