Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 41-minute session, Kyabje Rinpoche uses the simple example of planting seeds to refute a Buddhist philosophical position: that things arise from themselves. He demonstrates why asserting that a sprout already exists at the moment of the seed leads to logical contradictions—if something already exists, production becomes pointless; crops could never arise; production would be endless. Through careful reasoning, Rinpoche establishes that seeds and sprouts are not the same entity and do not coexist at the same moment. The final section addresses objections about potential versus actual substance within seeds, clarifying whether an embryo constitutes an actual sprout. For students of Buddhist philosophy and Middle Way logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1991-06-13 – 13B – KR.mp3
UUID: eff83a24-68f6-41f2-9eac-2872db5c12e8
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Entering the Middle Way
Date: 1991-06-13
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~1,742
Of course there is because by planting the seeds sprouts grow and finally crops grow and from those crops we can gather food. And this has a great purpose, it’s a great point to planting seeds. There’s great benefit to be derived. If you hold the position of production from self then the fault would arise that it would be meaningless for something to be newly produced because there would be no point for it to be being produced again and again since it’s already produced. Since the sprout already exists at the time of the seed, what is the use of being produced again?
It’s pointless, it’s meaningless for something to be produced again when it already exists. So we accept that the flower, we accept that the sprout and the seed exists. And we’ve said and we can all see for ourselves that there is benefit and there is purpose in the sprout arising and being produced. But if you said that the sprout existed at the time of the seed then there would be no purpose or benefit in the sprout being produced since it already exists at the time of the seed. And therefore this production would be pointless.
There would be no benefit or purpose in this type of production since it already exists. But we’ve already said that there is benefit and purpose in the production of a sprout. So these two are contradictory. In one sense we say that the production of a sprout is purposeful and beneficial, but in this way which you’re asserting it’s of no benefit, it’s of no purpose. So but if you say that the sprout exists at the time of seed, then you’re saying that what already exists has to be, what already has been produced has to be produced again.
We both agree that a sprout must be produced. But what purpose, what benefit would there be in having it produced again? There would be endless production. It would again and again have to be newly, that which has already been produced would have to be again and again produced. And we cannot accept that position.
That the sprout exists at the time of the seed then why go to the trouble of planting seeds in fields since you already have the sprout that you want. It would be purposeless to plant seeds since you already have the sprout. In our case, that we having been born, we would continually have to be born until we we were dead. We would continually be newly reborn. Our births would be inexhaustible.
You’re going to have to accept many contradictory self contradictory positions if you try to assert that something is produced from itself. That once it was produced it would have to be produced again and there have to be endless production. That in the case of a sprout, even though it’s once produced it would have to be produced and again endlessly. So you’re saying that this that the sprout exists at the time of the seed. And though though it’s necessary and though this the sprout has already been produced, it’s necessary that it have to be produced again.
That’s what you actually assert. Therefore, when you plant the seed, you’re actually producing the sprout twice. And therefore all things would have to be produced twice just like the sprout. So the seed would being produced this way, in the same way. So just as as the the sprout, it would would again and again be produced, the seed also would again and again be produced.
In the first moment it would be produced and would therefore exist. In the second moment it would be produced and therefore exist. In the third moment it would be and therefore exist. And there would be no time when it didn’t exist. It would be being produced inexhaustibly.
So if If you assert that the seed continually exists, that it is continually remaining in the first moment, the second moment, the third moment. Then also since the sprout exists at this time of the seed, then also the sprout is existing at these various same moments. And if the sprout exists at these moments, then how can that which is the result of the sprout ever come to arise, such as the various crops, the various fruit arising from these sprouts, the various leaves, the various grains which grow out of these crops. If what you assert would be the case, then the world would never see crops because they would only see sprouts and seeds. But in fact the sprout and the seed do not exist at the same time.
Their times of existence are mutually incompatible. When the sprout exists, then the seed has already been extinguished, has come to an end. On the other hand, when the seed exists, the sprout has yet to be produced. World in general, we see the crops growing, the various leaves, the various stalks of the plants, the various grains which are given up by the plants, then we cannot accept the fact that the sprout and the seed are the same entity. So your assertion cannot be held within the context of the fact that one does see the various effects of seeds such as the plants, the crops and grains which arise at the time when the seed is, at the time in which the seed has been disintegrated, has disintegrated.
Therefore the seed and the sprout cannot be of the same entity or the same nature. So you cannot, in view of your previous position that the seed and the sprout were the same entity, can that be maintained in the light of this refutation, that the seed and the sprout cannot be the same entity. So we can establish that the sprout and the seed are not the same entity because sprout is produced from the seed is not produced because the sprout is produced from the seed the seed does not exist at the time of the sprout. If the seed does not exist at the time of the sprout then the sprout is not produced from itself because it is produced from the seed which does not exist at the time of the sprout. So for the various types of reasons we’re going to establish that the sprout does not exist at the time of its cause, that is its seed.
And that the sprout and the seed are not the same entity, do not have the same nature, and therefore we refute the extreme of production from self. So I’ve just used two or three reasons to establish non production from self very roughly. And actually there’s a very profound reasoning set forth to establish this. So these are just a few good reasons to establish non-production from self. So we’ll stop there, but if you So the potential of the potential of the sprout has existed at the time of the seed.
The nyen-pa. So though potential to produce the sprout is exist at the time of the seed, the potential of the sprout is not a sprout. What about seed that’s got the So when all the various conditions aggregate, have the seed and the water and some type of fertilizer. Then this activates the seed. And a plant leaves will begin to form even inside the husk of the seed.
But when those leaves actually form then it’s said that the essence of the seed has already disintegrated. And there’s only the leaves, there’s the husk of the seed. The essence of the seed is no longer present. Husk of the seed is there, but the essence of the seed is no longer present once the sprout is formed, once those leaves have started forming, even inside the shell. Yeah.
You might understand it very well, but I know Harry knows it, but apparently, the leaves are inside the seed. So he thinks that maybe the seeds must have come in contact with some moisture in order for these leaves to develop inside the seed. Yeah. Is there a sprout inside of rice? I mean, if you look inside rice, do you see a little leaf and root?
He’s never seen a sprout inside of a grain of rice. Is potential for a larger sprout. But there is in there. It’s called embryo. He’s never seen it.
So prior to the seed coming in contact with moisture, a sprout will never form no matter how many years the seed remains. But upon it coming in contact with moisture, a needle like white sprout forms inside the seed. And this is the beginning of the sprout. And this will eventually grow into what we can conceive of as a sprout, normally conceive of as a sprout. But until that comes in contact with that moisture, there’s only a potential.
And there’s no actual physical substance which is a sprout. There’s nothing which we can point to as a sprout until it’s come in contact with moisture. So the position that’s being held is that the sprout exists at the time of the seed. If the sprout didn’t exist at the time of the seed, then the sprout could never grow. There to be something there.
There has to be a sprout already for a sprout to grow. If there wasn’t a sprout already at the time of the seed, sprout could never grow. So what takes place is aside from not counting the husk of the seed, the shell of the seed, that the seed transforms its entity into the sprout. There’s a transformation of the seed into the entity of the sprout. So in India we grew a lot of corn.
And once the corn was ripened, if there was a lot of rain, then due to that rain the seeds would begin to grow into sprouts. And just as you mentioned that even inside the seeds if it got very wet, if you open the seed, sprout would be forming inside the seed. So there are many occasions when the corn would get wet and even before it was planted they would start sprouting. So thinks at the time it displays these two leaves, it’s become a sprout and is no longer a seed. It’s just the husk of the seed is still there, but inside is a sprout.