The first [reason which is that these [Autonomists] assert that forms and so forth are established as they appear to children and above] is established because: (1) Shāntarakṣhita’s Autocommentary of the Ornament for the Middle says: We do not negate inherent natures—coming to mind within sole non-examination—that are experienced ranging from the states of childish beings through to omniscient pristine wisdom. (2) and Jñānagarbha’s (22ab) says: Differentiation of the Two Truths Make an explanation why From this cause that appears. and Jñānagarbha’s Autocommentary [on the of “Differentiation on that says: the Two Truths”] Well, if [things] are only not ultimately produced at all, then why from this cause and so forth, in answer to which his (22cd) Autocommentary says: A response to this is returned: This such appears from this cause. What [more] should be said! If as much as appears to you also appears to us, what is be asked about that! Even if asked, we would say just that. We would not say anything not experienced before. (3) and also Jñānagarbha’s (28) says: Differentiation of the Two Truths That which is an entity of appearance Is just not to be negated. It is not at all logically feasible To negate whatever is experienced. and Jñānagarbha’s Autocommentary [on the of “Differentiation
The first [reason which is that these [Autonomists] assert that forms and so forth are established as they appear to children and above] is established because: (1) Shāntarakṣhita’s Autocommentary of the Ornament for the Middle says: We do not negate inherent natures—coming to mind within sole non-examination—that are experienced ranging from the states of childish beings through to omniscient pristine wisdom. (2) and Jñānagarbha’s Differentiation of the Two Truths (22ab) says: Make an explanation why From this cause that appears. and Jñānagarbha’s Autocommentary [on the “Differentiation of the Two Truths”] on that says: Well, if [things] are only not ultimately produced at all, then why from this cause and so forth, in answer to which his Autocommentary (22cd) says: A response to this is returned: This such appears from this cause. What [more] should be said! If as much as appears to you also appears to us, what is be asked about that! Even if asked, we would say just that. We would not say anything not experienced before. (3) and also Jñānagarbha’s Differentiation of the Two Truths (28) says: That which is an entity of appearance Is just not to be negated. It is not at all logically feasible To negate whatever is experienced. and Jñānagarbha’s Autocommentary [on the “Differentiation of
opposite_of_emptiness_SEPT2014.docx