Entering the Middle Way, 11 July 1991, part 1

Begin by cultivating as our motivation, bodhicitta. I must for myself and the sake of all sentient beings, in order to free them from the suffering and the cause of their suffering, in order to bring them happiness and the causes of happiness, eliminate all my various faults, and bring the consummation of all my excellent qualities. That is to say I must attain Buddhahood. Having achieved Buddhahood, then I will seek to free all sentient beings from their suffering and place them in complete happiness. So for the next three minutes cultivate as one’s motivation the kind hearted attitude of bodhicitta which in order to achieve the above is going to listen, reflect and meditate on the essence of the great vehicle Dharma, the meaning of emptiness.

So we’ve been previously and we are now continuing the explanation of the reasoning of the four-pronged vajra in which the refutation of the four extremes production are set forth. The refutation of the extreme of production from self, from other, from both self and other, and causeless production. Now we’re in the process of explaining the refutation of the production from other. So the main means of proceeding and the refutation of production from other is by way of two consequences. So ancillary to these two main consequences, there are various subrefutations and reasonings.

Beginning, general all of the various systems accept that a result is produced by a cause. So, though we, it’s accepted that results are produced from causes, here what is being refuted is the production of a result which is naturally other than its cause. The production of a result which is naturally other than its cause. And if one were to assert the production of a result which is naturally other, or inherently other, than the cause, there would be four faults that would accrue. The first of these four faults is that if a, inherently, if a result was which was inherently other, then the cause were produced, then there would be no need for it to be produced.

There is no need for its production if it is inherently other. So there is the So this is examined through fourfold analysis in terms of the first one being that if there is no need for production of an inherently existent result from a cause. But if the inherently existent result is not produced and there is no nominally existent result produced. So there are four possibilities. There is the production of a naturally existent result from a cause.

There is the production of a non is the production of a combination of an inherently existent result and a nominally existent result from a cause, and there is the production of a, of neither of an inherently existing result and a nominally existing cause result from a cause. Four possibilities. With respect to the first, if result naturally existed, then there would be no need for the cause. There would be no need for its production because it existed naturally. So in the first case, if the result inherently existed or naturally existed, then it would be meaningless for its production because it already inherently exists.

That is to say, and it would not depend upon other than itself for its existence, so it would not need a cause for its production. So the first is that if the result inherently existed because it does not rely upon other than itself, it is not necessary for it to arise from a cause. Yes? The second is if the result is not nominally existent, if it’s not nominally existent, then it doesn’t exist and therefore it doesn’t need a cause for its production. If the result is not existent, then it doesn’t exist and therefore does not require a cause for its production.

Then the third is a combination of these preceding two. A result which is both, or a combination of, inherently existent and not nominally existent. A result which is a combination of being inherently existent and not nominally existent. But such a result would require no cause because there is nothing which is both, inherently existent and not nominally existent. Therefore, it has no cause.

A result which is a combination of being inherently existent and not, not, nominally existent would require no cause because there is nothing which is both. Something is inherently existent, then it must be not non-existent. And if something is non existent, it cannot be inherently existent. Therefore, there’s nothing which is both. And there is nothing which is free from being both a combination of these two.

That is to say, which is neither a which is not a combination of these two. There is nothing which is both which is free from being inherently existent and not nominally existent. There is nothing which is both existent and nonexistent. Therefore, that would require no cause. So, it is by means of this fourfold examination that we can establish that there is no production of a naturally existing result from a cause.

But the lower tenet systems are proponents of the lower tenet systems argue back that there is no need to prove production from others by means of reasoning since even the worldly can see it for themselves, that it is apparent and understandable even to the worldly that there’s no reason there’s no need to prove it through reasoning that there is production from others. So the lower tenet systems such as Autonomist Middle Way school, the mind only school, etcetera, are arguing back to the Consequentialist Middle Way school that there is no need to prove through reasoning the existence of production from other because even the worldly have a valid cognition with respect to production from other, and this valid cognition is reliable. So, Candrakīrti answers back. The lower tenet proponents are saying that it’s not necessary to establish through reasoning production from other, since even the worldly have a valid cognition which is reliable with respect to production from other. And Candrakīrti says back to them, he says, In answering, in arguing in the way you are, and I can see by your answer that you do not understand the presentation of the two truths, that is to say, the conventional truth and ultimate truth, and therefore it’s necessary for me to set forth the two truths for you to see the absurdity of the way you’re answering in your arguing in our debate.

So, Candrakīrti says, I can see by your answer that it’s necessary for me to explain, to present an explanation of the two truths. And once you have understood this explanation of the two truths, then you will not be answering in this way that you are. Otherwise there’s no benefit in our dispute. Nothing good will come of it. So rather than proceeding further in this meaningless debate, I am going to explain to you the presentation of two truths and therefore you will understand how the way you’re answering is not valid.

So, I will actually begin the explanation of the truths after the break when begin teachings again. So I thought today it would be beneficial if we reflected on the various reasonings in meditation as was previously explained in terms of the refutation of the four extremes of production by means of the Vajra, the four-pronged vajra, which is the way of establishing emptiness by means which is made use of by Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna. And then you can, during the break interval, then you can meditate well on what we have been discussing. So the way we should proceed in our meditation is to mainly making use of the following reasonings. First, we take as our subject the sprout.

I think perhaps we all know what a sprout is by now. That which arises from the seed, the seed’s entity is transformed into a sprout. We’ll take that as the subject. The sprout does not naturally exist. It does not inherently exist.

And the reason we use to prove this, why? Because it is not produced by way of either of the four extremes of production. Is not produced by either of the extremes of production, by either of the production. So, by making use of the reason that it’s not produced by either of the four alternative modes of production, because it’s not produced in either of these four alternative modes of production, then it must not be naturally or inherently existent. So, and why is it not produced by either of the four alternative the four alternative extremes by either of the four alternative modes of production.

Why is it not produced by either of the four alternative modes of production? Because it is not produced from self, it is not produced from others, is not produced from both, and it is not causelessly produced. So as has been explained previously with respect to the refutation of this first extreme mode of production, production from self. If the sprout were produced from itself, then the sprout would be produced at the time of the seed. The sprout would be produced at the time of the seed.

Therefore cause and result would exist simultaneously. The sprout and the seed would exist simultaneously. This is the first fault. The second is that The second fault is that with respect to production from itself is that the producer, the production, and the produced would become one. The third fault is that the cause would continue to remain even at the time of the result, that the cause would not cease to exist but would continue to remain even at the time of the result.

And with respect to the second alternative mode of production and its refutation, if if in refuting production from other, then thick darkness would arise from a blazing fire, or on the other hand, anything would arise. That is to say, anything would arise from anything. And with respect to the third alternative mode of production, that is to say, produced from both self and other, but if there is no production from self and there is no production from other, then there cannot be a production from a combination of both. Because each of them separately does not exist, the combination of them also does not exist. Then with respect to the fourth alternative, mode of production, that is the causeless production, if the sprout was causelessly produced, then it would always be produced.

It would always be undergoing production. Or on the other hand, it would never be produced. Sprouts are produced from time to time at various intervals. That is to say, when the various causes and conditions aggregate, in reliance upon those causes and conditions, that aggregation of those causes and conditions, the sprout arises. There is production of sprouts.

When those causes and conditions do not aggregate, there is no production of sprouts. It’s only upon the completion of the necessary causes and conditions that sprouts come into existence. But, such as in the spring when various causes and conditions are complete, sprouts arise. But if sprouts were causelessly produced, then they should either be always be produced, since they don’t rely upon any causes or conditions, or on the other hand, they should never be produced. Sprouts arise, are produced dependent upon causes and conditions, and sprouts disintegrate dependent upon causes and conditions.

Due to the presence of various causes and conditions and reliance upon those, sprouts are produced. Due to other types of causes and conditions, sprouts will disintegrate. That the production of a sprout and the cessation of the production of the sprout are in reliance upon causes and conditions. If the sprout did not rely upon these causes of sprouts, there would not be this transitory quality of at times sprouts are being produced, at the times they disintegrating or deteriorating, but they would always remain changeless. So this is the way we should proceed our meditation.

The subject being sprout, it is not inherently existent because it is not produced by either of the four alternative modes of production. So, we should make use of these various reasonings which we refute these four alternative modes of production serially. We should go through the reasoning which refutes production from the self, production from other, production from both, and causeless production until we come to a firm conclusion that in fact there is no production from either of the four alternative modes of production. And coming to as a consequence of having established for oneself that the sprout is not produced by way of any of the four alternative modes of production, one will come to understand that the sprout therefore is not inherently existent. Why is this necessary to follow in this way?

That if in fact the sprout were produced by in some of an either of these four alternative modes of production, then the sprout would have to be inherently existent. But we, through analysis, we come to understand that in fact it is not produced in either of the four alternative modes of production, therefore it must be not inherently existent. So the question may arise, well, if there is no production by means of these four alternative modes of production, then is there no production. But in fact there is production. There is production in reliance upon causes and conditions.

That is to say, there is dependent production. Since we do posit a production which is dependent upon cause and condition, then this would refute production which is independent of causes and conditions. That is to say, there could be no existent there is no production which is existent independently. So existence is not independent of causes and conditions and existing from its own existing from its own side is non inherent existence and is the establishment of emptiness. Establishment in dependence upon causes and conditions and establishment independent of causes and conditions are directly contradictory.

So probably we all have an understanding that