Entering the Middle Way, 4 July 1991, part 2

In asserting that in dependence upon a truly existent cause, a truly existent result which is other arises, then there is no way that you can assert a single continuum. If you say that a result arises from all causes, then all causes produce that result. On the other hand, if you say that a single cause produces a result, then that cause produces all results. You must abandon your assertion that from naturally existing causes, naturally existing results arise. Why?

Because there does not exist a naturally existent seed and sprout because if they did exist, they would have to exist simultaneously and they do not exist simultaneously. If they were to exist simultaneously, then there would be the fault as was previously mentioned that, for example, the agent, the action, and the object of the action would become one. But the the adversary goes on to assert that in fact the seed and the sprout do exist simultaneously. And they go on to, by way of analogy, to say that just in the way that the two pans of a balance exist simultaneously, that upon the two pans of a balance, a balance scale, that upon the lowering of one the other arises, upon the rising of one the other lowers. That these two exist in a way that these two exist simultaneously cause and result exist simultaneously.

But our own tradition would answer that it is correct to say that the two pans of a balance do exist simultaneously. But this is not similar to the case of the seed sprout. Your example of the though I agree that the two pans of a balance do exist simultaneously, I do not agree that the seed and the sprout exist simultaneously. And your analogy is not similar, it’s not a parallel example. Why?

Because Though the seed and the sprout do not exist simultaneously, the manifestation of the production of the sprout and the manifestation of the cessation of the seed exist simultaneously. The actualization of the cessation of the seed exists at the time of the seed. But the actualization of the production of the sprout does not exist at the time of the seed. I think I said they both exist before. So your example of the balance is neither similar, neither parallel to in general, to a seed in a sprout nor parallel to actualization of the cessation of the seed or the actualization of the production of the sprout.

So the the seed and the sprout do not exist simultaneously. How has this come about? In this present context, the seed is a cause whereas the sprout is a result. In And it’s necessary for us to understand well the mode in which, the mode of explaining what we mean by cause and what we mean by result. So The that which is produced.

It is the result of the action or production. The result arises in dependence upon the cause. That which is produced arises in dependence upon the producer. What do we mean that a cause produces a result? A cause produces result if, in dependence upon that factor, an entity which was not previously existent is newly established as a result result of that factor, then that factor is the cause of that result.

If in dependence upon that factor, an entity which was not previously existent is newly established in dependence upon that factor, then that factor is the cause of that result. If in dependence upon that factor, that which was not previously existent, is newly established, then upon the new establishment of that entity, then the action of the cause is exhausted. At the time of the exhaustion of the action of the cause, the cause becomes nonexistent. Until the exhaustion of the action of the cause, the result has not been produced. So the cause is the producer, and until the process, until the action of the cause has come to completion, the cause remains.

Upon completion of the action of the cause, then at that moment of the completion of the action of the cause, the cause becomes non existent. Therefore, the cause and result do not exist simultaneously. The result is produced. So we should try to understand what the meaning which is being which is intended here. The cause is the producer. It is the agent of the action of production.

That which is being produced is the result. So, you know, perhaps, you know, if you have some qualms about what has been said, we can clear those up. So, and if we, if we discuss this, then there will be, it will, some understanding will come, what was being said will remain in your mind, and hopefully some insights will be created. Yes. I use the word manifestation when the production is manifest.

The actualization of the production of the sprout and the cessation of the seed. Are you asking whether those two are simultaneous? No. They’re not same The actualization of the production of the sprout exists at the time of the sprout. The actualization of the cessation of the seed exists at the time of the seed.

Therefore they cannot exist simultaneously because the seed and the sprout do not exist simultaneously. Yeah. Is it yeah. Is it matter?

The So it’s not matter. So I’m in a mistranslation. It’s not matter. It’s non associated compositional factor. It’s not I didn’t understand it.

It’s a substance. I used the word substance and I just took that to be synonymous with matter, I was wrong in that. It’s a non associated compositional factor which cannot be seen. It’s not matter. It’s a non associated So, I mean, for example, we have the potency or the latency or the predisposition to take rebirth in a future life.

And this is a potency and it’s not matter. It cannot be seen. It is a karmic potency. Potency, predisposition, latency, impression.

So, with respect to things, or that is to say, functional phenomena, that which is able to perform a function, as a division of three: forms, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors, that is to say, functional phenomena which are neither, that is to say, non-associated compositional factors So, for example, being, or more simply the person, is not matter, is not consciousness, but is a non associated compositional factor. What we see when we say we see a person is actually the aggregate form of that person. We don’t see the person. So delusions don’t have any potency, but we have a potency so it’s real in that sense. We have a potency to achieve Buddhahood, but we can’t see that potency.

Ability or potency, capacity. There are many types of non associated compositional many examples of non associated compositional factors. For example, impermanence. We cannot see subtle impermanence. The type of impermanence that we see are coarse impermanence.

For example, people dying, plates breaking, houses falling down. These are coarse impermanence. Subtle impermanence we cannot see. It’s a non-associated compositional factor. There is no phenomenon which a Buddha does not see.

Sees it directly, direct perception. From Consequentialist Middle Way view. That’s contradiction because naturally existing sprouts don’t have causes. They just permanently naturally existing sprouts. So So they all are similar.

All the Tenet schools are in agreement upon what they mean by naturally existent, and that is the findability the designated object upon analysis. The findability rather than designated object upon analysis. So that’s what they’re the same and what they mean by natural existence. So the Autonomy Middle Way school says, Though the seed and the sprout are naturally existent, that doesn’t mean that the sprout does not rely upon the seed, and also doesn’t mean they are truly existent. And the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, the Mind-Only School say that the seeds and the sprouts, causes and results are naturally existent, they are also truly existent.

Just because something is truly existent doesn’t mean it doesn’t arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, and it doesn’t mean that everything arises from everything. So the proponents of the Consequentialist Middle Way school are greatest intelligence. They are those of the sharpest wit, are of most qualities, they are the finest proponents. Those of the lower are not quite up to that level. And for them to if you say that phenomena are empty of natural existence, they must be non existent and they have no way of positing an existence which is not naturally existent.

And the Buddha, for them, because they weren’t able to fathom this mode of positing phenomena which were not naturally existent as an expression of his skillful means said that things naturally exist. And he went on to teach them a less subtle type of emptiness. But he used this as a method to lead them to a more subtle type of emptiness. So the lower tenets were taught as a method whereby to be led into the higher tenets. So the lower tenets. Because things are merely imputed by conception, they cannot be naturally existent.