omena。 However then； when we look at the other reasoning … the 'king of reasonings'； that of dependent arising or dependent origination； this reasoning is one which is renowned as the king for what reason？ For the reason that the Mind Only school use this reasoning to prove true existence； whereas the Madhyamika school use this to prove non…true existence。 So everybody is ing down to this same point of dependent arising； and through this reason it is renowned as the 'king of reasons' or the king of correct signs； when set in a syllogism。
So as our text here principally deals with the reasoning of dependent arising； then we will follow this line reasoning （if we can go through the fourfold analysis； so much the better）； but if we just stick with the text then what we are going through is the reasoning of dependent origination or dependent arising； so let us then stick with that。 It is always better to use one line of reasoning because in dependence upon one line of reasoning one can e to understand the truth of the thesis； then as one has understood the truth of that thesis then there is no need to then entertain another reasoning to again prove that same thesis because one has already proved that to oneself。
So in order to set the syllogism then； if we lay it out using as the subject a sprout （we can actually use any kind of subject； for example a human being or whatever but let us just use the example which is given in the text； then the subject a sprout）。 So it’s very important that we understand that in order to set a thesis； we have to have a subject … a basis upon which we are going to discuss a natural or autonomous existence； because if we are just talking about having or lack of autonomous existence； we have to have something which we are going to look at； something which we are going to focus upon when we start to engage in this reasoning。 If we don’t have a basis of a discussion or argument； our argument is going to spiral out of control。
So here then we will look at the subject （in this case a sprout） and the thesis which is to be proven about that is its lacking autonomous existence or lacking a natural inherent existence。 So that is what is to be proven then； and the reasoning； or the sign； which is going to be set forth； is that it is lacking that natural existence or autonomous existence because it is dependent arising。 So here then； if we have a look； we have three things： We have the subject which is the sprout； that which is to be proven about it （or the thesis） – that it is lacking natural or autonomous existence； and then the sign； or the reason； for that – because it is a dependent arising。 So the sprout then is something which is dependent arising and if we look at this in the simplest way then； it is something which es into existence in dependence upon its causes and conditions。 So as it is a subject which has e into existence in dependence upon a cause； in dependence upon a condition； then it is not something which is existing naturally in and of itself； because if it was existing in and of itself it wouldn’t rely on phenomena other than itself to e into existence because it would already be there； naturally or autonomously existing； it wouldn’t have to rely upon the various causes and conditions which bring about； or bring forth； its existence。 Thus then the reasoning of dependent arising looked at in this way … that the sprout arises in dependence upon its causes and conditions … therefore proves that the sprout in and of itself is not existing in such an autonomous way； but rather has e about as a product of various causes and conditions。
The Praise to Dependent Origination
So then this reasoning of dependent arising is further elaborated upon in the prayer by Lama Tsong Khapa called The Praise to Dependent Origination within which he says that anything that has arisen in dependence upon a cause and a condition is something which lacks autonomous existence； and this understanding is one which is most beautiful and which needs no further elaboration。 So here then if we look at the object of our analysis； if that object is one which is has arisen in dependence upon objects which are other than it； that is to say； causes and conditions； then it cannot exist in an autonomous； self…existing way。 This is because if it were existing in such a way it wouldn’t need to rely upon； it wouldn’t need to depend upon； its causes and conditions which brought it into being。
Now the source of Lama Tsong Khapa’s words here are from the Rare Stalk sutra； within which it explains about how phenomena exist in a dependent way； and how viewing them in a way which is contrary to that； that is to say； in an autonomous way is then a false or a wrong way of viewing phenomena。 So this goes on to tell us that something which arises in dependence upon causes and conditions must exist； because if it were a non…existent； we could not talk about it ing into existence； or we could not talk about it being generated； so this has to be something which exists。 So if it is something that exists； how does it exist？ So then it has e into existence in dependence upon its causes and conditions； so therefore it has dependently arisen。 So it is an object which we can perceive； it has dependently arisen。
However then if we view this in a contrary way； that is to say； in a way which doesn’t accord with that reasoning； that is to say； we view it as something which is autonomously existent； then the third line tells us then； this object which we are viewing cannot possibly exist in such an autonomous way because it lacks such natural existence for the very reason that it has depended upon causes and conditions to e into existence； and that is proved then through looking at the subject and seeing how it has arisen in dependence upon its causes and conditions。 So if it something that has depended upon others； that is to say； something other than it； to e into existence； then it cannot naturally or autonomously exist from its own side。 So cognising this reality is said to be the mind or the awareness which destroys the father … that is to say； the cognition or the ignorance which understands phenomena in a wrong or in a false manner is like the father which gives rise to the children of the destructive emotions。 So if one negates that； it is as if one has removed the source of all of the destructive emotions。
So dependent arising then … when we think of an object； if this object exists in dependence upon causes and conditions which are other than it； that is to say； it has arisen in dependence upon those other causes and conditions； then there is no way that this object can exist in and of itself； for the very reason existing in and of itself implies not depending upon other phenomena； or other causes and conditions or whatever； to e into existence。 So if something is lacking this inherent existence； it is something which has arisen in dependence upon its causes and conditions； for no naturally existing or autonomous phenomena can e into existence in dependence upon its causes and conditions because at the very time of those causes and conditions； this object must already exist in the way we are perceiving it to exist； that is to say in the wrong way。 So this understanding of emptiness then is mentioned by Aryadeva by saying that through understanding emptiness in dependence upon any object； once we have understood that – the empty nature of phenomena – at that moment we have uprooted the seed of the cycle of existence。 The reason for this is given – because the seed of the cycle of existence is the confusion or the ignorance which grasps onto autonomous or true existence； so then through understanding the falseness or the wrongness of that nature； we have pletely cast out that wrong view。 Its analogy is of having plucked a seed from the earth – nothing can thereafter grow from that； so in a similar fashion； no other confusion can e through this mistaken view。
So as is further mentioned by Aryadeva in the Four Hundred Verses； for a person who doesn’t have much merit or positive potential； that individual is one for whom the mere speculation of emptiness is something which is very far away from their being； from their mi