Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 43-minute teaching, Kyabje Rinpoche guides students through the Four Causes — the logical reasoning that nothing arises from self, other, both, or no cause, and therefore why all phenomena lack true, inherent existence. Rather than asserting the conclusion, he emphasizes understanding the reasoning itself: superficial belief is unstable and easily shaken, while deep comprehension of the proof creates unshakeable conviction. Using an analogy of high versus mediocre intelligence — examining a master’s works firsthand versus accepting hearsay — he shows why reasoning matters. He walks through examining each of the four alternatives in turn, identifying what faults would follow if any were true. He then applies this to the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka approach: searching analytically for any object—the self, a flower, anything—and finding it nowhere. Suited to practitioners with solid grounding in Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1991-07-18 – 18B – KR.mp3
UUID: 2b5da13d-009d-456f-bd99-11e34ad3109c
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Entering the Middle Way
Date: 1991-07-18
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,100
The produced from self, other, both, or no cause at all. Here Candrakīrti is presenting his commentary on that verse. Because the commentary, our present text, is a commentary to the root text of the Fundamental Treatise on Wisdom. He comments on this particular verse, he commentates on this particular verse. The the commentary and the root text have the same verse.
So, again, in the commentary of entering into the Middle Way, though the wording is slightly altered, the translation works out the same, in which it states that nothing is produced from self, nothing is produced from a naturally existent other, nothing is produced from either both a self and a naturally existent other? And where is there anything which is produced from no cause? So if we were to how how does the reasoning refute the the true existence? If we take as our subject a flower and then we state that the flower is not produced from a truly existent cause, why? Because it is not produced in either of the four alternative means of production.
The four alternative means of production. Production. So the flower is produced from cause. That goes without saying it. The flower is produced from a cause, but it’s not produced from a truly existent cause.
Why? If the flower were produced from a truly existent cause then the flower would have to be produced by from either self or from a naturally existent other or from both or from no cause. But it is not produced in any of these four ways. Therefore, the flower is not truly existently produced. It’s difficult to understand.
It’s not produced from existing cause. In order to understand that the flower is not produced from a truly existent cause, it’s necessary that as a prerequisite to that understanding, we understand that it’s not produced from a truly existent truly existent is not produced self, not produced from a naturally existent the other, is not produced from both, and is not produced from no cause. That is a prerequisite, in dependence upon that, we come to understand that the flower is not produced from a truly existent cause. Truly existently caused. So if we So, an analogy would be that if some a new person arrived and someone knew this new arrival, newly arrived person, and they said, Oh, this person is a great expert.
So then it it was questioned, why is this person such a master or an expert? This person answers the person who knows of this second person, says, This person has written many great books. And thinking in this way, we can understand why this person is a great master, the reason this person has written many great books. So upon hearing this reason, an intelligent person would immediately become convinced as that this person was in fact a great master. So I made a mistake.
Upon hearing that this person composed many great books and therefore is a great master is not the intelligent person. It’s those of mediocre intelligence would immediately believe that this person is a great master upon hearing this. But those who are of high intelligence wouldn’t accept on that face value. They would go on to read some of her books and upon reading seeing that in fact there was a great meaning and that it was well written, then they would draw from that this person is in fact a great master and therefore believe that this person was a great master from having read the books themselves. So the person of high intelligence would read the books themselves and drawing from that their own experience would be able to believe that this person was a great master.
On the other hand, the person of mediocre and this person who has read the books themselves of high intelligence and has become convinced that this person is a great master develops a stability of mind which will not easily be changed as to respect to their belief. But the person of mediocre intelligence who if someone were to come along and say, Oh, really is not a great master, then this person who had previously believed that this person was a great master, their mind could easily be influenced and changed to believe that they are not a great master. So it’s very important that in order to gain stability with respect to our understandings that we understand the reasoning well which proceeds in gaining that understanding. If we understand the reasoning well behind the thesis which we’re seeking to establish, then our understanding, our belief in that thesis will be very stable, will not change, and this is the ultimate result that we’re seeking. But on the other hand, without knowing the reason well that we may believe in the thesis, it’s not a very stable belief.
It can easily be changed. With respect to the second So, door of liberation, what we are seeking to establish is that the flower is not produced from a truly existent cause. The flower is not produced from a truly existent cause. That’s the thesis that we’re seeking to establish or that which we’re trying to prove, and we have to understand the proof well. So in establishing that the flower is not produced from a truly existing cause, we are making use of a proof.
The reason that we’re using as our proof are these four alternative modes of production. This is the ultimate means to establish this thesis that the flower is not produced from itself, is not produced from a naturally existent other, is not produced from both, nor is it produced from no cause. This mode of reasoning of these four alternatives is the type of the ultimate reasoning set forth as a means of proof by both Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti. So we proceed just as in the case of establishing that the flower is not truly existently one nor truly existently. When in establishing that the flower does not truly exist, we go on to show that demonstrate that it’s not truly existently one nor truly existently many and therefore is not truly existent.
And likewise with respect to the following that the flower is not produced from a truly existent cause. If the flower were produced from a truly existent cause, then it would have to be either be produced from itself or from a naturally existent other or both or from no cause. And we go through and refute each of these in turn. If we are to do this we must be able to identify each of these turn. Identify each of these four alternatives well.
We must be able to recognize them well if we are able to in order to understand what is being refuted. So, if we are first stating that the flower is not produced from itself, we go on to state if in fact the flower were produced from itself then certain faults would accrue. And we see due to the accruing of these faults determine from that that in fact the flower can’t be produced from itself. Then we go on to say, well if the flower were produced from a naturally existent other, what would be the outcome of that? And we see that there are various faults which arise in the course of establishing that.
And so we show that if they were produced in this way various faults would necessarily accrue. So just as in the case if we said, well, this person is not a good person, and someone says, Why? Well, because they steal, they’re a thief, they drink all the time, and therefore, Ah, I see what you mean. They’re not a good person. Likewise, produced from itself, there would be various reasons which we would give and then we come to understand, Ah, then it’s not produced from itself.
I see. So we’re gonna leave it there for now, but if you have some questions. Yes. So, for example, now the flowers are fresh, but eventually they’re going to dry up and the will fall, the petals will fall, and these are the various results of the flower. It’s just like when we strike a match, the smoke arises.
The smoke is the result of the fire. If we burn wood, there left ash. Ash is a result of the fire and the wood. So the the flower is not producing a truly existent cause? Yeah.
This and I mean, it doesn’t there’s no you could say causes. I mean, the plural doesn’t come out in language in translation. So for the various types of causes such as the seed, the the water, the earth, fertilizer, etcetera. All of these are causes. So, you know, going back to the first of these five reasonings, the flower is not truly exist.
No. No. No. So No. I ask you a question.
The flower is the subject. It is not truly existent. What is the reason? Going back to the first reason that we made you so. First of these five reasons.
It is not true existent. What is the reason? It’s not truly existently one nor truly existently many. Yes? And why isn’t truly existently many?
The flower is not truly existently many? Why? Because it’s not truly existently one. And why is it not truly existently one? It has many parts.
It has part. What what are the parts? Right. And the do you So we can say anything which has form has various directional parts to it. It has an upper and lower middle, and having those parts, it can’t be truly existent.
It also has it also has parts in a sense that it relies upon causes and conditions. Anything which relies upon causes and conditions cannot be truly existent. Yeah. Maybe I’ll ask that first. Okay.
So nothing truly exists. Nothing whatsoever truly exists. So we go on to say, we hypothesize if something truly existed, then this would follow, and this would follow. And therefore, out of this we begin to get the measure of true existence. The measure of true existence begins to appear to our mind, what true existence would be like if in fact it existed, but true existence doesn’t exist.
We cannot realize true existence because it doesn’t exist. You cannot realize something that doesn’t exist. So we begin, through a process of examination, analysis, begin to get the measure of what a phenomena would be if it truly existed. Existence. Must understand, we have to understand what true existence would appear like if it did exist.
Prior to actually understanding that true existence doesn’t exist, we have to understand what true existence, the measure of true existence is, what true existence would be like if it did exist. Once we understand what true existence would be like if it did exist, through analyzing that possible way of existing, we come to understand it doesn’t exist and we understand emptiness. Analogy to what? I don’t know how to say it. Yes.
I mean, yeah, they both aren’t aware of something which in fact exists, and that they would have to have that which has never appeared to them before, have it explained to them so that it slowly dawns on their mind what it is that they haven’t been aware of. So in that sense it’s a parallel example. . Judy? According according to to Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school.
Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school, it is the non-findability of the nominally existent object upon analysis. Non-findability of the nominally existent object upon analysis. When one searches for the object, it is not found. Therefore, it does not naturally exist. Since it’s never found, nothing naturally exists.
So the findability of the nominally existent object upon analysis What is meant by naturally existent? Nominally existent. When we ask, well, where is the individual? Where am I? And we proceed to search and we say is the head, am I the head, am I the hand, am I the leg, am I the chest, am I the things inside the chest, the lungs, etc.
When we search we cannot point to one thing and say that I have found myself. It is the non findability of the object upon analysis. You know, whatever object we search whether a flower, table, school, upon searching we do not find the object. But if we do not analyze, if we do not search, this object exists. But upon analysis, we can’t find it.