We reply:
Take objects such as hairs, although they are not there,
Do still appear to someone who has cataracts.
Thus, first of all, please settle your dispute with them.
And then go deal with those impaired by ignorance. (6.108)
First you should then take your arguments to those who have defective eyesight, such as those suffering from cataracts, and ask them, ‘Why is it that you see such non-existent things as strands of hair, but not the son of a barren woman?’ And then you should question those whose mind’s eye is veiled by the cataracts of ignorance, asking them, ‘Why is it that you see forms that are by nature unarisen, but not the son of a barren woman?’
I am not the one to be censured here. I am quoting the scriptures: ‘that yogis see things in this way, and that others who wish to gain the wisdom of the yogis should pay attention to the way in which they explain the nature of things.’1
It is through realisation, brought about by yogic wisdom, that entities may be explained as lacking inherent nature. This is not something taken from my own understanding, since my mind’s eye is veiled by the cataracts of ignorance. But as is stated:
Devoid of nature, the aggregates are emptiness.
Devoid of nature, awakening is emptiness.
Anything engaged in is empty by nature.
The wise understand this, the immature do not.
With the nature of insight seen to be empty,
The nature of the known seen to be empty,
The knower as well is thus understood;
This is called practicing the path of awakening.2
And the yogis are therefore not the ones to be censured; they are the ones who see that no phenomena have inherent nature, either relatively or ultimately.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
