Although when analyzed by reasoning a sprout and so forth neither comes into existence from a seed which has ceased nor from one which has not ceased, [sprouts are produced in dependence upon seeds"] When to the wise there is nothing on earth which is not as amazing as magic, why should one think that cognition of objects by sense consciousnesses which not have true existence and suchlike are amazing, for this applies equally to everything Thus all dependently arising phenomena are like the ring formed by a firebrand which is whirled quickly Though the woman created through meditative stabilization and the dream body not have true existence, they act as causes for erroneous attachment to the self Although the illusory maiden conjured by a magician does not have true existence, she confuses the mind Similarly the moon in the water, mists and echoes resounding from mountain clefts and caves give rise to a distorted perception of them as they appear to be A mirage causes mistaken perception, and clouds in the distance seem like mountains Worldly existence consisting of environments and living beings, while empty of inherent existence, is able to function Understand that it is like these analogies Sutra says: The summarizing stanza: This is the thirteenth chapter of the Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds, showing how to meditate on the refutation of sense organs and objects This concludes the commentary on the thirteenth chapter, showing how to meditate on the refutation of sense organs and objects, from Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas" Chapter XIV Refuting Extreme Conceptions Question: If, like the ring formed by a firebrand and so forth, worldly existence, because of being a dependent arising, does not exist inherently, what has inherent existence? Answer: Not the slightest thing has inherent existence Anything existing by way of its own entity would not rely on anything else at all, but not the least thing is independent or exists without relying on something else If anything existed inherently, independence would be established as its nature when examined by the reasoning which investigates the ultimate, yet this does not exist anywhere A mode of existence of phenomena not merely posited by nominal convention is known as independent existence, existence by way of their entity, existence by way of their character, inherent existence and true existence This clearly indicates the object of negation through whose refutation there is no focus for conceptions of true existence Since Candrakirti's commentary repeatedly mentions qualifying the object of negation' when refuting fabrications of true existence, one should not deprecate the Madhyamika view If the composite known as "pot" exists by way of its own entity, are the visible form and the pot one or different? In the first case it follows that the form and the pot in the statement "The form is a pot" are not inherently one, otherwise there would be a pot wherever there was a visible form One might think that the pot which is something distinct from visible form possessed form the way Devadatta possesses a cow, as something separate However it follows that the pot which has form is not inherently separate from the form, otherwise it would be apprehensible independently of its form The pot does not have form as something apart which depends upon it, nor does the form have a pot dependent upon it, like a dish and its contents, because neither exists inherently Vaigesika assertion: Though the pot and its form are not different substantial entities, existence and the pot are The pot is a substantial entity and is said to exist through its connection with the great generality "existence," which is something separate from it Answer: Existence and the pot are seen to have the dissimilar characteristics of a generality and of a specific It is not feasible for the pot to be a substantial entity which is separate from existence, for if it were, why would existence not be a separate entity from the pot? It follows that it would be If this is accepted, the pot is non-existent Assertion: The substantial entity, the pot, exists because it acts as a basis for attributes, such as one and two, which are distinct from it Answer: "Attribute" and "substantial entity" are different words and have different meanings If the number one is not accepted as the pot, the pot is not one either because, like two and so forth, these are different words and have different meanings If this is accepted, the term and thought "one" not validly apply to the pot Assertion: The pot is one by virtue of possessing the attribute one, but one is not the pot Answer: Possession occurs between two similar things, as in the case of consciousness,' and not between dissimilar things Moreover there is no reciprocal possession between the pot and one, since the pot possesses one, but one does not possess the pot The pot is also not one because of being a separate entity from one Furthermore, your contention that attributes qualify substantial entities but that one attribute does not qualify another is contradictory If the size of the substantial entity, the pot, and the size of its visible form are the same, why is the attribute form not large just as the substantial entity is large? One must accept that the form has a separate-attribute "large." Objection: Small and large cannot qualify form, for according to our textual system, one attribute does not qualify another Answer: If your opponents were not from a school other than your own, you could cite your textual system to fault their argument, but it is inappropriate here, since we are engaged in rejecting these very tenets Assertion: Even if distinct attributes like separateness are refuted, the pot which they characterize is not refuted and thus exists by way of its own entity Answer: If one contends that existence and so forth have the characteristic of accompanying things while the pot has the opposite characteristic, then by virtue of this opposite characteristic the pot it characterizes does not exist anywhere by way of its own entity Such a thing, distinct from numbers like one, two and so forth, has no existence as a pot established by way of its own entity In brief, something characterized which is a different entity from its characteristics and characteristics which are different entities from that which they characterize cannot be found Sautrdntika assertion: The pot and its eight substantial particles are one truly existent entity .. .The summarizing stanza: This is the thirteenth chapter of the Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds, showing how to meditate on the refutation of sense organs and objects This concludes the commentary. .. commentary on the thirteenth chapter, showing how to meditate on the refutation of sense organs and objects, from Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds... thought "one" not validly apply to the pot Assertion: The pot is one by virtue of possessing the attribute one, but one is not the pot Answer: Possession occurs between two similar things, as in the