Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 102-minute session on the 9th chapter of Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Khensur Rinpoche opens with bodhicitta meditation, then turns to the core topic: meditation on emptiness through reasoning. The centerpiece is the Diamond Pieces reasoning, which refutes four false views about how products arise: without cause, from an external creator (Īśvara), from themselves, or from both. Using vivid examples—seeds sprouting into plants, cotton woven into cloth, a grass blade containing 100 elephants—Rinpoche dismantles each view to establish that phenomena lack inherent existence. He concludes with step-by-step instructions on applying this reasoning to any phenomenon: sprout, self, table, book. Extended Q&A addresses mind-only philosophy and karma. For serious practitioners already grounded in Buddhist thought.
—
Flags: `[]`
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-11-08 – 9th Chapter of Śāntideva's engaging into Bodhisattvas' conducts. 8 11 94 – KR.mp3
UUID: efa96351-448b-43d6-859a-c9e10bcc4625
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-11-08
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~6,277
Do brief few minutes meditation. A few minutes meditation on kind thought where we meditate on what is called the precious mind of enlightenment. Myself who do not want sufferings or problems, all other beings equally do not want sufferings. Now if that’s the case then from one side if one still continues to work only for one’s own success and happiness, then it is very self centered approach. And such approach would be called a self-cherishing motivated perspective.
Whoever with such self centered motive does anything will do actions which are not offering significant impact because the motive through which one does it is very small, low significant motive. Therefore, any reasons which are to come about from such actions equally will be small and of low impact. If one has very altruistic thought or wishing to benefit others, then out of such altruistic thought there will come about meaningful actions bringing enormous benefit and happiness to others. Such motive would be called broad motive and actions done through that would be called great actions. Therefore, we in our selection of the way to think and approach our activities meaningfully, we then need to be more concerned about others benefit and happiness.
And through such way of thinking, if we wish all beings to be free of sufferings and causes or the sources of suffering, that becomes meditation on compassion. And if we wish all beings to be with happiness and the sources of happiness, then becomes meditation on loving kindness. To remove other sufferings and to bring unchanging ultimate happiness to others, there is no other means except for from one side to be firstly oneself to get rid of all shortcomings of the mind and to attain all excellent qualities of the mind. In other words, to attain Buddhahood or enlightenment. If that is the case, then here in our meditation we need to make the determination that in order to help all beings, to bring them happiness, to remove their suffering, at any rate I must attain enlightenment.
If we are able to think in that mind then we are actually practicing and meditating on what is so greatly admired as the precious mind of enlightenment. To attain to attain enlightenment where there is ultimate happiness, one needs to train on the path. To be able to train on the path, one first needs to understand the path very well. And here the path is Mahāyāna or the great vehicle path towards achieving enlightenment. (delete stray fragment Ment.)
In our setting the right motive here at the beginning, we then think that we will take active interest in learning the aspects of the great vehicle path where particularly between the method and wisdom parts of the path, we will take interest in the present topic of the Tuesday evenings, which is the wisdom aspect of the path dealing with reality called emptiness. And that is the motive part before we start the evening session, this then will be followed by saying of certain prayers which concerns firstly going for refuge to the Three Jewels and then re affirming our determination to attain enlightenment to benefit others. Those parts will then be followed with the prayers where we mentally offer seven types of practices concerning purification and renewing ourselves with potentials of realization of the mind. So all those second part which is the which are the prayers to be chanted afterwards are what would become the preparatory part before going into the actual sessions of learning and taking interest in the topic. The actual part of the evening will be to discuss and analyze the reality emptiness nature of everything.
And then after the discourse at the end or we conclude in perfect fashion where whatever our merits we gain, we dedicate them in a format of in a format of prayer which goes with the tune Ye Dharma Hetu Prabhava, etc. Followed by another set of prayers reaffirming our dedication towards others where the lines go with Jang chub sem chog and so forth. Here at this point in the ninth chapter, the Śāntideva, the teacher says, even with manifest phenomena, only beings see that they do have causes. Now, this is the part where in the text about the wisdom, the phenomena being not truly existent or not existing inherently is being proven through applying reasonings. And this then is followed by actual instruction about how to meditate on emptiness itself.
The emptiness which is the ultimate nature how everything exist can be established through many different reasonings. Some with the detailed multiple reasonings and some in very brief for those who cannot apply many reasonings. But it would still be a point that if one can, it would be good to think about emptiness through as many reasonings as one can. Of course there are many different reasonings through which one can establish the reality. Yet all those many varieties of reasonings if we summarize.
They can be summarized into what is called the five major the five major reasonings. Yet even those five major reasonings can still be summarized further into three major reasonings, which are the reasonings presented currently in accordance presented currently in this present teachings by the author of the ninth chapter and we shall go through that. And then generally speaking as regards emptiness itself, emptiness itself can be classified into as many as 20 emptinesses, and further when they are summarized, they can be inclusive to 18, and they themselves into sixteen and four, and in essence all varieties emptiness can be included into two emptinesses called the two selflessnesses, the selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena. There is a famous line from the teachings where it goes, In order for the migrating beings to be liberated, there are two: selflessness is explained from the point of the two reference of emptiness. In accordance with such lines, we can say that although emptiness itself is of one nature, it is indivisible.
But with reference to what one establishes it, there can be two major types of emptinesses, which are the selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena. The realization of these two brings about to a person the escape or liberation from all sufferings and its cause. Why there is two types? Why there are two types of selflessness? The two types of emptiness?
Well, the reason is firstly, phenomena can be seen as being group able into two. First up is person, so called I I, the ego, the identity. So that is one and it is the person. And anything apart or anything other than person comes to be classified as phenomena. So basically speaking, all things can be grouped into these two, person and phenomena, the phenomena being anything other than person.
Now the two selflessness are means the person being devoid or emptiness or existing from its own characteristic is the selflessness of person. And then on the other hand, phenomena being devoid or being emptiness of existing by their own characteristic becomes the second type of selflessness or second type of emptiness, the selflessness of phenomena. Here in the presentations, there are three major reasonings to establish reality and these three reasonings can be applied to either of the two selflessnesses and can be applied to either of the two selflessnesses. Yet here specifically according to the flow of the text, these three reasonings are specifically applied in order to establish the selflessness of phenomena. The three major reasonings to establish selflessness of phenomena come about in this way.
Firstly, as regards the first type of reasonings to establish selflessness of phenomena, that reasoning come about because to start with anything that is functioning and therefore so called as functioning phenomena is necessarily a product, a result. If it is a result, then it is definite that it must have its cause and conditions, because it is due to the gathering of causes and conditions something is produced, product or result are produced by gathering of causes and conditions. So if we have as regards functioning phenomena that they are product, and then this first part of reasoning is the reasoning investigating how the investigating the manner, how functioning phenomena are produced by their causes and conditions. In that way, it is a reasoning establishing emptiness of functioning phenomena by looking at the manner of their production by causes and conditions. This reasoning is given the name Diamond Pieces reasoning analyzing the cause.
What it means is, by applying this reasoning, one firstly analyzes the cause, the producer of phenomena. The And in that way, through this reasoning, one comes to establish how the phenomena under investigation does not have true existence or it is devoid or emptiness of existence by its own characteristics. So in brief, the name of this reasoning is called the diamond pieces reasoning, analyze analyzing the cause. So . The word Dorje for diamond is in Tibetan and when given the original Sanskrit word for it, it is the Vajra.
In brief, if we are to give more relatable illustration of what Dorje or Vajra, a diamond in its classical usage means, firstly, in the practices in the advanced tantric path we use the Vajra and bell and Vajra is that thunderbolt representation, indestructibility thing. And if you look at it, it has in major in major system, it has four points, meaning four sides being on each side. So it symbolizes in respectable strength where each side or corner of the thing can be a means to overcome all adversaries. Like so that is the metaphor used here. Like that this reasoning establishing emptiness is a reasoning where each piece of the reasoning is so effective towards on disproving the inherent existence or the true existence of the phenomena and in that way bringing the assertion that the phenomena does not truly exist.
In the classical period, the non-Buddhist schools of thinkers come up with assertion about products in different ways. Some explained a product is produced without any cause or conditions producing it, so it just come out of blue. So in that way, they say a product is produced not produced without cause and condition. That is one assertion. And one other assertion is where a product is explained to be produced by a dissimilar cause, a cause or condition not corresponding to the product itself.
And third is where the assertion that is another assertion. And other assertion is where the product is explained to have been produced by itself. So it is called self production. And the other assertion is where the product is supposed to be produced by itself as well by others. So it is produced by oneself and others both.
So in this way, speaking, the major views, major misunderstood views regarding the manner of product produced come into those four types, produced without cause and conditions, produced by dissimilar cause, produced by self, produced by self and others. Now through the reasoning of Diamond Pieces, Diamond Pieces is one with just one same reasoning, one disproves all four major misunderstood standpoint in that way, like a vajra or diamond being the means to destroy all other opponents or the obstructions, this very reasoning is the way through which those major four major misunderstandings are disproved and through way of disproving those major misunderstanding the phenomena are explained to be not existing from their own characteristics. The first assert the first misunderstood assertion is where a functioning thing which is synonymous with product, a functioning thing or a product comes about without any cause and condition producing it. So that is one major assertion. And classically speaking, it was a assertion held by, at that time, a non-Buddhist thinker of school called rejecting the distant ones.
Also, that school of thinking which rejects the distant is called by such term because they don’t accept distant reality such as rebirth, past life and next rebirth. As well, they don’t accept the infallibility of cause and effect, and they don’t believe or accept the fact that the Three Jewels or the three most capable sources of our refuge are actual sources of refuge. So they don’t accept the these basic realities in fact. So in that way, we can say that they do deserve the name rejecting the distant ones. But not only that, the latter part was not only that they themselves, by holding such misunderstood view, they themselves have made themselves distant from attaining liberation.
This tenet rejecting the distant ones hold on to their viewpoint that product are not produced by causes and conditions. And the reason for that is they look at certain cases where it seems there perhaps wasn’t causes such as they say sunshine in the morning is a is a phenomena which has no cause. Water falling down in the case of waterfall, water falling downwards, down the slope has no cause. That very product resultant phenomena has no cause. And the very roundness of a pea, a bean, also has no cause.
And the extreme sharp pointedness of a thorn has no cause. So that’s where the latter part was, the very sharp pointedness of a thorn. Similarly, the different motley color of the feather of a peacock also peahen, yes, same don’t have any causes. So in that way, do by looking at these seemingly causeless what’s called design of some things or reason that phenomena which is which are products produced without any cause. But there are very background reason for thinking that products are not produced by causes is because they are under the assumption that if something is produced by cause, it has to have an agent of being such as human actually doing the craft part of the design and production of things.
And that’s their background. For example, they could very easily relate the desk as a product, cause thinking that there is a human hand designing and making it. Similarly, the house where there is obvious work by human agent through construction of scaffolding and other building works which goes on with that. Like that the book and similarly cup where there is obvious handwork and so forth being going on. Whereas in those seemingly without human agent, they’d seem to relate that there was no cause.
In that way, there is a flaw in the thinking because to start with we don’t have to accept a product to necessarily have been produced through effort by human agent behind, because there are so many whole whole the whole host of things which are product and which don’t have any human manual input into the being produced such as hills, mountains, the trees, ground, the earth, water, water meaning the rivers and so forth. They are all that list of things where they are products, but they not produced with human hands. But other things where apparently there there don’t seem to be any agent behind and therefore seemingly no cause are not like that. They equally do have their own causes and conditions producing them. Their own causes and condition producing them.
For example, in the case of a sharpness of the thorn, it is firstly produced with dependence on its stem, which itself comes out of its its seed and so forth. Similarly, with the bean, it comes out from its seed and then meeting with moist heat, manure and so forth for its germination. Likewise, with the peahens motley colored feather, the peacock itself had through karmic deeds received the feather color and so forth. So in that way, yeah, in their cases, they are undeniably produced by their own causes and conditions. And therefore, it is there is no ground with which one can still remain straight first to say things or products are not produced by their causes and conditions.
As far as that part goes, even the simpleton, even the simpleton only ones do easily accept that things, products are produced by causes and conditions. In the case of a simple village person doing its farm work knowing that causes produce products and products are produced by causes very actively engaged in the farm work, planting the seed and watering the field and manuring it and so forth with the belief and the understanding that the products are produced by causes. So this very point about how even simple worldly beings can relate to the fact that products are produced by cause, the author of the present teachings, Śāntideva, explains to the rejecting the distant tenet that your point have no validity? When a seed of grain is sown onto the field and when it’s watered and properly provided the manure and so forth, then the seed does germinate into a rich plant and later on even at the harvest time becomes a very rich crop. With each stalk of grain, we can see at the top a very big bunch where in one stalk of a crop there would be so many grains with it and then the as far as the shape shape of the grains go, at the top, they seem to be pointed, and around the middle, they seem to be bit bulging, and towards the end, again, they seem to be pointed down.
But that does not mean that there has to be a human agent or a person’s handiwork to go into and making each shape of the stalk of the grain. That part is not necessary because that itself was included in the seed feature of that crop that it’s through its own causes and condition the crop does take that shape or there is no need for any handiwork to do that. Candrakīrti, another great master, agrees with the point that there is need for cause and condition to produce the result or product. And he reasons that if the case is that the products are not produced by causes and condition, then it’s very easy life for farmers. All they need is they just sleep, and crop will just grow like that.
Now, there is a product without a product not produced by cause, then there is a danger of things to be happening or considered as happening randomly. In such case, it would be in such case, there would be danger of someone who has not stolen other’s thing would be branded as a thief. Similarly, someone who has not murdered other would be branded as a murderer. That would be the case. Due to causes and conditions, the compounded thing, or in other words, the products 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 rebirth 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 and the difference some are bald, some have hair, and the difference some have moustache and beard and so forth. And now if the case is that there was no dependence on causes and conditions, then it would mean all people will look exactly the same. Well, in this way then, the wrong understanding that products are produced without cause is refuted. So that’s one assertion which was flawed and refuted or 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 forward thinking 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 an assertion followed by those following the deity or the god called Īśvara. So it is assertion where basically the 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, asked them, who then is Ishwara? How do you describe Ishwara?
And the followers of that theory replies back saying, Ishwara is in the nature of the four elements: earth, water, fire, and air. And all other element products, 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 Ishwara 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 a matter of the dispute of name being labeled on the elements, then in your case you label the elements as being a deity or god named Ishwara. So it’s just a 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, other side sides grabs onto a little bit of a bit of a thing they can grab onto by saying, oh, it is a bit different because Īśvara, the creator, is a permanent being. So it is not exactly mere elements, but an Ishwara who is a permanent being.
Now this response by then 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 don’t have potential to produce anything because nothing comes out from something that is permanent. And then, the meaning the followers of the wrong assertion, then say, well, there are still extra bit about this Ishwara agent because it’s not only permanent 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 a 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 Ishwara would be the creator as well of the sufferings and misery. And if that’s the case, then that Ishwara 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 the Ishwara 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 forward thinking design of a 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 have 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, production says 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 of being same entity, during the time the cause was there earlier, the result already the result of 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, then 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 is supposed to be was supposed to be in the cause, 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 cause 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 assist 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 course, 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. Śāntideva here presents very beautiful reasoning against that.
The beautiful reasoning presented is, well, that case, when you are eating the food, does it mean you are eating feces? Because the product would be present during the course. Drinking tea, do you drink vomit?. So if one drinks tea, does that mean one is drinking vomit? 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 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 in which 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 Karma 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. So in this way, firstly, there was disproving that product 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 Ishwara 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 ex out others nor by itself, and this part does not need extra detail because the very fact the very fact the fact the second and third reasoning covers the production from other and itself or is a clear indication that there can be 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 presumably through those four ways. If the phenomena under investigation is a sprout, then those who assert the sprout to be inherently existing or 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 a sprout is produced or is inherently existing because it is produced both by other and itself. So those are the four flawed reasoning who through those who assert the sprout to be inherently existing. Opposed to them in the case of the great teachers who follow the highest Buddhist tenet, Śāntideva, Candrakīrti, Nāgārjuna and others uniformly negate or disprove all those four ways of proving this part as inherently existing by bringing by putting the reasoning in this way, this part is the investigated referent. It is not inherently existing because it is not produced through any of the four extreme ways. So that very fact, that very way of bringing the reasoning, the sprout is the investigated referent.
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 about this product. Also this is called the diamond pieces or Reasoning and for those of you who are interested seriously 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 supposed ways of its production and existence. Have you 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 it 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 referent 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, the aggregates, be the investigative referent.
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, the table, in this case, the table, the table with 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 it is that book be the investigative reference it is not inherently existing because it is not produced neither produced from no cause nor from others nor from itself nor from others and itself both. So in this way one can just about it is a indicative way of applying specific to one but applies similarly to all other phenomena. One can apply to oneself as a person in that way related to the selflessness of person by thinking in this way, the very I and I, the identity of the person, and take it into the format the person, the I, is.
The reference, in 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 no cause, from others, from itself and from others and itself both. And it can be extremely helpful for one’s meditation improving the improving the realization of selflessness or the emptiness about oneself as a person.. Yeah. So 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 those that theory meaning one who believes that things are produced or created by Ishwara, they say that by the very thinking by Ishwara who thinks or such and such needs to be created and be produced that by very thinking of Ishwar 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 Ishwara.
So our difference is only in the matter of giving a label Ishwara or not, but that things are produced by way of elements is acceptable. And then they described the being as permanent meaning Īśvara and then the Buddhist in response say that cannot be possible because if something is permanent, it has no potential to produce any result at all. And then they describe Īśvara as a deity, an enlightened being, and realize 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 or anything 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 as it is. That’s okay. Yes. Could could the mind only tenet be considered as having at least a tiny bit of the flaw of self production since an imprint produces both the form and the consciousness perceiving that form, and therefore both are of the same entity.
So your point was put in this way, if the mind only assertion is that from the same awakening of, or from the same imprint, the form and the 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 the same imprint, already the imprint has to precede the two 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. No.
Hold on just a minute and it’s okay. Okay. So the question is, why is there distance the gap in a way? Well, say if a person with 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 so described as 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 factor 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 as you look at like a stamp of approval or a seal of approval pressed onto a paper.