Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 98-minute commentary, Khensur Rinpoche opens with Tsongkhapa’s verse on “whoever sees the non-erroneousness of the cause-effect link” to introduce the session’s focus: the actual method of meditating on emptiness. He argues that since all phenomena — mundane or transcendent — are dependently arising, understanding dependent arising is the essential gateway to grasping non-inherent existence. The session then builds the four-part syllogism (“a sprout is not inherently existent because it is dependent arising”) and uses the mirror-reflection analogy to show why dependent arising entails non-inherent existence. Rinpoche distinguishes two targets: inherent existence itself (negated by reasoning) and the ignorance grasping at it (negated by meditative wisdom). A Q&A closes with a questioner challenging whether the inference is merely tautological; Rinpoche responds with the pot-impermanence analogy to explain why each logical step must be made explicit for practitioners at different levels of understanding.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 47 3PA 1994 02 22.mp3
UUID: d954fdb4-d0b2-4349-ab5e-e069f5ea9e11
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: 3 Principal Aspects of the Path (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-02-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 98.0 minutes
Words: ~6,382
Of the great fourteenth century, Tibetan master, Tsongkhapa, says in his three principal aspects of the path in the handbook on page five, second last verse. Whoever sees the non-erroneousness of the cause-effect link of all the mundane and transcendent things while the concrete leaning to the focused object is subsided, that practitioner has entered the path delighting the Buddhas. Now, in brief, what happened is in our study into the present topic of emptiness, reality, we covered firstly the purpose or the benefit of doing steady reflection and meditative familiarization or practice on emptiness. Now, this evening we go to the second point which is the actual way how to do the meditation on this topic, meaning how actually to do meditation on emptiness. So in brief, we look at the meaning of this verse.
And in the original text in Tibetan, the first opening words are mundane followed by transcendent, which, of course, get reversed in the translation. Anyway, in brief, the meaning is by mundane, it means anything which is started by ignorance and therefore being a result of ignorance. So this then would mean ignorance being the producing factor and whatever produce, which are sufferings such as, for humans, the four major sufferings of birth, aging, sickness and death. Therefore, in brief, all the sufferings, including the cause of the suffering which is ignorance, also there are the meaning covered by the word mundane. And transcended is being referred to whatever is produced by wisdom realizing emptiness.
Because wisdom realizing emptiness is something directly opposite, directly contradictory to ignorance. Therefore, is produced by wisdom realizing emptiness would be something opposite to whatever is produced by ignorance. And what the wisdom realizing emptiness produces is the development of mind, such as traversing on the grounds and paths, scripturally speaking, meaning gaining higher and higher realizations on different levels of path of mind leading to enlightenment. So all those realizations and further improvement of mind are covered by the term transcended, which is to mean something beyond mundane. And now in the mind here, it explains whether it is mundane thing or it is beyond mundane thing, anything, whatever it be, belonging to any of those two groups, is bound to be produced by causes and conditions, and is bound to be dependent on others, such as on name and labeling and so forth.
So in brief, everything, whether it is mundane or transcendent, is a dependently existing thing, being dependent on its causes and conditions for its production, and being dependent on name and label and so forth for its existence. So that is the brief meaning. In the same way, whether it is something we have to discard away in the course of our practice or whether it is something we have to adopt as part of our spiritual practice, whatever it be, even from those perspective, we can still say everything depends on causes and conditions, on parts and portions, and to further interpret name and labeling. So this then would mean, no matter whatever it is, even in reference to one’s practice, whether it is something to discard away or whether it’s something to adopt, it is a phenomenon which arises by being dependent. So it is a dependent arising thing, dependently originated thing.
And as opposite implication, it would then mean there is not anything which is not dependent arising. So that would be the what’s called implied understanding. If everything is dependent arising, then it would mean that there isn’t anything which isn’t dependent arising. Now in this way, when one understands whether it is a mundane thing or transcendent thing that they are all dependent arising phenomena, then it would imply that there isn’t anything that is not dependent arising phenomena. Well, what would such understanding do?
Well, such understanding is extremely beneficial, extremely of great impact. Why it is so in that way is because when one understands everything is formed or existing through a dependent way, then it would give the implied understanding that there isn’t anything which is not dependent arising. And this would then further give the implied understanding that there isn’t anything which exists or is formed inherently or naturally. So in Tibetan, the word is same, inherently or naturally. Now, if such an understanding is found, then earlier remark that it can be of great benefit, of great impact is because when one understands that things do not exist inherently, then that really is the opening lead for one’s contact in understanding emptiness.
Because that understanding that things do not inherently exist is what leads the practitioner to the direct understanding of emptiness. And this is true because the misconception that things exist inherently or things are formed inherently or naturally is what is to be proved not there, or it is what is to be negated. On those beings who have not understood and as well not realized emptiness are called ordinary beings. They are called ordinary beings, and these are the beings who need to understand and realize emptiness. And as a fact, what is that which realizes, which understands emptiness?
Well, it has to be a mind. So it is a mind which has to understand and realize emptiness. Now we look further what type of mind needs to what type of mind realizes or understands emptiness. Well, it has to be a valid knowledge mind, what is in popular translation called valid perception. So it has to be a valid knowledge mind, which means then emptiness should be understood and realized by an unmistaken mind.
So that’s the what’s the meaning behind a mind, that it has to be valid knowledge mind. And now in the classification of valid knowledge, there are two types of valid knowledge or two types of valid perceptions: the inferential valid perception and direct valid perception. And now in the course of a person going to understand and realize emptiness, it is first impossible to the understanding and realization of emptiness by direct, valid knowledge. Therefore, first type of mind which understands emptiness has to be valid or in valid inference valid inference or inferential valid knowledge. So and therefore, the point at this stage is, you know, the initial understanding of emptiness is done by inferential valid mind.
Anyway, the valid inference or inferential valid knowledge which realizes emptiness, so the term is used interchangeably: understand or realizes. So inferential valid knowledge which understands or realizes emptiness is a resultant phenomenon. It is a result. Now if it is a result, it needs to have a cause which produces it. So that is the point so far.
The causes which produce such a valid inference or inferential valid knowledge, such as what we — what I wasn’t, as a translator. So what you would have come across in your earlier classes during classes on logic, Buddhist logic on Pramānavārttika, because there we discuss the two types of way how valid knowledge could be produced. One is through consequence reasoning, which is Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika, the highest Buddhist school’s way of coming to conclusion, which is by by throwing the consequence or implication back to the opponent in dialectical conclusions. So one way to come to valid knowledge, in this case inferential valid knowledge, is through consequence reasoning. And the second way — which is alternative — the second is through correct reasoning.
So these are the two ways through which valid knowledge, in this case, correct or inferential valid knowledge can be produced. We look at the first way how our valid knowledge is produced, which is the first way is through consequence reasoning or reasoning of reverse implication. Here, say, when we are trying to gain the valid knowledge of emptiness, we put the consequence reasoning to the opponent in this way where we where we pinpoint or finger point the fault in the opponent’s assertion. For example, in trying to establish non inherent existence of phenomena to the opponent, we put this we put this statement as a reverse backlash to the opponent. First, you must remember that the opponent is asserting that phenomena or things exist inherently.
And now we put this thrust back to the opponent saying, for example, sprout. Is sprout not a dependent arising thing? Because it is inherently existing thing. Now what happens in this statement is the from this side, we are putting the fault or pinpointing the fault in the opponent’s assertion about inherent existence because we put forth the statement if sprout is inherently existing, then it cannot be possible for it to be dependent arising, which is an obvious fact the opponent would not be able to deny because dependent arising is something the opponent can very clearly see. So we put the statement, isn’t sprout a dependent arising?
And the reasoning is the reverse consequence, because it is inherently existing thing. So to the opponent, it becomes like a contradiction of its own assertion. So that’s called consequence reasoning. And that’s how, in this case, one comes to or one brings the realization of emptiness on the opponent’s mind. So here we bring the talk of the consequence reasoning, which is the Prāsaṇgika middle way school’s way of proving things.
This then then inevitably blends the topic of emptiness with the topic of four tenets. Well, it is inevitable because the topic of tenets or topic of tenets, which is classes of taught during the Thursday evenings, is something we do need to compare and often on bring into the discussion when emptiness is being looked into, being discussed. So in the tenets, have the four Buddhist tenets, and very often during the emptiness studies and investigation into it, we do come across a cross reference to the four tenets. And that’s why here again, we have all this thrust reasoning, which is the high school’s way of proving things brought forth in the discussion here. The four Buddhist tenets are starting from the lower scores.
The first lowest the lowest school is the specific exponents of Vaibhāṣika, and above them are discourse schools. Now, the understanding of reality as interpreted by these two lower schools helps to understand the reality explained by the third Buddhist school, the mind only school. And further on, the understanding of reality explained by mind only school helps the practitioner to understand the reality explained by the school higher to it, which is the school called Svatāntrika or popularly called the Autonomous School. And that school’s understanding and explanation of reality helps to understand the highest Buddhist school’s understanding of reality, the Prāsaṇgika’s understanding of reality. In a way, therefore, we can see the four Buddhist schools of thought, the four Buddhist tenets, as complementary to each other, where the lower one’s understanding helps to bring the practitioner to understand the higher one’s understanding of reality.
And this together as a soiled remark would then mean that that’s how the four Buddhist tenets came into being, that there need to be four levels of understanding as the diverse mental capacity of sentient beings would be. Now the other way of coming to understand and realize emptiness is through reasonings, obviously correct reasoning. And in that method, the reasonings applied to realize or to understand emptiness can be grouped into five great reasonings, and they are called the five great reasonings to understand or to realize emptiness. So the first reasoning is the reasoning of establishing the nature. Second, nature in the case, of phenomena by its nature, by its entity.
Second reasoning is analyzing the phenomena’s cause, the origins. And third, the result. And fourth, analyzing both the cause and the result together. And the fifth one is what we already, this evening, been looking into, that is the reasoning of dependent arising. So in brief, these are the five great reasonings.
During the teachings by Buddha Śākyamūni, the reasonings or reasonings mainly put forth to establish emptiness was the reasoning of dependent arising, which is the reasoning we just had been discussing about. And also, Je Tsongkhapa, in his establishing or ascertaining of emptiness, as well very strongly puts forth the reasoning of dependent arising to establish emptiness. And the way we put the reasoning of dependent arising into into a statement format, what’s called syllogism, is by firstly focusing on a given example, an ex example, and so forth. And if we are to take an example, for us, perhaps a good example, which as was maintained throughout the Classical period, is an example we all can very observably can see, which is a sprout germinating from seed. Now, obviously, the sprout has germinated from the seed as well it has depended it had depended on many other factors for its formation, for its existence.
Now in the statement we put forth, this part is the topic of ascertainment, the topic to be established. Now we say the sprout is not inherently existent because it depended on its causes and conditions for its production, which is a paraphrase of saying because it is dependent arising. It has originated by depending on others. So the statement without then processing goes, a sprout is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising. The example is the reflection of a face in the mirror.
So that’s how the statement goes when a sprout is established to be not inherently existing, not truly formed. So we we found there are four parts in this reasoning statement, reasoning syllogism, reasoning statements. First is this sprout. So if you without making it appear overdoing, it’s necessary to bring the physical gesture into the translation as well in this case. So first is the sprout, which is called the object of disputation because it is what is being disputed about.
And second is that it is not inherently existent. Now that’s what is called what is to be proved because that’s what is to be established. Now, if we go back to the sprout, it is called object of disputation because also from the point some assert that it is inherently existing and others don’t assert that way. So it can be called object of disputation in that way. Now second is what is to be proved.
So that is the not inherently existent. And third part is the reasoning, because it is dependent arising. Now, what goes is, the first, the sprout is being being reasoned as a dependent arising phenomenon. So we have the first and third linked in the what’s called gesture demonstration of the thing. So we have this part being proven as a dependant arising thing in the straight line.
And through that way, is being what is to be proved. The second one, the non-inherent existence, is being established. And then we have the fourth one, which is the example, because it is as well necessary to clarify further the point of what is being established through other supportive cases to illustrate it further as well as to correlate it to other similar situations. So the fourth one is, for example, the reflection of face in the mirror. In that case, it is quite very obviously understandable as not existing a real face existing in itself.
It’s just a reflection of an actual face in the mirror. Also, in this way, in the meditation sessions by the practitioner as well, these are the four avenues of relating to the non inherent existence of any phenomena. And that’s how the meditation as well is done on emptiness. There are two parties, one who explains and one who is being explained to. This is because this is because in the present topic, the one who is being explained to, meaning to paraphrase because that’s how it came, to paraphrase the opponent opponent in the dialectical conclusion.
That’s because one who is being explained to is a person who has not yet understood the topic or in this case reality at at all. So therefore, we have what is to be explained, the person to whom the thing is being explained. And in the classical dialectical language, the first one you explained is called one you explains is called the first calm. Is that the right translation? C-h-a-l-k-p-a?
First chalkpa. Oh, and you just have first first debater. I think that’s better. So in dialectical, what’s called language, then the first one, the person who explains is called the first debater. And one to whom it is being explained is called this second debater.
In this way, there are these two parties in the dialectical debates when things are being ascertained. Now the scene is like when there is a thief, and the first debater have already identified that this is the thief. But the second debater has not yet identified who the thief is. So the thief is in the middle and two debaters. And now the first debater or the first party then says, this person standing here is a thief.
And as evidence or support, the first party says because the person has stolen so many things from such and such family. So we have that structure in that scene where because the person because the person has stolen such and such things from such and such family, so that part becomes the reasoning part to prove the second part, which is the person is a thief. So if you don’t mind, the whole exercise here is something which is like the normal format in all classical Buddhist dialectical things. Therefore, it can be a very helpful thing that there are those four parts in something to be proved. First is the object of disputation, and then what is to be ascertained, and then reasoning.
So here, in this case, this person is a thief, is the object of disputation. This person is object of disputation. It is a thief, is the second part. And because this person has stolen things from such and such family, is the reasoning being put forward. And then the first party further says this person has further, the first party says that this person has stolen such and such things and actually demonstrates or exhibits exhibits the items stolen by the thief to the second person to the second party.
This this is the person this is what the thief has stolen. This is what so the items are exhibited. And then the second party really comes into a shock realization that the person really is a thief. Really, he really stole these things. So in this work done, it is to both parties very confidently affirm that the person really is a thief.
Also, second party or the second debater had to know that things have been stolen by the thief, and by that way of reasoning, we’ll come to the conclusion that the person is a thief. Now similar to that example, here in the context topic, the first debater, the first party puts forth the statement about emptiness that, for example, the sprout is for example, sprout, it is not inherently existent. Now that’s what the first party puts forth so far in the statement. And the second party is still doubtful whether this part is not inherently existent or not because the second party still thinks so far that part like other phenomena also in second party’s viewpoint perspective that it is inherently existing. Then the first party then brings the third part of the statement which is the reasoning part by saying it is dependent arising thing.
When that is put forth, the second party realizes that sprout is dependent, as a phenomenon or a thing which originates by being dependent on other factors and so forth. And as well for its formation and for its existence, it depends on parts, portions, causes, conditions, and so forth. So in this way, when the second party realizes that spot is dependent on parts and so forth, through that way it is dependent arising, then it implies in the understanding to the second person that the spot cannot now be an in dependence upon its own side existing phenomena or thing. So that’s how then the second party comes to the understanding that sprout is not inherently formed, inherently existing, it’s not truly formed, it’s not existing by its own side and so forth. So in in in brief, the reasoning put forth is dependent arising reasoning.
Therefore, in order to come to understand that the sprout is not inherently existent, is not inherently firm, is not naturally firm, one firstly needs to understand that this part is dependent arising thing, it is dependently originated thing. So that part needs to come first. And then, in the second part, the person as well has to understand that if something is dependent arising, it cannot possibly be inherently existing thing. It cannot possibly be a thing existing naturally, is formed naturally. So the Tibetan word is same inherently or naturally, and the same word also for foreign or existing.
So one not only has to understand that the sprout is dependent arising, one also has to understand that if something is dependent arising, can’t possibly be an inherently existing thing, a naturally formed thing. Now when these two are realized, when these two are understood then, it is possible meaning, it won’t be that difficult afterwards to understand that to understand the emptiness of the spot, the non inherent existence of the spot. In the example, one one understands that the thief has stolen certain things and one as well understands if someone has taken other things without being given, then it is stealing. So through these two ways, one then comes to conclusion that the person is a thief. So that’s in the example.
And if you don’t mind to repeat, first one has to understand the person did steal something, did take away something. And secondly, if a person has taken something without being given, it is stealing. On that basis, then one comes to the conclusion the person is a thief. So firstly, one needs to understand that the SPOT is a dependent or rising thing. Now in the format of the four part, we have the first agreeing with the third.
And now in the second part, one has to understand that the third and the second goes parallel all the time, a term normally called entailment, pervasion. But if it is dependent on arising thing, then it entails that it cannot be an inherently existing thing. So it is a non inherently existing thing. So that’s the part we need to realize. Firstly, that this part is dependent on arising thing.
And secondly, if something is dependent on arising, then it can’t be inherently or naturally or truly existing thing. And now, this second part, that if something is dependent arising, then it cannot be an inherently existing thing, is something one can understand through the fourth part, which is the example of a reflection of face in a mirror. Because in that case, we can have a very clear observation of that fact. For example, when there’s a mirror and if one looks at it, then one’s face and parts of face and so forth are reflected on the mirror. But also, it has the implied event that the whole thing is dependent arising, the reflection of a face in the mirror.
Because if there is mirror, but if there is no face looking at the mirror, there cannot be reflection found in the mirror. Similarly, even if there is a face, but if there is no mirror, then again, one cannot have the reflection of one’s face to be observed. So that fact is observed in that event of reflection of face in the moon in the mirror. That if something is dependent arising, then it cannot be inherently existing thing. And the very the very many of existing is through dependent origination.
So in this case, on paths and so forth. So that’s then the example supporting that it is through that way of understanding. One first needs to ascertain that it is dependent arising and then go back to the second part that it cannot possibly be inherently existing phenomena if it is dependent arising. And, normally, we do look at mirrors. And when we are about to go out and so forth, we get hurried, washed up, and we watch ourselves in the mirror.
And if we find certain black spot, we paint it with whatever red or white color we need. And after a while, we we confirm ourselves, approve ourselves very good and so forth. So it does happen. It is it’s a daily happening event. Now if it’s a daily happening event, then we can relate to it very well.
And the way to relate here, in this case, is when we look at the mirror, then the very gathering of the face and the mirror produces the reflection of one’s face in the mirror. So it is origination through dependence. Because if there was no mirror, then with face alone, there cannot be reflection, similarly the other way around. So it has to be a reflection of face appearing on the mirror due to the dependent event of the face depending on the mirror and so forth. In that way, one as well understands if reflection of face arises only with dependence on mirror and the face gathering, then there is not an independently existing reflection of face.
Reflection of a face. So this understanding will then bring one back to the statement format where the third and the second must entail. That if something is dependent arising, it entails. It is necessarily true that it is not an inherently existing thing. It is not a naturally existing thing.
Through that way, we can prove in the present example of a face, in reflection of face in the mirror, that it is not inherently existing thing because it is dependent on arising thing. So that’s the brief point of the whole example. So one one necessarily first have to very well understand about the dependant arising nature of things because through that understanding one will come to the understanding of non inherent existence of whatever the phenomena one is analyzing. One would come to understand the not independent existence of the thing. And the two formats we can bring here on the example sprout.
If sprout is understood to be dependent arising thing, then it is not possible for it to be independently existing, independently formed, or independently produced thing. And if that is understood, one covers the point on the sprout what is to be proved not there. Or to paraphrase, when one understands through dependent arising that the sprout cannot be inherently existing thing, then one comes to negate what is to be negated. One comes to disprove what is to be disproved on the basis of the sprout. That sprout or to another words, in another words, that sprout sprout being inherently existing is what it’s, in other words, called what is to be negated because that’s what has to be proved not in the sprout.
So in this way, when one comes to when one comes to negate what is to be negated, what is to be disproved on the basis of sprout, then that is the way through which one realizes the emptiness of the sprout. And there’s no other major ways of coming to that understanding apart from this way. And therefore, then one may need to apply as many strong reasonings as possible to prove how dependent how this power is dependent arising in the very first place. On the basis of sprout, there are two types of what is to be negated, what is to be disproved. One is the actual inherent existence of sprout, which is the first kind of what is to be negated.
Second is the grasping that the sprout is inherently existing, the very ignorance in relation to the sprout’s nature. So these are the two to be disproved Oh, innovation would be proud. So in this way, the reasoning put forth is the is the means by which these two to be disproved have to be disproved. And the reasoning is brought forth against these two. But amongst the two which are to be disproved, the main part which is to be disproved — the main between the two, the one which is principally to be disproved — is the inherent existence of sprout.
That is the main thing to be disproved, main attribute to be disproved on the sprout. Because the ignorance, the grasping that the sprout is inherently existing is a secondary thing which came about thing. So from that point, the main focus has to be amongst the two to be disproved, the sprout’s inherent existence. In other words, the main focus is to prove that sprout is not inherently existing there, to which way the secondary part itself will somehow be later on easily covered. So that’s the implied meaning behind.
Also, the main focus is the inherent existence of sprout. So that is the main focus of what is to be disproved. Now, in the tenets or the understanding of the different levels of Buddhist schools of thought, there is various levels of levels of explaining the nature of that inherent existence. Here, let’s say we start with the highest tenet, the Prāsaṇgika middle way school, Prasangigamadhimika. Now before going into that, we need to understand the way how the sprout exists or is found in relation to the mind which labels it.
Now, the process of labeling and the very existence based on that labeling, the process starts in this way. Firstly, out of seed, the sprout germinates and let’s say it gains or it grows to a certain height. And there will be, on that basis, there will be basis of label or basis of label such as the sprout’s stem, leaves, branch and color or whatever the color of the stem and leaves of the sprout is. Now these portion or parts of the sprout are the basis of labelling. And there has to be a valid mind, an unmistaken mind, identifies these basis of label or sprout and thinks about then thinks about calling the item as sprout on the basis of this label of of label.
And then also, verbally, out of that mind, there would be a concept which then verbally as well labels sprout. Now that’s how newly labeled existence of sprout happens in that process. Now, contrary to that, when a mistaken mind thinks about sprout or perceives sprout, it perceives the sprout existing without being labeled but from its own side, independently. And that’s what here in the Prāsaṇgika School, in relation to the sprout. That’s what is called the what is to be disproved or what is to be negated, what is to be proved as not there with the sprout.
As ordinary beings, when sprout appears to us, it doesn’t appear as at the same time, being labeled by a mind identifying it as sprout on the basis of label and through verbal expression or through conceptual labeling as a labeled commodity. Instead, when sprout appears to us as ordinary beings, it appears as if it is there on its own, independently formed, inherently formed, inherently existing, and so forth. So that is what is to be disproved, what is to be negated as not actually there with the sprout in its nature. Now, that so far is the appearance part, and that so far is on the basis of sprout what is to be negated. Now, on top of that appearance, there will be additional clinging that already, as the sprout appears inherently, that it is already inherently existing.
So that very strong clinging being the additional part to one’s mind is what is called ignorance. And, in this way, we then have these two parts in relation here with the sprout. And, with the first part, which is the non inherent existence of the sprout itself, and as contrary to that, the inherent existence of sprout appearing to be so, which is to be disproved, is something we have to something we have to disprove through reasoning. So in a way, therefore, we have an expression called the first — the first — the first thing, with the stroke, which is to be negated, is to be negated by reasoning. And then the mind which clings onto that very appearance aspect that it is there, that mind is the ignorance mind, and it has to be overcome through developing wisdom realizing non inherent existence, in this case of this part. One understands it, then repeatedly one familiarizes with it in meditative familiarization through which the wisdom realizing the non inherent existence of the spark improves.
And through that way, ignorance is removed. And in that way, we can have in the second case, we can have the expression that the ignorance which is the grasping onto the inherent existence of the sprout is what is to be negated by the wisdom. Whereas the wisdom — whereas with the first one, the inherent existence of the sprout is what is to be negated by reasoning. That through reasoning one comes to the conclusion that sprout is not inherently existing, it’s not naturally formed. Whereas, ignorance — is that correct?
So the inherent existence is something that has to be negated through reasoning And the ignorance which grasp onto, which clings onto the notion that, in this case, thought has inherently existing is what one needs to be negated through, or wisdom realizing non inherent existence. And that wisdom is developed in one’s meditative familiarization sessions, and one does consistent repeated familiarization in meditation and the non inherent existence of the object and the mind which misconceives — the ignorance. And through that way, when it gains strength, the wisdom gains strength, eventually the ignorance is completely overcome. And due to that, we then have as well the expression that the second talk which is to be overcome or the second thing to be negated is to be negated by the power of path. So there is expression to be negated by the power of path, which means that the ignorance has to be overcome by developing the path within oneself.
So path, as you would be clear, is defined as the realizations and experience gained in sequence one after another in one’s mental continuum. So it is the power of the mental continuum, the power of the path. Okay. So we’ll stop here for the evening. If you have any questions.
Haven’t really framed the question satisfactorily. But I just perceive that this use of of these expressions inherent existence, natural formation naturally and independent existence. They just strike me from what — from what is being said. It’s just tautological in the sense that if all they mean is that that the phenomenon, the sprout, has no existence or rather depends for its existence, depends for its formation on causes and conditions on names, naming, and labeling, then anything that is a dependent arising of that sort of phenomenon being dependent arising have no independent existence, you’ve you you then attach that expression, independent existence, natural formation, and to to attach it and negate it. Having attached that expression to it.
Now that strikes me as being sort of a jargon attachment. You’ve you’ve added nothing other than just to to move from dependent arising to saying — knowing — knowing non-inherent existence. Right? The one automatically follows from the other as a logical progression. But if an ordinary person on the street was to say that phenomenon has got inherent existence or that phenomenon is independently existent or that phenomenon is formed naturally, you wouldn’t turn around and say go back to dependent arising.
You’d first of all say to that person, what do you mean? You try to establish what on earth they meant by that particular use of language. Well, I’m sorry. That’s not a question. It’s not a question.
But That’s right. Have I missed argument? Or is it just an entirely logical progression? Mhmm. I hope no.
I can’t. May I talk? Just by applying dependent arising reasoning without as well establishing the true dependent arising. Therefore, it is not inherently existing. So without going back to the second, it would be not that easy to come to understand that it’s not so.
In other words, one needs to be again reassured that that sequence follows. If it is a dependent arising, then one else has to bring it to the opponent. The second part is that it necessarily means it’s not inherently existing. The example given is there are some people who can accept that a vase or a pot is a produced thing, but they would not accept it as an impermanent thing. So for them, the reasoning normally put forth is the pot is impermanent thing because it is produced thing.
The opponent already accepts that it is a produced thing, but the opponent hasn’t got the idea or even has not looked into whether a pot is a permanent or impermanent phenomenon. So it is necessary that in logical progression to bring us well that it is impermanent. And so the point then mentioned is, in some people’s cases, is necessary for us to go back to what already was affirmed. And even though, say, in this case, dependent arising reasoning, in some people’s case, would be just good enough and not reverse back to that it can be inherently existing because it is dependent arising. But in some people’s case, it is necessary to go back because it is to do with subtleness and approximation of understanding what is to be negated.
So in a way, answering your question, there is further progress in the logical inquiry. And it’s all, like, a way relative to what the opponent’s capacity is in this at this stage.