Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 48-minute session, Kyabje Rinpoche works through Śāntideva’s refutation of four mistaken theories about how things arise. Production without cause is refuted by differences in human appearance. Production by Īśvara, a creator god, fails logically: if Īśvara is the elements, both sides agree; if permanent, it cannot produce anything; if divine, it cannot cause the suffering visible in the world. Self-production fails because if the product already existed in its cause, there would be no need for production. Production from both other and self collapses with the others. Throughout, Rinpoche emphasizes how negating these four extremes establishes emptiness of phenomena. He closes with a practical meditation formula: any phenomenon is not inherently existing because it is not produced from no cause, others, itself, or both.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-11-08 – 14B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: f3a3ae97-8d3e-4b7a-9035-95067e04ca97
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-11-08
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,079
# 9th Chapter B Deeds 14b 1994-11-08
**Collection:** Rinpoche Recordings — Bodhicaryāvatāra – 9th Chapter Wisdom (1994)
**Duration:** 48.5 minutes
**Words:** 3,082
**Model:** Deepgram Nova-3
**Corrections applied:** 0
**Transcribed:** 2026-02-27 23:56
—
Continuing from where we left off. The very fact that due to causes and conditions, the compounded thing or in other words, the products are produced is extremely a good thing. It is extremely appreciable thing because due to this very fact then the whole infallibility of karma becomes feasible, workable that there is this fact of cause effect linked with the product that it is then possible through wholesome actions one will receive happiness through unwholesome actions one would receive suffering, and similarly through wholesome actions one would receive or one would be born in happy rebirths, and through unwholesome actions one would be born in miserable and so forth. Because there is the dependence on causes and conditions from the part of the product that is the very reason why with each of us as humans we have different faces, have different eyes, different nose, different ears, different size of mouth, and the latter part then was the difference on our body, some have hair, and the difference on having mustache and beard and so forth. Now if the case is that there was no dependence on causes and conditions, then it would mean all people will look exactly same.
Well, in this way, then the wrong understanding that products are produced without cause is refuted. So that’s one assertion which was floated and refuted proven as wrong. Now the second is where in the classical time, there were groups of spiritual thinkers who followed the theory that everything is produced by the design and foreknowing of the creator called Īśvara that it is due to the Īśvara. Īśvara is the name of deity in those classical non-Buddhist belief that it is due to the previous thought of wanting to create and design by Īśvara that things come into beings. And this obviously was assertion followed by those following the deity or the god called Īśvara.
Production of things are explained to be produced by someone else who is called Īśvara. And then in response to their assertion, Śāntideva, the author of the present teaching asks who then is Īśvara? How do you describe Īśvara? And the followers of that theory replies back saying, Īśvara is in the nature of the four elements earth, water, fire, and air, and all other element products are produced by the elements which is the Īśvara. So in that way they explain the element products which are the environmental and residential universes being produced by elements.
In brief, then they end up saying Īśvara is the four elements. Now when that was explained by those followers of the theory, then in response, the author here tells them well if that’s the case then there’s no point of dispute between us because I also or we also accept the element products are produced by elements. It is just matter of the dispute of name being labeled on the elements that in your case you label the elements as being a deity or a god named Īśvara. So it’s just matter of whether giving that label or not. In actual fact that element products are produced by elements is something we as well would comfortably accept.
At this point, the other side grabs onto a little bit of a thing they can grab onto by saying, oh, it is different because Īśvara, the creator, is a permanent being. So it is not exactly mere elements, but an Īśvara who is a permanent being. Now this response by them is presented because they now at this point of the discussion and dispute, they feel that they are almost losing the ground. But against that response, the Buddhist side, the author says, well, if Īśvara is permanent being then that would mean nothing is created by that being because anything permanent doesn’t have potential to produce anything because nothing comes out from something that is permanent. And then the followers of the wrong assertion then say, well, there is still extra bit about this Īśvara agent because it’s not only permanent and element in nature.
It is a deity. It is a deity. And then the Buddhist side give the response saying, oh, well, then because if you attribute all things produced by this Īśvara and as well you describe this being as deity. Then in the universes, whether with elemental, whether with environmental universes or with the resident universes, there are happy side of them and there are miserable side of them. There are suffering and happiness both. In which case it would mean that Īśvara would be the creator as well of the sufferings and misery. And if that’s the case then that Īśvara cannot be a deity as a deity, an enlightened being source of happiness because the deity is as well the creator of suffering. But if you still insist to your theory of Īśvara being a deity, then we can just give a comment saying, it must be a very malicious and ill-intended deity.
At this point here in the instructions there are so many other details presented as regards how to disprove the assertion that Īśvara is the permanent deity and agent behind everything that is created, but we don’t need to go into all other pieces and bits and details as well. There isn’t enough time to go into all those details. In brief, then this part of the dispute, this part of the disputation says that things are not created by the forethinking design of deity or being called Īśvara who as well is attributed to be permanent. So that’s where in brief the part covers. So we then covered the first which is the production from no cause, second production from other cause which is Īśvara, and now we come to the third point which is production from itself. So that is the third point.
The theory which says products are produced by themselves in that way self-production. That theory says the nature of the cause and product are of same nature. They are of same entity. In other words, same substance, same entity. And they further explained that because being same entity during the time the cause was there earlier, the result, the product already was present in the cause. If the result or the product was not present in the cause during the time of the cause, then the product would not be produced. To negate that assertion one brings the reasoning that if the result, the product was already there during the time of the cause, there is no need for the birth of the product.
There is no need for the product to come into being because already when the product was supposed to be in the cause, the product already has existed, has become formed, has existed. So there is, and if something was existing then that would mean that it already was produced. It already came into being. And if that’s the case then there is no need for the obvious external production of the product from its cause. It would already have been produced because of being present in the cause. If the product was already existing during the time of the cause, then there is no need for the cause because by very nature, cause is something which assists the production of the product.
So the cause is one which assists the production of the product. But if the product was already produced during the time of the cause, then what was the need for the cause to be of assistance for the production of the product. This to bring illustration would mean for the sprout of a tree to germinate from the seed there would be no need because the plant in the form of sprout would already have germinated during the time of the seed being there in the first place if it was a case that the result was already present and existing during the time of the cause. Here presents very beautiful reasoning against that. The beautiful reasoning presented is, well, in that case, when you are eating the food, does it mean you are eating feces?
Because the product would be present during the cause, the food would turn to dung. So if one drinks tea, does that mean one is drinking dung? In the same line, other reasoning presented to the other side was if the product was already present during the time of the cause, then it would mean the cloth made out of cotton would have been already present there in the seed of the cotton. In which case, when you feel cold, you should be warmed by wearing the seed of the cotton on the body. In the same line of reasoning, other sharp illustration put forth was if you accept that there was product already during the time of the cause, then that would mean on a tip of one grass, there would be 100 elephants present.
The reason for that is if on the tip of a grass there is an insect lying there, then that insect probably would have come out to be reborn as an elephant 100 times. So the future product of rebirth as 100 times elephant already would have to be present there on the tip of the grass. So those, they must have been very thick. Firstly, there was disproving that products are not produced without cause. So there is no way, no cause would produce a product.
Secondly, the products are not produced by other cause such as Īśvara beings and so forth and thirdly the products are not produced by themselves being present during the time of the cause and now the fourth part is where the products are not produced neither by others nor by itself. And this part does not need extra detail because the very fact the second and third reasoning covers the production from other and itself is a clear indication that there cannot be production from both the other and from itself. In this way, totally one then has covered the misunderstood perspective about product being produced supposedly through those four ways. Phenomena under investigation is a sprout, then those who assert the sprout to be inherently existing substantiate their theory by saying that the sprout is inherently existing because it is produced by no cause. Others say the sprout is inherently existing because it is produced by other cause meaning Īśvara and others.
And yet others say sprout is inherently existing because it is produced by itself. And yet others say the sprout is produced or is inherently existing because it is produced both by other and itself. So those are the four flawed reasonings put forth by those who assert this sprout to be inherently existing. Opposed to them in the case of the great teachers who followed the highest Buddhist tenets, Śāntideva, Candrakīrti, Nāgārjuna, and others uniformly negate or disprove all those four ways. The result is that it is not inherently existing because it is not produced through any of the four extreme ways. That is how they then establish the non-true existence or lack of inherent existence of the sprout.
So if you would like to meditate on emptiness, it would be suggestible that you do think about this reasoning and apply it because it is extremely sharp reasoning through which one can establish non-true existence of phenomena by negating the four flawed supposed ways of its production and existence. Having written it down, the reasoning, that format, I think you did. If you meditate on this reasoning and then establish the selflessness of phenomena, it is extremely powerful reasoning that through it, powerful in the sense very effective. You can just about apply this reasoning not only with the sprout, but with any other phenomena.
Sprout is just a specific given example here. And when you put the reasoning, you can put in its spelled out way where it goes, the sprout is the investigative referent. It is not inherently existing because it is not produced neither from no cause nor from others nor from itself nor from other and itself both. So you can put that reasoning in that way. Or the simplified version is the sprout is the investigative reference.
It is not inherently existing because it is not produced through either of the four extreme ways or the four extremes. One can apply it to oneself by bringing the reasoning format in this way. My aggregates — let my aggregates be the investigative reference. They are not inherently existing because they are not produced neither from no cause nor from other nor from itself nor from other and itself both. In this way one can just about apply to any others.
For example, a table. In the case of a table, the table is the investigative reference. It is not inherently existing because it is not produced neither from no cause nor from others, nor from itself, nor from others and itself both. Similarly with the book, let the book be the investigative reference, it is not inherently existing because it is not produced neither from no cause nor from others nor from itself nor from others and itself both. So in this way one can just about apply it. It is an indicative way of applying specific to one but apply similarly to all other phenomena. One can apply to oneself as a person in that way related to the selflessness of a person by thinking in this way the very I, the identity, the person and take it into the format the person, the I is the investigative reference. It is not inherently existing because it is not produced through either of the four extreme ways and to spell out the four extreme ways as before from no cause, from others, from itself and from others and itself both. It can be extremely helpful for one’s meditation improving the understanding of selflessness or the emptiness about oneself as a person.
So you can really feel as if you have arrived at a major big airport. Yeah. Thank you very much. We’ll stop here now.
And if you have any questions, yeah, we’ll have some questions. The follower or followers of that theory, meaning one who believes that things are produced, created by Īśvara, they say that by the very thinking of Īśvara who thinks that such and such needs to be created and be produced, that by that very thinking in that way, things are produced or created to start. And then in the next part, the Buddhist asked to them who then is Īśvara? How do you describe it?
And in response, they say the Īśvara is the four elements. Then the Buddhist in response says well as far as that goes we can accept that four elements are the substantial material cause producing the element products, but we don’t call the elements by the name of Īśvara, so our difference is only in the matter of giving a label or not, but that things are produced by way of elements is acceptable. And then they describe the being as permanent, meaning Īśvara. And then the Buddhist response says that cannot be possible because if something is permanent, it has no potential to produce any result at all. And then they describe the Īśvara as a deity, an enlightened being and realized, then the response to that from Buddhist side is it cannot be a deity because there are so many miseries and suffering in the universes. Then it is a very malicious and ill-intended deity which is not an attribute to be found if someone is a deity.
So finally, they ended up not being able to identify even what they are saying. The one which has potential to produce product or result is called that phenomena is called impermanent phenomena and phenomena which does not have potential to produce anything or any result is called permanent. So by very nature it doesn’t have that capacity potential. Because it simply doesn’t have the potential to produce product. So your point was put in this way: if the Mind Only assertion is that from the same ripening of the same imprint, the form and consciousness perceiving form are of one substance, then don’t they have flaw of self-production? No.
The reason is because when Mind Only explains the form and the consciousness perceiving form come out from same imprint already the imprint has to precede. So there is a gap of a cause and the product. And they don’t, they would not say that the form and the consciousness perceiving form were already present in that imprint. So the imprint has to precede the two first. Oh, hold on.
Just a minute. And that’s okay. Oh, okay. Yeah. So the question is, why is there distance, the gap, you know what?
Well, say if a person with a good motive does a meaningful action such as giving to a needy, generosity to a needy, then it is a virtuous karma, a virtuous action. Now of course, the nature of karma or the action is impermanent so it is subject to momentary perish, momentary disintegration. The karma has ceased the next moment. Yet the potential of the karma to produce a result is an imprint. It is a potential potency.
So that potency is left on the mind, this kind of consciousness. So that potency is left on the consciousness. So the imprint left on the consciousness by the karma or the action will remain there continuously unless through meeting of the factors the karma ripens into consequences or result. Now as far as the manner of the imprint being left by karma on the consciousness goes, we can look at like a stamp of a