Can you explain the philosophical argument presented about why the body's passing is not a final end, using the pot analogy from the text?

In a profound philosophical discussion, Chapter 37 argues that death is not a final annihilation by using an analogy of a pot. It explains that the dissolution of any effect occurs by taking refuge in its underlying existence. For instance, if a pot is broken with a stone, only its form is destroyed. The inherent "pot-existence" is not lost; it continues to exist within the broken pieces. The text emphasizes that "not even a tiny bit of the pot's existence is lost." Applying this logic, the passing of a person's body is merely the dissolution of a form, not an end to their existence. The effect (the body) is not separate from its cause, and its essential nature persists. This illustrates that death is a transformation, not an ultimate end.