Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
## Samantabhadra-Bharati
[Chapter 1: The fault in denying the absence of prior existence and the absence of destruction is that the object of action would be beginningless and endless.
If the absence of prior existence is denied, then the object of action, such as a pot or sound, would be beginningless. But it is evident that everything has a beginning. If the absence of destruction is denied, then the object of action, such as a pot or sound, would be indestructible. But it is evident that everything is destructible. Therefore, denying the absence of prior existence and the absence of destruction, and claiming that the object of action is eternally unchanging, is a contradiction to experience. Therefore, denying the absence of prior existence and the absence of destruction is not appropriate. These absences must be accepted.
The fault in denying the absence of otherness and the absence of totality is that everything would be one and the same, and there would be no distinction between things.
If the absence of otherness is denied, then there would be no distinction between one thing and another. For example, there would be no difference between a pot and a cloth. But this is clearly not the case. Therefore, the absence of otherness must be accepted.