宗喀巴_三主要道英文版及解释-第14章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


tonomy。　So　this　then　is　the　wisdom　which　is　brought　about　through　utilising　the　conventional　method　of　the　reasoning　of　dependent　arising　to　prove　the　thesis　of　the　lack　of　any　autonomous　or　true　existence。　So　we　have　to　be　very　clear　with　regard　to　this　middle　way　…　（'middle　way'　here　being　between　the　two　extremes　of　permanence　and　annihilation）　…　so　we　have　to　be　clear　that　we　don’t　leave　too　much　behind　and　then　fall　to　the　extreme　that　there　is　some　permanent　or　true　or　autonomous　existence；　or　that　we　cut　too　much　and　then　we　are　left　with　nothing　and　fall　to　the　extreme　of　annihilation。　Thus　then　the　middle　way　has　to　be　viewed　as　that　which　is　between　the　two　extremes　of　permanence　and　annihilation；　and　this　is　what　is　going　to　be　proved　through　utilising　the　reasoning　of　the　dependent　arising。

Selflessness

So　then　we　initially　have　to　understand　what　is　meant　when　we　talk　about　…　let　us　use　the　example　of　a　human　being　or　a　sentient　being　as　our　basis　for　proving　the　lack　of　any　autonomous　or　self…existence。　If　then　we　use　as　a　basis　for　example　a　human　being　（let　us　leave　aside　animals　and　so　forth　for　the　time　being）　–　then　human　beings　exist；　you　exist；　I　exist；　there　is　somebody　who　creates　causes；　there　is　somebody　who　experiences　results　because　there　is　the　karmic　law　which　we　have　gone　through　earlier　on。　So　in　that　way　there　is　an　‘I’；　there　is　a　self　who　is　creating　causes；　who　is　experiencing　results；　and　then　there　is　something　which　goes　from　this　life　to　the　future　life。　So　that　self　exists；　also　we　know　this　because　we　see　other　individuals　with　our　eyes。　If　we　were　to　say　that　self　or　human　being；　being　mere　elaborations　on　the　same　meaning；　that　they　don’t　exist；　then　what　are　we　seeing　when　we　see　other　human　beings　with　our　eyes？　So　that　self　exists；　exists　in　a　conventional　way；　exists　in　a　nominal　way。

Then　when　we　talk　about　‘selflessness’　or　‘I…lessness’；　what　is　this　'I'　which　is　being　spoken　about？　Here；　what　we　are　talking　about　is　a　lack　of　autonomous　existence；　because　human　beings　exist　as　designations　upon　the　five　aggregates；　that　is　to　say；　the　aggregates　of　body　and　then　the　various　kinds　of　mind。　So　on　this　basis　then；　an　‘I’　is　imputed。　And　that　‘I’　then　if　grasped　as　anything　else；　as　anything　other　than　an　imputation　upon　these　five　aggregates；　seen　as　being　something　other　than　them；　as　existing　solidly　from　its　own　side；　that　'I'；　that　feeling　that　we　have；　that　feeling　that　something　exists　in　and　of　itself　is　the　‘I’　or　the　self　which　is　to　be　negated；　thus　we　have　selflessness　or　‘I…lessness’。　So　it　is　extremely　important　to　make　a　distinction　between　these　two　different　kinds　of　self　or　these　two　different　kinds　of　‘I’　–　one　existing　nominally；　the　other　one　not　existing　ultimately　and　the　view　that　that　exists　being　thus　the　mistaken　view；　the　one　which　we　are　trying　to　negate　or　remove　through　our　contemplations　upon　thusness。

So　it　is　extremely　important　then　to　understand　clearly　these　two　modes　of　existence；　these　two　‘I’s；　or　these　two　selves；　which　we　experience　because；　as　is　mentioned　in　the　Bodhisattva　grounds；　when　we　explain　the　actual　mode　of　phenomena　or　the　selflessness　of　people　or　persons；　it　is　very　easy　to　fall　to　the　extreme　that　nothing　exists　at　all　…　there　is　no　person　creating　karma；　there　is　nobody　to　experience　the　result　of　that　karma；　there　is　no　'I'　used　as　a　conventional　term　which　is　going　between　one　existence　and　another　existence。　When　this　is　presented　then　we　have　to　be　extremely　careful　in　making　clear　this　distinction　at　the　beginning　because；　as　the　Bodhisattva　grounds　mentions；　there　is　every　danger　that　the　listener；　the　person　who　is　being　instructed；　might　fall　to　the　extreme　that　because　we　are　taught　selflessness；　that　self　refers　to　us；　ourselves　–　then　there　is　nobody　to　create　karma；　there　is　nobody　to　experience　the　results；　there　is　no　past　and　future　lives；　and　they　fall　into　this　extreme　wrong　view　that　there　is　no　karma　and　no　continuation　from　this　life　to　a　future　life。

So　one　has　to　be　extremely　clear　then　with　regard　to　this　presentation　of　how　the　self　exists；　and　what　is　meant　by　selflessness　or　I…lessness。　So　one　of　the　distinctions　which　is　extremely　important　to　make　is　one　that　is　quite　simple；　but　when　we　talk　about　seeing　things　or　experiencing　things；　like　we　experience　our　self　directly；　we　experience　others　through　our　eye…consciousness；　now　this　valid　cognition　which　we　are　using　is　then　one　which　is　correct　with　regard　to　the　object　which　it　entertains；　or　which　it　engages。　So　if　one　is　perceiving　somebody　else　as　being　an　object　of　one’s　valid　cognition；　then　that　must　be　something　which　exists　because　the　very　differentiating　point　between　existence　and　non…existence　is　whether　the　object　can　be　cognised　by　valid　cognition　or　not。　So　as　we　see　other　individuals　then；　we　are　seeing　them　with　a　correct　or　valid　cognition；　therefore　there　must　be　some　object　existing　there　for　us　to　see。　This　is　the　nominally　existent　or　the　existing　'I'；　then　the　‘I’　which　is　to　be　negated　is　the　emptiness　of　an　autonomously　existing　'I'；　（　‘autonomous’　here　referring　to　not　being　part　of　the　five　aggregates　but　existing　as　something　other　than　that）。　Through　that　contemplation　then；　the　ignorance　which　grasps　onto　that　is　removed。

The　object　of　negation

So　then　initially　it’s　incredibly　important　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　the　object　of　negation。　When　we　talk　about　something　lacking　natural　or　true　existence；　autonomous　existence；　however　we　like　to　use　that　language；　then　we　are　getting　down　to　the　same　point　–　something　lacking　any　kind　of　existence　from　its　own　side。　So　we　have　to　understand　then　what　is　meant　by　‘existing　from　its　own　side’　or　‘true　existence’　and　so　forth。　So　in　order　to　do　that；　we　have　to　understand　this　ignorance　which　grasps　onto　such　phenomena　in　a　mistaken　way；　and　for　that　to　happen；　we　have　to　understand　the　naturally　arising　or　spontaneously　produced　mind　which　is　grasping　at　true　or　self　existence。　Through　observing　that；　then　we　can　e　to　see　the　way　that　this　ignorance　grasps　onto　its　object；　we　can　then　e　to　see　the　actual　nature　of　the　object　and　the　mistaken　way　which　it　is　being　grasped　at　by　this　naturally　or　spontaneously　arising　mind　of　ignorance。　So　then　when　we　talk　about　understanding　the　object　of　negation；　if　we　look　in　the　scriptures　we　can　take　a　quotation　from　Shantideva’s　Bodhicaryavatara　which　mentions　…　How　without　understanding　true　existence；　can　you　talk　about　the　lack　of　true　existence？　So　here　it’s　very　clear　isn’t　it；　if　we　want　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　lack　of　true　existence；　then　we　have　to　understand　initially　true　existence；　that　which　is　to　be　negated。

In　a　simpler　to　understand　answer；　if　we　talk　about　a　house　or　a　building；　if　someone　were　to　e　to　us　and　say　‘Is　Lodro　in　the　house？’；　then　if　we　don’t　know　who　Lodro　is；　we　can’t　possibly　answer　that　person　–　we　cannot　say　‘yes’　or　we　cannot　say　‘no’。　Even　though　we　might　say　the　word　‘Lodro’　a　lot；　it　doesn’t　really　mean　anything　because　we　don’t　understand　the　basis　to　which　this　word；　or　this　name；　is　attached；　or　given。　So　in　the　same　way　we　may　say　‘lack　of　self　existence’　or　‘lack　of　autonomous　existence’；　and　so　forth；　but　unless　we　are　really　clear　about　what　'self　existence'　is　or　what　'autonomous　existence'　is　then　it　just　is　a　lot　of　play　with　words；　we’re　not　really　going　to　learn　anything　from　that；　and　what　is　more；　we’re　not　really　going　to　be　able　to　develop　the　wisdom　which　cognises　this　mode　of　abiding　of　phenomena。　So　it　is　extremely　important　then　initially　for　us　beginners　to　contemplate　upon　this　object　of　negation；　that　which　is　actually　negated　by　its　antithesis　and　the　wisdom　arising　thereafter。　And　for　those　of　you　who　have　already　understood　this　then；　there　is　not　much　point　in　me　going　on　about；　but　for　the　majority　of　us　beginners　then　it’s　incredibly　important　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　the　object　of　negation。

Two　kinds　of　reasoning

So　then　in　order　to　find　the　ultimate　nature　of　phenomena　we　contemplate　its　antithesis　…　true　existence　or　autonomous　existence　…　and　then　we　strive　to　understand　what　is　meant　by　the　opposite；　that　is　to　say　selflessness；　or　lacking　autonomous　or　self　existence；　and　the　way　we　do　this　…　because　this　mode　of　phenomena　is　the　kind　of　phenomena　which　is　classified　as　a　hidden　phenomena；　we　have　to　rely　upon　a　correct　line　of　reasoning　to　draw　out　or　to　prove　what　we　are　trying　to　set　forth；　or　our　thesis。　In　order　to　do　this　there　are　various　kinds　of　reasoning　we　can　set　forth；　but　from　within　those　we　find　that　two　are　the　best　two。　So　the　first　of　these　is　the　reasoning　of　'the　one　and　the　many'；　and　the　second　one　is　the　'king　of　reasonings'　then；　the　reasoning　of　dependent　origination　or　dependent　arising。

So　from　within　these　two　then；　it　is　said　that　the　reasoning　of　the　one　and　the　many　…　from　this　we　draw　out　the　renowned　fourfold　analysis。　This　is　for　beginners；　the　easiest　way　to　settle　or　e　to　understand　the　ultimate　nature；　or　the　ultimate　mode；　of　phenomena。　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　la