Entering the Middle Way, 20 June 1991, part 2

So if you assert that the seed and the sprout are of one nature, then the seed being the producer and the sprout being the produced, then the producer and the produced would be of the same nature. They would be one. And if the producer and the produced were one, then all three, the producer, the produced, and the action of production would be inseparably one. So you say the producer, the produce, and the production are one and not different, then you would have to accept that the fire, the wood, and the burning are one. The eater, the eaten, the eating are one.

The goer, the place of going, and the going would also necessarily be one. And these these would entail absurd absurdities. So these are extremely poignant reasoning which is setting forth. These are the the was an emanation of manjushri. It’s necessary that we set out that at the time of the seed the sprout is non existent.

Additionally if we were to assert that the sprout exists at the time of the seed and dharmakirti has many additional reasons which can refute this. The seed and the sprout are cause and effect, aren’t they? Enumerators are asserting that because the seed and the sprout are cause and effect that it’s necessary that the effect exist at time of the cause, thus at the time of the seed the sprout must exist. But our own tradition asserts that that the effect does not exist at the time of the cause, that upon the aggregation of causes and conditions an effect is newly created, that which has not existed previously comes into to be newly existent upon the cessation of the cause. Which one of those assertion is better?

So this is what Candrakīrti points out the various faults if we assert that the effect exists at the time of cause. We were to say well how does Dharmakīrti go about refuting that? So the seed and the sprout are cause and effect, but if we were to say that the sprout exists at the time of the seed, if we were to say that? So the opponent is asserting that is asserts that the effect exists at the time of the cause. And now, and Dharmakīrti is debating.

He says, take for example, there’s a stalk, a single stalk of grass. When you say stalk, say stem of grass, blade of grass, blade, a blade of grass. And upon this blade of grass is an insect. And this insect has the karma to be born in the future 100 times as a cow. Therefore, following your assertion, then it certainly follows that upon a single blade of grass there are standing 100 cows.

Why? Because there is the karma which is the cause of those 100 cows present and therefore if the cause and the effect are of the same nature, if the effect exists at the time of the cause, then at the time of that cause, that karma, there must also be on that blade of grass 100 cows which is the effect. Another absurdity would follow that the result of food is feces. Therefore, at the time of your eating food, you’re eating feces because they’re the same nature. So then another absurdity which you could put forth would be that in Jampa’s stomach there are six varieties of migrators, the six types of migrators.

Why? Because there is the karma which would present in my stomach which would propel into those six migrations. Therefore there is the cause and if the cause and effect are simultaneous, then there must be the six migrators in my stomach. So within my mind, there must be the hell beings, snakes, tigers. There are women in my stomach?

So this is the reason which we can make use of it to refute at the time of the causes the effect exists. We cannot say that within my mind there exists animals and human beings because there is the throwing karma within my mind which would bring these effects about. Though there is the cause, the effect does not exist at the time of that cause. And this type of reasoning applies equally to the case of the seed and the sprout that the seed and the sprout have a relationship of cause and effect and at the time of the seed the sprout does not exist. At the time of the establishment of the sprout seed ceases to exist.

That is to say at the time of the establishment of an effect the cause ceases to exist, it becomes non existent. When the result is established the cause becomes nonexistent. At the time of the cause the effect does not exist, at the time of the effect the cause does not exist because the potency is exhausted in the production of the result. The potency of the cause is exhausted in order to produce the effect and therefore the cause is destroyed in the process of producing an effect. So if in asserting the cause and effect to be of the same nature then they must exist at the same time, at the same nature and this is what is meant from production from self.

Since it already exists it is being produced again from itself. But from the point of view of our tradition we hold that cause and effect are not of the same nature. The cause does not exist at the time of the effect and the effect does not exist at the time of the cause. Therefore there is no production from self. So by use of these various reasons of Candrakīrti and Nāgārjuna, the assertions of the enumerators of production from self are refuted.

That is they say that sprout is produced from itself. So we have simply used as a basis of illustration of sprout in refuting production from self, which equally holds true for all products. So that completes the refutation of production, the extreme of production from self. If you have any questions? Yes?

Until germination, and then it becomes a cause. The. So seed is both a cause and effect. It’s an effect of previous crops and it’s also a cause because it has the potency to produce an effect. And this potency to grow a sprout, this potency exists at the same time as the seed itself.

The potency and the seed exist at the same time. But in general the seed is both the cause and effect simultaneously. In general, we can say that cause and effect exist simultaneously. But when we apply it in terms of a particular basis, for example the seed, is the cause and its result is the sprout. That seed and that sprout in the relationship of cause and effect do not exist simultaneously.

But in general we can say that cause and effect exist simultaneously. But in terms of a particular basis, then they do not exist simultaneously. The sprout and the seed do not exist simultaneously. So it’s not the sprout just a more developed seed? More developed seed.

Developed seed. A more developed I think that’s what the enumerators are saying. More developed. [Tibetan] When the sprout is developed the seed has been transformed into the sprout.

When the sprout arises through the transformation of a potency which the seed possesses and when that potency is completely exhausted in the process of being transformed into a sprout, then the seed cannot exist at the time of the sprout. Potency has been completely exhausted. There’s another type of production, for example, of a a mother giving birth to a child. At the time of the child, the mother who gave birth to the child is non-existent. But there is a similarity, there is a continuity of similarity of type of the mother.

Her potency has not been exhausted. We can say that the mother continues to exist but not the mother at the time of the child, but because she has a continuity of similarity of type. But the mother which is the giver of birth to that child no longer exists at the time of the child. The mother which actually was present at the moment of birth of the child no longer exists. There’s difference between these two ways of production. In the case of the seed, there’s no continuity of similarity of type.

Its potency is completely exhausted in being transformed substantially into the sprout whereas the mother’s potency for her further continuance has not been exhausted even though she has given birth to a result of the child. Yeah. That’s fine. Yeah. So what do we what can we say for genetically?

So so the the the the For example, child and its continuum into becoming an adult. There is a that the child of say five years old is the cause of the child of six years old and that child is the cause of the child of seven until so they cannot be of the same nature because they are nature of cause and effect. In order for two things to be of the same nature they must exist simultaneously and the child of five and six do not exist simultaneously therefore they cannot be of the same nature. They’re cause and effect, but the similarity of type keeps arising. But they’re not the same nature.

K. So this occurs over the every moment of the continuum that the the previous moment is gives rise to the subsequent moment moment by moment. Yeah. Why don’t you check them out? Why don’t you check them out?

They’re not the same nature because they’re cause and effect. Same The the of cause and effect. The previous having existed then the subsequent cannot exist. Without the seed having existed then the sprout cannot exist. So there’s that relationship.

Another translation the same entity. Same nature, same entity. Here in discussion of the enumerators that they’re saying that the sprout and the seed are inseparably one. When they assert that the two things are the same nature, it is in the same way that a flower and a vase are the same nature in the sense that they are inseparably one. I ask if you know if the same as if by here by same nature it could also mean same entity.

And in this case of the enumerators it would mean very much the same, same nature and same entity. But in general there is a distinction that for example the two truths, conventional truth and ultimate truth are the same. So in Heart Sūtra it says, Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Other than form there’s no emptiness, other than emptiness there’s no form. And this teaches that the two truths are of the same entity, that the conventional truth and ultimate truth are the same entity and this applies to all