Now, concerning the sixth resolve, it was explained:

On Presence, with their minds now placed in equipoise,
They’re in the presence of the traits of buddhahood.
Dependent rising is the fact they now perceive –
And reach cessation, resting in intelligence. (6.1)

Having genuinely actualised the perfection of meditative absorption on the fifth bodhisattva ground, on the sixth ground the bodhisattvas place the mind in equipoise and see the reality of profound interdependence. Through genuine actualisation of the perfection of intelligence (prajñā) they now achieve cessation, unlike before. Lacking superior intelligence they were previously unable to reach this cessation through the genuine perfections of generosity and so on. Fully understanding the true nature of reflection-like things, the bodhisattvas have focussed on the truth of the path on the five bodhisattva grounds, and are now in the presence (abhimukha) of the traits of buddhahood. Therefore this ground is called Presence (abhimukhī).¹

To explain how all other stores of qualities depend on the perfection of great intelligence, it was said:

A single sighted person may with ease escort
The blind in scores wherever they should need to go.
And likewise, for these virtues that possess no sight,
It’s insight that can shepherd them to victorhood. (6.2)

Just one sighted person with ease can lead great multitudes of blind people to their destination, when the other perfections are led by the perfection of great intelligence, they will reach the ground of the sugatas, Universal Illumination (samantaprabhā), because of its ability to discern correct and incorrect paths.

Some may inquire, when it was said here that, ‘… dependent rising is the fact they now perceive, and reach cessation, resting in intelligence,’ how it is that bodhisattvas upon seeing the dependent origination of dharmas come to see the actual reality of interdependence. To this we reply that the real essence of this is not something we can access as long as our mind’s eye is completely veiled by the thick cataracts of ignorance. But it is accessible to the bodhisattvas dwelling on the higher levels, the sixth and so forth, and therefore should not be inquired of us, but rather addressed to the stainless bodhisattvas and illustrious buddhas whose eyes are free from the blurring cataracts of ignorance, as they have applied the ointment that overcomes the blurring cataracts of ignorance and allows one to see emptiness unmistakably.

One may then ask: ‘Are not statements of how bodhisattvas, practicing the perfection of great intelligence, and thus seeing the reality of interdependent origination, recounted in such sutras as the noble Perfection of Intelligence (prajñāpāramitā) and the noble Ten Grounds (daśabhūmika)? Would it not then suffice to explain by quoting from such scriptures?’

This will also not do, because it is hard to ascertain their intent. One such as myself is not able to teach the actual reality from scriptures, or based on my own independent judgement explain what is stated there. But, by utilising treatises written by trustworthy individuals containing their infallible explanations, the intent of the scriptures may be ascertained:

As he was one who reached the deepest dharmic truths
Relying on the scriptures and through reasoning,
By following the system of Nāgārjuna,
As found within his works, I shall proceed to speak. (6.3)

Just like a bodhisattva practicing the perfection of great intelligence sees the nature of dharmas just as it is, the noble Nāgārjuna had an unmistaken understanding of the scriptures, and through the reasoning and scriptural citations in his Middle Way Treatise he explained in lucid detail how all dharmas are in actuality without any intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva). Thus, just as the noble Nāgārjuna explained the actual reality of all dharmas using reasoning and scripture, what I shall now say will be in accord with his manner of instruction.

‘But how,’ some might say, ‘can we be sure that Nāgārjuna unmistakenly ascertained the scriptures?’ This can be gathered from the scriptures. As stated in the noble Descent Onto Langka:

In the south, in the land of Veta,
A mendicant renowned as Śrīmat,
Referred to by the name ‘Nāga’,
Crushing the views of existence and non-existence,

Will teach my vehicle in the world,
The unsurpassed Greater Vehicle,
And accomplishing the Joyous Ground,
He will venture to Sukhavatī.²

And from the noble Great Cloud Twelve Thousand Lines:

Ānanda. Four hundred years after I have passed into transcendence, this young Licchavi named Sarvasattva Priyadarśana³ will become a bhikṣu named Nāga and spread my teachings widely; and eventually, in the world realm called Pure Illumination (prasādābhā), he will become a tathāgata, arhat, true and complete buddha by the name Jñānākaraprabhā.⁴

Hence, he unmistakenly ascertained the scriptures.

The treatises which contain the complete teachings of interdependent origination exactly as it is, should only be taught to those who have the seed of emptiness within their being from prior acquaintance, not to others. This is because when they hear about emptiness, some may develop mistaken ideas which can lead to very unfortunate results. They may give rise to the perverted conviction that emptiness means ‘non-existence’, and end up entertaining and perpetuating mistaken views of denying all entities. The teacher must therefore determine whether they have a good motivation before explaining the view of emptiness to the student.

It is difficult to determine, so how can one be certain that they are a suitable recipient for the teachings on emptiness and should be taught emptiness? One can reach certainty through external indications, and to describe what these signs are it was said:

Some common people, when they hear of emptiness,
Will find that great delight comes surging from within,
A joy so fervent, filling up their eyes with tears,
And causing every single hair to stand on end. (6.4)

Such ones possess the seed of the awakened mind,
Are vessels for the teachings on reality.
They should …

as they are qualified to receive teachings,

… receive instructions on the ultimate truth,

If one teaches these kinds of students the actual reality, one’s efforts will not be fruitless. Why is that? Since,

As they will see related qualities emerge. (6.5)

Not only will these students not give rise to any negative perverted ideas about emptiness, they will also gain the qualities that come from learning the view of emptiness. How so? They will relate to learning about the view of emptiness like finding a treasure, and in order that it may not be lost:

A person who will always live by discipline,
Who gives in generosity and cultivates
Compassion, trains in tolerance, and dedicates
His virtue to awakening for beings’ sake; (6.6)

Who for the bodhisattvas shows sincere respect,

They understand that, ‘If I transgress the moral discipline I will fall into lower realms and the view of emptiness will be interrupted,’ and thus will continuously and correctly uphold moral discipline. With the thought, ‘Even though I will be born in the higher realms through keeping moral discipline, if I am poor I will have to work very hard to get the basic necessities such as food, medicine and dharma robes, and the view of emptiness will be interrupted,’ they give generously. Thinking, ‘It is when the view of emptiness is encompassed by compassion that it will lead to buddhahood, and not otherwise,’ they cultivate compassion. With the thought, ‘Anger leads to the lower states and gives one a poor complexion, which will displease the noble ones,’ they train in tolerance. Since there will not be an immeasurable and uninterrupted causal and resultant link for the attainment of buddhahood if the practices of moral discipline and so forth have not been dedicated towards the state of omniscience, they dedicate these roots of virtue to awakening for the sake of liberating beings. And thinking, ‘Apart from bodhisattvas nobody else is able to genuinely teach the nature of interdependent origination,’ they have respect for the perfect bodhisattvas.

In this way they will without doubt accumulate an uninterrupted store of virtue for a long time, and then:

And is insightful in the ways profound and vast;
In due course such a person gains the Joyous ground.
If this is your objective, hearken to this path. (6.7)

The last line is saying that, ‘If the Joyous ground is your objective, then ….’ This indicates what is about to be explained.

A quote from the scriptures will serve to illustrate the genuine state of all dharmas. The noble Ten Grounds states:

O victor heirs. The bodhisattvas who have fully completed the path on the fifth bodhisattva ground, enter the sixth bodhisattva ground engaging with the ten equalities of dharmas. Which ten? They are all dharmas’ equality as featureless; all dharmas’ equality as without characteristics; and in the same way their equality in being without arising, unproduced, detached, pure from the outset, unelaborate, without adoption and without rejection; all dharmas’ equality in being like illusions, dreams, optical distortions, echoes, a moon in the water, reflections and apparitions; and all dharmas’ equality in the non-duality of things and non-things. When they realise the nature of all dharmas to be in this way, through their acumen and resultant tolerance they attain the sixth bodhisattva ground, Presence.⁵

Thus, here only the reasoning of the equality of dharmas in being without production⁶ is explained. The intention being that, by virtue of that, the other types of equality will be easily understood. As master Nāgārjuna sets forth in the beginning of the Middle Way Treatise:

Not from self, not from other,
Not from both, nor without a cause
Are entities ever produced
At any point as anything.⁷

Ever (jātu) means at any time. The term at any point (kecana) is a locative relative pronoun (‘support’-word) and synonym for somewhere (kvacid), and can indicate location, time, or tenet-system. The word anything is a relative pronoun (‘supported’-word) expressing outer or inner entities. Thus, one could here elaborate the sentence and say, ‘Outer and inner entities are not produced from self with respect to any place, time or tenet-system.’ Here, when it says not (na), this relates to production from self as an argument for existence, and not to being existent, since the refutation of that is implicit. This should likewise be applied to the other three assertions.

Having thus reiterated this fourfold thesis, in order to prove it through reasoning, it was stated:

It can’t come from itself, and how from other things?
Can’t come from both, how could it be without a cause?

The sense of the statement, ‘Not produced from self …’ is as is stated here: ‘It can’t come from self ….’ The remaining statements should be similarly linked.

How can we be certain of this? As:

If it came from itself there would be nothing gained.
What is produced, produced once more – that makes no sense. (6.8)

It refers to the production, the actor in the act of production, meaning the sprout. From itself means that the production comes from its very own self-identity. Thus, the assertion here is that the sprout’s own identity cannot produce that very sprout’s identity. Why? If that very identity already gained was to come from the same existing identity of that itself, there would be no additional quality achieved at all, since it was existent already.⁸

To explain how the position of self-production conflicts with reason, it was said, ‘What is produced, produced once more – that makes no sense.’

Immediately following this assertion, logical reasoning is supplied:

To think that what’s produced is then produced again
Would mean that sprouts and such could never be procured.

If one claims that seeds already produced are reproduced, does that imply that its production must stop for the sprout to be produced? What is there to prevent it being produced yet again? The consequence would be that sprouts, stalks, buds and so on would never be produced. Furthermore,

The seed would be produced until the end of time –

… for the very reason already given. If one then thinks, ‘When the conducive conditions such as water, time and so on, are present for the production of a sprout, the seed will transform and the sprout be produced; and since the presence of that agent, the sprout, opposes it, the seed will then be destroyed. Therefore, the mentioned faults do not apply here. And since the seed and the sprout are not really different, it is not the case that it is not produced from self.’ This is untenable, because

How could what will destroy it ever come to be? (6.9)

Since seed and sprout are not really different, it is illogical that the sprout could destroy it – they are thought to be ‘alike in own identity’.

Furthermore,

A sprout distinct in shape, hue, taste, strength, ripening,
And different from its cause, could not exist for you.

Shape refers to being long, round and so on; colour to yellow and so on; taste to sweetness and so on; and potential refers to special powers or particular abilities, such as being a remedy for haemorrhoids which makes haemorrhoids disappear when applied to the body, or the oṣadhi-herb which enables one to travel in the sky by merely holding it. Maturation refers to a substance’s special feature acquired as it transforms, such as the pepper-plant (pippalī) becoming sweet. If the seed and the sprout are indeed indistinct, that which is the identity of seed should likewise be observed without difference as the shape and so forth of the sprout. Since this is not observed, just as seeds from for example garlic, are different from sprouts of for example plantain trees, it is untenable that they are not different.

One may think that, ‘Since it abandons the seed-phase and attains another phase, the seed can turn into a sprout.’ In that case:

Its former likeness left behind as it adopts
Another form, what’s left of its identity? (6.10)

Its entity means the thing itself and not something other. But since with this way of thinking the non-otherness of the sprout would be an impossibility, its non-otherness is impaired. They may think that, ‘Although the shape and so forth of the seed and sprout are different, the substance is the same.’ But that cannot be so. If one does not perceive their shape and so forth, one cannot perceive their substance.