Part 3 - An example of how by analyzing the unestablished ground it is not realized

Therefore, like arguing whether an utpala lotus in the sky is blue or yellow, why argue about the nature without center or limit? To take one phenomenon as an example,

Just so, in the middle of space, some one might imagine
A pristine pleasure garden, adorned with flowers and fruits,
With flowing waterfalls, and then begin to argue
About its divisions, and classes that do and do not accord.

All the evaluations of each one’s doctrine are like having postulated a pleasure garden in the sky that fits with one’s ideas, and then getting into arguments about what its according and non-according classes are.

Having become arrogant about such generalities about knowables, in their individual speculations about things and non-things and so forth, people make up a heap of distinctions, about the ground, form, and so on. Since none of these external natures can really be established, their minds just evaluate things in terms of their own superimpositions.

Within groundless confused appearance, such doctrines, with their grounds of distinction, are nothing but obscuring false conceptions. Don’t do this. The commentary on the Sixty Stanzas on Reasoning says:

Not only are you bound by the beginningless, universal bondage of the kleshas, but now by bad doctrines you are adding even more bonds, like silk worms winding themselves up in their own spittle.

The nature like the sky should be realized to have an essence without divisions. The All-Creating King says:

All of the dharmas exist as examples of bodhicitta.
All are examples of that essence like the sky.
What is being described is the meaning of bodhicitta.