Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute talk, Kyabje Rinpoche defends the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka position on causality using the logical method of consequences. His key refuting argument: if naturally existent effects arose from naturally existent causes, darkness would necessarily arise from fire—an absurdity that exposes the logical fault. He then uses seeds and sprouts as a detailed case study, walking through how a seed’s potency transforms into a sprout once that potential is exhausted, and establishing why they cannot be understood as two separate or simultaneous entities. Concrete examples—onions, barley, chickens and eggs—ground the philosophical reasoning. Intended for students already familiar with Buddhist tenets and logical debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1991-06-27 – 15B – KR.mp3
UUID: bb82f881-4a9c-42e8-95d2-fc6d9917579d
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Entering the Middle Way
Date: 1991-06-27
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,169
Is that does that arise? So we can’t we cannot say that from a blazing fire which is very luminous arises thick darkness. It does not arise because you assert that from a naturally existent cause which is other, a naturally existent result which is other is produced. But but in in return they say, Well, we do assert that from a naturally existent cause which is other, a naturally existent result which is other does arise, but that doesn’t mean that from a blazing fire the darkness should arise. And the adversary goes on to say this, you know, there’s no reason why we can say that because there’s a blazing fire that there should arise thick darkness.
Because there’s no relationship between a blazing fire and thick darkness. One does not imply the other. There’s no relationship between one and another. Therefore, because there’s a blazing fire, necessarily it’s not that thick darkness arise. So then the proponent answers back, Well, you say that, then there’s no reason why a naturally existent sprout should arise from a naturally existent seed.
Why? Because there is no reason why a naturally existent sprout should arise from a naturally existent seed because there is no relationship between a naturally existent sprout and a natural existence seed. They do not imply or benefit one another. It’s just like the non existent relationship between darkness and fire. So is this refuting reasoning?
Is this the parallel example? So, is the reasoning parallel between if a from a naturally existent seed a naturally existent sprout is produced, then it follows that from a blazing fire thick darkness must be produced. Is that similar reasoning? Are they concordant analogy? Are they parallel?
So if you present that as the case, then if the seed were non existent, then the sprout would arise. Even though there was no seed, the sprout would arise. Because by the non existence of the fire, darkness arises. Through the non existence of the seed, the sprout should arise. So the the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school is not arguing that sprouts do not arise from seeds.
This is conventionally held by everyone. These are conventional realities, and these are not being refuted. What is being sought to be refuted is that naturally existent sprouts arise from naturally existent seeds. And they are saying that this is the way of refuting. That if naturally existent sprouts arose from naturally existent seeds, then thick darkness would arise from blazing fires.
So then the adversary answers, you know, this is no fault. Just because I hold that a natural existence sprout arises from a natural existence seed doesn’t mean that thick darkness arises from blazing fires. I do assert that natural existence sprouts arise from natural existence seeds, but even though I assert that, I don’t have the fault. It does not hold that darkness arises from fire. You have the fault that if from a non naturally existent seed, the production of non naturally existent sprouts would mean that darkness arises from fire.
But what the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school is saying is that there exists no relationship between a naturally existent seed and a naturally existent sprout, just as there is no relationship between the fire and the darkness. Why? Because if the seed is naturally existent, it would it does not depend upon anything else. It exists independently. And if the sprout is naturally existent, it too exists independently without relying upon anything other.
If the sprout is naturally existent, it doesn’t rely upon anything other than itself. It does not depend upon the seed. It is established without depending upon the seed. And if the sprout exists without depending upon the seed, then there’s no relationship the sprout and the seed. And effects arise without depending upon causes, then we can there exists no relationship between them, thick darkness can just as well arise from blazing fires.
So it’s difficult then for for them to reply in the face of this this type of reasoning. So it’s necessary necessary to reflect well upon this reasoning that we’ve just presented. That if something is naturally existent, it does not depend on anything other. That is to say, if the seed is naturally existent, the seed does not exist upon anything other than itself. If the sprout is naturally existent, it does not rely upon, does not depend upon anything other than itself.
Therefore, if they are both the seed and sprout are both naturally existent, then there’s mutually no relationship between the seed and the sprout. So, we are presenting consequence, and the consequence is as follows: that thick darkness arises from a blazing fire because a naturally existent effect arises from a naturally existent cause. So the reason this is called a consequence is, in consequence, the assertion of the opponent is used as a reason. Using this as a reason, then the proponent is forced to accept an assertion which they do not wish to accept. By using their assertion as a reason, they are then forced, as a consequence of having to accept their own assertion, are forced to accept a consequence which they do not wish to accept.
So, the assertion which is being used as the reason is that a naturally existent sprout is produced from a naturally existent cause. They have to accept this because this is their own assertion and this is being presented as the reason. If they accept that, then they must accept the consequence which they do not wish to and that is that this being the case, then thick darkness must arise from a blazing fire as a consequence of accepting their own assertion. They must accept an undesirable consequence. And this is the method, this is the most skillful method of refuting wrong conceptions.
So, as a consequence, as a result of being presented such a consequence, the proponent, upon reflecting upon the significance of the consequence being presented, realizes that they can no longer maintain their original assertion, that if they were to maintain their original assertion that many faults would accrue, and therefore their wrong conception is reversed. So this is the first reasoning that we’re going to make use of. If you have some it would be good if you had some doubts about this, if you have questions. So they do have their own assertion. Each tenet has their own unique assertion as to their meaning presentation of emptiness.
For example, according to emptiness as set forth by the Sūtra School is that the Self is empty of being a self sufficient, self sufficient self. That’s their presentation of emptiness. According to the Mind Only School, they assert an emptiness which is the emptiness of the form and the valid cognition apprehending that form as being substantially different. According to Autonomy Middle Way School, emptiness, as they asserted, is that the object is objectively found by way of its own mode of subsistence without being posited by the forces of appearing to a non defective awareness. That’s their form of assertion of emptiness.
And within all of those assertions, they assert that the phenomena are naturally existent. According to the lower tenets, that if something exists, it’s naturally existent, and amongst the existence there are both impermanent phenomena and permanent phenomena. So according to the lower tenets, just because something is naturally existent doesn’t mean it’s permanent. For example, sprouts are naturally existent, seeds are naturally existent and they’re functional phenomena. Yeah.
For the Consequentialist Middle Way School, they’re not the same because they both don’t exist. For autonomy middle way school, these two are mutually inclusive. Whatever is naturally existent is also existent. So these are synonyms. According to the Mind Only School, there is some difference between those two.
According to the mind only school asserts three natures. There is dependent nature, thoroughly established nature, and imaginary nature. Dependent nature are various functional phenomena. Thoroughly established nature is emptiness, and imaginary natures are permanent phenomena. Amongst these permanent phenomena or imaginary natures, they do not Imaginary natures do not naturally exist, but they do exist.
Thoroughly established natures, emptiness. And the great exposition school and the sūtra school, natural existence and inherent existence are the same. About the seed and sprout thing different, like, produced from other the different entities. Then there’s one argument against that that you can’t pinpoint the moment in which the seed stops being a seed and becomes a sprout. One argument against what?
The seed and the sprout can’t be two separate entities because you can’t pick the exact moment when the seed ceases being a seed and becomes a sprout. Take your first assertion. You’re saying that the seed and sprout are not the same entity or they’re not different entities? Then then I don’t know. I just perhaps you could just say how I’m gonna get in trouble if I don’t If you could just say that is it possible to pinpoint the moment in which the seed stops being a seed and becomes a sprout, the exact moment.
So the moment of the production of the sprout is cessation of the sheath that’s simultaneous. So there is one instant, like onesixty fifth of the finger snap, or whatever, where that So the the production of the sprout and cessation of the seed are simultaneous and there’s a moment where this occurs. So, but the seed and the sprout do not exist simultaneously. If the sprout exists, then the seed doesn’t exist. The seed exists, then the sprout doesn’t exist.
When the essence or the potency of the seed transforms into the sprout, then that is the moment of the cessation of the seed and the production of the sprout. So the seed has a potency, has the potential to produce a sprout. So it has this potency, the potential to produce a sprout. When this potency is combined with water and earth, then this aggregation of conditions activates the potency and then this potency is exhausted. Once that potency is activated, then the seed is no longer present.
It’s been activated. It’s exhausted and this is the production of the sprout. When the potential to produce the sprout has been exhausted, then there’s the production of the sprout. There’s no longer the potency. The potency is the seed.
So what we mean by the seed is the potency or the potential to produce a product that is the sprout. Now if we take an example of an onion, an onion has many layers of skin, but within this central there is an essence which is its potency. This is the actual seed. When this is planted in the ground and it comes in contact with water, a sprout arises in conjunction with that water and this potency transforms into the actual entity of the sprout. The skin remains, the skin remains.
The skin is not the sprout. It is its potency, the skin is not the seed. It is its potency which is the seed. And when this potential to produce a sprout has produced a sprout, then the seed no longer exists, it no longer remains. Some people might think because skin still are there, that the seed is still there.
So that’s right. If you plant like barley, barley has a husk. You put it in the ground, a sprout will rise and the husk will remain, the skin remains, but the husk is not the seed. This is if you sprout seeds and then you have sprouting and you can see that the sprout arises in the skin or the shell remains. Extension of the potency.
Extension of the potency. Can you give me another word besides extension? At the time of the sprout, the potency for a sprout remains. That’s right. And the sprout possesses a potential to produce a subsequent sprout.
The first moment of the sprout has the potential to produce the second moment of sprout. The second moment has the potential to produce the third moment of the sprout. So it has potential to maintain its continuum, its continuity, but not to produce another sprout. So in the way that a seed produces a fruit and a grain and a grain produces another sprout, then the sprout produces has the potential to produce a subsequent sprout. Like an egg a chicken born from an egg, and eggs are born from chicken.
Chicken and egg are just evolving cause and effect, just like sprouts and seeds. Sprouts without seeds? Without sprouts there’s no seeds? What’s your question? So at the time of the production of the sprout, the seed, the potential to produce the sprout becomes non existent because the potential has been transformed into the sprout.
And seed and both the seed and the potential to produce sprout both become non existent at the time of the production of the sprout. Did you get your money back?