Those who believe that mind originates from the elements¹ think, ‘Causes are evident and cannot be denied, because we do see them, and because of the faults you have mentioned. The causal relationships between things is a fact commonly accepted in the world. There are only four things that are real: earth, water, fire and wind, and these form the basis for the endless variety within the world. Not only is it the case that a particular synthesis of these leads to the varieties of lotus, pomegranate and so forth, and species such as peacock and crane, that we can observe; sentience and the ability to distinguish between the various types of things also originate with them. Just as when particular elements combine and develop, producing the intoxicating capacity of alcohol that causes beings to experience intoxication and stupefaction, so it is that certain combinations of the major elements developing from the embryonic stage oblong (kalana) give rise to consciousness and eventually the ability to distinguish between all manner of things. All the things that make up the environment and the living beings therefore develop from within this world, and there is nothing that is now the outcome of karmic acts, nor will the actions of this life have an effect in future lives after one dies.’

My dear, let us enjoy ourselves and eat.
What is past will not haunt you, my beauty.
This body is but a gathering of things,
O timid girl, what is gone will not return.²

Desiring to have sex with his daughter he spoke thus to convince her that there are no future lives.

To address this: How can you be so certain that there are no other lives? If they say, ‘Because they can’t be directly perceived,’ is the fact that you don’t have direct perception of other lives something you directly perceive, or not? ‘I directly perceive it.’ Well, if you directly perceive that there is no direct perception of other lives, that would mean that non-existent things can also be directly perceived. And then, non-existent things would be existent for you because they are directly perceived in exactly the same way as existent things. In that case there would be nothing that could be labeled non-existent. And without their opposite, existent things likewise cannot exist. And when there are neither existent things nor non-existent things, that undermines the existence of elements and non-existence of future lives.

If they say, ‘It is not directly perceived;’ something that is not directly perceived cannot be apprehended precisely because it is not directly perceived. And how could failing to apprehend be a valid way to infer the non-existence of future lives?

They then suggest, ‘It is apprehended through inference.’ But in regard to using inference as a valid way of proving things, you have made the claim:

There is nothing more to man
Than what our senses reveal.
What the learned say, dear girl,
Is nothing but a wolf’s trail.³

Therefore, if you keep on denying everything, I can use the same approach used when rejecting that mind comes from the elements to entirely reject this too.

Furthermore, someone with a visual impairment who thinks that there are such things as two moons when in fact there are not, will also mistakenly see other things that aren’t really there, such as hair strands, bees and so forth. Similarly, when thinking that future lives and the like do not exist, because you have a perverted understanding, you will likewise be mistaken about other things that you see. To express this it was said:

If it’s the nature of the elements that make
Your mental image though its nature it does lack,
How could someone so densely dimmed towards this life
Be trusted to have knowledge of the lives beyond? (6.101)

How can these four that you talk of, that are of the nature of earth and so forth, become objects of your mind without sharing its nature? Having such a flawed way of seeing this world, how could you possibly have any understanding of that which is beyond this world, a sphere of knowledge requiring exceptionally subtle divine vision?

Furthermore,

When you deny that there are lives beyond this one,
Your view of how things are is flawed since such views have
This bodily existence as their common ground,
Like when you make the claim that elements are real. (6.102)

Common (sama) means that there is a similarity of kind. Ground (āśraya) means that it underlies it.⁴ Body (mūrti) refers to corporeality. Such views implies this particular view that rejects past and future lives. Since it describes it as being a common ground, this is a specifying compound. Bodily existence is the common ground, and the phrase is thus combined as such views have this bodily existence as their common ground. A matup-affix is used to give the sense of in whom it is.⁵ That then becomes, since such views have this bodily existence as their common ground, supplying the reason.⁶

Concerning this ground, as long as the mind is thought to be generated from the elements and no room is left for the possibility of past and future lives, there is a common ground for this mistaken view of denying past and future lives and when thinking that the elements are really existent, and the common ground for these types of views of the materialist is this bodily existence. There are thus two contexts here: one being their understanding of the natural elements, and the other their denial of past and future lives. Here in the verse, one of these indicates their stance and the other serves as an example, when it says, like when you make the claim that elements are real; in that context as well, it is physical reality which is the common ground for their view, and this view of how knowable things are is flawed.

They might think, ‘There is nothing wrong in the way I see things when understanding the natural existence of the elements; so the example that you use in your proof is void.’

That is not so, since the fact that they are unproduced shows that it is a mistaken view to think that these elements, being in nature non-existent, can have any sense of production or existence. If they say that we would need to prove that the elements are in fact unproduced, we don’t, because it has already been proven. To express this:

It has been shown how elements cannot exist,
As it was generally disproved things can’t arise
From self, other, both, or without a cause; and so
Though not explicit, they have no reality. (6.103)

It has been commonly refuted that existent things can be produced from self, other, both or causelessly, and since this general refutation showing that there is no production also applies to production with respect to the elements, they have no inherent existence and the example is therefore valid. This likewise applies to those who variously refute the Omniscient One, who propound that entities exist, who propound that entities do not exist, who propound an almighty god, time, particles, primordial nature or inherence, or anyone else. One may in these cases adapt the verse accordingly, for example:

When you deny that the Perfect Buddha exists,
Your view of how things are is flawed since such views have
This bodily existence as their common ground,
Like when you make the claim that elements are real.⁷

This will serve to refute all views that hold on to any form of existence or non-existence. Nothing unwanted can ever befall us, so by skilfully altering this verse we are certain to eliminate each and every position our opponents may formulate, thus halting the entire web of conception and making the ultimate wisdom manifest.

They might then think, ‘You are equally affected by this consequence.’ But we are not, because there is no example that shows our proof to be mistaken. We may say:

When I acknowledge there are lives beyond this one,
My view of how this are is accurate since such views have
This bodily existence as a common ground,
Like when I claim the understanding of selflessness.

Likewise,

When I say that the Omniscient One exists at present,
My view of how things are is accurate since such views have…,

The reason and example are the same two; and this may likewise be applied in connection with all things. With this approach, whatever the thesis may be it remains valid that:

It can’t come from itself, and how from other things?
Can’t come from both, how could it be without a cause?⁸

One may ask, ‘If things are neither produced from self, other, both, nor causelessly, how are they then produced?’

To explain: If things had any sort of inherent existence, no other type of arising could be conceived of, and one would undoubtedly have to observe that they arose either from self, other, both, or causelessly. Some might propose that things are produced from a creator god or the like, but in those cases too, such things as a creator god would be a self, an other, or both; so those propounding such things as a god to be the cause, will not therefore avoid the problems already presented. Hence, no fifth cause of production can be imagined. To express how, in the absence of any other alternative, and since production by any of these four conceivable options has been refuted, there is no inherent production of things, it was said:

Because things don’t arise from self, other or both,
Nor causelessly, they’re nothing in and of themselves.

One might then ask, ‘If things are indeed without inherent arising, how do we then apprehend the unarisen, such as the colour blue?’

To explain: Since there is no way that a true nature of blueness and so forth could be objectified, the nature of things such as blue is not apprehended.

‘If that is the case, what are these things which keep appearing as actual objects to our perception?’

To explain: the mistaken is not the actual nature – true identities are only perceived by the ignorant and not by those free from ignorance. To express this:

The clouds of dense confusion lie across the world,
And therefore objects are perceived mistakenly. (6.104)

By clouds amassing rain-clouds are meant. Since thick ignorance, similar to a layer of clouds, blocks the perception of the nature of blueness and so forth, immature beings cannot perceive the true nature of blue. They make the mistake of thinking that it has essential nature, and with this belief the immature perceive it to be real.

They interject: ‘With the actual reality not being in any way seen since it is blocked by ignorance, how does this mistaken perception then come about?’

To show by means of external examples how things are experienced as real in this way despite this not actually being the case, it was said:

An eye disease may cause mistaken visions like
Hairs, double moons, the peacock eyes, bees and so forth.

Just as in instances when things are taken to be real when in fact not really there, such as when cataracts lead the afflicted to perceive hairs and so forth…,

The unwise, tricked by their confusion, will likewise
Believe the sundry fashioned imagery they see. (6.105)

The Illustrious One has stated that:

Confusion leads to formations.⁹

That:

A person affected by ignorance generates meritorious formations, non-meritorious formations and unwavering formations.¹⁰

And likewise that:

When ignorance is halted formations cease.¹¹

Accordingly,

It is a sign of witlessness if one declares,
‘Confusion causes karma; does not come without.’
Just like the sun of wisdom sheds the nightly gloom,
The wise unravel emptiness and are set free. (6.106)

When seeing the statement, ‘Confusion leads to formations,’¹² the judicious not only come to appreciate that formations lack inherent existence. Due to their understanding they also rid themselves of ignorance and stop perpetuating conditioned phenomena, having abandoned the causes for their perpetuation. Thus they are freed from cyclic existence.

They now object, ‘If form and so forth ultimately have no inherent nature whatsoever, then they are just like the son of a barren woman in having no ultimate existence, which means that relatively too they wouldn’t have any inherent nature. But form and so forth do have a relative nature. Therefore, seeing as they have such an existence, they must then have ultimate existence.’

‘If in reality things don’t in fact exist,
They’re like a barren woman’s son and should like him
Have no existence also as conventional things.
They must therefore exist as things inherently.’ (6.107)

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.’¹³ 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.¹⁴

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.

So stop censuring the cataract-ridden! First of all take a closer look at yourself. To explain:

In fact you too see things that are not really there,
The city of gandharvas, images in dreams,
Illusions, a mirage, reflections and so forth.
So, is it not unsound how these appear to you? (6.109)

To take dream perceptions as an example, they are just as non-existent as the son of a barren woman. Still, one can experience a dream but not the son of a barren woman. It is the same with the city of gandharvas.¹⁵ A mirage refers to the phenomena of water appearing in a mirage. The same is the case for illusions. When saying reflections and so forth, the phrase and so forth is meant to include such things as echoes and apparitions. And although everything in these examples is empty of inherent existence, they can be seen; but the son of a barren woman cannot. So you should in fact be censuring yourself. And only after that should you come criticising me.

We may well then say:

Though actually these are as unborn as
The barren woman’s son, that does not mean
That these things are not seen within the world.
It’s therefore not conclusive what you say. (6.110)

As the Illustrious One has stated:

Beings are explained to be like dreams,
And not considered real in actual fact.
Nothing appearing in a dream is real,
But people misconstruing still believe.

The city of gandharvas may appear,
But there is no such city anywhere.
Just as its city status is but a name,
The Sugata sees beings in the same way.¹⁶

Though to the observer there is water,
No water can be found in a mirage.
Just so for those confused by their ideas
The unappealing is considered fair.¹⁷

O Druma, though it has no true nature,
Within a spotless mirror
Reflections may still appear –
You should understand phenomena thus.¹⁸

So as this scriptural quote makes clear, even though a true nature has not arisen, material forms and so forth are perceptible objects to worldly people, while the son of a barren woman is not, and your argument is therefore inconclusive.