Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche works through non-Buddhist philosophical objections to the Buddhist emptiness doctrine in this 49-minute commentary on the 9th chapter of the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra. He systematically refutes arguments that the self must be permanent, showing how a permanent consciousness would constantly perceive the same object rather than varying its focus as ours does, and why an inanimate self could not function. He then addresses the karma continuity problem: how can karmic results ripen for a self that has ceased existing? He clarifies the solution through mind-stream continuity—an impermanent consciousness maintains an unbroken continuity much like a child’s mind persists into adulthood despite constant change. Throughout, Rinpoche emphasizes a crucial distinction: denying inherent existence is not the same as denying nominal existence. Includes substantive Q&A with students.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-21 – 6B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 6aac89b7-cc2e-4304-aebe-029c73eab9c8
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-06-21
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,148
# 9th Chapter B Deeds 6b 1994-06-21
**Collection:** Rinpoche Recordings — Bodhicaryāvatāra – 9th Chapter Wisdom (1994)
**Duration:** 48.6 minutes
**Words:** 3,144
**Model:** Deepgram Nova-3
**Corrections applied:** 0
**Transcribed:** 2026-02-28 00:08
—
Six sense objects such as if a consciousness is acting with its object and if the particular object is sound, then we can say at that moment the consciousness is the subject having sound as the object and it is perceiving the sound or it experiences the sound, it hears the sound. The contradiction in that would be according to that classical non-Buddhist they say it is consciousness but it is permanent. That would mean that the consciousness which at that moment is seeing or perceiving sound should all the time perceive sound because it is a permanent thing. There should not be any change with its activity at all according to what the non-Buddhists accept. But then we can obviously say things as it happens with consciousness and events in our own case that there are times our mind does not engage into sound, meaning there are times our mind is not listening to a sound. It engages in some other objects or avenues of activity.
So it is quite clear that mind listening to sound cannot remain permanently listening to the sound. In our case, when there is sound around, our consciousness or mind engages in listening or hearing of that sound. By the time when there is no sound around us, then our mind or consciousness does not hear or does not engage into hearing of sound. And the reason why that is so is because, like sound is an impermanent entity, our consciousness as well is an impermanent entity, and that’s why that happens. Whereas if, let’s say, according to what the classical non-Buddhists said, if our consciousness is a permanent thing, then that would mean our consciousness should all the time be hearing or engaging in hearing sound because it is supposed to be permanent, unchangeable, never to be altered or changed.
So even if there is no sound around, it would have to be accepted that mind still is supposedly engaging into hearing of sound by the same reason that it is permanent, that it should not have changed from its earlier instance of engaging in hearing sound. So that’s how it would be seen that there is that contradiction. In that case, it would become that there is a subject which has no object and that’s an enormous mistake to propose a theory like that where a subject is supposed to have no object. Because if it is a subject it must have an object as its avenue of activity or avenue of reference. Otherwise, it’s not possible. There are also so many other ways of saying how that theory would have so many inner contradictions and flaws.
But if we go into all of them, we might catch a headache. Then there were some classical non-Buddhist schools who, by seeing such obvious fallacies in accepting a permanent self which is consciousness, they opted to say it is not a consciousness but it is an inanimate, a matter, an inanimate thing. And that’s how others started saying. But if the self is non-consciousness, if it is inanimate matter, then there again would be fallacy. First, that it would mean such a self would not know anything because it is not consciousness, it’s not a mind.
For example, say with a flower. A flower is a matter, an inanimate thing, and it is obvious that flower does not know anything else, does not know anything at all because it is not a mind, it’s not a consciousness. It is then put forth to the classical non-Buddhists that there is fallacy as well in saying the option that the self is inanimate. Disputed that there cannot be a self or a basis of person existing in those fashions to the non-Buddhists, then they misunderstand the response by thinking that the Buddhists are denying there is a self even at the functioning level. Accordingly, the non-Buddhists then thought that Buddhists are saying there is no self at all. And based on that assumption, they put forth to Buddhists the argument.
Well, then wouldn’t you say that there is a self which creates karma or which engages into actions, and therefore, there is also a self or a person or entity as an ego or self which also receives the consequences and the results of its previous actions? So wouldn’t you Buddhists say, don’t you accept that there should be a self which is the doer of karma and recipient of karmic results? They put forth the argument also to the Buddhists that if the self is not an ever-flowing permanent entity, then there also would be a mistake that it cannot be the same responsible entity which previously created the karma, the action, and which later on is to receive the karmic consequences or result. To put into instances or cases, it would be like because the self which was there at the time of creating the karma, which was there, has ceased to be existing later on at the time the result of that karma is ripening. Because according to you, the Buddhists, that self is not a permanent thing, so it should have stopped or ceased existing at the time when it engaged into action.
It should not anymore be existing at the time the result is being received. Therefore, can it be the responsible entity which is explained as the recipient of one’s karmic result? That would not be possible. The background reason why the non-Buddhists put forth the argument to Buddhists that it must be the same recipient self which created the karma if there is no permanent self is that the background idea is that, for example, if it is a permanent self or basis of person, then it would mean that because it is permanent, at the time it engaged in an activity, therefore through the time it created karma, it would also be present later on when the result of that action or karma ripens. And it would, to say it is the same entity which was responsible for creating the karma and later on to receive the result.
Otherwise, if it is not a permanent self, then it would mean that at the time the self engaged into action and the time the action was done, that self has stopped to exist. It has ceased. And at the time when the result of the karma is being received, it is another self. And in which case it would mean that a self is receiving a karmic result of which it is not responsible for, as the two selves would have been separate. So from that point we can say, yes, they do have a point, apparently a point, to say that they cannot see why that self or the basis of person should not be a permanent entity.
In response to that argument, the Buddhists say, yes, although the two selves are separate, the self which created the karma and the self which is the recipient of the karmic result, although these two are separate, yet the latter or the second self at the time of receiving the karmic result is a continuity of the previous self which was during the time of creating the karma. Now because there is a continuity between the two selves, and by the very link in the fashion of continuity, there is nothing wrong in saying that the second self should be responsible for receiving the karmic result for what it has created in the first place. So as a response, it is said because there is the continuity between the previous and the second self, there is nothing wrong, and it would not be a mistake. Because of that, it would not have a fallacy that the karmic results are received by the wrong recipient, and the doer of the karmic causes is the wrong entity.
There is no such fallacy. If it is a case where one person created a karma and another person receives the karmic result of that karma, then it would be a fallacy where karma goes to the wrong person. Also it would be a fallacy of implying that when one creates a karma, it may not have any results at all because one does not receive result upon oneself. It is received by somebody else. And by the same reason there would be a fallacy that one receives karmic results which one has not contributed any causes at all. So it would be a fallacy of results being produced without any corresponding causes at all. And in that case, yes, there would be such a mistake, and it is in that case it is a mistake because the two entities are of separate continuum.
That’s the exact phrase used. The two entities, the two selves, two persons are of separate continuum. So a separate mind stream, and that’s the basis why that fallacy would have to be accepted as yes, valid. But that’s not the case here in the case of the same self of a same continuum person. And if we look at an example, it would be like a child, an adult. An adult previously during childhood time having put some effort either in education or in any other work, later on reaping the result either on physical growth or on mental acquisition of qualities of mind or so forth. That is possible because it is the same continuum. The basis of the two selves is linked by shared continuum, and that is possible. In the same example, if as a grown-up person one engages into certain activities, maybe the results may not be received so soon in this life, but definitely it would be received in next life or so forth on the basis of the mental continuum. And there it is never possible to have the karma created by oneself, the result would not be received by oneself. That’s never possible. One definitely would receive because of being of the same continuum. For example, even in our conventional way of doing things, in order to have less hardships and to have life going well during later period of our life, we work hard during early period of our life and make all the savings and so forth. Also similarly in the case of practitioners, in order to be having happiness in all future lifetimes, one puts effort in this lifetime.
That’s how things are done on the basis of understanding that one is the same person in continuity, that the result would be received by oneself. The non-Buddhists, by way of saying things are permanent with regards to self, are saying that results are already there during the time of the causes, whereas Buddhists say the results are not there during the time of the causes. And the latter part was the repeat of the first part where the non-Buddhists say results are already there during the time of the cause. If the results are there during the time of the cause or causes, then it should be seen as present by valid knowledge.
But it is never possible that a valid knowledge would ever find a result already during the time of the cause. And then the continuation from these arguments or the disputes go on to the next point where the non-Buddhists then say, if you seem to say there is no self truly existing, then wouldn’t it be impossible for one to be meditating on compassion at all? Consequently, wouldn’t it be not possible for one to become enlightened by accumulating merits through meditating on compassion and so forth? And the reason why the non-Buddhists put this argument forth is on the basis that if there is no self, then that would mean that there is no sentient being. And if there are no sentient beings, then there will be no object on which one can train in the meditation of compassion.
So that would mean it is not possible to have meditation on compassion at all, and consequently it is not possible to accumulate merit and become enlightened through those merits and so forth. But anyway, these are the points they seem to be putting forth in the next series of debates. But anyway, the main reason why in this part of the text in the ninth chapter the non-Buddhists bring all this argument was based on their assumption that Buddhists are talking about there is no self at all, even nominally, because all they have heard was Buddhists are saying that the self is not truly existing or self is not inherently existing. But that’s what their basis or assumption. But of course this is very clear that although anything, whether it is self or ego or whether it is any other thing, although it may not truly exist, although it may not inherently exist, but that does not mean it cannot exist. That does not mean to deny that it can still exist as a mere labeled entity, and that’s where the difference need to be cleared.
Yeah. So we’ll stop here for tonight, and any questions, we shall have some time for that. Well, with regards to the first part of the question, whether self is, why can self be mind stream? The classical non-Buddhists first say self is mind, in which case use the term mind stream would not be wrong to mean as a mind. The two can be seen as referring to the same thing. When they first explain the self to be mind, then the non-Buddhists put forth the argument how there is a fallacy in saying that self is permanent and as well it is a mind.
So they withdrew their assertion and started saying instead the self is an inanimate thing, the self is an inanimate thing. And again there are arguments put forth. So definitely it would be wrong to say the self is a mindstream because there will be all those fallacies put together that it is a permanent entity. Anyway, that’s one part. And then regarding isn’t mind stream a mind or whichever way? Well, they refer to the same entity. A mind stream or mental continuum is a generic term given to a whole duration of mind stretching from previous moment on to the second moment and third moment and so forth. And in that way, yes, it explains about the mind as an entity which continuously flows in continuity, in continuum. And how far that is true, we can relate. Here it is true that there is continuity to mind. We can remember things of just previous time, that there is a continuity. And as well, our mind of this morning has been continuously coming into this afternoon and this evening and so forth.
So it is a continuity. When we say that there’s a continuity of consciousness, what’s the reference of that label, continuity of consciousness? Mhmm. What’s being referred to? Mhmm.
Because you said you’re struggling. You said that you’re being. With regards to mental continuum, mind stream, in that sense, a label given on that flow of potential coming from previous moment of the mind to the next moment of the mind. And then, yeah, to say, like, what is the reference of that mental continuity? It will have to be just mind itself flowing in continuity.
It is called mental continuum. To the appearing consciousness of the child just born, there is appearing of things. The things do appear, but they may not be to its ascertaining consciousness, is another way of saying the mind which knows. The part, the aspect of mind which knows. Like say in the case of grown-up people, things appear to them, as well they ascertain, they understand the things. Whereas in the case of a child, things, it would have to be said that things appear to its mind, but it does not ascertain or identify the things.
For example, to put an example, yes, blue things may appear as whatever color blue, yellow, or so forth, but it would not be able to understand, know about what the things are. For example, yellow appears to it, blue appears to it, father appears to it, mother appears to it, sister appears to it. Likewise, things appear to it, but it does not, meaning the child, it does not identify that this is the father, this is the mother, and so forth. Valid knowledge can never see the result from the cause, none of the result being present in the cause? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Now there’s a difference. What they’re saying is, the non-Buddhists, they’re saying when there is a cause, already there is a result formed. The result has ripened, which means during the time of a seed there should be a ripe apple, but we cannot eat that.
Do you still want to say? Well, it’s not saying that things can’t be foretold ahead in the future from results and the causes. Yeah. I think it’s a different context. Future.
Mhmm. Like, with the cause itself, yes, we can say valid knowledge would not be able to know the result because with causes there has to be gathering of conditions, the assisting factors, because if cause is there but if the factors are not there, then result would not be produced. To put it into an example, let’s say even if in the field there is seed, but the factors, fertilizer, water, heat, so forth are absent, then the result would not be there, and the valid knowledge would not see the result coming from that cause at that time. If the seed also has the factors that it meets with right soil, fertilizer, heat, water, so forth, then the valid knowledge can later on, later on, not at that time, can later on see the result of the harvest and good crops coming out. I think it needs a clarification.
What they meant was the result already was produced during the time of the cause. That’s their meaning. So in that sense they use the term the result was there during the time of the cause. Not in the sense of potential but as a ripened entity. They do accept the presentation of results coming from a cause, and the cause is an entity, along with the person or self, the general chief.
The chief which is general. Anyway, it is.