They might think, ‘There is nothing wrong in the way I see things when understanding the natural existence of the elements; so the example that you use in your proof is void.’
That is not so, since the fact that they are unproduced shows that it is a mistaken view to think that these elements, being in nature non-existent, can have any sense of production or existence. If they say that we would need to prove that the elements are in fact unproduced, we don’t, because it has already been proven. To express this:
It has been shown how elements cannot exist,
As it was generally disproved things can’t arise
From self, other, both, or without a cause; and so
Though not explicit, they have no reality. (6.103)
It has been commonly refuted that existent things can be produced from self, other, both or causelessly, and since this general refutation showing that there is no production also applies to production with respect to the elements, they have no inherent existence and the example is therefore valid. This likewise applies to those who variously refute the Omniscient One, who propound that entities exist, who propound that entities do not exist, who propound an almighty god, time, particles, primordial nature or inherence, or anyone else. One may in these cases adapt the verse accordingly, for example:
When you deny that the Perfect Buddha exists,
Your view of how things are is flawed since such views have
This bodily existence as their common ground,
Like when you make the claim that elements are real.1
This will serve to refute all views that hold on to any form of existence or non-existence. Nothing unwanted can ever befall us, so by skilfully altering this verse we are certain to eliminate each and every position our opponents may formulate, thus halting the entire web of conception and making the ultimate wisdom manifest.
They might then think, ‘You are equally affected by this consequence.’ But we are not, because there is no example that shows our proof to be mistaken. We may say:
When I acknowledge there are lives beyond this one,
My view of how this are is accurate since such views have
This bodily existence as a common ground,
Like when I claim the understanding of selflessness.
Likewise,
When I say that the Omniscient One exists at present,
My view of how things are is accurate since such views have…,
The reason and example are the same two; and this may likewise be applied in connection with all things. With this approach, whatever the thesis may be it remains valid that:
It can’t come from itself, and how from other things?
Can’t come from both, how could it be without a cause?2
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
