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.1
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.2
O Druma, though it has no true nature,
Within a spotless mirror
Reflections may still appear –
You should understand phenomena thus.3
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.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
