—  832  — 
substance11.  But  then  how  can  the  name  of  such  a  fire  be  applied  to  so- 
mething «conditioned»  by  the  presence  of  such  fuel!  Once  more  you  are 
bound  to  explain  the  meaning  you  attach  to  the  term  «conditioned»?  This 
(fuel)  is  not  the  cause  producing  fire,  neither  is  it  the  cause  of  using  the 
name  «fire».  For  fire  itself  is  here  the  cause  for  applying  to  it  this  name. 
95.3.  5.  Vatsiputrtya.  The  term  «conditioned»  may  here  be  accepted  in  the 
sense  of  a  support,  or  necessarily  coexisting  element? 
Vasubandhu.  But  if  you  suppose  the  elements  of  a  personal  life  to 
«support»  the  Individual,  or  to  be  coexisting  with  him  in  the  same  sense  (in 
which  the  primary  constituents  of  matter  are  coexisting  or  supporting  one  an- 
other), you  evidently  are  admitting  a  difference  between  them.  (Then  indeed 
it  would  follow  that)  no  Individual  can  exist  in  the  absence  of  its  component 
elements,  just  as  well  as  no  fire  can  exist  in  the  absence  of  fuel. 
95.  a.  6.  Vatsiputriya.  To  this  we  have  already  answered,  that  if  fire  be  alto- 
gether different  from  fuel,  the  latter  could  not  contain  any  element  of  heat, 
(which  it  always  does  contain). 
Vasubandhu.  (Yes,  you  did  say  so),  but  what  do  you  understand  by 
heat?  If  it  is  the  caloric  element  fuel,  never  will  be  the  same  as  heat,  since 
it  is  (in  this  case)  represented  by  the  other  constituents  of  matter.  (They  will 
be  as  different  as  one  constituent  differs  from  the  others). 
Vatsiputriya.  But  then  the  other  coexisting  elements  may  be 
possessed  of  heat.  In  this  case  it  will  be  established,  that  they  are  different 
from  fire,  as  far  as  the  latter  is  represented  by  the  caloric  element,  but  they 
nevertheless  will  represent  heat  also,  in  as  much  as  they  will  be  pregnant 
with  heat.  Hence  there  is  no  fault  in  them  being  different  substances,  (since 
they  are  thus  imited). 
Vasubandhu.  You  suppose  burning  wood  etc.  to  represent  at  the  same 
time  the  fuel  as  well  as  the  fire!  Again  you  are  obliged  to  explain  what  in 
this  case  will  be  the  meaning  attached  to  the  term  «conditioned»?  And  be- 
sides, since  there  is  nothing  but  the  elements  to  represent  the  Individual 
you  cannot  possibly  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  latter  is  nothing  different 
(from  the  elements).  Therefore  you  have  not  proved  that  the  name  Indivi- 
dual is  applied  to  something  conditioned  by  the  presence  of  its  elements 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  name  fire  is  applied  to  something  condi- 
tioned by  the  presence  of  fuel. 
