In the first of the three reasonings establishing selflessness or emptiness, Shantideva refutes inherently existent production.  Now the second reasoning, then, reasoning of dependent relationship.

(9.142) Effects do not come from anywhere else when they are produced,
They do not go anywhere when they perish, and they do not inherently abide.
They appear to be truly existent only because of ignorance,
But in fact they are like illusions.

(9.143) Examine something produced from causes
And compare it with an illusion conjured up by a magician.
Where do they come from when they arise?
Where do they go to when they perish?

(9.144) We can see that effects arise from causes
And that, without a cause, there cannot be an effect.
Thus, things are artificial, like reflections.
How can they possibly be truly existent?

This is actually quite useful for understanding subtle impermanence and production.  We can take three moments in the continuum of an object.  In moment one, the object of moment two does not exist, but its causes and conditions do.  In moment two, the conditions cease and the effect of the object appears.  The object is other than its conditions.  The objects of moment two are the conditions for the objects of moment three, and they too must completely cease for the objects of moment three to arise.  So in each moment, there are two things, a complete disappearance of everything of the previous moment and the complete arising of everything of the present moment.  Nothing remains at all.  Nothing to hold on to.

In reality production and cessation are simply two different points of view on the same process of change. From one perspective, there is cessation; from another perspective, there is production. We tend to grasp things remaining without changing. We might agree that things change on the margins, but we still grasped there being some sort of fundamental core essence which remains from one moment to another.  The teachings on impermanence show that there is nothing that remains from one moment to another.  There is just simply an ongoing continuum cessation and production.

In many ways impermanence reveals emptiness. Emptiness is the lack of inherent existence. Inherent existence is existence that does not depend upon anything else for its existence. If everything is undergoing continuous momentary change, then each moment depends upon the previous moment which shows that the object is not inherently existent.  Of course intellectually we understand that inherent existence doesn’t make any sense, but instinctively we grasp at this as being the case and we base our actions on those wrong views. Much of our ignorance remains hidden and it operates out of sight in the background not consciously. These sorts of teachings help us bring our implicit views to the surface enabling us to dismantle them.

It is important though that this not remain merely an intellectual exercise. We need to practically apply the teachings of impermanence to counter our delusions. Attachment wants to grasp on to things, but impermanence shows there’s nothing that remains that can be grasped onto. Instead, we learned to go with the flow and surf the endless continuum of change.

Where do the objects of the previous moment go?  They do not come from anywhere and they do not go anywhere.  They simply appear and dis-appear, since they were never anything more than mere appearances to begin with.  If we look more carefully at this, appearance and disappearance are just two different points of view on the same movement.  The disappearance of one is the appearance of the other.  If the object in moment two were truly existent, then this could not happen.   The fact that it does shows how things lack true existence.  This enables us to make the transition from impermanence to emptiness.  Since things like this object in moment two come from nowhere and go nowhere, they are like illusions, having no true existence at all.

(9.141cd)And that a result, such as a sprout, does not exist in any of its causes and conditions,
Either individually or collectively.

If production does not come from self and it does not come from other then how can it come from both self and other. If neither inherently exists in itself or inherently exist another have any means whatsoever of producing anything, then how is it possible for these two things together to produce something?  If they could, then it would imply that an inherently existent self and an inherently existent other could enter into some sort of relationship with each other. But we have already established that that is impossible through the paradox of contact. If two things exist independently, they cannot come into contact with each other. If they can come into contact with each other and that produces a change, then that means these two things do not exist independently, but rather have a dependent relationship with each other period further if these two things together can produce an effect, then there is a dependent relationship between these causes and the effect. If there is a dependent relationship between the causes and the effect, then we cannot say that the causes exist in dependently because they have a dependent relationship with something else.

We will go into these sorts of arguments in much more detail in the next couple of verses on the logical reasoning of dependent relationship, and there is an extensive reputation of this in Ocean of Nectar.  We can also of course read in Meaningful to Behold and Heart of Wisdom.

So, how is any effect produced?  In every religion there is identified that which is the creator of all, isn’t there?  There is identified that which is the creator of all, a fundamental source or cause of everything that we experience.  There is the Christian god, Ishvara, the general principle, etc.  From the Buddhist perspective, the mind is the creator of all, but I think as well we have to understand that from emptiness, everything is created.   Emptiness, we can regard as the basis of all.  From emptiness, there manifests this world in dependence upon and as an effect of the collective karma of all the people who inhabit it.   We can see there are many similarities even with respect to the general principal, everything manifesting from a permanent general principal.   Everything manifests from the permanent object that is emptiness. Everything.  Everything arises from, as a manifestation of, emptiness. Everything.

Mind is the creator of all, but from emptiness, everything is created.  We experience indifference, pleasure, pain arising from emptiness as effects.  This world and our experiences of it, our pleasant experiences for example, are all manifestations of emptiness, creations of mind, aren’t they?  All arise from, or are manifestations of emptiness, creations of mind.

Effects and their causes are empty.  Empty causes produce empty effects.  Effects and their causes are empty, they are mere imputations of mind.  Everything that is a cause, everything that is an effect is mere imputation of mind.  But the mind itself is empty.  So all causes and effects are imputations of mind, and mind itself is empty.  Therefore, there is no creator other than mind, and mind itself is empty.  And it is from this emptiness that everything appears or manifests, again in dependence upon imputation of mind.

To make it very simple:  Objects arise in dependence upon karma, which itself comes from mental action.  Objects are maintained and discriminated by mind in the present.  If you look for anything other than these projections of mind, you will find nothing.  Mind is the actual creator.  Emptiness is what things are created from, made out of.  Things themselves are nothing other than projections of mind.  Mind itself is empty.  So all of these things are the nature of mind, which itself is empty.

We might ask why it is necessary to study these different schools of emptiness.  One reason is it gradually guides us to the correct view.  We proceed through the views, gradually leaving behind a series of wrong views leading us to the correct one.  By studying their objections, we identify our own objections to emptiness, and the response of the Prasangikas.

The main reason is our final view is the union of the Prasangika and the Chittamatrin view – the Tantra-Prasangika view.  This gives us a complete understanding, perfect understanding of how things are created.  We must understand cause and effect, and in particular, actions and effects, or mental actions, mental intention, and effects.  There are three main types of dependent relationship:  Dependent on causes and conditions, specifically karma, the substantial cause.  If we didn’t create the karma to see a flower, we wouldn’t see one.  If we did create such karma, we couldn’t not see one.  There is dependent on parts, for example parts of a flower.  And there is dependent on mere imputation, for example, mere name ‘flower’ imputed upon a basis of imputation.  But as well we need to understand that they are the nature of the mind too.   The flower is the nature of the mind itself.  By bringing in all of these elements, we gain a complete picture, perfect understanding, of how everything is created by mind.

If we think about it clearly, we will understand that nothing can take place, no effect can occur outside a mental continuum.  If it could, it would be inherently existent, wouldn’t it?  Nothing can take place, causes or effects, outside the mind, outside the mental continuum.  We create the causes within our mind to experience the effects that are both subject and object.  Everything is taking place within the mental continuum.  This is why our world is a subjective world.   Every effect that takes place, every occurrence, whatever we perceive, does not take place outside our mind.

The conclusion is all things are a mere karmic appearance of mind.  We need to try to bring all three together.  This is the final view.  Mere appearance.  Traditional prasangika view, mere imputation of mind.  Karmic appearance.  This unites karma and emptiness, it is an appearance arising from karma.  Of mind.  This brings in the Chittamatrin view, that objects are the nature of mind.  In this way, everything is created by mind.  Put another way, the emptiness of the mind manifests itself as appearances to mind.

If we understand all three, then we will gain a perfect understanding, a complete picture of how things are created.   If we understand this, we realize that we can create what kind of world we like, we can create what kind of people who are going to be living in that world, we can create the person, ourselves, who is going to be living in that world, we create all the experiences, we can create whatever experiences we like.  We create all these things, all of them, with our own mind.  All of them.  And where will they take place?  They cannot take place outside of our continuum.  If that is the case, then obviously we will feel entirely responsible for everything, won’t we?  Not even partly responsible, we will feel entirely responsible, won’t we?  We discussed before we are responsible for this world of suffering.  Let’s now destroy this world of suffering.  How do we do that?  Change takes place here in the mind.  The mind is the creator of an impure world, mind is the creator of a happy world, mind is the creator of a pure world.

(9.141ab) Through these various lines of reasoning,
We have established that production does not occur without a cause,

I am not entirely clear why Shantideva once again explained how there is no such thing as production without cause. Perhaps this was his way of giving the reader a breather from all of the extremely intense logical arguments. We all understand relatively easily that there is no such thing as production with no cause.  Perhaps he is trying to just remind us of something that we already understand so we do not get discouraged by the other more difficult arguments. I do not know if that is true or not, but it is one way of understanding why he repeats himself on this point. I am sure there are other reasons we could think of, but I do not think it matters.

In Joyful Path and other texts, Geshe-la explains the patience of definitely thinking about Dharma. The point is this, realizing emptiness and other Dharma subjects can be difficult. At first it makes absolutely no sense because it goes exactly contrary to everything we have come to understand about the world. Dharma is exactly opposite to our normal way of understanding things, so it is normal that when we first encounter it, we struggle to understand its meaning and may easily develop misconceptions.

Sometimes when we see all of these complicated debates we can easily become discouraged thinking we will never understand emptiness and we certainly don’t understand why Shantideva and Chandrakirti go back and forth with so many seemingly intricate and almost meaningless philosophical distinctions. We wish we could go back to studying subjects that warm our heart like love, compassion, and our precious human life. This is normal, and we should not expect it to be any different. It is not a failure on our part that we sometimes get discouraged.

But it is not enough to say it is normal to get discouraged, we must find a way of overcoming our discouragement. In Oral Instructions of Mahamudra, in the section on the great preparation of purification, Geshe-la spends almost all of his commentary talking about the need to purify the negative karma that gives rise to our wrong views. Since we have been thinking in samsaric ways since time without beginning, we have accumulated a tremendous amount of tendencies similar to the cause that think in non-Dharma ways. This is the fundamental reason why we find it difficult to understand Dharma. If we want to reverse this situation, we need to purify this negative karma and, through the force of our effort, gradually build up new tendencies similar to the cause that are consistent with the Dharma. Then later it will become easy and effortless for us to realize Dharma things, and difficult for us to believe non-Dharma things.

In the meantime, we simply need to be patient with the process. We should not be discouraged but be more like a child that play doing something that is possibly beyond their capacity, but they are excited to try because they know that they are growing up by doing so.

(9.138) (Other schools) “According to you Madhyamikas, valid cognizers are not truly existent, and so they must be false,
In which case the objects established by them must also be false.
If this is so, then the emptiness you assert is false,
And meditating on it serves no purpose.”

This is a very clever argument by the other schools, and something that we ourselves may generate doubts about. The Prasangikas say that conventional truths are mistaken appearances. We then grasp at these mistaken appearances, assenting to them as existing in the way that they appear, and therefore generating mistaken conceptions. If this is the case, then how is it possible for a non-Buddha to have any valid cognizers at all if all of the conventional objects realized by that mind are mistaken? If they cannot have any valid cognizers, then how can they ever generate any realizations? If the conventional truths that they meditate on are mistaken, how can they produce an unmistaken result of enlightenment? Only something true can create a true effect, and a mistaken cause can never produce an unmistaken effect.

(9.139) Without first correctly identifying the object to be negated, true existence,
You cannot apprehend its negation, or non-existence, emptiness.
The negation of true existence, emptiness,
Clearly has no true existence itself.

(9.140) For example, if a mother dreams her child has died,
The thought that the child no longer exists
Removes the thought of the child’s existence,
Even though neither thought is truly existent.

The Prasangika’s answer to this objection is quite helpful in not only answering the doubt, but showing how a being can go from being in samsara to attaining a state beyond samsara.

As explained before, emptiness is the mere lack of inherent existence. It is a non-affirming negative phenomena, which means it is realized by negating something specific, namely inherent existence. Practically speaking, when we meditate on emptiness, we first identify the object of negation within our own mind and realize how we are grasping at it, and then we apply the reasonings provided by the instructions to dismantle this wrong view. If we do not correctly identify the object of negation, it is impossible to find the emptiness or lack of that object.  We have already established previously that there is no enlightenment outside of realizing the emptiness of true existence. So we first have to identify a mistaken view clearly within our mind, and then apply valid reasons to dismantle that view to produce the effect of a realization of emptiness within our mind. We do not say that the mistaken appearance and the mistaken conceptions are causes of enlightenment, they are the objects to be negated by the valid reasons establishing emptiness.

Prasangikas agree that only unmistaken causes can create an unmistaken effect. Identifying inherent existence within our mind is a precondition for applying the valid reasons establishing emptiness. It is the valid reasons establishing emptiness that take us to enlightenment, not grasping at the true existence of the object of negation or the mistaken appearance.

A doubt may arise but aren’t our reasons establishing emptiness also conventional truths, and therefore likewise mistaken?  Here, we need to understand that there are many different levels and degrees of mistaken appearance and conception. For example, unicorns and mermaids can be conceived by mind as being truly existent. Indeed, there are many people who believe in such things even in this world. Conventionally, though, such beings have never been found. If we looked around the world, we would never find a unicorn or a mermaid.  Unicorns and mermaids do not exist conventionally.  They also do not exist ultimately in the sense of being truly existent, even though there are many people who believe that they do. Thus, unicorns and mermaids are mistaken both with respect to conventional truth and ultimate truth. In contrast, horses and dolphins do exist conventionally, but they do not truly exist ultimately.  In this sense, unicorns, mermaids, horses, and dolphins are all equally non-existent ultimately, but horses and dolphins do exist conventionally. This shows there are different degrees of mistaken awareness and conception.

Using this analogy, we can understand that the valid reasons establishing emptiness can also have different degrees of mistaken-ness within our mind. The generic image of the valid reason establishing emptiness is conventionally more true than the valid reasons establishing the object of negation. The object of negation is like a unicorn or a mermaid, Whereas the valid reasons establishing emptiness are like horses and dolphins. They do exist and function conventionally, even though all of these things do not exist truly in the sense of being inherently existent.

And even among conventional valid reasons establishing emptiness, there can be different degrees to which we understand the reasons themselves are also empty of inherent existence. If we have a partial understanding of the emptiness of the valid reasons establishing emptiness, then those reasons are conventionally speaking more valid than a valid reason establishing emptiness that we think truly exists. So first we apply conventionally valid reasons, then we later realize the emptiness of these valid reasons, and are gradually lead to a state in which we realize the emptiness of everything, including the valid reasons establishing emptiness.

This is not that difficult to understand. For example, if we had a very dirty countertop and a very dirty sponge, we might not be able to clean much at all. But if we rinse out the sponge partially, it will be able to soak up some of the grime on the countertop, making it more clean. If we rinse out the sponge completely, then we can soak up even more grime on the countertop. The very dirty sponge is like trying to use invalid reasons to establish a valid conclusion. That is impossible. The partially clean sponge is like using a valid reason to establish a valid conclusion. The completely clean sponge is like using a perfectly pure reason to establish a yoga direct perceiver, which is even deeper than valid cognizers are.

The Samkhyas say that effects are the nature of their causes, but that both are still somehow inherently existent. We saw this with the example of the acorn and the Oak tree.  Now Shantideva refutes this possibility.

(9.135) Although you do not want to assert that a manifest phenomenon that did not previously exist is produced anew,
In reality this is what you are saying.
If the effect exists as the same nature as its cause,
Then eating food is the same as eating the excrement it produces!

(9.136) So instead of spending your money on clothes of woven cotton,
You might as well purchase cotton seeds to wear!

If the cause still exists at the time of the effect then we would have to say that the causes and their effects are in fact one in the same thing, at which point food is excrement. For something to come into existence, the effect, the cause needs to cease completely. Cause and effect necessarily implies a relationship in time, where cause proceeds effect. How can something be a cause of something if the effect already exists? That would imply that the cause is not necessary and the effect already exists and therefore there is no difference between cause and effect. They are one in the same thing. If the effect already exists at the time of the cause, then what need is there for the cause itself? And can we say one thing caused another if that other thing already exists at the time of the cause?

The acorn ceases entirely at the time of the Oak tree. If we look at the Oak tree, we cannot find the acorn that gave rise to it anywhere.

(Samkhya) “Worldly people do not see the effect at the time of the cause because of their confusion.”

The Samkhyas here are saying that worldly people only see the present and not the inevitable effect in the future and so therefore do not realize that the effect and the cause are both existing at the same time.  Again, this seems quite a reasonable view.

Well, what about your teacher, Kapila? He must know because you say he is omniscient;

(9.137) And since you teach his view to worldly people,
Why can they not see the effect at the time of the cause?
(Samkhya) “Because worldly people do not see things with valid cognizers.”
Then the manifest phenomena that they see clearly must also not be true!

The essential point here is the Samkhyas assert that normally living beings are seeing things correctly. The definition of truly existent is things exist in the way that they appear. Things appear to exist from their own side, independent of our mind, on the side of the object. The Samkhyas agree with this and say things do indeed exist in this way. They are seeing things truly. But here, Shantideva points out a contradiction. If living beings have valid cognizers about how things exist, then how can you say worldly beings do not see things with valid cognizers when it comes to cause and effect? Either they are seeing things correctly or they are not. If their view is mistaken, which the Prasangikas say it is, then things are not truly existent. If their view is correct, which the Samkhyas say it is, then they should be able to see effects existing at the time of the cause (if such a thing existed).

This discussion reveals the emptiness of time, which is explain in more detail in Ocean of Nectar. But for here, there are three main reflections that flow from these teachings that establish the emptiness of time.

First, time is established as conventionally existent through the relationship between cause and effect – cause comes before effect, and effect comes after cause. So a relationship in time is established as dependently existent.

Second, the Samkhyas are close when they say that the effect exists at the same time as the cause, but not quite correct. In the present moment, when the cause exists, the inevitable effect exists as a future thing. It does not exist at the same time as the cause, but the “future of the thing” exists at the time of its cause. In other words, the oak tree exists as a future effect in the present moment. When we think about our future, we are doing so in the present moment. The future we imagine is an object of the present that exists at the same time as the present, but its mode of existence is as a “future thing.” The future itself does not exist in the present moment, but the “future effect” exists as an imagined idea in the present. Likewise, our past exists in the present moment as a “past event.” Even though the past itself has completely ceased, in the present moment we have a memory of our past. The memory of our past exists in the present moment. So we can’t say that the past exists in the present, but we can say that the memory of our past exists in the present moment, and other than this memory, there is no past at all remaining. There is no past out there still existing, it has ceased completely, but within the present moment the “past of a thing” exists. So in the present moment we have three things – “the thing,” “the past of a thing,” and “the future of a thing.” We do not, however, have the past, present, and future all existing at the same time as the Samkhyas are asserting.

Third, when we examine the nature of both memories and future imaginings, they are quite clearly both mere mental projections of mind. Besides these mental projections, there is no past and no future at all – there is only the present moment. So we can see clearly how both past and future are mere projections of mind. Since the present moment doesn’t abide even for an instant, there is no inherently existent present either. The present moment is like the aggregate of the same unfolding process of transformation, seen as cessation from one angle and production from another angle, but in fact it is the same thing – just looked at from two different angles. So within the “present” we have the “past of things,” the “future of things,” “cessation,” and “production.”

Further, both our memories and our future imaginings are not fixed, but can be reimagined. For example, all of us have experience of having had some trauma in the past but when we look back on it now, we see it as the best thing that ever happened to us. I had a boss once who went blind when he was in grad school. He told me, “I thank God every day for having made me blind, because without that, I wouldn’t be the person I am today.” He went on to say, “and since we know this is possible, the secret to life is to live our life from this perspective, knowing we will look back on our present troubles and say it was exactly what we needed to become the person we have become, so why not view it that way now?” Such wisdom! Similarly, when we think about the future, we can imagine and reimagine our future in countless different ways. Indeed, this is the essence of the entire Tantric path. Our spiritual guide has presented us with a vision of who we will become – a Heruka or Vajrayogini. We never even knew such a thing existed, much less imagined it as our future. But now we can, and indeed he invites us to bring that future result into the present. Which we can do because time is empty, the future is empty, the present is empty.

Understanding the emptiness of time, which flows from this seemingly esoteric debate with the Samkhyas about effects existing at the time of their cause, is one of the most liberating emptinesses to realize. As Nagarjuna said, “when emptiness is possible, everything is possible.”

Now Shantideva refutes the aspect of the general principle that it is permanent. Many of our modern day general principles also include grasping at a belief that this the general principle is permanent.   

The Samkhyas specifically say that the general principle is comprised of indifference, pleasure, and pain. We experience things in these three ways as a result of how the general principle interacts with us. Ultimately, the Samkhyas would say that the indifference, pleasure, and pain that we feel is of one nature with the general principle itself. This is quite similar to Taoist views.

(9.131) In fact, feelings such as pleasure arise from things such as wearing clothing;
And when these causes are lacking, their effects – pleasure and so forth – do not occur.
If the general principle were permanent, its nature of pleasure, for example, would also be permanent;
But this has never been seen by a valid cognizer.

(9.132ab) If pleasure were permanent, it would always be manifest;
So why is it not experienced when pain is manifest?

Permanent in a Buddhist context means not changing. If something changes or is subject to change, then it is impermanent. This is distinct from eternal. Something can be continuously changing yet exist forever, for example the ocean or our mental continuum. Neither are permanent, but both are eternal, or at least last for a long time Despite undergoing continuous change.

The Samkhyas assert that the general principle is permanent, but that its nature is indifference, pleasure, and pain. Obviously, we experience in our daily life different degrees of pleasure and pain and so forth. So how do the Samkhyas simultaneously assert that the general principle is permanent, yet acknowledge that we feel different degrees of intensity of pleasure and pain? The Prasangikas would say if the general principle were permanent, then we would experience unchanging pleasure or unchanging pain. For example, where does the pleasure go when we are experiencing pain?

(Samkhya) “At those times, the gross feeling of pleasure becomes subtle.”

The samk’s answer is that pleasure in pain are always manifest, adjust to different degrees. When we are experiencing pain, our pleasure becomes subtle whereas the pain is more intense. We looked at this when we talked about the example of eating cake at our loved ones funeral.

How can something that is permanent change from gross to subtle?

(9.133) Something that abandons a gross state and becomes subtle
Is at one time gross and at another time subtle, and therefore impermanent.
In the same way, you should assert
That all functioning things are impermanent.

(9.134) If gross pleasure is not different from pleasure itself,
Then clearly pleasure, and therefore the general principle, are impermanent.
You assert that a manifest phenomenon does not exist at the time of its cause
And thus that a product does not exist at the time of its cause.

The Prasangikas agree that the intensity of our experiences of pleasure and pain can change, but if that is the case, then they are impermanent not permanent. Therefore, the example given by the Samkhyas demonstrates exactly why it is impossible for the general principle to be permanent. All functioning things are impermanent.

(9.128cd) Similarly, the individual qualities cannot exist
Because you say that each of them is a composite of the three qualities.

What is referred to here is the Samkhyas say each of the three qualities of lightness, activity, and darkness are comprised of different proportions of each of these three qualities. If that is the case, then each quality does not exist individually since it is always a composite of all three. There is no point at which we can have a completely pure non-composite example of the qualities. This is their view, and Shantideva is simply pointing out the contradiction.

But we can apply the same reasoning to any sort of general principle that some philosophical school might describe. Any general principle explained would have some combination of characteristics that are in relationship with each other. If these characteristics exist inherently, then they exist independently of the other characteristics, at which point how could they ever enter into a relationship with the other characteristics? If they do not exist independently of each other, then we cannot speak of inherently existent individual characteristics of the general principle.

Prasangikas have no problem with a general principle of how the world functions. The Prasangika’s only objection is to the general principle existing inherently, in other words independent of the mind. Reality unfolds according to the laws of karma. Karma is, if you will, the general principle of Buddhists. But they do not grasp at the laws of karma as existing independently or inherently as immutable laws of nature somehow separate from our own mind.

This example shows clearly that we need to be careful when we read the refutations of the different schools do not imply a total rejection of what they have to say, but only a rejection of a certain aspect of what they say. For example, Chittamatrins say that all things are the nature of mind, and Prasangikas simply disagree that the nature of mind is inherently existent. We keep the nature of mind part but show that the mind itself is the nature of emptiness. In the same way, we do not refute the existence of a general principle, in this case karma, we simply refute an inherently existent general principle , which would be impossible.

(9.129) If the three qualities do not exist, the general principle does not exist,
In which case it is impossible to establish its manifestations such as visual forms and sounds.
And it is simply impossible for mindless things, such as clothing,
To have the same nature as feelings, such as happiness.

Shantideva’s point here is quite simple. If something does not exist, then it cannot produce anything. Since the Samkhyas say all phenomena arise from the general principle, if the general principle or its characteristics do not exist, then it cannot produce anything. It becomes another example of production from no cause, which was refuted above.

(9.130) (Other schools) “All things truly exist in the nature of their causes.”

Here other schools are saying that affects are the nature of their causes. For example the Oak tree is the nature of the acorn from which it arose.

But we have already thoroughly refuted the possibility of truly existent things.
According to you, clothing and the like arise from the general principle, which is a balanced state of pleasure and so forth;
But this cannot be the case, because we have refuted the existence of such a general principle.

The Prasangikas call this the substantial cause, but they disagree that the cause continues to exist once the effect has arisen. The acorn ceases to exist after it has transformed into the Oak tree.  The Prasangikas do not disagree there is a relationship between causes and effects, nor do they disagree that phenomena arise from causes. What they are refuting is the possibility of a truly existent general principle.

(9.128ab) If the general principle, the independent creator of all, has a threefold nature,
It is neither singular nor plural, and therefore does not exist.

We need to be very clear about what exactly it is we are refuting here and why. The Samkhyas are asserting an independent creator of all that is the nature of a general principle. They are not saying this general principle is Ishvara, an externally existent being that is the creator of all, they are saying this general principle is simply the external immutable laws of nature. In essence, they de-personify God, but still hold that there is an external process of creation that unfolds according to the laws of the general principle.

There are all sorts of theories in modern society that do exactly this, the most notable example being science as we understand it. The exact way that the Samkhyas assert how the general principle functions is not what is important here. Whether the general principle works this way, or that way, is not the point. None of us before reading Shantideva had ever heard of the Samkhyas or their explanation of the general principle, so of course we might think this refutation has nothing to do with us. This is why it is important for us to understand and identify the modern equivalents of the views of the other schools to see what they are talking about, and to identify how we still hold onto such views within our own mind.

If things exist inherently, they must be either singular or plural.  They cannot be both. This is because something that is inherently existent is one thing or another, and it does not exist independence upon anything else. That is the definition of inherent existence, not dependent upon anything else for its existence. If a singular thing has a plurality of parts, then that singular thing exist in dependence upon those parts, at which point it would no longer inherently be a singular thing.  If something is empty, in other words a mere creation of mind, then there is absolutely no problem for something to be simultaneously singular and plural, but neither singular or plural.  Again, to use the analogy of a hologram or the number six. Looked at from one angle a hologram appears as an elephant, looked at from another angle it may appear as a giraffe. So what is actually there, an elephant or a giraffe? Or looked at from one angle, a number looks like a six and looked at from another angle it looks like a nine. So what number is it, a six or a nine? The answer in both cases is it is simultaneously an elephant and a giraffe, but neither an elephant or a giraffe; and it is simultaneously a six and a nine, but neither a six or a nine.  In the same way, objects are neither singular nor plural, but both simultaneously depending upon how you look at them. In emptiness, this is no problem. Existing in multiple ways simultaneously without being one thing or another is the exact opposite of inherent existence. With inherent existence, we believe things are either singular or plural. They are one thing or another.

Quantum physics has gone a long ways towards unraveling this view as far as scientists are concerned, but most ordinary people do not understand quantum physics (myself included). The classic example of Schrodinger’s cat reveals how this works. In the thought experiment a cat is placed inside of a box in which there is a radioactive substance that has the power to kill the cat.  After some time has passed, the cat is either alive or dead. We exist in a state in which there are two possibilities – both are possible.  It is only when we open the box that reality organizes into one of these possibilities. Prior to opening the box, the cat exists in two states simultaneously, but is neither one or the other.  I am not a quantum physicist so I cannot say exactly how this is interpreted in science, but we can see a very clear correlation between this thought experiment and the hologram or the number six. All things exist in exactly the same way. Singularity and plurality is simply an example of how things can exist in multiple ways simultaneously. Our grasping at inherent existence says things cannot exist in multiple ways simultaneously, they exist in one way or another.

(9.126.cd) You Samkhyas assert that the creator is
The permanent general principle.

(9.127) You describe this general principle as a balanced state
Of three qualities: lightness, activity, and darkness,
Which should be understood as the feelings of indifference, pleasure, and pain.
Unbalanced states of these, you say, are the manifestations that constitute the world.

This is also a very common view held in modern society, even though we might not use exactly the same terms such as a general principle or describe how the general principle work as being of three qualities of lightness, activity, and darkness. These theories can take many forms. For example, there is theistic evolution, which essentially says God started it all but then after that evolution took over according to his plan. So he set things in motion and then withdrew and allowed things to unfold over time according to the laws of science.  Others who do not believe in some sort of external creator God have all sorts of theories about the principles upon which the universe functions, often involving notions of balance.  For example, there are those who believe in the Tao, that there are basic external principles governing the natural order of things, and these principles are held to be permanent. There are also many shamanistic views that develop explanations of the relationship between nature and creation.  All of these are modern examples of the Samkhyas.

Now the refutation of production from other, that is the general principle.

after a brief refutation on the assertion of production from partless particles.

(9.126ab) The assertion that the world and living beings are produced from permanent partless particles
Has already been refuted.

Modern science claims everything arose from The Big Bang. The Big Bang essentially started with a partless particle. Much of modern physics is also about trying to identify partless particles that are the basis appan which reality is constructed. Belief in the fiction of partless particles is quite widespread in modern society.

But production from partlets particles is actually impossible. As described extensively in earlier posts, the basic argument as to why partless particles cannot create anything relates to the problem of contact.  Does a partless particle come into contact with that which it supposedly produces?  If what is produced comes from the partless particle then it implies part of the partless particle somehow separates off from the partless particle, at which point it would not be partless since it has part of it that can separate off. If one partless particle comes into contact with another partless particle, then it implies there is part of that particle that is in contact with another partless particle. If there is part of the partless particle that is in contact with part of another partless particle, that implies there is part of the partless particle that is not in contact with the other partless particle, at which point the partless particle is no longer partless. If there is not only one part of the partless particle in contact with another part of a partless particle, it implies that the two partless particles are in fact one in the same, at which point what sense is there in talking about two different partless particles coming into relationship with one another? When we think even superficially about this, it is quite absurd.